• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

Earth is round = fact. Dolphins are superior to mice = fact. 2 + 2 equals 4 = fact. All equally true.

Lumpenproletariat said:
But 2 + 2 = 4 is not a thought process we imposed onto the universe. It is a reality which we conform to. And so is the superiority of a dolphin over a mouse. If you don't recognize that the dolphin is superior to the mouse, you are just as wrong as thinking 2 + 2 = 5. It's not imposing anything onto the universe to recognize the facts that are there and which we did not put there.

The fact that you cannot see how invalid this argument is perplexes me. 2 + 2 = 4 was true before dolphins or mice existed and will continue to be true . . .

How long the fact has been true does not make it any more or any less true. Even if it's true for only one day or one hour, still it is true, i.e., or that this was the case is true, even if the condition changes and that condition ceases to exist. Still it WAS true, and it's a fact that it was true. An empirical fact is just as true as 2 + 2 = 4, with the only difference being that the certainty of our knowledge of the empirical fact might be less. Only 99% certain rather than 100%.

But even if our certainty is less, that fact is still true as much as 2 + 2 = 4. If it really happened, then it's so, and it's true just as surely as 2 + 2 = 4.


. . . for as long as this universe persists. "Superior" is an opinion. "Equals" is a fact.

If the "opinion" is true, then it's a fact just as much as 2 + 2 = 4.


If "god" isn't the greatest porn star that ever lived then it's not the greatest at everything.

This is silly. However, the answer is simply that "god" is powerful enough that he/she/it could perform, or cause to be performed, any act which the porn star can do.

It isn't necessary that "god" actually does perform the same acts. All that's necessary is that he/she/it has the power to do those same acts.

There's no sense in saying "god" has to do all the same acts in order to be the "greatest." But "god" has the power to do it.


If it's not the greatest at everything then it's not the maximally greatest being.

Being the most powerful is what matters. Not actually doing everything, but being able to.


End of discussion.

Yes, now that you've been corrected.
 
That dolphins are superior to mice is just as true as 2 + 2 = 4.

But 2 + 2 = 4 is not a thought process we imposed onto the universe. It is a reality which we conform to. And so is the superiority of a dolphin over a mouse. If you don't recognize that the dolphin is superior to the mouse, you are just as wrong as thinking 2 + 2 = 5. It's not imposing anything onto the universe to recognize the facts that are there and which we did not put there.
The fact that you cannot see how invalid this argument is perplexes me. 2 + 2 = 4 was true before dolphins or mice existed and will continue to be true for as long as this universe persists. "Superior" is an opinion. "Equals" is a fact.

If "god" isn't the greatest porn star that ever lived then it's not the greatest at everything. If it's not the greatest at everything then it's not the maximally greatest being. End of discussion.

Additionally, you can demonstrate that 2+2=4 to show that it's accurate by taking two things and then taking two more things and showing that you now have four things.

However, the demonstration cannot disprove that 2 + 2 = 4. If somehow the demonstration ends up giving us 5 objects, that doesn't disprove that 2 + 2 = 4. If the "demonstration" ends up giving us any result other than 4, then somehow the demonstration was flawed.

So this is not a real test or proof of 2 + 2 = 4.


You don't need to just assert it without evidence and tell people that they need to agree with you because you made an assertion.

For 2 + 2 = 4 you can tell people to agree, even if there's no "demonstration."

To show that the dolphin is not superior to the mouse, you have to give an example where you would choose to protect a mouse in preference to a dolphin, i.e., would sacrifice the dolphin for the sake of the mouse.

If you cannot give an example where you would give priority to the mouse, then you are recognizing that dolphins are superior to mice. There are many hypothetical scenarios where we would protect the dolphin and sacrifice the mouse for the sake of the dolphin.

That "proves" dolphins are superior to mice. Or it's a very strong indication, and unless you can offer a case where you'd give priority to the mouse, and sacrifice the dolphin, we can only draw the conclusion that the dolphin must be superior.

I.e., its superiority is a fact, just as true as 2 + 2 = 4.
 
Smartness is one criterion for value, for judging which animals are superior and which ones inferior.

(not necessarily THE objective standard, but a major standard)

You don't think there's any value in being smarter? I just take this as self-evident that smartness has value. An ape is smarter than a squirrel, and so has more intrinsic value.
Sure, 'smartness' or intelligence has a value. However, it is just one criteria. One can hardly use just this one category. In fact humans most certainly don't just use this one criteria. If humans did, then we wouldn't eat pigs and wouldn't go ape shit when someone wants some horse steak. Instead, we eat pork chops, and pass laws protecting horses being sold for meat. If we allowed dogs to be treated like we allow pig factories to treat pigs, people would loose their minds. Yet, these animals are about the same intelligence; and one has animal cruelty laws to protect it, and the other doesn't.

How many want rats as pets over turtles? Rats are certainly smarter, but somehow far more humans seem to like turtles more.

Yes, there are other factors. The human pleasure for one kind of pet vs. another can be more important (for choosing a pet) than the smartness of the rat, or possum, or skunk, etc. The human pleasure overrides most of the other criteria, but this is only because humans are the smartest and most valuable. So ultimately smartness is a very high-priority criterion.

The smartness of the pet might be less important than just the human pleasure, which might choose a pet that's cuter or easier to care for, etc., in preference to a smart pet. But in that case it's the human smartness or superiority that decides it. So still it's the smartness that's ultimately valued.


If smartness is not a value, then why do we try to become smarter? Why do we want kids to become educated?

Of course it is of high value. That is why no one gives a fuck about ethics, cuz smartness is so valuable...:rolleyes:

Whatever this means, ethics requires that we give priority to smartness, or that we give higher priority to the smarter animal, all else being equal.

So, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, it is right (or ethically required) to give priority to the higher-value creatures over the lower-value creatures. In some cases this might require protecting a creature that has little value or attractiveness to us, like the condors which are endangered.

The higher intelligence of the condor might require that we protect it, but less so another endangered species because it's not as smart. Even if it's cuter, we still give it less protection, or let it go extinct, because it has lower value overall, being less smart.

I.e., cuteness is a criterion (e.g., for choosing a pet), but smartness is a higher criterion generally for judging the value. Particularly the intrinsic value, as opposed to the use-value for human pleasure.
 
We RECOGNIZE what has value. We DON'T CHOOSE or determine what has value, or what is HIGHER or SUPERIOR.

Some animals, especially the more intelligent, actually know that humans are superior to them. It's not just that we're humans that we think humans are superior.

Some dolphins and whales know that humans are superior. There are certain behaviors from some animals which show that they have an awareness of human superiority, especially the higher more intelligent animals.

Such as? Can you give an example of this?

Note that I am not asking you if humans or animals are inherently more valuable, and how we humans know that. What I am asking is how the animal itself knows that the human is inherently more valuable, as you have been arguing.

There are anecdotes of dolphins protecting humans in some cases. Rescuing a human or protecting a human from being attacked by sharks. http://www.afd.org.au/images-and-vi...st-friend-stories-of-dolphins-rescuing-humans
There's no indication that they do this for animals other than humans.

The way dogs respond to humans clearly shows that they have high regard for what the humans want. And in some cases they risk their lives, even sacrifice themselves, serving humans.

This doesn't mean they're thinking the thought "Humans are superior to other animals," but they have some intuition or instinct that the humans are special and should be served or protected in ways that don't apply to other animals.


If we say we value animals with whole body fur over animals without such, then ultimately it will be apparent that it is just our own preference to do so for our own benefit, . . .

But in that case it's just the higher human value, and thus the human pleasure, which takes priority.

Well, that is what drives pretty much everything we do, and determines how much or little we value everything that we interact with.

No, in some cases we protect animals which don't give us any pleasure. Our pleasure is a major factor, but we also believe animals have some intrinsic value for themselves.

We protect some endangered species which give us no pleasure, like the condors, which are ugly. Preserving habitats and other conservation measures are not done only for human pleasure. That's one motive, but we also do it out of guilt, or moral obligation to recognize that other species also have intrinsic value, regardless of any benefit we derive from them.


We try to determine how much pleasure it will give us (or how much pain we can avoid by engaging in it). We each seek satisfaction and value that as our goal, and the method used and how we actually acquire satisfaction will vary from human to human, and even animal to animal. Every organism is a little bit different, even if we have a lot in common.

But human pleasure/satisfaction is not the only aim in the way we treat animals. We recognize that they have intrinsic value separate from the pleasure or convenience we gain from them.

Laws protecting livestock animals are done for the welfare of those animals and can cause a higher cost which consumers have to pay. Obviously the motive for these laws is not human benefit, but the welfare of the animals. Much animal protection activity has nothing to do with human pleasure, but just with doing what we feel an obligation to do for their benefit.


The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

Note that it is you who is saying that, and putting those words into the mouth of the universe (so-to-speak). The universe has never uttered those words though, you are just interpreting the actions in it that way.

Again, these words are in quotes, meaning they're not to be taken literally. This was your phrase originally, not mine. I adopted it from you and assumed your meaning overlapped with my understanding.

The phrase refers to our recognition of value which is a fact of life which we did not establish. We do not give the value to the other animals, but rather, we recognize that other animals have value just as we do. Our value is greater, but those animals also have value, regardless of any benefit we gain from them. We have to respect their value, even if it means a SACRIFICE on our part in some cases.

Where does this value of other animals come from? Intrinsic value? How do we recognize it? Whether this can be answered or not, it is a fact that this value other than our benefit does exist. Virtually everyone knows it.

The only people who don't recognize this intrinsic value in other animals are generally the same people who don't recognize such value in other humans. This intrinsic value in the other beings cannot just be something we invented or chose in a subjective manner. It is a reality in the universe, like all other facts which we did not invent but which we accept or recognize.


But we also know that higher intelligence or higher thinking activity has greater value than this or that hair color. The human aesthetic satisfaction has a certain value, and the thinking-judging-believing activity is on a higher level of value.

We humans may commonly value intelligence more than hair color, but that is a value that we are assigning it ourselves, as whichever characteristic we expect to give us greater satisfaction.

No, we don't assign this value. It is a fact of life, or a reality, which we recognize. Intelligence does have greater value than hair color. We do not have any choice to deny this fact. Virtually everyone recognizes this fact of life.

To deny this, you have to give an example of someone not recognizing it and putting more value on hair color than on intelligence. Is it possible to give such an example?

If there is such a scenario, it will be a judgmental one in which you are actually condemning the one who makes this choice of putting higher value on hair color than on intelligence. It will be someone you are insulting and condemning and calling a fool. That is the only kind of example you will offer. And as such, you are saying this person is making a false choice and should be condemned for it.


The universe, or any deity inside or outside of the universe, has not declared intelligence or hair color either as being more valuable.

Nor has the universe "declared" that the sun is farther away from us than the moon. So then, it's our choice that the sun is farther from us than the moon? We made that so by deciding it, or choosing it?

Whether or not such an entity has declared it, we do know that intelligence is more valuable than hair color, just as we know other facts of life. You can't give an example of anyone saying otherwise who is not a fool in your judgment. We know this just as we know Albert Schweitzer was a more valuable human than Adolf Hitler.


It is actually you (and other humans) who are deciding that, . . .

No, not "deciding" -- RECOGNIZING this fact. Do you claim you can make Adolf Hitler to have been a better person than Albert Schweitzer by deciding it? This is just a whimsical choice any of us can make, deciding which things were good and which ones bad? We can decide that it was good for a million people to starve in a famine? We can decide that was good?


. . . and then declaring that the deity has, as sort of an attempt at making it sound more authoritative.

Whether the deity has decided it or not, it is a fact, and we recognize it.

Or if not, then there is NO SUCH THING as "value" or "good" at all, in any form, and nothing in the Universe matters, nothing in life, nothing ever matters. Which cannot be so, because if nothing mattered, then we would make no choices whatever, including the choice to post messages on this website.

If ANYTHING matters at all, then intelligence matters more than hair color. To deny this is to deny that ANYTHING at all matters. And you can't do this, because as soon as you "deny" anything, you're making a choice to do something, and you can't choose to do something unless doing it matters. Any choice you make automatically makes whatever you're choosing matter. You can't CHOOSE to do it if it doesn't matter for it to be done.


You just need to realize who is actually deciding and determining your beliefs and values that you hold.

Some "beliefs and values" are chosen by us. And in some cases these beliefs and values are wrong or false. This is when there's doubt about what is best. We often do not know what is better, or what will produce the better outcome. So we can make a mistake, or it's ambiguous, and so we try to figure it out and make a choice, because the facts are not certain, or there's doubt.

But other "beliefs and values" are dictated to us by the facts of the universe, such as the benefits of intelligence.

What we are choosing is to RECOGNIZE certain truths or facts or realities. And we can be mistaken in some cases, because we misperceive what is happening.

But we are not creating the world or choosing what is fact, nor what has value. I never had any choice to make intelligence more important than hair color. I may have thought hair color was more important when I was 2 years old -- that's not certain. At that age there can be major misperceptions.

But we all figured it out, or came to realize that intelligence was more important, without making a voluntary choice to have this be so. No one ever made a free choice to have intelligence be more important, anymore than they made a free choice to decide that Washington was the first President or that 2 + 2 = 4.

Do you remember ever choosing to make intelligence more important than hair color? Have you thought of reversing that decision and making hair color more important? Why don't you consider changing the priority and having hair color be the more important? Why do you reject even the possibility of changing this and giving the priority to hair color for a change? You could at least experiment with it and make hair color be more important.

Any choice we make to give priority to A over B can be reversed if we wish. Nothing forces us to stick with a choice, if that was really a choice we made.


It is you doing so.

Some realities are so obvious that there is no decision to recognize it, but it's just imposed onto our awareness by brute force.

But for those that are not so obvious, where the truth could be this way or that, and there are alternative possibilities we're not certain about, then we make a choice what to believe. And likewise the values. Either way, whether scientific facts and math and historical events, or value judgments: they're true or false, we know some for sure, and where we "choose" this one or that, it's because of the less certainty, not because "facts" are essentially different than the values.

And for obvious facts/values, such as the higher importance of intelligence over hair color, there is no ambiguity and no voluntary choice to make, because we know for sure that intelligence matters more than hair color.

The "values" and "beliefs" which are optional, or voluntary, are the ones where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, and so we choose, not deciding what is true or good, but guessing, and we might guess wrong.

But many of the values or beliefs are certain and are not subject to any choice by us. Pain is bad and pleasure good. Knowledge is good, new technology, conveniences, physical strength, amusement/entertainment, etc.; health is good (not being sick or deformed or disabled, etc.) -- these are definitely good -- high value recognized by everyone because there's no ambiguity.

It isn't about our deciding what has value, but RECOGNIZING the actual values that exist, just like facts exist regardless of our choosing them. For either the facts or the value judgments there can be ambiguity and uncertainty and error, but for the part that is certain there's no ambiguity or error.
 
Which species has dominion over humankind?
And vice versa?
 
First we have to decide who or what it is that determines the level of dominion any species has over another.

Or, maybe it is not species that have dominion, but rather individuals within the species.

There are no established rules of the universe that answer those sorts of questions. It is something we humans decide for ourselves (and other animals do so for themselves also) based on criteria that we deem important. We are not just following the orders of some other entity (such as a deity) and valuing whatever it tells us to value. We evaluate what it is we desire, what we value, and then we work towards obtaining those.


I will get to your post a bit later Lumpen when time permits.

Brian
 
There are anecdotes of dolphins protecting humans in some cases. Rescuing a human or protecting a human from being attacked by sharks.
A friendly gesture to a human proves the human is “superior”?

There's no indication that they do this for animals other than humans.
Maybe it's just the examples of animals being nice specifically to humans that catches human's attention.

The way dogs respond to humans clearly shows that they have high regard for what the humans want. And in some cases they risk their lives, even sacrifice themselves, serving humans.
“Serving”. You mean being friends the way that social animals are known to do sometimes.

This doesn't mean they're thinking the thought "Humans are superior to other animals,"
Then they don’t “actually know that humans are superior to them”.

but they have some intuition or instinct that the humans are special and should be served or protected in ways that don't apply to other animals.
Why are relationships turned into matters of who serves who, or who protects who, in your brain? Can’t species relate in some other way than a servant/master or lower/higher relation?

It’s a strange interpretation of relationships. It's not a description of facts about nature but a description of how you value.
 
If ANYTHING matters at all, then intelligence matters more than hair color. To deny this is to deny that ANYTHING at all matters.
No, there is no such either/or about it.

Intelligence can often (not always) confer an advantage and thus be valuable to the animal that uses intelligence to survive and maybe thrive. That doesn’t turn it into a universal value where animals that are less intelligent are less important or less valuable or in a more servile relation to other animals. That’s you trying to make your values seem universally true because you seem to need that, for whatever purpose this fact-value argument is serving.

If it's your hair color that the pretty lady liked best, it's your hair color that was valuable under the given circumstances.
 
Which species has dominion over humankind?
And vice versa?
Dominion… You want to establish whatever has sovereignty or control?

Dominance would upset the ecological homeostasis. As humans that try for dominance illustrate. Anything that dominates for a while stops soon enough.

There’s nothing like a lasting vertical hierarchy in nature, whatever hierarchies there are will cycle. Plants are eaten by herbivores and they’re eaten by predators and those are eaten by an apex predator and they’re all eaten by detrivores. If you see "dominion" in there somewhere, it's your own weird spin.

Why does anything need to be “on top”? Why does this seem important to some people?
 
A friendly gesture to a human proves the human is “superior”?
That made no sense to me either. After all humans spend a lot of expense, time, and effort housing, feeding, and providing medical attention to cats and dogs. Humans even clean the cat's litter box and pick up dog shit. Does this mean that cats and dogs are "superior" to humans?

I would think that any alien observing how humans' house pets are pampered and cared for with the pet returning little more than demands for attention could certainly think the pets were the masters and the humans little more than servants.
 
A friendly gesture to a human proves the human is “superior”?
That made no sense to me either. After all humans spend a lot of expense, time, and effort housing, feeding, and providing medical attention to cats and dogs. Humans even clean the cat's litter box and pick up dog shit. Does this mean that cats and dogs are "superior" to humans?

Also, cats do whatever the fuck they want to do regardless of humans.
 
Such as? Can you give an example of this?

Note that I am not asking you if humans or animals are inherently more valuable, and how we humans know that. What I am asking is how the animal itself knows that the human is inherently more valuable, as you have been arguing.

There are anecdotes of dolphins protecting humans in some cases. Rescuing a human or protecting a human from being attacked by sharks. http://www.afd.org.au/images-and-vi...st-friend-stories-of-dolphins-rescuing-humans
There's no indication that they do this for animals other than humans.

The way dogs respond to humans clearly shows that they have high regard for what the humans want. And in some cases they risk their lives, even sacrifice themselves, serving humans.

This doesn't mean they're thinking the thought "Humans are superior to other animals," but they have some intuition or instinct that the humans are special and should be served or protected in ways that don't apply to other animals.

Really?

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-01.html

31 August 1995, Egypt) Six people drowned Monday while trying to rescue a chicken that had fallen into a well in southern Egypt. An 18 year old farmer was the first to descend into the 60-foot well. He drowned, apparently after an undercurrent in the water pulled him down, police said his sister and two brothers, none of whom could swim well, went in one by one to help him, but also drowned. Two elderly farmers then came to help. But they apparently were pulled by the same undercurrent. The bodies of the six were later pulled out of the well in the village of Nazlat Imara, 240 miles south of Cairo. The chicken was also pulled out. It survived.

That certainly proves to me that chickens are superior to humans. :rolleyes:
 
I would think that any alien observing how humans' house pets are pampered and cared for with the pet returning little more than demands for attention could certainly think the pets were the masters and the humans little more than servants.
:D Yes good point.

In The Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan made some interesting observations of the uses plants have for humans.

It benefits the grasses to be edible, they propagate more successfully precisely by being edible. But ultimately the relationship between these plants and humans is reciprocal, it’s symbiotic. No one’s actually the boss.

Dogs can be seen in the same light. By having endearing traits they live easy lives and get to breed and breed and breed. Now THAT is intelligent, in a sense, even if not consciously intended. The main point would be that it’s a reciprocal relation. The human can bark orders and think he’s the boss, but the illusion works only because, as an egoic human, he’s too damn stupid to notice that the dog barks them too.

Theists need to drop the servant and lord “dominion” metaphor if they want to update their mythology to correlate just a little with how nature is.
 
Which species has dominion over humankind?
And vice versa?
Dominion… You want to establish whatever has sovereignty or control?

Don't you think that its an interesting abstract consideration?
By 'dominion' I don't necessarily mean total control over ever aspect of every single species.
Rather, it's the potential or the ability of Homo sapiens to dominate - if we wanted.
...and use that superior intelligence to outwit the competitive species.

...Dominance would upset the ecological homeostasis. As humans that try for dominance illustrate. Anything that dominates for a while stops soon enough.

Yes, I accept that dominance could manifest as stupidity - killing the goose that lays the golden egg - but I'm referring to dominion in the biblical sense which equally connotes stewardship. See Genesis 1:28
I would argue that no species has dominion over us in the way that we do when we;
Harness a horse, milk a cow, farm chickens for their eggs, commercially harvest honey from bees, train birds to catch fish for us, keep cats and dogs for emotional companionship... (Note that hardly any companion pets wander up and down rows of caged humans selecting which one they want to take home.)


...There’s nothing like a lasting vertical hierarchy in nature, whatever hierarchies there are will cycle. Plants are eaten by herbivores and they’re eaten by predators and those are eaten by an apex predator and they’re all eaten by detrivores. If you see "dominion" in there somewhere, it's your own weird spin.

Where on earth are living human beings the primary food source upon which another species depends for life. Detrivores? Nope. They don't have dominion - they eat leftovers.
I would argue that humans, en masse, are so qualitatively different from other species that it's not unreasonable to think we are somehow 'special'.
If you don't see hierarchy in there anywhere that's just your perspective - fair enough.
But I claim that building space shuttles and (religious) pyramids and Hadron Coliders and commercial abattoirs, sets us so far apart from any/every other species that the unbiased, objective onlooker would be entitled to think in terms of a dichotomy - 1. Humans 2. Animals

Why does anything need to be “on top”? Why does this seem important to some people

I don't see it as necessary or important. Just factual.
 
kyroot's points number 3, 4 and 5 all remind me of the Two Rules of Atheism.
Rule 1. There Is No God
Rule 2. If there is a God I hate Him.

But yet again there is no effort to intellectually engage with the theological arguments that already exist in defense of the doctrines which kyroots simply attacks and mocks dismissively.

It's more of an anti-theism rant instead of counter-apologetics.

I could respect kyroots list if there was some more of what Michel Onfray calls 'atheology'.

...hell is bad. God is a nazi dictator. Supernatural claims are unbelievable. Atheists are smarter than Christians. These are not arguments.

If I were kyroots I would be approaching it thus;

*Hell is bad because it doesn't achieve what Christian theology asserts and here's why...

*God is a nazi dictator rather than the benevolent dictator asserted by Christian theology and here's why I think that...

*Supernatural claims are unbelievable untrue and I can prove it with this counter-evidence...

*Atheists are smarter than Christians because we understand Christian doctrines thoroughly enough to dispute them...
 
kyroot's points number 3, 4 and 5 all remind me of the Two Rules of Atheism.
Rule 1. There Is No God
Rule 2. If there is a God I hate Him.

But yet again there is no effort to intellectually engage with the theological arguments that already exist in defense of the doctrines which kyroots simply attacks and mocks dismissively.

It's more of an anti-theism rant instead of counter-apologetics.

I could respect kyroots list if there was some more of what Michel Onfray calls 'atheology'.

...hell is bad. God is a nazi dictator. Supernatural claims are unbelievable. Atheists are smarter than Christians. These are not arguments.

If I were kyroots I would be approaching it thus;
You don't seem to understand what atheism is if you think your following examples apply:
*Hell is bad because it doesn't achieve what Christian theology asserts and here's why...

There is no reason to believe there is a hell so no reason to believe it is bad. The onus of showing that there is a hell is on those claiming that it is real and therefore bad.
*God is a nazi dictator rather than the benevolent dictator asserted by Christian theology and here's why I think that...
There is no reason to believe there is a god, either nazi like or benevolent. The onus is on those claiming that there is a god that is a benevolent dictator to demonstrate it is so.
*Supernatural claims are unbelievable untrue and I can prove it with this counter-evidence...
Again, there is no reason to believe that there are supernatural beings or events. The onus again falls on those who claim there are to demonstrate it.
*Atheists are smarter than Christians because we understand Christian doctrines thoroughly enough to dispute them...
Atheists are not smarter than Christians. However, very intelligent people can hold some extremely idiotic (or baseless) beliefs. Example: Isaac Newton, other than being one of the world's greatest thinkers, also was a devout Christian, an alchemist, and held a few other idiotic (or baseless) beliefs. Meanwhile, another of the world's greatest thinkers, Albert Einstein, was an atheist.
 
Obviously there's no point quibbling about specific Christian doctrines if you aren't even willing to grant certain things as theoretically plausible just for the sake of the argument.

There's no point debating Christian Particularism if your starting point is that God and the afterlife is non-existent.

In fact it comes across as disingenuousness to feign interest in debate then, (when the going gets tough,) knocking over the chess pieces with a hand wave claim that...oh yeah! Well there's no hell, no God anyway so there!
 
Back
Top Bottom