BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist My Response to God Loves You's Introduction

Jenna,

You made some very astute observations and put in a lot of effort in response to a load of cr*p.

Don't you have some painting to do or perhaps some socks to fold?

That was more pleasure to me than painting (I'm horrible at it), and definitely more than folding socks.
Funny, though.
If it had taken a lot of effort, well, it might not have been worth it. But something like that doesn't take me any effort at all.

I have to ask (not in a confrontational tone, just asking) why people assume that logic has to be difficult? I've noticed a lot of people saying that Jenna must have put a lot of trouble to her posts or articles. Why? They are certainly well done, but doing something well may come easily to some.

Personally, I admire people who take the time to sit down and compose a concise and logical piece. It is the writing that is a skill and few are accomplished at this. It is suprisingly easy to roll out an embarrasing load of cr*p if you do not put some effort into proofreading and editing.

Obviously, logic does not come easily to some as we can witness by some of the outside comments here, moreover, the rudiments of logic can be studied to enhance one's common sense. It was one of more interesting courses I took while in college.

I think that we are just expressing our admiration for Jennsa's writing skills.

I'd like to express admiration for her writing skills as well.

I thought I will do what Jenna did, that is read what she wrote and write what I think about it. Jenna did a very well done at writing this. I will go through all that she has written and write my views on it.

At face value, Jenna�s argument is quite impressive but if one looks deeply at it, you can see that there are lots of hidden assumptions or presupposition that needs to be examined. Then one might ask what gives me the right to point out her mistakes or assumptions or presuppositions and this is what most atheist or agnostics usually say, �everyone believes what they believe. Who are we to decide who is right or wrong?�, but of course that is neither how science work nor human brain. We always look for what is right or what is wrong. In school, we learn for years about math and science and language laws and we learn to follow them in our lives and if we don�t, we�ll just make idiots of ourselves and make our lives harder. And in science, we ask questions and then try to find the answer for it and sometimes we find the answer and accept it and at other times, we don�t find the answer but we do use our presuppositions and try to make sense of it. Atheism claims that God can�t exist and when it comes to origins then atheists by using their presupposition, that God doesn�t exist, claim that we don�t know where we came form or we came from nothing but God definitely couldn�t cause it. I believe that she is wrong therefore let�s look what is wrong with her presuppositions and her argument.

Dr. Phil Fernandes claims that we do know what caused the universe�s existence and it is God. If we read his argument, we see that he is not talking about what we don�t know; he is arguing about things that we do know. But here is Jenna, talking about what Phil Fernandes said says,



First of all, it is Jenna�s presumption that God couldn�t have created the universe and He needs a cause but what Dr. Phil Fernandes is saying is, hey look we do know what cause our existence. Dr. Phil Fernandes is arguing for the uncaused cause of everything. In order for anything to exist, there has to be a first cause for it and that cause has to be uncaused. It is also logically absurd to ask what caused God to exist because it is like asking, �who is the bachelor married to?� A bachelor by definition is not married to anyone. And also we see that Jenna doesn�t deny that this universe doesn�t need a cause but says, we don�t know yet what caused it�. So basically, when it is for her benefit, Jenna moves to agnosticism but claims that she is a capital A atheist, meaning she doesn�t believe in no God at all. Jenna said, (this is from another post),



And the whole point of Dr. Phil Fernandes� argument is about this cause which he claims to be God. And he does give reasons for why he thinks that this cause doesn�t need a cause. So maybe you should read his argument with an open mind.

Then Jenna attacks Phil�s argument by saying,



I don�t know about your smartness but it is definitely not a scientific fact or even a logical thing to say that nothing could cause something. Here Jenna is building a straw- man and then shooting it. First of all, Dr. Fernandes doesn�t argue for a �complex consciousness� but for a personal and powerful being. And I don�t see why a being can�t cause something but as a rational being, I do have to deny that nothing can cause anything. By the way, if you ever found out if nothing could cause something then you�ll basically destroy the modern science�s foundation because science looks for causes and doesn�t say, �nothing causes caner so let�s just quit�. And if atheism is right and things could come from nothing then of course no one would need science anymore. But until then let�s leave our absurd presuppositions that nothing could cause something aside when we are dealing with logical arguments.

And once again we see that Jenna is presupposing that,



and then builds a straw man once again by saying,



First of all, no one is claiming that there is right and wrong floating around to be grabbed. And no one is saying that right and wrong are physical things, you are just assuming that for some reason.

Then Jenna says,



I don�t think you know what morals mean or you just don�t understand Dr. Phil Fernandes� argument for Moral Laws.

But Jenna continues,



Jenna�s argument is really faulty and quite self-refuting here. Moral Laws are not about controlling pain and pleasure. Or if it is then whose pain and pleasure is it controlling? The person that is causing the pain or the person that receives the pain? If it is controlling the person�s pain that is receiving it then why would the person that causes the pain listen to or obey this Law? Seriously who cares? And if we do get away with doing something wrong then the Moral Laws that you are claiming are as good as they not existing. Moral Laws are usually against our human tendency to save our own lives. For example, if we are standing by a swimming pool and we see that a baby falls in the water and can�t swim and if we jump in then we might die as well. The first voice that tells us what to do usually tell us to save ourselves but then another voice tells us that that wouldn�t be right and we have to save the baby even if we die. Why should we save the baby? Because it is morally the right thing to do. But why would humans create these Moral Laws if it causes us harm?
And then if humans make Moral Laws then who would this person be? Jenna? Me? Hitler? A child torturer? A saint? Who? Does might mean right? I definitely hope not. Otherwise Hitler was right.
And if human beings make Moral Laws then we couldn�t call the actions of other human beings wrong because everyone has freedom to make their own laws and why would we call their actions wrong. Moral Laws are also not descriptive, they are prescriptive. They don�t tell us how things are; they tell us how things ought to be. Therefore we need a prescriber and we already have show that humans can�t be this prescriber. And that is exactly what Dr. Phil is arguing for. But again when it comes to morality, atheist can only have subjective moral laws otherwise they would need a moral lawgiver and humans can�t be those moral lawgivers as shown above therefore someone higher than human being have to give these laws and this being is God.

And then Jenna builds another straw man by saying,



Do you really want an absolute moral law? Here is one. It is absolutely wrong to rape a woman at anytime and anywhere. Now if atheism was right, then this moral law was subjective and the woman who was being raped definitely would have said it was wrong but the person who is raping her, definitely doesn�t believe it is that wrong. And even if it was wrong who cares. And what are we going to do about it? Is Jenna now going to go shake finger at everyone saying, �don�t cause harm now that is against my moral laws�? And if we human beings make moral laws then what part of our body makes these laws?
So I don�t think Jenna actually has done anything to Dr. Phil Fernandes arguments. Dr. Phil Fernandes is right when he said that if you remove the moral lawgiver then you don�t have an objective moral standard.

Then Jenna said,



I actually think Phil Fernandes is quite clear at pointing to the right Moral Lawgiver. Jenna, if we did remove God as a lawgiver then what is the atheistic objective standard?

Then Jenna gives us some I am not sure what kind of law as an example of a Moral Law,



First of all, I am not even sure why you added that because that is not a law. And if we are born to get all the things that we want then why is taking it form another person wrong because well you are saying that is our purpose basically? And then if life is all about getting what we want then I would say that Jenna�s atheistic view (or atheistic view in general) of life is just absurd because no one will ever get all they want and get their goals and even if we do then what next? We all die and it doesn�t even matter if we do reach our goals or not.

But here is the law that Jenna is actually suggesting,


There are a lot of problems with this view. First of all why should we believe that what Jenna is suggesting is right? And why should anyone believe that taking what is not yours is wrong? See Jenna is using that as a standard but without any foundation. I also wanted to ask Jenna to define evil by the atheistic worldview.



Jenna always uses �we� as if everyone actually thinks the way she does. She doesn�t say that stealing �is� wrong but we �call� it wrong. And maybe we just title raping wrong too but maybe it is not wrong, we are just calling it is wrong because our logic tell us so. She doesn�t offer any reason for why her logical is right in the first place. If you read her argument above, she says that

and then after that she says it is wrong for one to get what they want by the means of stealing that because our logic says so. The person that is stealing is doing what is his or her logic telling them to do and that is to get what you want because that is what the purpose of our life is as Jenna said but then who are we to say that our logic is the right logic and their logic is not right?. If Jenna believe that stealing is wrong for getting what she wants then it is wrong for her, why doesn�t she leave other free to do what they want as her arguments tells us.

Then Jenna said


Yes given your moral code but why should we give you your moral code while you refuse to give theists their moral code when they say that God gives us moral laws? And also your moral code is not much of a moral code anyway.



Yes he was wrong in your sense of wrong but he was right in his sense of right then how do you suggest we should judge between your mind and his mind. And he could also �call you wrong without calling on God for any help� and then how could we decide which one of you are right but then maybe might is right therefore if Hitler was alive then Jenna would be wrong.

Then Jenna said


Here Jenna runs into a self-contradiction. First of all if the universe was dependent and all the needs are filled then the universe wouldn�t be dependent. Something can only be dependent if it needs something else for its existence. And we do know that the universe is not independent because the universe needs energy to run and since energy can�t be created and destroyed then the universe is limited and dependent on something else for its existence otherwise we would be in the state called entropy, where there is no usable energy. Now we would be in the state of entropy if the universe didn�t have a beginning and it existed since eternity but we are not in the state of entropy therefore we can conclude the universe had a beginning and since nothing comes out of nothing, the universe needs a cause and as Dr. Phil Fernandes concludes it is God.

Then Jenna said,


Jenna raises a good question here. What if God is all evil but Dr. Phil Fernandes already said that God is all powerful and power is perfection therefore God must be all good because goodness is also perfection. Since a being can�t be all perfect and at the same time not perfect, that being needs to be all powerful and all good at the same time. And also let�s remember that Dr. Phil Fernandes is a Christian and believes in an all good and all powerful God.
Jenna here doesn�t claim that God doesn�t exist but claims that what if God was all evil. So once again she moves to agnosticism.

Then Jenna said


Jenna, give us an example of a design that doesn�t need a designer, even a very bad design. And yes it is really hard for things to flow around and come into a �self-correction� and into a coherent structure. Actually one needs a lot more faith to believe that rather than someone creating it and design it. And what makes you think rhinoceros are all that ugly anyway? Hey maybe Hitler had the same idea about humans. He believed that the Jews were �ugly� and since he was not �ugly�, he had the right to kill them. I am not saying that that is what you are suggesting here but just a thought.
One more thing that amazes me is that whenever someone says that atheists believe in something, they all start saying �atheism is not a believe� but we see that atheists has to believe that a design does not need a designer and maybe something could come out of nothing too.

Then Jenna says:


But I find it hard to �believe� that the most improbable things could happen by chance. For example, as Chet Raymo, an astronomer, calculating the odds of our universe resulting from sheer chance, writes


Another thing that amazes me is that atheists always use time and chance as their �god�. And Jenna gives us the example of rolling a dice but she is forgetting that a dice could never roll itself to come to that xth combination. Chance can�t roll the �dice� for you. She uses chance as a creative force that could do anything if it is given enough time but chance is merely a mathematical probability. And Jenna, yes someone could �believe� that there is a possibility that the universe could come out of nothing without a designer by chance alone but that would only be a believe, nothing more.

Then Jenna said


That is a good question but nothing really logical. First of all, the question starts with a presupposition that God or the creator is in time and has to go by our time. I would like to say that God is outside of time. He created time therefore He is not limited by time.

Then Jenna said


Once again that is a good question and my answer is why not? If you read Dr. Phil Fernandes� argument, you see that he argues for different attributes of God that can only be a Theistic God otherwise we�ll run into self-contradictions or worldviews that are not logical and absurd. And to answer why it has to be the Christian Theistic God, I think it is Christian Theistic God because of history and logic. Jesus Christ claimed to be God and He did things that only God could do. Even the Muslims agree to this. Therefore I conclude that it is the Christian Theistic God that created everything based on the historical evidence that we have and based on logical reasons.

Then Jenna said


I believe that irrationality is part of our sin nature. Disobedience to or doing things against a perfect rational being causes us to be irrational but how can an atheist call anything irrational? What are the bases of rationality in atheism? What is the atheistic standard for rationality? And about Hitler, if atheism is true then why shouldn�t he live subjectively? And if atheism does claim that there are objective moral values then what are there bases? Atheism doesn�t answer any of these questions and even if it does, it�ll give us an answer that is taken by faith and yet most atheist claim that theists believe things and have faith but I think atheist have as much or a lot more faith than most theists do.

Then Jenna said


Are emotions really causeless? Doesn�t a human being cause emotions? Jenna, can anything that has a beginning exist without a cause? And what are these absolutes and how do we know and who is to decide that they are absolutes? If one thing is true about atheism, it is the fact that it can�t have an objective and timeless absolutes. Atheism doesn�t have any standards. If anyone doesn�t agree then give me a reason to believe that it does.

Then Jenna said


Of course he doesn�t say that Kant�s words are the �last words in human�s� acquiring knowledge and I don�t see where Phil Fernandes even says that but Kant does make a good point there. And Jenna maybe you should read what he wrote once again because I think you don�t really understand what he is getting at. As Phil Fernandes says, Immanuel Kant argued that man could only know reality as it appeared to him and not reality as it is, how does atheism disproves this? I don�t see any reason that this could not be true if the true God of Theism doesn�t exist. And if you don�t think that this gap exists then disprove what Kant is arguing for.

Then you said,


I don�t see why you are even arguing that because neither Kant nor Fernandes are arguing that nothing can be known. Kant is arguing reality is not what it actually is but only as it appears to us and Fernandes is arguing that if what Kant is saying is true then human knowledge is almost impossible because our knowledge is not knowledge at all because it is not reality but Jenna somehow gets the idea that someone is arguing that nothing can be known.

Then Jenna said


Jenna here is confusing a couple of things or seems to agree with Phil Fernandes but at the very end of her argument, she goes back to her worldview. We do discover absolute truths through our logical ability but that doesn�t tell us why those truths are true or where they come from. And Jenna, earlier you said that truths don�t exist outside of our physical minds but now you are claiming that we discover these truths by our logical ability, which one is true and why so? After you answer this, I will comment on it. And also do you believe that there are universal and changeable truths that we haven�t discovered? If so, can�t we say that God�s existence (based on your view) is also one of those truths and if no, why not?

Then Jenna said


First of all Jenna, you are giving a false inference from what Phil Fernandes is saying. He is not using this argument �to bridge a gap� but he already told us that that gap doesn�t exist in theism, it only exists in atheism because theism is the view that reality is as it is and that is how God created it. I believe there are different ways to know and I certainly believe one way of knowing is through the bible. I don�t believe that anyone has perfect rationality because only a perfect being can have a perfect rationality and since humans are not perfect beings, they can�t have perfect rationality but I believe that God is the perfect rational being because He is the source for rationality and logic therefore if you follow God then of course it is obvious that you are more rational that someone who doesn�t. And about Kant, how do you know that there isn�t a difference between what we see and what things are?

Then Jenna said


Talking about reliability, which one is more reliable and probable, something coming out of nothing or someone causing something to exist?
And also I am not sure what you are getting at there but once again I�ll ask you, what is the atheistic standard for absolute and unchangeable truths? I don�t see one.

Then Jenna said


I don�t quite agree with that. There are times that we don�t do any harm to anyone but we still feel guilty about it. We can do an action in private and no one even sees us but we still feel guilty about it. But do we feel guilty because we �think� our actions are wrong or our actions are wrong therefore we feel guilty about it? And what is the standard for right and wrong? If we make the standards ourselves then why feel guilty about anything?

Then Jenna said


Are you saying that each individual chooses what is true and wrong? Hey by your view, maybe Hitler didn�t really feel that guilty about what he was doing and maybe he �knew� what was true.

Then Jenna said


Well Freud was an atheist and he was trying to explain something through an atheistic point of view. I don�t see what he didn�t have to do with anything. But what I find funny is that whenever Dr. Phil Fernandes brings us a well known and famous atheist that has worked for years in their fields, Jenna says well what does this person has to do with anything, why are you bring Bertrand Russell up, he doesn�t know what he is talking about. It would have been funnier if Jenna started saying that they were not atheists at all. And Jenna�s got it all together and knows more than them.

Then Jenna said


You don�t believe that all moral laws are objective? And no our objective moral laws doesn�t come from observing and understanding the world around us because then Hitler was observing the world around him and yet he came to a different conclusion. So based on what you are saying then Hitler�s moral was right because he observed what he saw and you observe what you see therefore everyone is right. But moral laws are not subjective. (I know, I have repeated this many times but some people just don�t want to accept it. By the way, I use Hitler a lot because I find him to be a good example but there are lots others you could name. Such as Joseph Stalin�) My Creator didn�t give Moral laws by letting us observe and understand the world around us and I am glad He didn�t do so. I believe that God give us the Moral Laws in the scripture and also He has written His law in our hearts, in our conscience and that is why we feel guilty about stuff even if no one sees us doing an action that is bad. It is necessary because without a Moral Lawgiver there would be no Moral Laws and anyone could do whatever they want to do and it wouldn�t matter. Why are Moral Laws corruptible? Well Moral Laws are prescriptive; they tell us how things ought to, not descriptive. It doesn�t tell us how things are. And also I believe that human beings have a free will and they can choose to obey God or choose to disobey God. Therefore they can break God�s Laws.

Then Jenna said


Good for you. I sincerely mean that but is this life all there is? And you also see everyone working day and night trying to get a better house and once they get a new house, they want a new car, once they get a new car, they are still not satisfied. They still want more. Humans long for something else. I believe that is our deep desire for God and once we find God, we don�t care if we have a good car or better house because we all are going to die and it doesn�t matter what kind of car we have or what kind of house. But what does matter is that we please God and live the way He wants us to live. That is when we truly get peace and are satisfied with live. I don�t think that this thing is easy to do because we are human beings but once you truly believe in God then you can live with peace.

Then Jenna said


Now I believe that Jenna makes her best point here. I believe that this is the best atheism can give. Yes if there is no God then it doesn�t matter who does what. Who cares about a million years from now? Who cares if someone kills millions of people? Who cares what happened in 9 -11? What makes human lives valuable? Nothing, absolutely nothing. That is what we get from atheism. As Bertrand Russell said



And Bertrand Russell was the one who declared God to be dead and with that he predicted that 20th is going to be the bloodiest century ever because Russell understood this that without God there is no importance to anything including human lives. And I believe that Bertrand Russell was the most consistent atheist that ever lived. He said if there is no God then why do we live as God exists? Why do we obey the commandment that says, �thou shall not kill�? But even atheists bury their dead with dignity. Even atheist live as if there is a God. Human life without God is as good as not living because it doesn�t have any meaning. There are no Moral Laws without God. As Jenna claims, �Why is it an ugly thing to really believe that having right now is enough?� You know why because we know that Hitler was wrong and if another Hitler comes tomorrow then we can also call him wrong. Right and wrong doesn�t change and it is not us that decide what they are. God is the Lawgiver and He gives us the standard for right and wrong. Without God there are no standards and ya Jenna you are right, without God who cares about anything. Why do we need to worry ourselves about anything? Things move on. With that attitude towards life, no wonder there are hundreds of suicides yearly and is still increasing. Christianity gives meaning to life. It declares human life to be valuable because God created us and we are created in God�s image. Therefore killing another human being is wrong and Hitler was wrong but with atheism, who cares and it may be wrong today but tomorrow who knows.

Then Jenna said


Well of course everyone knows that they have done some wrong in their lives, one way or another. So some humans don�t want eternal consequences because they know they are sinners but justice demands punishment and I believe that justice is something we should desire. Otherwise if someone takes your loved one�s life, you better no ask for justice and desire for it.

Then Jenna said


But Russell does make a good point and we should respect others opinions and maybe they don�t make it a law but it is still worthy of thinking about. We should be more tolerant.

Then Jenna said


wohhh, some hating going on here. God doesn�t enjoy killing anyone but saving everyone. He sent his own Son to die on a cross for everyone�s sins. I don�t believe that God is an �insecure dictator� but a fair Judge. And you know what, the whole world needs hope.

Then Jenna said


But in the cosmic sense there is no difference between a piece of broccoli and a human being. It doesn�t matter what kind of value we assign ourselves. And just because we assign value to ourselves doesn�t mean that we are actually valuable. For example, if a fool stands and says, I assign myself smartness, it is just in me, and therefore I am smart. Does that make the fool a smart person? I don�t think so. Another thing, if we assign value to ourselves then Hitler (ya once again a Hitler example) assigned value to himself and his people and claimed that they had a higher value than black people. Was he right? Of course you are going to say no but I still don�t see any standards in atheism for answering that question one way or the other.

Then Jenna said

Wait you are suppose to tell why we have a personal freedom here, not just say we do.

She continued

I �believe� that human freedom is given to us by God and you �believe� that everyone is born with it. And since we are both born with �individual minds� then who is to decide between these to individual minds? What Jenna is saying here is building a foundation for atheism but as one can see it is a very weak foundation or not a foundation at all. Here is a question. Let�s look at Jenna�s premises and see how strong is her argument. Since everyone is born with an individual mind and make individual choice, therefore everyone has a personal freedom, and �you can't get without giving� therefore we have human rights.

Jenna�s whole argument is build upon trick on the use of the word mind. So Jenna what is a mind? Is mind just the physical brain? If yes then how do you explain free will and free choices? If our brain is just a bunch of molecules then it would just be reacting to different things and we will be making choices by just reacting to different things and that is not free but it depends on what it is reacting to and we can�t really do anything about it. Our choices are made based on different reactions and then if someone kills someone else, that person is just reacting to a bunch of chemicals in the brain and is not responsible for what he or she has done. If you don�t mean that the word mind means the physical brain then you are just presupposing that minds are not the physical brain. And if you think minds are not physical, what are they? Your argument will only work if you give us the right definition of mind that is consistent with your worldview. Otherwise I don�t see anything that gives us human freedom, let alone human rights by the atheistic worldview.

Then Jenna said


Of course anyone can call anything wrong but an atheist doesn�t have the bases for calling anything absolutely wrong and they don�t a standard for calling things wrong. I have written a little more on this earlier in this page.

Then Jenna said


Jenna, you said that �the only wrong is to take what isn't yours�. (Well first of all, there is no reason to believe that in the first place given the atheistic worldview) So is taking your own life evil and wrong? If committing suicide is wrong then what are the bases for it in the atheistic worldview? And wait a second, by doing �what� we can guarantee no one ever commits another evil act? By taking people�s choices away or by not calling evil really evil because that is the only way we have choice?

Then Jenna said


Well first of all I don�t see any bases for justice or injustice in an atheistic worldview. It doesn�t have a foundation to call anything unjust. But why should we try to change things given your worldview? But as a Christian theist, I should try to change unjust things because my God hates injustice but I don�t believe we�ll totally be able to remove all evil until Jesus� comes. Actually what hope does atheism give people for the problem of evil? It is only Christian theism that gives us justice and can defeat evil. Jesus became victories over evil and death and He has given us the victory over it too.

Then Jenna said


Actually we do want everyone to know that we have a spokesperson for all Christians and if anyone doesn�t agree with Him then he or she is not a Christian and that person is Jesus Christ. And that makes perfect sense but for atheists they don�t even know what they believe except that there is no God then from that they can believe whatever they want and do whatever they wish and there are no consequences for it.

Then Jenna said


I am amazed that atheists don�t see that there is no reason without God. I also had another question. If you can base your morals based on what seems reasonable to you then how do you know that you are not wrong and deceived because our senses do deceive us sometimes. For example, if you hold a pencil in your hand, you see that it is straight but if you fill a glass with water and put the same pencil inside the glass, it doesn�t look straight anymore. When we look at the pencil inside the glass in doesn�t look straight but if we put our hands inside the glass and feel it then it feels straight all the way through. Which one of our senses is right? And if we want to base our morals and ideals based on �things that seem reasonable to us�, then it is possible that our senses or our reasonable path may be wrong. There is no way to know if we are thinking by an atheistic worldview but given my Christian worldview, there is nothing more certain than the fact that God exist and care for us and the bible is our bases for our Morals and even knowledge.

Then Jenna said


Actually I believe that everything was created in six literal days. So ya I claim to have the answer and the animals did appear at almost the same time (compared to billions of year) and I do believe that variations in the same kinds of animals do happen, that is small changes over a period of time and I don�t believe that big changes (such as rocks turning into dogs) happens. God was certain at what He was doing and he created everything according to His plan, just like an engineer build things according to his plan. I don�t see any problems with what Jenna wants us to believe is a big deal. But you said that you don�t believe that evolution happened and you don�t believe that God created everything (Evolution is basically claims that everything came from nothing and Creation claims that everything was created by the Almighty God), what is your believes? Where did we come from? It is a scientific fact that the universe had a beginning and Christian theism is the best possible answer for the answer to the question of origins but atheism either has to believe that we came form nowhere or that the universe is eternal and both of which is unscientific and irrational and absurd.

Then Jenna made a comment about Dr. Phil Fernandes� way of using �whence�


Jenna, I don�t want to sound petty or anything either but you should really research something before making a claim because lots of famous writers and philosophers do us �from whence� and a couple of good examples would be Shakespeare and Dr. Francis Schaeffer. I thought you might want to know that.

Then Jenna said


Well yes you could say that but your argument is not an epistemological answer to the problem. You just presuppose that killing innocent people are wrong. You were suppose to tell us why it wrong but you just say it is and you have no bases for saying so. Your second argument also presupposes that killing beautiful things are bad too. And your bonus one is quite interesting. I do agree with it but it would only make sense with my Christian worldview but with an atheistic worldview then there is a chance that the next child born will be the next Hitler. So would that make it right to kill children? So once again atheism doesn�t have any bases for claiming anything about morals.

Then Jenna said


Do you really believe that we live the best way possible with the time we have. And what do you mean by best? Even for saying that atheism can�t give you any reason for believing it. And one more thing, I don�t believe that our purpose in life is to create our own purpose, our purpose should be to live by what God�s purpose for our life is and that is the only way we can live the best way possible.

And for her conclusion Jenna said


If you read Dr. Phil Fernandes� arguments, he doesn�t use Pascal�s argument (small?) as evidence for God�s existence or anything but he uses it to invite people to search for God and that is the real purpose of Pascal�s argument. He used it because in the bible says, Search and you�ll find, so he uses it as a plea for people to search for God because that is the only thing that a smart man would do. It took me some time to write this but I think these things are important because they affect how we live and how we think. Atheism, as I have said earlier, doesn�t give us any reason for Moral Laws, a foundation for logic and thinking or a purpose for living. And I believe that Jenna did a really good job of trying to defend atheism but I think she has not succeeded in doing so and Dr. Phil Fernandes� arguments still stand.

Well done God loves you. Excellent refutation. I find the atheist point of view as claiming knowledge they cannot possibly have. When one claims there is no God then one is basically saying that they possess all knowledge and God is not found within that knowledge. That cannot possibly be accurate.

This is your straw man. You are the one misrepresenting Jenna's point and the arguing the misrepresentation.

As an Atheist I find this extremely offensive. I have morals and I am and atheist. Your suggestion that I would not care if a woman was being raped if atheism was right is ridiculous. Altruism exists because we evolved that way. It is beneficial for us to help others, to defend ones we love against those who would harm them. This is how we survived in a tribal society. Nobody can go it alone. Altruism can be seen in many species not just humans, because after all we are all animals.

I have to admit "God Loves You" I am a little worked up over this whole argument. Aside from being offensive to anyone who does not believe in God, I can't help but wonder if this is just the Christian God who handed out the morals or is it all of them. Did the ancient Greeks get these morals from Zuess, and the Egyptians from Ra. What about those who were born prior to religions invention? Where did they get their morals?



I have been debating you for a couple of weeks now in the other forum and have noticed your affinity for making statements like this and trying to pass them off as some well thought out idea that makes a point.

Atheism "doesn�t give us any reason for Moral Laws" - It doesn't need to. It is just the lack of belief in a deity. I don't need the fear of eternal damnation and the promise of reward to be moral. If you do then that is truly sad. Fact: less than 1% of prison inmates identify as Atheists.

"a foundation for logic and thinking" - it isn't supposed to give us a foundation for logic and thinking. It is quite the opposite, an affinity for logic and thinking is what has led most to be atheists. Fact: in 1916, 60% of scientists identified as atheist in a 1997 survey that number approaches 90%.source Nature magazine.

"or a purpose for living" again, it does not have to. If your purpose is to be moral to receive reward? well I can be moral without the reward. My purpose is my daughters, my family and my interests.

The burden of proof is on those who believe. I don't believe in fairies, I don't need to prove to you they don't exist. If you believed in them then you would need to prove it.

Why is this always the ridiculous argument religious people use. It is so illogical.

I cannot for the life of me understand how such a massive portion of the world population gets so worked up about converting and convincing others into believing in something that is unseen, unheard, intangible and unprovable....and then getting all het up when these attempted converts, using logic and valid illustrative discussion, refuse to be drawn in....