Jump to content

s0teric

Crusaders +
  • Posts

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by s0teric

  1. Probably so, subjectivity and whatnot. Yet I still hold that there is an element of blind faith at the core of religion. As I'm sure you'll agree (as you seem to be well-educated), apologetics can't actually prove a deity exists (albeit, one can't prove he does not either), so all religion (and belief, really) comes down to a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith."

    Let's not forget evidence. Not a blind faith.

    That may not appear, at a basic level, to be any different between my atheism and your theism, except when you add additional information and conditions. Once a leap is made to Christianity (for example. As being a theist alone is rarely considered adequate, rather, one must further specialize.), a leap is made to a certain train of thought that must then be justified. Christianity holds certain standards, a list of characteristics so to speak, and if one does not meet those criteria, it is sinful or wrong or contradictory to the point of collapse. By nature, categorizing yourself as a Christian demands that you cannot question certain things, or you become something else entirely. Atheism, on the other hand, holds no such criteria, except that you do not believe in a deity, hence you are free to question in much broader terms. The same could be achieved as a simple theist, but, as I said before, that is hardly ever considered satisfactory.

    Yes so you believe atheism is more convenient. However, some misconceptions: 1) you can question anything, my thought is not limited by my religion. I question everything and I do just fine. 2) You are never beyond grace there is not a point when sin causes a collapse. It is simply conceived that if you have truly believed it will be reflected in your actions.

    I simply see inconsistencies in atheism that I have yet to hear addressed. it seems you feel the same way about Christianity.

    Which is why we look for evidence, and considering his secrecy, that evidence would be philosophical in nature. Apart from Berkley, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation. Assuming Berkley, there are still certain inconsistencies that I do not prefer.

    I'd like to hear the inconsistencies, that way I can address them. As far as evidence goes, take a look at any given object and ask your self where did that come from until you're at the first protein. Then ask yourself where that came from. God is the only means by which you can rationalize your own existence, philosophically, and physically. He rationalizes his own existence by his character in each respect.

    First, I'd like to note that my use of the term "gamble" was merely an allusion to the point at which all logic breaks down and that we can only be so certain of anything. So as to say, I accept that my atheism could be wrong, but that I more readily accept the conditions of atheism over theism.

    This is Dawkins' anti pascal wager lived out. Yes, you do touch Dawkins on the subject, sorry to say. That's exactly what his hypothesis is.

    As for Pascal's wager, I wouldn't touch Dawkins on the subject, but I would bring up the wrong hell problem (assuming theism is safest, which theism? Christianity, Muslim, Fertility Cults, which one is safest?). Pascal seems to usher in a bigger problem in that placing faith in the wager is still a possible losing position. Atheism, however, could seem reckless in this case, as I'm denying even a small chance. For this, I'd simply have to cite my relative certitude that theism in all cases is false, and the wager doesn't matter (the side of the atheist). Also, I think it is noteworthy (and I think you alluded to it) that following religion without true belief is seldom considered appropriate. To take Pascal up on his wager, for only that reason, would probably be considered a sham by most organized religion.

    Dawkins has touched all of this. Sorry, he beat you to the punch, lol. Wrong hell theory is laziness and falls under the category of what Dawkins' anti pascal wager is. The fundamental reason this theory was created was so that one could justify living however one wants with an idk. If someone came up to you at the store and threatened to kidnap your daughter, saying he knows where you live, what you do, and can track you, you wouldn't just give up and say idk that guy could be anyone. No you'd look for that guy, and you'd do so based on evidence. The true god is distinguished by evidence. When gambling with one's own eternity an idk is a pretty bad move. And I agree with your last point, one can only feign belief when living in the fear of hell. Which is why I stated this is merely a tool to show the inconsistency in atheistic thought. Which is that if one lives by the principal of survival of the fittest, one is left choosing Christianity.

    I assume you're probably asking for Christian examples, as you probably could provide a few for other religions (if not, I'll find some for you). Contradictions, for me, might be more scientific, such as creation vs, well, science (I know I'm probably going to take flak for this), or it might be specific to the Bible (speaking of which, the order of creation in seperate accounts contradicts itself, as do the gospels, which notable place events at different times or with different people).

    Don't believe science contradicts Christianity. I want specific examples. The order of creation? In genesis and where else?

    Then, of course, philosophically, problems of pain, decay, sin, etc. seem to stack up and throw God's sovereignty into question. Just a few, and I'm sure there is some form of refutation for all of them, but I don't find many of them satisfactory.

    All of these things are simply that which is outside of God's character. However, in order that God might be most glorified, which is the end for which he created, he was to display all of his attributes. Perfect healing cannot be displayed without pain, for example. However, he is also perfectly just, which is displayed in the existence of hell.

    I don't believe in miracles, no. Miracles (or, at least, my definition thereof) are magical acts performed by a divine that defy science, and, as far as I'm aware, none have happened. What are considered miracles often either have scientific or coincidental explanations, or are completely undocumented. As for Jesus' miracles, they aren't very well documented or explained, and most were written about for years after their alleged performance. Three uneducated men who were loyal to the point of death are not what I'd consider credible. I say three, as, of course, Luke was educated, though still with shaky credibility. Further, one report is hardly enough for me to endorse.

    Well, I define miracles is that which is inconceivable to humans. Doesn't mean they're inexplicable. As for the credibility, if these men were ever dishonest, eye witnesses could have stood up and revealed them as fakes. However, this never happened. What about Paul? he endorsed everything in the gospel accounts, and authored the most advanced Greek and Logic of the time period, and I believe in history. Surely this eyewitness who was obviously educated would have corrected any error on their part.

    I never said I knew that, only that I found that to be the more believable conclusion.

    Well let's re-examine the evidence together :)

    The way that Gilgamesh revealed himself was a book too, why should I take one book over another? Claims of existence don't equal existence. Perhaps a purely logical book would be inconsistent in some way, but I've yet to find a book so credible as to allow it to defy logic.

    To answer your question though, yes, it probably would be simpler, but so is believe in fertility gods. Baal only asked that I screw prostitutes silly every winter and I never had to read anything. Simpler is better, right?

    I was saying that in your efforts to verify that God does not exist, point out inconsistencies in scripture and we'll address them. Idk what you're talking about here. Yes I agree claims of existence don't equal existence, let's look at some evidence. I don't understand the last line of the 1st paragraph there, please enlighten.

    I've provided some of what I consider inconsistent, but I doubt you'd find them "inexplicable." I, too, could explain things away to ease my concerns, but it's far more credible to consider what the text (whatever form it may take) says rather than what I reason it to say.

    Okay... let's look at some text. Whenever you're ready, quote some.

    See, in my experience, when somebody asks this, it's generally a trap. Not to say you're being sneaky or anything, but demands like "proof you exist" are generally designed to to avoid answering certain questions. Further, I find it kind of unsporting since I never asked you to do such a thing.

    However, I make it a point to never run from a question. My answer: I don't have to answer. I'm an atheist, and an empiricist. I believe that reality is what it is. I don't necessarily know what that is, but I assume it is because I can assume (cogito ergo sum in a way). I can't perfectly prove to you that I exist, but I don't have to, because, just like I'm assuming you exist (as proven by my writing this long note), you assume I exist (hence your note). Simply put, I don't need to prove something we both agree on (and to deny that you agree would be a very cowardly and desperate tactic). We could argue solipsism, but, again, neither of us truly believe that (besides, this whole exercise would have been in vain, and then it really wouldn't matter). Truthfully, my worldview doesn't require that I understand everything, only that I seek answers.

    adressed this in the other thread. But stop assuming you exist. You can not have a scientific method based on assumptions, it defeats the purpose of a scientific method. So your existence comes into question too, like it or not.

    Now, since I answered your questions, please answer mine. How do you explain your deity's existence? Can you prove he exists? What reason do you have for making this blind leap of faith? Notice, unlike my existence, God's existence (especially a specific God's existence) is not an agreed upon term and therefore subject to question.

    As to the existence of God it is based on evidence. Christianity is the only system by which you can rationalize your own existence, not to mention the overwhelming physical evidence. I've not heard one atheist describe how matter came to be to me in a way that they could remain consistent with their beliefs.

    Because of the characteristics of the Biblical God, he rationalizes his own existence. That is to say, an infinite, unchanging, eternal god, will always be and has always been that. Therefore, what I'm saying could probably be summarized in this quote by CS Louis. "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

    P.S. Thank you very much for the good discussion. It's been months since I've really had to sit down for one of these.

    Thank you very much, that means I am accomplishing my only goal, which is to get people to think. You have been a very polite and concise debater as well :)

    P.S. Longest post ever. I deserve some brownie points. You deserve brownie points if you read the whole thing.

  2. This story it holds meaning to plenty people who may be having a hard time realizing what life mandates of them, but I dont believe you should go through life not suffering over anything, because if you dont suffer then how will you be proud of living a human life?

    which story?

  3. I'm going to skip the diatribe and just quote and respond to a few of the things that raised my interest, because I think the topic of existence is boring (nobody ever really says anything) and, to be honest, this question is kind of pointless. If you're debating someone it's obvious that you believe they exist, making it an agreed upon term, and therefore vain to argue about. Also, I almost always see this question pop up from apologists either trying to avoid questions or start their discourse (and the occasional philosophy newbie, but more often apologists).

    It's to point out that you have no basis for knowledge and atheists have no basis for establishing knowledge, while the Christian does. The Christian's existence is rationalized by God who rationalizes himself in his character. Only upon the God of the Bible can you base anything and know things for sure. So this isn't pointless it points out an inconsistency which you have not been successfully able to address.

    Please define "mental self" and "mind" for me, I'm not entirely sure how they are different, just that "mental self" is a personalized view of mind. As mentioned earlier, Descartes seemed perfectly satisfied that action (in his case thinking) implied that there was an actor and I generally agree (though Cogito is technically a circular argument). So I submit, can running take place without a runner? If not, then we can infer that, since I think, I exist (and that as far as we can really go with the issue). It should, of course, be noted that that actor may be a separate piece of a much larger whole (like a partition on a harddrive), as Berkley suggested.

    I simply mean that the statement I think therefore I am is impossible because it assumes you are there to think. You cannot know you are thinkingif you are part of some massive illusion. Hence, no basis for knowledge. Which you seem to agree with up until the point of the partition thing. Can you enlighten me to what you mean by this. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with Berkley.

    I have to ask: Why? Why wouldn't such an argument matter? That's like saying my heart won't beat if I don't know it's there, or that you don't believe in a table unless you've met the carpenter. If something is indiscriminately true, it doesn't matter where it came from, just that it's true. So why should an argument have to be traced to a point of origin? I don't mean to be overly simplistic, it just seems to be a moot point.

    Already explained that it simply points out an inconsistency.

    Now, please note, that while Descartes claims that the process of thinking and its mind of origin have an inherent connection, this cannot be said for an argument and it's mind, because each exist independent of one another (example, the Bible exists while it's authors are dead). The process of thinking is intrinsically a dependent process, while an argument is an object in and of itself.

    what do you mean by argument? And I don't see how you can believe one is dependent and one is independent. Obviously those arguments were conceived at one point. So couldn't the same thing be said for thoughts, then? That one is left to discover the object, which is thought the same way one discovers an argument. That is, if I'm getting what you're saying right, sorry if I'm not.

  4. I became an atheist after a life time of questioning. Primarily I'm an atheist because I'm naturally very inquisitive, so the blind or semi-blind faith of religion never really suited me.

    You and I obviously aren't thinking of the same Christianity

    Philosophically, I relent that technically all belief is a gamble, but I don't feel (in both an emotional and intellectual sense) a necessity for God to exist, so I opt for atheism over theism.

    God's existence does not hinge on your choosing if he exists. Well if you look at it from an atheistic perspective, Pascal's wager defeats the atheistic line of thinking. That is to say, if your "gamble" involves you choosing between the atheistic worldview, by which you have nothing to gain by and everything to lose upon death, or the christian worldview, by which you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Most atheists would agree since humans are too bound by the theory of survival of the fittest, one is left to look out for his own best interests. In this case, the obviously best choice is the one with least pain. So even if you look at the gamble from an atheistic perspective you are left to choose Christianity. However, I say this repeatedly, this is not a motivational means to choosing Christianity. This is simply to show that the atheistic line of thinking breaks down in regard to its own worldview. Now I don't know if you've heard of Dawkins' anti pascal wager, but I'll quote myself from a separate thread.

    Finally, Dawkins introduces his superior Anti-Pascal Wager which claims that one can live a better life assuming God doesn’t exist than if one assumes He does. A refutation of that argument would go something like, if one seeks a better life, he should avoid suffering of any kind. If ultimate suffering is waiting for him after his life, it is to his benefit to believe, as if one truly chooses the most beneficial action, then it is impossible to wind up with the worst form of suffering. Therefore, the most beneficial action is to believe in God, contrary to what Dawkins states. This is, by the way, a simple restatement of Pascal’s Wager.

    While I can't exclude theism from the real of possibilities, I would exclude most religious views of theism as they tend to bear certain contradictions (that of course could exist, but rarely benevolently).

    examples?

    I also tend to believe against theism based on alternative explanation. What I mean by this is kind of how religion will explain something as a miracle and science will explain it in a different way.

    I don't believe this either.. You don't believe Jesus's miracles were scientifically explicable?

    Theists tend to necessitate an expected god's existence (for example, Descartes' perfect being or Kant's ethical argument). They will paint a picture that a god exists because they are evidenced in humanity (for a vastly abbreviated example, Descartes claimed that because we can conceive perfection, it must exist). What I mean by "expected" is that humans have a concept of god, and then explain his existence. An alternative explanation for this "expectation" might be that there is no god, but our expectation is, as Feuerbach explains, an outward projection of man's attributes (man loves, god loves infinitely) or Marx's view that god is a wish for a better life so that one can cope with this life. I find these alternate explanations are often more satisfactory to me (of course, mileage may very).

    How do you know it is merely a concept of God, and not an existence of God reflected in man? Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the source by which that god reveals himself (ie the Bible) would be inconsistent if it were simply human arguments. However, ive yet to find one inexplicable inconsistency. And all archeological and textual evidence supports its accuracy and it's consistency and arguments support its validity.

    Tell me, how do you explain your own existence if there is no god. Can you convince me you exist? What reason do you have for making this blind leap of faith?

  5. Science does not need faith for it to work...that is the fundamental difference between faith and science.

    Ah but it does. You assume that we exist. That there is such a thing that you can empirically test. Can you prove to me that you exist?

    You say that we have to have faith that gravity exists but unfortunatly without these laws of physics the computer you typed that comment with wouldnt work...niether would the building you live in or any other man made object of complexity. Also please note that there is a HUGE difference between laws and theories. The Laws of Physics have been refined over centuries and stand as laws until something breaks them, which doesnt happen often. Theories, like the Atomic Theory, are exactly what the name suggests...theories. A theory hasnt been irrefutably proven, yet hasnt been completely disproved. The only thing in that paragraph that made sense is that our planet's net intelligence doesnt compare to the vastness of space...but thats the point of science, to expand that understanding. (btw a trillion doesnt exist...XD)

    none of this is relevant if you don't exist

    Unfortunatly in my opinion religion is just a way of chaining people down...

    a fan of Nietzsche, I see

    although some arent, Buddhism being an example. I have seen to many people suffer, too much pain been caused, for me to ever believe that there is or ever was an onmipresent being watching over us...complete and utter bulls**t in my opinion. Religion is bred from ignorance, or at least it originally was, just a convinent way to explain why the rain came, or why the crops died. I personally believe that deity based religions have NO place in the modern world, and that colletively they have probably been the root of most suffering in the world.

    If we could take these conversations to my respective threads that would be great

    pain - http://forums.kametsu.com/showthread.php?t=17829

    rationalizing your own existence - http://forums.kametsu.com/showthread.php?t=9742

    I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but my opinions wont and cant change

    Unfortunately, this is probably true. Even if I give you evidence that science is based upon faith and that pain is not contradictory but beneficiary to illustrating the existence of a god, you would not change your mind solely based upon reason. I cannot nor will I ever stop you from living the way you want to.

    everyone's right

    What do you mean by this?

  6. So what you are saying that unless you have a view that there is nothing and if you do not you are not mentally sound? That is hilarious but i guess i would expect nothing more from this topic so i guess I will give you my best answer and hopefully not feed your need to try and take low blow that you know nothing about.
  7. Many say that there couldn't possibly be a god because of the existence of pain. Or if such a god existed that allowed pain he would be cruel/uncaring if he allowed such events to occur. However, why is pain considered to be a deterrent to believing in god? I believe the common misperception resides in the nature of God. What are your thoughts?

  8. Well your here. What did you come to this website for the ethical conversations you would have in the mako reactor? Unlikely. You came for the free anime downloads. What do you think of piracy and how do you justify it? Or do you? Or is there anything to justify? Share your thoughts.

  9. Hey i love gays. I think the practice is unethical but that's another matter entirely. As for gay rights, since I believe it is unethical I won't condone it, but that has nothing to do whether I like them as a person. My best friend could be stealing things and I could be like hey stop that, but that doesn't mean he's not my best friend. Those people from whatever church it is in California are entirely misrepresentative of organized religion. Honestly, I think in some churches the pastor just opens up a Bible, points, and reads a random verse out of context... lol. So I'm gonna say not for gay rights but I wanted to make clear your sexual persuasion has nothing to do with your intrinsic value as a human being. I think Christians need to focus on practicing homesexuals (about 2% of the population) less and more on things like internet piracy. Whoops dropped a bomb.

    <---------------- guilty (check out the uploader tag :o)

    starting a separate thread for this

  10. I am starting this thread, based on a useful suggestion from the community. This thread is to be devoted to help develop video editing techniques for all who wish to increase their skill in this area. This is not locked to one editor or style, so if anyone has any questions about video editing, be sure to ask them here. Collaborating on videos and such is encouraged. One question I have is does anyone have any experience with special effects in Sony Vegas? This is not an area I'm very experienced in and I'd like to see it done right.

  11. Sound's fun... is there a section where you can um? Give video editing tips and receive tips yourself? I'm interested in improving my current skills and learning from others, just as teaching others. Meh, something like that... I am Irish's friend.. pleasure to meet you. ^_^

    Edit 1: I guess the best way to describe it, a video editors section.. like.. post up your knowledge of Sony Vegas, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Premiere etc..

    There's only so much advice you can give each other via forum, so I don't know if it would be worth devoting an entire section of the website to it. It could probably be started under the otaku releases here, though. I can start a thread shortly.

  12. If dead is the end, my life wont change. I dont believe in an afterlife so why form my life any different then how I want to live it? Why spend my only life being unhappy? Exactly.

    If there is an afterlife with a negative consequence, say, a hell, wouldn't the path of most pleasure be to avoid eternal consequence for, say, 90 years of "happiness" (optimistically). If you really choose the most beneficial path for yourself in life, then it is to avoid pain and participate in the most pleasure. To put it in perspective, if you are attracted to someone physically why don't you just rape them every time you see them. That would be the path of most pleasure. However, you fear the negative consequence so you do not rape them. So why would you risk a life of 90 years of "happiness" for the consequence of an eternity of suffering more than anything you have imagined? In order to be consistent, your decision would be to avoid the latter.

    I feel like the "afterlife" or "heaven" just isn't what it sometimes hyped up to be if it exsist.

    What makes you believe that?

    If death was the end it would make no difference to me. I live my life simply the way it is. But if something is out of line I change it. I believe in morals and to do whats right. I do not cater to society I am who I am and nothing will change that. If death was the end I still would die for those I love and are important to me. It would only make it all the more important to take that bullet.

    I've lived my life so far without believing in a god or an afterlife because i simply do not need to. What ever happens in the end there is no way to change it. Praying on an afterlife will make no difference on the outcome we will all face together.

    Where do you get your morals? What makes what you believe right? For argument's sake I believe something completely different. If you do not conform and I do not conform we fight. On a large scale the world turns into chaos and morals have been smashed to pieces altogether.

    If death is the end why would it matter if you kept those morals? Wouldn't you have more pleasure by simply doing whatever you want?

    What if things on this earth had a bearing on the afterlife? Wouldn't be in your best interests to secure eternity? And you don't need to? If there is a chance of eternal suffering otherwise wouldn't that provide as sufficient reason to constitute "need"?

  13. HD and if I can't find an HD version I thrash around in a hissy fit for several days and find all the encodes of it online and compare. However, lately I've just been getting the untouched dvds from asiandvdclub. Then I don't have to worry if an encoder did well or not.

  14. does this encompass metalcore? If so,

    Memphis May Fire

    Oh Sleeper

    August Burns Red

    Bullet for My Valentine

    War of Ages

    much different than previously posted music. Difference - there's actually screaming. Although SOAD is one of my favorite bands of all time, I would not classify them as metal.

  15. Would you agree that you support a theory akin to the slave mentality proposed by Nietzsche, danester? That being that when faced with chasm of nothingness at their death, a christian will step into the slave mentality that binds the masses. But those who are of sound mind embrace and jump into that abyss. Is this, then, a theory that you support? Is this why you chose Christianity Chaos?

  16. Had to write a paper a while back on a book of my choice, so I chose the God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. I wanted to see if you all think I am sane when refuting Dawkins's arguments. I aptly entitled it "The Ramblings of a Deluded Mind". I deal wi th the first couple hundred pages of the book in this essay, addressing the main thrusts of his arguments against Christianity, and his arguments for natural selection as its replacement. This was a paper for an ethics class, with specific questions that I was required to answer. Simply keep that in mind when reading, say, the conclusion. Here you are, then.

    The Ramblings of a Deluded Mind

    When reading the back cover of the book “The God Delusion”, one finds a hint of truth, of which one cannot find within its pages. The back cover reads, “In the roiling debate between science and religion, it would be hard to exaggerate the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins.” From this quote one can conclude two things. The first is that people believe that science and religion are discordant. The second conclusion is that Richard Dawkins is a very influential person. The latter is evident, as it is a New York Times Bestseller. Therefore, many people must have read his work. However, Dawkins’ supposed “refutation” of God leaves much room for thought. As one digests the theories that Dawkins puts forth for his standpoint, questions must be asked and considered in order to come to a conclusion about his theses.

    The goal of this book is to steer people away from religion and toward hardcore atheism, in the matter of a couple hundred pages. In the first couple chapters of Dawkin’s book, he puts words in the mouths of dead people, explains how all of the founding fathers were Deists, and refutes a separate coexistence of science and religion (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). During these two chapters there is much name calling and very little evidence. If he provides examples, they are so obscure and misrepresentative, that they are not worth mentioning. However, when one reaches the third chapter he begins his refutation of the existence of God, which is the dilemma Dawkins attempt to address. He starts with arguments for God’s existence. The most notable of these arguments are Aquinas’ Proofs, arguments from scripture, and Pascal’s Wager.

    First there are Aquinas’ Proofs. This set of proofs rely on the idea of an infinite regress. The argument states that there needs to be a mover in order for a thing to move. This would lead us to ask the question, “Who moved that mover?” Dawkins seizes this opportunity and applies it to God. He says that God is subject to this same logic and goes on to quote Karen Owens who says, “Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?” He continues to state that if one is to conjure up an end to an infinite regress, why give it such attributes as omnipotence? However, what Dawkins fails to realize, is that God legitimizes his own existence through his attributes. If He is an eternal, infinite, omnipotent God, then He has always existed. If such a God is all knowing and has always existed, He will not change his future mind, as he is not bound by time. He created it. Even if He were bound by time, being all knowing he would consistently choose that which is within his own character, that being perfection. In that sense, God’s character legitimizes His own existence, while His existence defines His character. As a result, God is not subject to this infinite regress, as he circularly legitimizes His own existence.

    The second argument that Dawkins attempts to refute is the argument from scripture. The specific aspect Dawkins is arguing against is the legitimacy of Jesus and his Deity. He references C.S. Lewis’s trilemma, which says that based on Jesus’s life, he must have been either a lunatic, a liar, or Lord. However, Dawkins attempts to throw the Bible’s accuracy into question, in an attempt to deconstruct this argument. He claims that our four gospels were written long after the events actually took place. He makes this claim without a scrap of evidence to support it. He also makes the claim that the Bible was copied and recopied by biased and fallible scribes. These arguments can simply be refuted through archeological evidence. Copies of the Gospels were discovered within 50 years of the time of their origin. Moreover, several thousand have been discovered within 100 years of their writing, all containing only minor wording differences. If this is the case, then if changes had been made, they could be refuted by eyewitnesses, or those with the original copy. Also, based on the history of Jewish societies, Jewish scribes copied with such scrutiny that if an error was made, they would rewrite as much as several pages. This was because these lines had touched the error, and to remove it they rewrote large amounts of text to ensure its accuracy. Lastly, based on evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have evidence, not previously available, that confirms the accuracy of books dating back to 700 B.C. The book of Isaiah was found and is considered to be one of the first copies and is almost an exact replica of what Christians have today. This only further illustrates that Jewish scribes were, indeed, not biased, but extremely scrutinous.

    The last argument Dawkins attempts to refute is Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager states that the atheist has everything to lose if he is wrong and nothing to gain if he is right. The inverse is true for the Christian. Dawkins’s conception of this argument is that he merely sees it as a bet. However, it is more than that. It is a tool to point out inconsistencies in the atheist’s worldview. As a result of this misconception he continues to say that if one follows this argument one can only ever feign belief in God. This is true, as one is only believing in God out of self preservation. He also raises the question why is it that one has to believe in Him, as opposed to some other act. Next, he postulates that if there are multiple gods, wouldn’t it be safer to assume no god rather than choose the wrong god? Finally, Dawkins introduces his superior Anti-Pascal Wager which claims that one can live a better life assuming God doesn’t exist than if one assumes He does. First, if God exists, one should believe because he instructs us to. He has done so in the Bible. As to Dawkin’s second argument, it is based on conviction as well as discretion. I believe conviction and evidence are what causes us to choose a god. Conviction being the dominant factor, reason only demonstrates the lucidity of that conviction. Even so, if that god has not made his desires known, that one may please him, his judgment is inevitable. This is assuming the god wants something and he is capable and exercises his judgment. Therefore, choosing a god based on conviction and evidence is all one can do. Lastly, Dawkins’s Anti-Pascal Wager displays Dawkins’s inability to answer the question. A refutation of that argument would go something like, if one seeks a better life, he should avoid suffering of any kind. If ultimate suffering is waiting for him after his life, it is to his benefit to believe, as if one truly chooses the most beneficial action, then it is impossible to wind up with the worst form of suffering. Therefore, the most beneficial action is to believe in God, contrary to what Dawkins states. This is, by the way, a simple restatement of Pascal’s Wager.

    In addition to refuting the Christian’s arguments, Dawkins attempts to give evidence for his own viewpoints. Much of his evidence hinges on one principle. That principle states that the more complex something is, the more unlikely that it exists. Since God is infinitely complex he would be infinitely unlikely, based on this principle. However, as was stated earlier, God can’t be unlikely. He legitimizes his own existence, so either he exists or he doesn’t. From this point one is only left to judge by the evidence. Since, this was practically the only thing Darwin established to prove the unlikelihood of Christianity, the odds shift heavily in favor of Christianity. This is illustrated by Dawkins himself when he quotes the 747 argument. This is an argument developed by a Christian scientist named Fred Hoyle who measured the statistical likelihood of evolution. He equates evolution to a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747 passenger plane. This, however, doesn’t even do the argument justice, as it assumes there are materials to work with, which an atheist cannot assume such a thing. Dawkins also puts forth the notion that natural selection is not a matter of chance. Natural selection, being the means that humans evolved. He actually gives no evidence that it is a guided process. He merely expresses his opinions on how he believes it is the only logical conclusion. These are Dawkins’s arguments for his own viewpoints.

    Through this book Dawkins changes many lives. This simple fact is concerning, as there is much one can question in his thinking. Taking the time simply to simply think over his propositions may reveal his inconsistencies. The book is for anyone and everyone who is seeking truth, and it unfortunately gives some a false truth. The book is beneficial for those mature enough, in their faith and reasoning, to have good reason not to side with Dawkins. This is because Dawkins puts forth arguments that requires knowledge of Christian doctrine to refute. A certain familiarity of scripture and maturity are required to read this book and benefit from it. This book would not be beneficial to someone having doubts about the legitimacy of Christianity, as it may supplement them. This could sway them to make a decision without properly thinking it over and abandon their only source of truth and life. This book gives a good overview of what an atheist believes and their views on Christianity. If one is to minister to an atheist, this book is beneficial to understand their point of view. That is the context in which this book should be read.

  17. can anyone help me i'm try download wend XP total Secuirity came up now it stop me use the internet or add & Delete programs any help to turn it off thx

    Sounds like a virus. If the program pops up again simply open up windows task manager find the message running in the application window, right click on it, hit got to process and end the process. You can use this method to stop most viruses that are program driven and have to be run. You should also get a good antivirus program such as AVG and especially if the problem persists.

  18. found this in a forum

    "Joining/saving the video and audio (without setting adjustments) in mkvmerge and playing it back in Media Player Classic or VLC, you can gauge the delay by either pressing the + or - keys on the keypad (in MPC) or Ctrl l or Ctrl k (VLC).

    If you can get a setting that synchronizes the A/V, then note it and use that factor in the 'Delay' setting of mkvmerge - see if it works."

    so there should be a delay setiing in mkvmerge that you can use to sync up the audio

  19. i downloaded canopus procoder 2 but it doesnt read mkv files,is this the encoder u were talking about?

    yes you should first extract the video from the mkv container with mkvtoolnix also see if you can't add the audio back in through procoder, otherwise you can find a program to remux the audio back in

×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In