A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[seeds]

Not the case, oh mysterious stranger. Unknown unknowns remind us to be cautious about making claims with certainty. Your comments say rather more about you than you realise too ... the walls have eyes and ears, Hob ... er ... Brad.

I don't think there's any reason to entertain the existence of Iron Age myths, but there is cause to entertain the possibility that the way we perceive reality is more limited than we realise.

The point about unknown unknowns is that they are UNKNOWN. Thus you can only remain mute on them. They are powerless to remind us of anything.
And what you seem to be doing is filling an unknown space you reserve for unknown unknowns with your set of unrealised unknown knowns (based largely on your childish preconceptions of mysticism).

If you are serious about not entertaining Iron Age myths then desist.

To my recollection, I have never once witnessed Greta entertaining Iron Age myths (quite the opposite from what I can tell).

Therefore, your insisting that she has is as disingenuous as your present identity ruse.
_______

[seeds]

Therefore, what is so fallacious about wondering what happens to anyone (in this case, a one year old child) who dies without the slightest idea of who Christ is?

I was referring to the sort of implied ideas in your proposed dilemma, such as that a) children who wear costumes are from other ideological "cultures," and not Christians, b) once you're "born" something, that's what you are, and c) Christians have to believe God doesn't have an answer to where children go...none of which seem to me plausible.

You can’t be serious, IC, can you?

I mean no one could be as oblivious and misconstruing of the points I was making than what you are demonstrating to be.

I am not trying to be offensive here, but the spherical wall of the “bubble” you are living in is remarkably efficient at filtering and contorting the meaning of another person’s arguments.

First of all, Christianity is supra-cultural. Jesus Christ was Jewish, as were all his disciples. The greatest NT writer wrote in Greek. One of the first converts was Ethiopian. Today, there are more Christians overall in China than anywhere, millions more in India, a huge population in South America, and more per capita than anywhere else in Korea.

Secondly, this securely puts the lie to the idea that being born somewhere "makes" someone something religiously.

And finally, if there's a Supreme Being, it would be absurd to suppose He wouldn't know what happens to children; and whether or not He choses to explain everything to us would simply be immaterial to that.

If we correct those premises, then posting a few pictures of babies in costume doesn't even raise a question, let alone suggest an answer to it. So it's necessary, before we go on, to straighten out the implied fallacies.

I would make another attempt at correcting your misinterpretation of my arguments but, again, your “filter” would no doubt continue to distort and reconfigure what I say into the same erroneous misrepresentations of what you mistakenly think I am saying.

In other words, it would be a waste of time for both of us.

That being said, let’s just cut to the chase here and get down to the hard and pertinent (“rounded”) statistics.

Setting aside all of the billions of humans who have lived and died throughout the ages,...

(approx. 107 billion, according to the Population Reference Bureau)

...presently there are around seven billion humans on earth. And based on certain estimates, approximately one third of those seven billion humans (2,331,000,000) are Christians.

Therefore, according to you, the other two thirds of humanity (4,662,000,000) “...will not be with God...” (in the afterlife) because they are not Christians.

Is that about right?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

I think that if God thought I needed to know the answer to that particular issue, He would have told me.

No, God provided you with the inherent ability to reason certain things out on your own, and he shouldn’t need to tell you the answers to questions that common sense reveals.

Ha. Entertaining, but not at all true. "Common sense" is a great thing for "common" sorts of issues: but it runs out pretty fast when the issues move beyond the "common."

If we suppose otherwise, please tell me: what is your "common sense" answer to how many planets are in the universe?

Introducing straw men into the argument does not help your case.

Right now, I know God will do right, and I leave it with Him.

Great!

Then can we amend your previous hardcore assertion of “...there is no other ‘door’ to God but Christ...” with a softer and more reasonable claim that “...God will do right, and I leave it with Him...”?

Not if we can read.

For the first question (children's destiny) we do not have answers written anywhere, to my knowledge.

No, it is not written anywhere.

And of course it would be silly and presumptuous of us to speculate that God would simply welcome, with open and loving arms, innocent children (pristine souls) into his transcendent context of existence.

IC, your carefully measured words make you seem almost fearful to venture beyond the walls of your “bubble” in order to think that God would, at the very least, be as loving and rational as us lowly humans when it comes to acknowledging the innocence of children.

For the second one, we have much written, such as this:

[Jesus said,] "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Yes, and there is “much written” in Buddhism, and much written in Hinduism, and much written in Judaism, and much written in Islam, and much written in Zoroastrianism, etc. etc...

...most all of which is mythological nonsense - as in the Garden of Eden myth, for example.

And with that in mind, let me ask you the exact same question I asked thedoc:

...do you honestly believe that a series of bizarre circumstances involving a “talking snake” and the eating of the fruit from a tree that somehow represented the “knowledge of good and evil,” literally took place somewhere on this planet - sometime in the past?

The point is that if one can question the veracity of an “original sin” that was allegedly perpetrated by two “mythical humans” in what is clearly a mythical situation, then what does that suggest about the need for a “savior” to expunge the sin that was never committed?

In other words, if there was no literal “fall of man” by means of an “original sin” that never happened, then why do you think humans need to be saved?

Saved from what?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

You can’t be serious, IC, can you?

Sure. So near as I can tell, your argument was essentially:

1. Cute picture of kid in ethnic costume, therefore

2. How can you possibly say he/she is not going to Heaven?

If you meant something else, then please feel free to inform me better.

I would make another attempt at correcting your misinterpretation of my arguments but, again, your “filter” would no doubt continue to distort and reconfigure what I say into the same erroneous misrepresentations of what you mistakenly think I am saying.

In other words, it would be a waste of time for both of us.

Maybe. But it won't really by my fault if it is. After all, what on earth did you possibly mean by just posting a couple of pics of cute kiddies? In the context, you seemed to be trying to imply some problem for Christianity; and if it wasn't what I suggested, I don't think anyone can be expected to know what it was.

That being said, let’s just cut to the chase here and get down to the hard and pertinent (“rounded”) statistics.

Setting aside all of the billions of humans who have lived and died throughout the ages,...

(approx. 107 billion, according to the Population Reference Bureau)

...presently there are around seven billion humans on earth. And based on certain estimates, approximately one third of those seven billion humans (2,331,000,000) are Christians.

Therefore, according to you, the other two thirds of humanity (4,662,000,000) “...will not be with God...” (in the afterlife) because they are not Christians.

Is that about right?

I don't know people's hearts. God does.

I would simply point you back to what Jesus Himself said about that. For why should you listen to me?

On the other hand, if He was who He said He was, then why would you not listen to Him?

[Immanuel Can]

_______
Introducing straw men into the argument does not help your case.

Hmmm... you appear perhaps less than familiar with what a "straw man" fallacy actually is. All I asked is a question to test your theory that "common sense" is always sufficient. I made no "straw man" argument at all.

IC, your carefully measured words make you seem almost fearful to venture beyond the walls of your “bubble” in order to think that God would, at the very least, be as loving and rational as us lowly humans when it comes to acknowledging the innocence of children.

No, not fearful. Decidedly not that at all. But wise to the limitations of what we actually know. Neither you nor I knows what happens to children, why and when...whatever we might wish or think, if we have no information then we'd be most honest to say so, wouldn't you agree?

For the second one, we have much written, such as this:

[Jesus said,] "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

Yes, and there is “much written” in Buddhism, and much written in Hinduism, and much written in Judaism, and much written in Islam, and much written in Zoroastrianism, etc. etc...

...most all of which is mythological nonsense - as in the Garden of Eden myth, for example.

That is the essential question. If you think you are reasonable to dismiss Christianity, I can only say I think you're not, but also that I would go to the death for your right to stand by what you believe. That is the same thing we all have to do before God, just as John Locke so astutely said.

And with that in mind, let me ask you the exact same question I asked thedoc:

...do you honestly believe that a series of bizarre circumstances involving a “talking snake” and the eating of the fruit from a tree that somehow represented the “knowledge of good and evil,” literally took place somewhere on this planet - sometime in the past?

The point is that if one can question the veracity of an “original sin” that was allegedly perpetrated by two “mythical humans” in what is clearly a mythical situation, then what does that suggest about the need for a “savior” to expunge the sin that was never committed?

In other words, if there was no literal “fall of man” by means of an “original sin” that never happened, then why do you think humans need to be saved?

Saved from what?
_______

Well, two starting points. Firstly, you do realize that even the Evolutionist story (progress by genetic mutation) agrees entirely with the statement that at one time there must have been an original mating pair. The Bible may call them "Adam" and "Eve." The Evolutionist may say that they were some sort of first-pair perhaps with no names -- or their names were "Og" and "Ug," perhaps. But the agreement on the question of the existence of that original mating pair of humanoids is still there.

Secondly, you rightly pinpoint the key issue: sin. The question is really not, "Is Genesis speaking mythologically or literally," but rather, "Does it get the diagnosis correct": that is, is mankind in step or out of step with God?

Well, most traditions say that, for one reason or another, the answer is "out." The Hindus say we're out of sync with the Divine, trapped in a vale of "samsara." The Muslims say we are not "submitted." The Polytheists say that the gods are not tame to our wishes, but rage at their own leisure...and so on. Christians say that God is good, and we should be good, but very often are not.

And I wonder what you think: as you look around at the world, do you assume that we ARE what we should be, or are we, just as often as not, NOT what we should be?

[BradburyPound]

Not the case, oh mysterious stranger. Unknown unknowns remind us to be cautious about making claims with certainty. Your comments say rather more about you than you realise too ... the walls have eyes and ears, Hob ... er ... Brad.

I don't think there's any reason to entertain the existence of Iron Age myths, but there is cause to entertain the possibility that the way we perceive reality is more limited than we realise.

The point about unknown unknowns is that they are UNKNOWN. Thus you can only remain mute on them. They are powerless to remind us of anything.
And what you seem to be doing is filling an unknown space you reserve for unknown unknowns with your set of unrealised unknown knowns (based largely on your childish preconceptions of mysticism).

If you are serious about not entertaining Iron Age myths then desist.

To my recollection, I have never once witnessed Greta entertaining Iron Age myths (quite the opposite from what I can tell).

Therefore, your insisting that she has is as disingenuous as your present identity ruse.
_______

I disagree. She has a very large tendency to stray into the realm of the Iron Age, even the Bronze age.

[uwot]

Well, two starting points. Firstly, you do realize that even the Evolutionist story (progress by genetic mutation) agrees entirely with the statement that at one time there must have been an original mating pair. The Bible may call them "Adam" and "Eve." The Evolutionist may say that they were some sort of first-pair perhaps with no names -- or their names were "Og" and "Ug," perhaps. But the agreement on the question of the existence of that original mating pair of humanoids is still there.

Where on Earth do you get your information? Can you cite a single biologist who claims there was "an original mating pair"?

[Greta]

The point about unknown unknowns is that they are UNKNOWN. Thus you can only remain mute on them. They are powerless to remind us of anything.
And what you seem to be doing is filling an unknown space you reserve for unknown unknowns with your set of unrealised unknown knowns (based largely on your childish preconceptions of mysticism).

If you are serious about not entertaining Iron Age myths then desist.

To my recollection, I have never once witnessed Greta entertaining Iron Age myths (quite the opposite from what I can tell).

Therefore, your insisting that she has is as disingenuous as your present identity ruse.
_______

I disagree. She has a very large tendency to stray into the realm of the Iron Age, even the Bronze age.

Cheers Seeds. Ho...Brad doesn't like people entertaining for even a moment the idea that an afterlife may be theoretically possible. He likes that door firmly closed. From there's it's an easy - but lazy and false - step for him to correlate open mindedness with theism. Simple black-and-white thinking - no threat, easily dismissed.

[reasonvemotion]

Aetixintro wrote:

There's nothing in the Atheistic system that commits the Atheist to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. A Religious believer, of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, various others, is always committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real because they are integral in the Religious systems! This is simply not the case in Atheism!

You use the word religious very loosely, I know the word religion is broad in its meaning, is that your intention also?
Some of the beliefs you mention are actually pagan.
What exactly do you mean when you write religious?

I have not read all the 1763 posts, coming into this rather late, I am afraid, but nevertheless would very much like to know your views on my question to you.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Atheism mandates nothing.

Well, surely at the minimum, it must "mandate" some position on God, no?

It is not a moral position; it is an epistemological one.

Ha. It's not even remotely epistemological. It's entirely free from reason or evidence. It's pure prejudice.

But you're right: it's not ever a moral position. Just what I have been saying. It eradicates morality.

Atheism frees us to choose our morality

...but tells you it's all a delusion anyway, so there's no reason to "choose" anything in particular.

What a bankrupt, vacuous, amoral thing it is. The longer we talk about it, the more clear its emptiness becomes.

Atheism is amoral. True. At least you got that right. It does not eradicate al morality, just the stupid kind which pretends there is an imaginary being watching over his. Atheism itself says nothing about morality. That is what amoral means. I think your huffing and puffing means you have confused the word immoral.
That fact means I can be honest about the source of morality. It is human all too human. This is true of you and every other crack pot who takes his instructions from out-of-date books.

Atheism makes possible an honestly human morality free from the constraints of mythology.

As to your traducing atheism as not epistemological. How absurd of you to cut the legs out from under your feet. YES, it is also true that the search for god has rendered NO evidence. Where you are wrong is that it is free from reason, because it is very reasonable to conclude from a lack of evidence that the proposed idea that there is a god is false. What is unreasonable is your position; obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

I think your huffing and puffing means you have confused the word immoral.

Then you think wrongly. I made that distinction several times in this strand already.

That fact means I can be honest about the source of morality. It is human all too human.

If it's "human, all too human," as you say, then we can disregard it, change it, deny it, contravene it, or enforce it purely arbitrarily. In other words, nothing is really moral at all. In fact, the word "moral" is then just a convenient fiction, perhaps meaning something like, "the current values of the people who currently have the most power."

Atheism makes possible an honestly human morality free from the constraints of mythology.

Who told the Atheists that "honesty" is a universal virtue? They just denied that such exist; but now you're saying it's somehow "good" that Atheists are "honest"?

the search for god has rendered NO evidence.

No, it's apparently true that your own search for God has yielded you no evidence. That much we know, and we cannot doubt unless we regard you as a liar. I will not put that on you. So what we can safely conclude is that you, personally, do not know of any evidence. Fine.

And there may well be reasons for that. But there's no reason for anyone else to be worried by your personal lack of evidence, is there? After all, the 92% of the world that still believes in some sort of Divine Being may well have a different experience or a different view. I would guess that they do, since they continue not to believe as you (dis-)believe.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think your huffing and puffing means you have confused the word immoral.

Then you think wrongly. I made that distinction several times in this strand already.

That fact means I can be honest about the source of morality. It is human all too human.

If it's "human, all too human," as you say, then we can disregard it, change it, deny it, contravene it, or enforce it purely arbitrarily. In other words, nothing is really moral at all. In fact, the word "moral" is then just a convenient fiction, perhaps meaning something like, "the current values of the people who currently have the most power."

Atheism makes possible an honestly human morality free from the constraints of mythology.

Who told the Atheists that "honesty" is a universal virtue? They just denied that such exist; but now you're saying it's somehow "good" that Atheists are "honest"?

the search for god has rendered NO evidence.

No, it's apparently true that your own search for God has yielded you no evidence. That much we know, and we cannot doubt unless we regard you as a liar. I will not put that on you. So what we can safely conclude is that you, personally, do not know of any evidence. Fine.

And there may well be reasons for that. But there's no reason for anyone else to be worried by your personal lack of evidence, is there? After all, the 92% of the world that still believes in some sort of Divine Being may well have a different experience or a different view. I would guess that they do, since they continue not to believe as you (dis-)believe.

You are legless on this issue.
92% of people are not a unity, and are in serious conflict on matter so morality and faith.
As I said you have nothing to stand on.

92% of people love MacDonalds and many are clinically obese; but at least they agree with one another about what a burger is!
Where are the people you are trying to shoehorn into a viable category their obesity is the death of their will, and the death of their reason, as they allow people like you to tell them how to behave, pretending that you know the mind of god and his plan for them.

All the evidence flies against you. Systems which employ religion for social control and those that mimic religion such as North Korea, claim a mandate for morality.
That is not the morality I live by, nor want to live by, and I'm all the better for not having god botherers breathing down my neck.

[seeds]

...if there was no literal “fall of man” by means of an “original sin” that never happened, then why do you think humans need to be saved?

Saved from what?

Well, two starting points. Firstly, you do realize that even the Evolutionist story (progress by genetic mutation) agrees entirely with the statement that at one time there must have been an original mating pair. The Bible may call them "Adam" and "Eve." The Evolutionist may say that they were some sort of first-pair perhaps with no names -- or their names were "Og" and "Ug," perhaps. But the agreement on the question of the existence of that original mating pair of humanoids is still there.

I have no problem with your assessment above.

In fact, I had a similar discussion with Nick_A in an alternate thread in which I suggested the following...

In my opinion, there is no “fallen” human condition.

On the contrary, there has been a continuous and gradual ascension of humanity’s general level of consciousness throughout time – an ascension which began from that profound moment in the past when an evolutionary threshold was crossed that established the emergence of humanity itself.

So then, looking way back into the distant past in which it can be logically assumed that a transition from hominid-to-humanoid took place, was it “Og” or was it “Ug” that was tempted by a “talking snake” to eat the fruit from the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil”?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

You are legless on this issue.

I note your statement to that effect, and dismiss it with the aplomb that is appropriate.

92% of people are not a unity, and are in serious conflict on matter so morality and faith.

They are unified only in this: that they don't think Atheism is true.

However, we need not hang anything on that, except that shows there are a great number of people who are happy not to concede your claim that there is no evidence for God. A lot of people seem to think there is. But believe whatever you wish. You don't seem to find any facts compelling.

Systems which employ religion for social control and those that mimic religion such as North Korea, claim a mandate for morality.

In that strange little world in which you live, North Korea is not Atheistic? You actually think it's quasi-religious? Amazing. Well, with that sort of complete lack of facts, I don't think I can find a reasonable rejoinder. Enjoy your little world, I guess. I suspect that nobody else lives there.

That is not the morality I live by, nor want to live by, and I'm all the better for not having god botherers breathing down my neck.

Consider your neck freed, so far as I am concerned. You may own it, stretch it, or put it on a chopping block, as you see fit. It's your neck, after all.

What is the "morality" you "live by"? I do dearly want to know that.

[Immanuel Can]

In my opinion, there is no “fallen” human condition.

So let me clear this up, if I may: whatever human beings do is good? Is that your position?