If you are using Internet Explorer 6, you may not have the best Bebo experience. Please consider upgrading.
close Video Box
Having AutoPlay on gives you the best media experience on Bebo. When you visit another user's profile, their Video Box will automatically start playing their current favorite video.
You can change your account settings at anytime here: account settings
I must say, reading this has to be one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had in a while. A reading of his rebutle can be found hear; http://xmasfish.wordpress.com
I will not say anything more reagrding that.
Anyhow, the first seemingly valid point he makes is, that I correctly stated that Evolution is evidance for just a naturalistic worldview-which it clearly is. In science, there is no supernatural allowed. Anything that contains even the slightest ammount of supernatural is disqualified as being scientific and rightfully so, since science deals with what we can perceive with our senses, or test, or demonstrate. The god concept has neither of those and is thus ruled out as being scientific.
An equally week arguement Andrew uses is that with out religion we can't ascertain god from evil. While I will say that good and "evil" are two broad terms, we can know that something is right when there's no good reason to commit an atrocity or hurt someone. In doing nice things to others, we elicit a good feeling in ourselves because humans are gregarious creatures that want to see their fellow humans happy.
He erroneosuly asserts that because Atheists don't believe in god that there is no reason not to do these things because in the end we'll all die no matter what. But the problem with that logic is is that as Atheists we value and appreciate this life more than Christians and it is Christians who devalue this life, since they anticipate the rapture where they'll be elevated to heavan. I've even had Christians tell me they don't fear death because they know they'll go to heavan when they die.
Yes, in my quote I am attacking fundementalists who don't value this life and inhibit science by illegalizing stem cell research which has the amazing potential to cure many life-threatening diseases. That's what I meant by my quote.
He then states the USSR, as well as China as an example of how Atheism leads to countries mistreating there people, but Atheism had nothing to do with that and it was more connected to the fact that those countries were using communism, which has never worked and is a failed style of government. If we were to look at countries like Sweden and Canada, the way their society is flourishing when compared to the US, it should show us how devestating religion is to progress in society.
Hitler certianly was not an Evolutinist as Andrew claims he was. If you don't beleve me look at a history book or read Mien Kempf where he quotes Jesus as his savior and inspiration for all the appalling crimes he committed upon the world. Unfortunatly, I don't have a copy of the book with me, so I can not direct you to verses where he states that but it is in there.
As for his last paragraph, I'd like to say that if what I did is "pointless" and will not be remembered due to the people I care for passing on, I atleast know I did some good in my life for helping out the people who meant something to me. Even, if I'm not remembered or if they ceace to exist, I know they were greatful to know me and likewise me to them.
0 Comments 225 weeks
Recently, Andrew has taken the time to address the 5th and 6th chapters of my book. Which in doing so reminded me that I needed to finally needed to post my own responce to his criticism of my book, and this is the purpose of posting this blog. I do indeed intend to post more replies, but time constraints caused by issues in my personal life have interfered with that goal. So, now that I've found time I'd like to reply to a couple of his rebutles of my book.
Firstly, Andrew states that I use a week arguement against god's existance by "The Problem of Evil" arguement. Specifically, he says that I use the traditionally weekest and "least persuasive form" of that specific arguement, saying that it's been destroyed before. Really? My fallowing chapters paragraphs will challenge that assertion.
Look at it like this; A four year-old girl playing in the front yard of her parent's house is unknowingly about to be kidnapped by some deranged pedophile. The pedophile rapes and murders the girl-but he murders her in the sickest way conceivable by dismembering her entire body, thus creating an agonozing death for this unlucky little girl. There are a few leads in the case but they never ammount to an arrest and the pedophile gets away cleanly, while the girl's family is forever haunted by the girl's revolting murder.
Now, if a loving god did exist, then how come he would perform miracles in the bible (ie parting of the red seas, striking people down for something as silly as keeping the ark from tipping over, 2 Samuel 6:3-7, killing babies as seen in the flooding of the world where many babies undoubtedly died, ect) and never kill someone when it may be legitimately necessary such as preventing a woman/girl from getting murdered?
The contrasting parallels I've just given should certianly show anyone with an open-mind that god isn't loving if he kills people for absurd reasons, and yet does nothing to a murderer. The example i've provided is a fatal contradiction to Christianity, and if Christians were open-minded (they're not) they would realize I've logically disproven their faith.
Andrew attempts to make a counter-point by stating; "It must be stressed- even if I can only give unlikely reasons for the falsity of Bryan’s assumptions, it still shows that they are not necesarrily true and that it is not logically impossible for God to exist. It is a different matter entirely which reasons are likely or not as this will turn into an “evidential” argument…and that is not what Bryan is giving. All I have to do is show that its POSSIBLE that God can co-exist with evil."
If anything's unlikely, then we have no good reason to believe it, unless it has evidence to support it. Christianity has none, neither does god.
I may not have clarifed that in my earlier entry, and my apologies for that, but I've addressed that in this rebutle.
He continues; "He assumes that since God is omnipotent, He can actualise a world in which everybody freely chooses to do the right thing and abstain from evil. Notice that people must “freely” do these actions, otherwise they are mere robots and a loving God would not allow us to be mere robots as that prevents us from being free creatures."
Yes, but, the fact that god intervenes in the bible as in the examples I've allready given shows that god doesn't give us free will. If there are concequences to the choises we make, then that is not free will. Moreso, with out any evidence to support there claims, we have no reason to believe a god created us with free will.
"However, is Bryan correct in thinking this? I think not. Lets suppose for the sake of argument that liberterian free will (i.e. the ability to freely choose) exists. This means that God cannot cause humans to make certain choices, because if He caused the choice, it would cease to be a real choice. In other words, a forced choice doesn’t logically exist, because the two things are incompatibal like a square circle.
0 Comments 225 weeks
As a knowledgeable Atheist has said, if the biblical account of creation isn't a literal six day creation, then why does the Bible mention night and day? Why would God cause so much redundent and unneccessary suffering as a way of creating life? Evolution is a cutthroat process and for a loving god to authorize such a thing isn't a god that is depicted as loving, which the bible portrays him as.
Andrew writes, "It is true that Christians and atheists have claimed that Genesis is incompatibal with Evolution…but this is only if innerency is necessary for Christianity to be true. I have shown that this is not the case at all."
And as you'll see in my rebutle to your chapter I have clearly shown that it is a prerequisite for Christianity to be true. A god that wouldn't allow his word to be salvaged from error and would let it get contaminated with lies is not a god that is honest with the creation.
"I believe that it is historically accurate AND that Evolution is true. Many other people embrace this view also, including William Lane Craig."
While the bible may contain some pertinent historical accounts, it is definately not scientifically correct, and as such we shouldn't let something that does have coherent evidence, like Evolution be contaminated by something that doesn't like the bible. Applying the bible to science isn't condusive to scientific facts and therefor the bible which can not be verified by science has no place in the amazing world of scientific data,
Finally, Id like to say that the supernatural and science are two different arenas, the latter of which has a multitude of different sources of evidence, the former which has none, and is rightfully disqualified of anything we should take seriously. Something as superflous as the bible should never be concidered the equivalent of something as wondrous as Evolution. Indeed, applying the bible to Evolution is nothing more then mere slandering the Theory.
0 Comments 227 weeks
- My Album (1)