|
ANSWERING ONLINE CHALLENGES On this page, I will post my answers to online challenges about atheism. My answers are in italic. The Atheist Test Questions for Atheists and Sceptics to Think About Questions and challenges for atheists. 44 Questions for the Not-Yet-a-Believer The Atheist Test The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is: ___ A. Intelligent ___ B. A fool _X_ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious We infer design from an observation based on what we know about what nature produces and what design produces. The Coca-Cola can is well-known to be designed by humans, in Coca-Cola factories. The banana is used as an example of divine design on this questionnaire. Yet the banana was also designed by humans, by artificial selection. Wild bananas are mostly inedible ! So much for God's perfect creation ! A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? ___ YES _X_ NO B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? ___ YES _X_ NO C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? ___ YES _X_ NO Same problem here. We already know that humans make buildings, paintings and cars. We don't know of any gods, because they don't exist as anything but fictional characters in books and people's beliefs. A. From the atom to the universe, is there order? ___ YES ___ NO This question makes no sense. "From the atom to the universe" where ? I don't know anything that is called "the atom to the universe". D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ____ I don't believe in chance, so the question is incomplete. How do the oranges fall ? If done with this intent in mind - design - the chances are pretty high. Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China." What do I need to have for that statement to be true? A. No knowledge of China. _X_ YES ___ NO If no gold existed, we wouldn't need knowledge of China at all. The statement "There is no gold in China" would be logically true. Same thing with God : since its existence contradicts logic, it cannot exist, regardless of where we "look". The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is: ___ A. Intelligent ___ B. A fool _X_ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious Same as question 1. With a tender conscience, check this list of the Ten Commandments: 1. Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength? NO 2. Have I made a god in my own image—a god to suit myself? NO 3. Have I ever used God's name in vain? YES 4. Have I kept the Sabbath holy? NO 5. Have I always honored my parents implicitly? NO 6. Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)? YES 7. Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)? YES 8. Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)? YES 9. Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)? YES 10. Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)? YES Thank Providence that I am not so stupid as to consider the "Ten Commandments" reasonable rules for living ! Questions for Atheists and Sceptics to Think About # Why does humanity seem to have an innate desire and need to worship something, or someone? Why is there such a universal religious sense within humanity? The scientific explanation of this phenomena is called the "God Module". For more information on the topic, see, for instance, my interview with scientist Matthew Alper. # Isn’t it a bit extreme to assert "God does not exist"? To make such a statement you would have to have complete knowledge and to have been everywhere in the universe. Maybe God dwells somewhere in the universe you don’t know of or have not been to? Is that possible? There is one obvious answer to this question : God cannot "dwell somewhere in the universe" since God is immaterial. Therefore the answer is that finding God "somewhere in the universe" is quite impossible. Perhaps the questioner here is clumsily trying to ask whether we could not find *evidence* of God's existence somewhere else in the universe. This too is impossible. The concept of a god contradicts absolutes such as logic, materialism and causality. To even think that the existence of God is possible, is to deny human cognition entirely. Christianity is a bankrupt ideology leading nowhere except to total nihilism. # What about the evidence of design in all of creation? It is obvious that anything that is designed has to have an intelligent creator. For example, a computer never came about by mere accident, but had to have been thought out and planned by an intelligent designer. It is the same with creation, and more so, as the natural world is far more complicated than anything humanity can create. There is no evidence for desisn in "the universe at large". Complexity is not a standard of design either. In science and police work, design is inferred from knowledge of what humans produce, what nature produces, and comparing both to what we observe. The assertion that complexity = design contradicts every single inference of deisgn ever made. # How do you explain the changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience with Jesus Christ? How do you explain the changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life-changing experience with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or deconversion to atheism ? How could a change in one's entire worldview NOT change one's life ? # How do we account for the historical Person of Jesus Christ? He has made such an impact upon history that we even measure our calendar by Him. 2000 years on and millions still follow Him. Scientific and historical evidence proves that there was no historical person of Jesus Christ. Questions and challenges for atheists. I would like those who are convinced there is no God, Creator or Designer to give me their best reasons why: * I should think that impersonal random forces alone are sufficient to be the cause of the universe we observe? I do not believe in "random forces" or in a "cause of the universe", therefore I cannot answer this question. The universe is the First Cause, and therefore requires no cause. * Or what reasons should we think the universe is an uncaused event? As answered for the first question, the universe is the First Cause : there is nothing outside of it, no causality apart from it. Therefore it cannot be caused. * Why is there anything to observe instead of nothing? The question presumes that "nothing" is somehow a default. But "nothing" is ontologically meaningless - to say that there is a "state of nothing" is to utter nonsense. "Existence exists" is an absolute that even the Christian is forced to accept. * Why is there a life-permitting universe instead of the more likely life prohibiting? Since the universe was not caused, there is no reason "why" the universe is the way it is, any more than the Christian could explain "why" his god is supposed to be the way it is. Both are First Causes,with the difference that God is a fictional character. * What evidence is there that impersonal forces and laws of physics are able to permit or create the existence of personal sentient beings? Laws do not permit or create. The existence of sentient beings on Earth is due to the phenomena of evolution. Once a hereditary replicator exists and has sufficient resources to reproduce, evolution is a necessary fact. * What evidence is there that random forces through time and chance can create anything remotely approaching the sophistication of the laws of physics we observe? There is no such thing as "random forces" or "chance". The questioner is using Christian beliefs to try to stump atheists, which is called "begging the question". This is a completely useless attitude, designed not to stimulate discussion but for propaganda purposes. 44 Questions for the Not-Yet-a-Believer # How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe? There is no design in the universe, except that which comes from human beings. Complexity is a common Christian standard for "design", but complexity is not a standard of design. In science and police work, design is inferred from knowledge of what humans produce, what nature produces, and comparing both to what we observe. The assertion that complexity = design contradicts every single inference of deisgn ever made. # How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people? That a fiction book correctly identifies cities or well-known historical figures does not make it historical. By that standard, the musical "1776" is more realistic than the Bible. # 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? There are plenty of prophecies in the Bible that are completely fabricated, prophecies that failed, and prophecies that God himself refused to fulfill, but there is no prophecy that "has not failed". For more information, see Farrell Till's "Prophecies : Imaginary and Unfulfilled". Given this mountain of failures, it is the Christian which has the burden of proof to demonstrate Biblical prophecy as valid. Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a form of capital punishment? "Jesus" did not exist, therefore there is no fulfilled prophecy here. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reference in Psalm 22 to crucifixion specifically (only to piercing holes in hands and feet - which is perfectly accountable by blade weapons). How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah? As noted before, "Jesus" did not exist. Furthermore, Micah 5:2 refers to a PERSON named Bethlehem (1 Chronicles 4:4) and his clan (as the NIV correctly identifies). Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus. Since this hokey calculation (akin to the Creationist nonsense about the simplest lifeform being highly improbable) has nothing to do with reality, we must dismiss this question as little more than a rhetorical device. No specific prophecy is presented, since none is possible. 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? Correction : Isaiah predicts A virgin birth, 700 years before the assumed birth of "Jesus", of a child named "Immanuel". If this is the Christian's standard of whether a prophecy is valid, then no wonder he thinks "300 Old Testament prophecies" are correct ! # How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts? Any fictional work today is transmitted almost perfectly. Does that make it true ? Does it also validate other holy books, which contradict the Bible ? # Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview? Unlike the Christian, whose belief in miracles and a Sovereign god implies that the universe is subjective and unknowable, I am justified in having values and holding knowledge. So yes, contrarily to Christians, I am able to live consistently with my worldview. For more on the self-refuting nature of theism, see Introduction to Materialist Apologetics and The Cartoon Universe of Theism. # Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't? Since assuming that God exists means that we can have no values and no knowledge, it makes more sense pragmatically to assume that God does not exist. # In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God? "Jesus" did not exist, and the character of "Jesus", in the fiction of the Gospels, is not "Good" by any stretch of the imagination. For verses related to this topic, see Was Jesus Moral ? # Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44? Yes. # If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'? Only a small percentage of the Earth would call it the "Good Book", and they would do so because they are Christians and share the immorality of the Bible, or have never read it in depth. Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 times? Does repeating a lie 2600 times make it true ? In the subjective world of Christianity, perhaps. Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press? That's a great factoid. But all it proves is that people have poor taste in literature. # From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense? From evolutionary psychology - humans whose brains contained a sense of morality (i.e. proper action) which was conductive to their survival, survived and reproduced more than those who didn't. # If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world? Man is not a "random arrangement of molecules". Biology has proven that man's body follows scientific laws, has a metabolism, a nervous system, and so on. I, as a thinking individual, have values based on reason which indicate that I should "care and live honorably in the world". Therefore both parts of this question are incorrect. # Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos. "Personality" is a term we use for parts of our genetic makeup. As for the second part, I do not believe in "chaos" or that there ever was "chaos". # If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie? "Jesus' resurrection" was not faked, since "Jesus" did not exist. # 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? "Jesus", the fiction character, did not change lives. Christianity, a doctrine based on the fictional story of "Jesus", changed lives. So did Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and yes, even atheism. # Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith? People of the past were believers because they had no scientific alternative. Scientists now, especially top scientists, are almost all atheists. For example, only 7% of National Academy of Science members are religious. # Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible? "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." -- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J. S. Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death # How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components? "Irreducible Complexity" dogma has been disproven by mainstream science. In fact, "IC" systems, like the mammalian ear, have been proven to evolve. Furthermore, no one knows precisely what the "essential components" of life is. # How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory? The 2nd Law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy? Human intelligence is not contradicted by naturalism or the law of entropy. Indeed, human intelligence, being the product of a complex physical system, could not continue if it was subject to subjective influences - i.e. if theism was true and naturalism was false. # Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events? As already demonstrated, it does not. # On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians 1:8)? To be a standard of truth, a method must be based on reason and objectivity. Biblical authority is based on neither - indeed, to accept the Biblical claims of a Sovereign God, we must abandon all objectivity. Therefore it cannot be a "truth-standard". # Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?" There are absolutes, even though the Christian would deny them. In fact, we all accept them as part of our reasoning and actions. Examples : logic, naturalism and materialism, values, are all absolutes. Their existence disproves the subjective universe of Christianity # Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him? Is it possible that your belief in God is an unwillingness to submit to objective values ? # Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose? Absolutely. I do not see myself as a pawn of an unknowable Divine Plan, but as an active moral agent responsible for my own actions and purpose. # How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history? How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many ex-Christians down through history ? # Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner? No, they have not. # What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible? That they are the reverse of science : instead of starting from a method to arrive to a conclusion, they assume a conclusion (the Bible is true) to arrive to a method. # Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message? A sizable portion of the Earth was controlled by Bible-believers starting from a couple centuries CE, therefore the question is disingenuous at best. Furthermore, how can one ban a message ? # Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater? Because "greater" things do not necessarily exist. Our imagination of a "greater" being does not magically make it exist. Reality is objective, and is distinct from the content of our minds, despite the Christian subjectivist belief. # Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead? No, because it is a lie. A great number of messiahs were said to have risen from the dead. # How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries? There was no empty tomb, since "Jesus" did not exist. # 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? Idem. # If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent? Idem. # If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance? Idem. # How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)? Idem. # If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life? Idem. # If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God? Since there is no god, the question is moot. # 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. I was raised as an atheist. # 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? It only appears loosely unified because its doctrine and content was fabricated by the Church. Furthermore, the content of the Bible is not "unified" : it treats of many disparate topics. # Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."? Yes. # Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just another faith system? Because science is about more than repeating an experiment in a laboratory. It is about the objective evaluation and modelization of the evidence, wherever it is. # What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness? I am not aware of any remote tribe which, for example, hotly debates the pretrib/posttrib issue, or works vs grace within the Christian context. The Christian here is stretching the word "theology" to incredible limits. # Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental? This question assumes that there are "odds" of the Earth existing any other way. This is nonsensical, since the Earth already has the tilt and position in question, the probability is therefore one. And they are the consequence of the astronomical events following the Big Bang. # If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe? God does not exist, therefore it cannot be the universe. # What would be required to persuade you to become a believer? If your god existed, it would know what would be required for me to become a believer, and would have done it already. Since I am not yet a believer, obviously the question cannot be answered - unless the Christian thinks he is better than God ! |