Thursday, May 13, 2010

Atheist beliefs.!!

Of course, us Christians are just plain kooky, and all them intelligent so called "freethinkers" are rational and very smart, right?



PuritanReformed said...


Leroy said...

he proferred an opinion on 'what if'.
he didn't claim to live his life by some intangible, non-evidential friend in the sky.
don't align a suggested possibilty with living an entire lifestyle based on delusion

Henry said...

Perhaps you should explain what your problem is with this rather than just pretending that it proves some sort of point for you?

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Point is Henry, so called thinking people put forward an idea that has not a shred of evidence, but we Christians who do have reasonable evidence are treated as fools by these so called freethinkers......

Leroy, I do not argue with atheists, I just tell them that according to God's word, they are the fools, and I believe God's word on the matter.(Psa 14:1)

Therefore, contrary to what you state, he is living life according to a delusion. The delusion of living life according to the non evidential friend of Darwinian materialism/evolution.

Henry said...

Hawking expressed the view that aliens MAY be agressive and that it MAY be dangerous to contact them. I myself, do not agree with him, but that sort of speculation is not equivalent to Christian belief, and you are horrendously confused if you think that is is meant to be anything more than idle speculation.

Of course, the evidential basis for Christianity and Darwinian evolution is the reverse of your bald assertion.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Just silliness Henry.

These people assume also that Aliens, if they exist, are way more advanced than us. If so, if they were aggresive as they suppose, I am sure they would have wiped us all out by now.

The Aliens that "do exist" are the "evil host" as described in scripture and every culture that has ever existed.

Apart from a Christian world view, you and these other men cannot even logically account for reality as we know it, and if you even try to account for your worldview, you merely steal from my worldview to do so.

It is a sham Henry. One which involves the eternal good of your soul as I have told you many times.

Darwinian evolution is a sham Henry and even those who advocate it know that with increasing momentum.

I said a long time ago, some other justification for denying God will come into favor.
Perhaps the Alien idea shall take off. It seems to have many advocates from your side of the street as far as I can tell.


Henry said...

Your ignorance of science extends to this issue as well, I see. Extraterrestrial life could well be more advanced than us and very agressive, but that is no reason for you to draw the conclusion that you're "sure" they'd have wiped us out. The vast distances between the stars probably renders interstellar travel impossible. It's a fascinating subject, one which you should read a little about BEFORE presuming to make sarcastic blog posts about it. Otherwise you just end up looking like an idiot.

The existence or non-existence of aliens, of course, has nothing whatever to do with denying or affirming the existence of a deity.

And your declarations regarding the incoherence of evidence-based worldviews are offered without substance, and therefore require no refutation.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Henry you fail to appreciate some poking fun and a wee bit of sarcasm.
I know all about the vast distances in space etc.
I just wish atheists like you could maybe inform the good people at NASA and other places, to maybe give money toward more humanitarian needs.

There is no coherant refutation against Christianity Henry.


Henry said...

Actually, I agree with you that money ought to be spent on humanitarian needs. That doesn't alter your apparent ignorance of the background of Hawkings assertion.

Meanwhile, a Christian saying that there is no coherent refutation agsinst his beliefs is something of a redundant statement. Same old.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Hawkins assertion gives credence to "Alians" end of story.

As far as Atheists having a defense of their worldview which makes sense, well that is another matter....Care to give a coherant defense for your atheism Henry?

Give it your best shot...........Mark

Henry said...

That Hawking "gives credence to aliens" is not at issue. What is at issue is your assumption that his view is held with a conviction that is in any way comparable to your own implacable dogma, rather than being purely speculative.

My defense of athiesm is simply that there is no rational reason for belief in a deity.
This cannot be said to "borrow" anything from your worldview unless one adopts the entirely circular position that rationality must originate in Christianity.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Henry said...

That's nice. I agree with one guy, you agree with the other. The unfounded assumption is still being made that rationality and morality may only originate with Christianity.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

It is not just a matter of "originality" Henry, but a matter of evidence and justifiying world-views.

Under an atheistic/materialistic/evolutionary world-view, where is the evidence?

How on earth can you even begin to prove the basis of "morality" that we Christians can so ably explain?

Without using the very God given ability to rationalise as people made in His image, how can you even begin to explain "rationality" itself according to your world-viw, without stealing from mine?

When does the "blind watchmaker" itself come into having eyes which can see? A purpose which acts? A method of rationality?....Please explain these things for me.

Account for reality as we know it Henry, but strictly based upon your underlying assumptions without borrowing from my own world-view.


Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

As far as the "The unfounded assumption" Henry. It is called the argument from the impossibility of the contrary.

Henry said...

My underlying assumptions are not borrowed from your worldview when I use them any more than they're borrowed from mine when you use them. Repeating this will get you nowhere, I'm afraid.

The "argument" from transcendentalism would better be called the unfounded assumption from transcendentalism, as I've said. It is, like so much else, just baseless assertion.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Let's keep this simple Henry.

If I am not borrowing from your system, then are you admiting that your underlying assumptions cannot account for reality as we know it?

When you say your views are not borrowing from my worldview, please prove such to be the case.

Please refute the transcendental world view, then when you have done that, please offer with proof in it's place, how you are not borrowing from the Christian worldview to prove your atheism...

I am waiting for a coherant answer as are my readers.

I have never heard one yet that is rational, consistent nor even a system of thought that "you" would live consistently with, from one day to the next in the "real world".


Henry said...

No, I don't think we'll keep this simple. That allows you to evade the same demand for "proof" of a negative that you require of me.
Rationality and the ability to reason are innate functions of the human brain. Their existence does not require me to appeal to any deity.

The transcendental argument is entirely circular, in that it's premise - that a deity is a prerequisite for existence - is the same as it conclusion.

Finally, and I may have explained this before, please be aware that quotation marks do not serve the same function as italics.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Rationality and the ability to reason are innate functions of the human brain. Their existence does not require me to appeal to any deity.

Is that it Henry?

You really think such an answer very good?
Ok then, I will just say that rationality and the ability to reason are inate to being made in the image of God. Which is true btw!

Atheists have such double standards it is almost scary.

And since when are circular arguments not true?
ALL ultimate authority claims must be circular, if your ultimate authority is not self attesting, then it is not ultimate.

Henry said...

That is ridiculous. You cannot attempt to use logical argument to justify your claims and then abandon the most basic principles of logic as soon as it suits you to.
If circular arguments are legitimate then I might as well appeal to the transcendence of the flying spaghetti monster. Or the Incredible Hulk. Or David Hasslehoff.
Idiotic, yes, but no less so than your ravings.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

Henry, you have no idea what you are saying.
I have nowhere abandoned the most basic principals of logic.

Consider well your own reasoning, and surely you can see my point.

Your silly examples do not make claims consistent with Deity, therefore the circular reasoning employed is internally inconsistent.

That cannot be said of the God of Christianity.

Mark Farnon (Tartanarmy) said...

You obviously do not understand the very basics of logic, for not all circular reasoning is necessarily fallacious Henry.

You know that right?