tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post5724779359801407946..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken) [Revised]Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35537839136514375462011-06-24T14:35:28.879-07:002011-06-24T14:35:28.879-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.M Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297412026441148669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14556127575697070862008-09-14T18:27:00.000-07:002008-09-14T18:27:00.000-07:00The reason why atheism implies moral relativism is...The reason why atheism implies moral relativism is because it lacks a model. Even a moral doctrine like Confucianism, that has very little reliance on a god head, still implies such. The virtuous man is so perfect in character that if such a man existed he would be like a god to us. A person cannot pick and choose their moral set of beliefs since it will lead to a slippery slope or as psychologists call it "cognitive dissonance reasoning" (rationalization). Moral conduct needs to be guided. The reasoning faculty fails here because it has no inherent good or bad value judgment attached. Rather, its aim is systematic and not good directed. Of course I am not saying atheists are immoral but they have a propensity to be more immoral. That is just a fact contributed by their lack of a moral model. It is no coincidence that Satanism is the only religion that promotes atheism. Oddly, it also denies itself of the religion status…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7622965005262158302008-09-10T07:30:00.000-07:002008-09-10T07:30:00.000-07:00Divine Command theory is not the foundation of mor...<I>Divine Command theory is not the foundation of morality.</I><BR/><BR/>It's good that you agree with that, since Divine Command theory is in deep logical trouble.<BR/><BR/><I>Morality or that which is good, is a reflection of the character of God. Morality is based on the perfect character of God.</I><BR/><BR/>First, you would have to establish that God exists, and that His character is perfect. Good luck with that.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, this appears to be an attempt to embed your conclusion into your definitions. I.e., it is question-begging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88313857166362490502008-09-10T07:27:00.000-07:002008-09-10T07:27:00.000-07:00The individual that seems to think he has refuted ...<I>The individual that seems to think he has refuted the Trinity is mistaken.</I><BR/><BR/>No one here has tried to refute the Trinity, this is one more indication that you are deeply confused. The issue under discussion is <I>biblical support</I> for the Trinity, which is nonexistent. You have failed to establish such Biblical support.<BR/><BR/><I>I do not think one can understand the passages presented that refer to God as Triune unless you acknowledge the Bible refers to God plurally which logically speaking would mean God is not one person</I><BR/><BR/>Some OT passages do refer to God in the plural (Elohim). This is not being contested. It would be up to you to establish that this is a reference to some mysterious three-person one-god entity rather than a polytheistic pantheon. You have not done so.<BR/><BR/><I>The passages stated show God speaking to God (Gen 19:24)</I><BR/><BR/>No. Gen 19:24 doesn't show God speaking at all, you are flushing your credibility down the toilet. If other passages show God speaking to Himself, that does not speak well for His mental health.<BR/><BR/><I>while the Bible declares there is only one God.</I><BR/><BR/>The Bible declares that the Jews should only worship one God. Not the same thing. And if it declares other things in other places, once again the onus is on you to establish that this is not contradictory.<BR/><BR/>Consider this portion of the 10 commandments, Exod 20:2-3<BR/><I>I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.<BR/>Thou shalt have no other gods before me.</I><BR/><BR/>Why would God tell the Israelites that they shall have no other gods before him, if no other gods exist? Is God really that stupid?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90645503192714869072008-09-08T20:47:00.000-07:002008-09-08T20:47:00.000-07:00The individual that seems to think he has refuted...The individual that seems to think he has refuted the Trinity is mistaken. I do not think one can understand the passages presented that refer to God as Triune unless you acknowledge the Bible refers to God plurally which logically speaking would mean God is not one person (Unitarianism). The passages stated show God speaking to God (Gen 19:24) while the Bible declares there is only one God. If one reads Acts 5 carefully one will see the context identifies the Holy Spirit as God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52018558540745877262008-09-08T20:37:00.000-07:002008-09-08T20:37:00.000-07:00Divine Command theory is not the foundation of mor...Divine Command theory is not the foundation of morality. Morality or that which is good, is a reflection of the character of God. Morality is based on the perfect character of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-43644439224299399472008-08-30T08:54:00.000-07:002008-08-30T08:54:00.000-07:00I hope this answered your question.Yes, and the an...<I>I hope this answered your question.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and the answer is that the Bible fails to back you up. Many of those Bible verses simply do not say what you claim they do. For example, you say that Acts 5:4 identifies the Holy Spirit as God. Yet, here is Acts 5:4 in its entirety: <I>Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.</I><BR/>I don't see any mention at all of the identity of God there, or of the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Here are the 3 verses you put forward to "especially" support a triune God:<BR/><BR/>Gen 1:26 <I>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.</I><BR/>Nope.<BR/>Gen 19:24: <I>Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven</I><BR/>Nope.<BR/>Amos 4:10-11 <I>I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.<BR/>[11] I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.</I><BR/>Nope. Not one of those three verses mentions a triune God.<BR/><BR/>Also, you assume that if the Bible says something in one place (i.e. God the Father) and something else in another place (i.e. God the Son) that those things are compatible, not contradictory; and yet they are contradictory on their face. I.e. you <I>assume</I> that the Bible is noncontradictory, when this is known to be untrue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15670147436483668112008-08-30T00:15:00.000-07:002008-08-30T00:15:00.000-07:00hey guys lets start the new war...AGE OF SERPENTShey guys lets start the new war...<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://ageofserpents.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">AGE OF SERPENTS</A>bonez001https://www.blogger.com/profile/10653107008103847938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77364963856271236472008-08-29T23:02:00.000-07:002008-08-29T23:02:00.000-07:00Hi Skinner,About Euthyphro's dilemma, I agree that...Hi Skinner,<BR/>About Euthyphro's dilemma, I agree that it's a strong objection to the Divine Command Theory. DTC and the moral argument go naturally together. But I wonder if there's some way for the theist to stick to his moral argument while not being committed to DTC. <BR/><BR/>Maybe he could say: if moral realism is true, then there is a system of universal laws of morality. For any system of laws, there exists a law-maker. God is the only being that could be the law-maker for the system of universal laws of morality. So if moral realism is true, God exists. (Oh, and moral realism is true).<BR/><BR/>Under this version of the moral argument, the theist might say that he is making no appeal to the necessity of God as the legitimizer of moral codes, a view which invites Euthyphro's dilemma as you point out. Instead, he might say that DTC is false, and yet stick to the necessity of the existence of God as the creator of these universal moral laws. God doesn't really command these laws, he just makes them. <BR/><BR/>Under one horn of the dilemma, we ask: But does God have a reason for making these laws? If the theist says yes, then the reply is that God's command's are superfluous, for we could just resort to these prior reasons instead. But this theist, who rejects DTC, might agree by saying that God doesn't command any of these laws anyway, but that this does not imply that God is not the "law-maker" of these universal objective moral laws.<BR/><BR/>It's a strange view that probably no theist would ever hold. But I'm just saying, some versions of the moral argument can be independent from DTC, and consequently immune to Euthyphro's dilemma. <BR/><BR/>To attack this version of the moral argument, rather than raising Euthyphro's dilemma (a new argument in itself), it seems much easier to just attack one of the premises: that laws imply the existence of an intelligent law-maker, or that this law-maker has to be God.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05614641518805431869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62215778744561796362008-08-29T19:49:00.000-07:002008-08-29T19:49:00.000-07:00This is not an Exhaustive explaination.Genesis 1:2...This is not an Exhaustive explaination.<BR/><BR/>Genesis 1:26 says "let us make man in our image and our likeness" this clearly identifies God as the Creater speaking in a plural, so people have tried to attribute this to angels or refering to God's majesty, but when you take the Bible as a whole it clearly proclaims the concept God is Triune. Especially Gen 1:26, Gen 19:24, Amos 4:10-11. For example, the Bible declares there is one God (Det 6:4, Mark 12:29-30)monotheism, but it also declares the Father is God (1 Peter cpt 3)the Son is God(John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Mark cpt 2, Matt 28:20, John 20:28 ) and the Holy Spirit is God(Acts 5:4). All three mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have a will,love, speak, use personal pronouns like me,my,I which by definition makes a person. Thus, the concept is taught in scripture there is one God or Being,that is three persons. One what three whos.<BR/><BR/>I hope this answered your question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32227613775227203232008-08-29T16:16:00.000-07:002008-08-29T16:16:00.000-07:00To be fair, Ignersol was writting in the 1920s whe...To be fair, Ignersol was writting in the 1920s when agnosticism meant this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html<BR/><BR/>Most people have shot down anonymous, but as for Tom, I direct you to the great Plato himself who crushed that argument with the Euthyphro dilemma.Samuel Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587994908818534357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29714595793721072562008-08-29T06:29:00.000-07:002008-08-29T06:29:00.000-07:00Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these ...<I>Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.</I><BR/><BR/>This argument is not new to Harris. Bertrand Russell, perhaps the most famous atheist of the 20th century, was an early supporter of Communism. After touring the Soviet Union and seeing how it wasn't working, he changed his mind. <A HREF="http://nowscape.com/atheism/Russell_What_is_an_Agnostic.htm" REL="nofollow">link</A><BR/><BR/><B>In our day, a new dogmatic religion, namely, communism, has arisen. To this, as to other systems of dogma, the agnostic* is opposed. The persecuting character of present day communism is exactly like the persecuting character of Christianity in earlier centuries...</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>* Russell comments elsewhere on the philosophical vs. popular definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45109889570963718792008-08-29T06:20:00.000-07:002008-08-29T06:20:00.000-07:00Christians are appealing to authority. Absolutely ...<I>Christians are appealing to authority. Absolutely if God testifies of himself (in special revelation specifically the Bible) or says something, we would have to believe it on his authority because there is no higher.</I><BR/><BR/>How do we know the Bible is the word of God? Because it says so in the Bible!<BR/><BR/><I>thus Christians can justify the reliability of their five senses and memory. Furthermore, Christians can account for the reliability of their memory and five senses because God is the one that created us...<BR/>I would respond by saying we were made in God's image, but once the fall of Adam and Eve occurred sin tainted our cognitive faculties (Total Depravity or Radical Corruption) causing our memories and five senses to be no longer reliable all the time.</I><BR/><BR/>If our senses are reliable, it's because Christianity is true. If our senses are unreliable, it's because Christianity is true. That pretty much covers all the bases.<BR/><BR/><I>What about other religions? I am not arguing for any other religion because I do not believe any other religion is true. All other religions fall short either they are incoherent, self-contradictory or do not provide the necessary preconditions of intelligability (Isaiah 43:10, John 4:16, Acts 4:12, Phil 2:10-11).</I><BR/><BR/>Your dismissal of other religions is arbitrary, not rationally justified. You need to show that your standards for rejecting other religions are the same as your standards for accepting Christianity. Also, good luck demonstrating that your religion is coherent, non-contradictory and intelligible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75895979573995452422008-08-29T06:12:00.000-07:002008-08-29T06:12:00.000-07:00Anonymous: Given the Christian worldview the Bible...Anonymous: <I>Given the Christian worldview the Bible says humans were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26) by the reliable triune God...</I><BR/><BR/>Could you provide chapter and verse for where the Bible refers to a triune God, let alone attributes the creation of man to a triune God? Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1957354380760196952008-08-28T20:45:00.000-07:002008-08-28T20:45:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I'm sorry, but I just don't understand ...Anonymous, I'm sorry, but I just don't understand most of your sentences. You need to work a bit harder composing them, getting them grammatical, and making sure they say what you mean. <BR/><BR/>The reliability, or lack thereof, of the human senses can be tested empirically. So we know that humans are notoriously unreliable eyewitnesses, for instance. See several of my previous blogs about the unreliability of memory, and for citations for lots of psychological research about cognitive mistakes that humans are prone to make. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61434275167326681282008-08-28T17:18:00.000-07:002008-08-28T17:18:00.000-07:00Anonymous, you seem to be right in saying that the...Anonymous, you seem to be right in saying that there are no non-circular ways of defending the reliability of our senses. But I don't think the atheist needs to be committed to the view that our senses and memory are wholly reliable. I readily accept that I'm a fallible being. But on the other hand, unless we bring up the Cartesian evil demon, there doesn't seem to be any reason for thinking that our senses are totally unreliable.<BR/><BR/>What would you say of the external world skeptic who not only denies the reliability of her senses but also denies the existence of God? He would not be engaged in the circular reasoning you accuse of atheism, and so this position seems to be more justified than your version of theism. While the skeptic escapes your criticism, you still have to find a way out of circularity: you use a non-deceptive God to justify your senses, but still rely on a posteriori arguments (based on experiene) to defend the existence of God. I'm assuming this, of course; maybe you have some a priori argument up your sleeve.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05614641518805431869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5333069232953630152008-08-28T16:35:00.000-07:002008-08-28T16:35:00.000-07:00Related to #4 is this criticism:1. Atheism implies...Related to #4 is this criticism:<BR/>1. Atheism implies a lack of a God who legitimizes morality.<BR/>2. A lack of legitimized morality implies moral relativism.<BR/>3. But moral relativism is false.<BR/>4. Atheism is false. [1,2,3]<BR/><BR/>You find this objection, that atheism can't account for an objective morality, in many debates. The intuition is that every action is permissible without a God who legitimizes morality. <BR/><BR/>I think this line of thought is separate from the criticism that atheism is simply depressing or nihilistic. After all, the latter can be easily dealt with: x being depressing is not grounds for thinking x is false. But the above moral argument seems to resist a similar kind of reply. Maybe it ought to be treated as a criticism independent of #4.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05614641518805431869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28625585482855544322008-08-28T16:17:00.000-07:002008-08-28T16:17:00.000-07:00I would ask the atheist how does he or she know th...I would ask the atheist how does he or she know their memory is reliable? How does he or she know their five senses are reliable? As a Christian I believe faith is the foundation for reason. Like Augustine said "I believe in order to understand." <BR/><BR/>These questions I have asked our first principles of Philosophy that one must presuppose for anything to be intelligible. However, I am curious given the atheism world-life-view in a general form, how does one justify presupposing the reliability of ones memory or five senses? Also, how does one account for the reliability?<BR/><BR/>Given the Christian worldview the Bible says humans were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26) by the reliable triune God, thus Christians can justify the reliability of their five senses and memory. Furthermore, Christians can account for the reliability of their memory and five senses because God is the one that created us. <BR/><BR/>Common Objections<BR/><BR/>One common objection is this does not answer a thing because there is supposable no coherent definition of the Christian God(I disagree, my definition would be found in the Baptist confession of faith of 1689 or the Westminster Confession of Faith) <BR/><BR/><BR/>Christians are appealing to authority. Absolutely if God testifies of himself (in special revelation specifically the Bible) or says something, we would have to believe it on his authority because there is no higher. <BR/><BR/>Our five senses and memory are not always reliable, so your belief of being made in God's image and justifying the reliability of your memory is false. I would respond by saying we were made in God's image, but once the fall of Adam and Eve occurred sin tainted our cognitive faculties (Total Depravity or Radical Corruption) causing our memories and five senses to be no longer reliable all the time. <BR/><BR/>The last time I checked my memory and five senses were reliable. This is circular reasoning (or begs the question) to say I know my memory and five senses are reliable because I used them and they were reliable. One must have an objective foundation, which given the Christian worldview is the Bible that accounts and justifies for the reliability of one's memory and five senses. However, both the Christian and Atheist does circular reasoning concerning the relability of one's memory and five senses, but the Christian worldview gives justification for believing it and can account for it. The Atheist given his worldview and his or her belief in a random, chance universe cannot. <BR/><BR/>What about other religions? I am not arguing for any other religion because I do not believe any other religion is true. All other religions fall short either they are incoherent, self-contradictory or do not provide the necessary preconditions of intelligability (Isaiah 43:10, John 4:16, Acts 4:12, Phil 2:10-11). <BR/><BR/>If our senses and memory weren't reliable, we all would have died at a very young age." This also begs the question one cannot assume the very thing we are debating about unless he or she has a foundation that gives justification for the relability of one's memory and five senses that does not change like the Bible, not science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com