5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[TLK Valentine]

You are incapable of grasping all the relevant knowledge, which makes you incapable of judging God's actions.

I take it you consider yourself fully capable, then?

 

[mathetes123]

I take it you consider yourself fully capable, then?

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Poring over goat entrails helps, I find.

 

[Coelo]

Atheists common sense is base on literacy, education, respect for human rights and empathy toward other human beings and what is thought to be fair and just.

If you hook up a cat scan you will find that people who are a part of an organized religion have more empathy. Also respect for human rights is humanism, not atheism. Atheism is as the name imply s, a disregard or lack of belief in theism.

 

[BarryDesborough]

If you hook up a cat scan you will find that people who are a part of an organized religion have more empathy. Also respect for human rights is humanism, not atheism. Atheism is as the name imply s, a disregard or lack of belief in theism.

Not confusing atheism and autism, are you?

 

[Belk]

You are incapable of grasping all the relevant knowledge, which makes you incapable of judging God's actions.

So your claim that nobody has the morality or intellect to judge God's actions was incorrect?

 

[KWCrazy]

I take it you consider yourself fully capable, then?

Do you see me trying to pass judgment on God???

 

[KWCrazy]

So your claim that nobody has the morality or intellect to judge God's actions was incorrect?

Your comprehension skills are lacking. Nobody has the morality to judge God, especially not an atheist who supposedly doesn't believe He exists anyway.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

I take it you consider yourself fully capable, then?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you see me trying to pass judgment on God???

Yes, I do -- you approve of His actions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your comprehension skills are lacking. Nobody has the morality to judge God, especially not an atheist who supposedly doesn't believe He exists anyway.

I would think not believing He exists would be an advantage -- their judgement is not clouded by fear of the consequences.

 

[In situ]

That would make logical sense as one must have values in the first place to be subject to an accusation of hypocricy.

First of all, this has nothing to do with being subject of accusation as you claim it to be, but a consequence of it own inconsistent position in regard to the actual reality we live in. I will explain this at the end. But lets first bring up another point:

You seams, in a concealed way, try to suggest that a person that admits he has subjective moral values somehow would change their moral values as often they change underwear, or have them changed in the direction the wind currently blows, but that is evidently and obvious a falsehood.

Subjective moral values can be just as fixed and dogmatic as claimed universal moral values - just lock at any political doctrines to have this confirmed. However, a person that acknowledge his or hers moral values are subjective will as a consequence not claim them to be universal valid for everyone (this standpoint is known as respect toward other peoples viewpoint - something a fundamentalist often lacks or have problem with maintaining).

Subjective moral values may change over time if convinced by sound arguments or facts and evidence about our objective shared reality. However, dogmatic, asserted universal, moral values never change even if contradicted by facts and reality. This is why the idea of absolute objective and universal moral values is an idea that is doomed to fail on its own premisses. For example it has been show that homosexuality in many, if not most, cases is genetically determined but has this ever change any Christian or Islamic fundamentalists opinion about their god's will and purposes with human sexuality?

Secondly, the reason why I wrote what I did is not because of the reason you stated, but for the simple fact that one of the corner stones in religion is controlling human behavior, drifts and instinct. In doing so, i.e. when going against our essence and nature, it is doomed to fail in the majority of cases and leads to a cognitive conflict within the individuals which might, and not uncommonly with fundamentalist, be resolved as a phobia and/or hatred towards the urge the person tries to deny, suppress or fear within them self.

The point is that a person with subjective moral values does not need to feel the same cognitive dissonance as a person with a dogmatic moral value system simple because of the fact they are free to change their moral values if it cause to much cognitive load, i.e. if their value system is in to strong conflict with reality then they can opt to either change their value system or simply deny a conflict exists. One example of such denial is homophobia. Homophobia has been show to have as a strong positive correlation to latent homosexual desires (as being concealed, suppressed or denied by the person); the more homophobic opinion a person expressed the more latent, non-conscious, homosexual desires the person have.

However this is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when one preach one things but doing another. A homophobic with subjective moral that discovers he is homosexual are free to change his moral values about homosexuality and can release the cognitive tension it creates this way, a fundamentalist however with a dogmatic moral sits in a different boat and cannot resolve the problem as easy and on the surface appears a homophobic but may conceal his or her real behavior for others, hence, becoming a hypocrite.

Because of this reason hypocrisy is more likely to appear among people with dogmatic moral values - i.e. it is inherent in the system of dogmatic believes to cause hypocrisy when the reality of subjective moral values and facts flies in the face of the fundamentalists...

Hence, hypocrisy with people with dogmatic believes is a consequence of its own inconsistent position in regard to the actual, and factual, reality they live in.

 

[In situ]

Your comprehension skills are lacking. Nobody has the morality to judge God, especially not an atheist who supposedly doesn't believe He exists anyway.

Superiority attitude detected....

 

[In situ]

Do you see me trying to pass judgment on God???

All the time my friend, all the time; you speak as your words was Gods own words, hence judging God to be in certain way and not in other ways....

Now what did the Bible says about people that "have not spoken of me the thing that is right?"

(You may like to check Job's book chapter 42 for this; It makes your God pretty upset, doesn't it? So if I were in your shoes I would start to be a bit more careful, thoughtful and considerate when it comes to speak about who God is, what God wants, what Gods plans are and how God will judge other people - just a small advice, that is, if you now actually do believe that Hell exists and your "loving" God have no problem or remorse with sending people to it).

 

[In situ]

I would think not believing He exists would be an advantage -- their judgement is not clouded by fear of the consequences.

No, such people are simply to stupid to understand those things, according to KWCrazy. The reason claimed for this is that one must first believe to understand, then one can understand. This kind of circular reasoning makes perfect sense - that is, if you only first believe it does so...

 

[In situ]

If you hook up a cat scan you will find that people who are a part of an organized religion have more empathy.

Have more empathy than/to what? (And your source for your claim is?)

Btw, you are not referring to empathic people in highly organized religious activities like the Crusades and the Inquisition are you?

I mean in the first crusade the empathic Christians crusaders was eating the flesh of their enemies. Not to mention the very empathic Richard the Lion Heart who slaughtered 3000 unarmed prisoners in front of Saladin's army outside Acre in the third crusade....

Also respect for human rights is humanism, not atheism.

And the point you want to make with this statement is?

Atheism is as the name imply s, a disregard or lack of belief in theism.

Your are clearly confused about what atheism mean; you are obviously confusing certain atheists attitudes to theism with atheism itself...

(Nothing prevents an atheist to be spiritual or believe in a metaphysical existences. The difference between a Christian and atheist is that the atheist reject one more God - does that make Christan disrespect theism as well? The point is that it does not follow, or imply, that atheism is a disrespect or lack of belief in theism - who ever told you such nonsense?)

 

[In situ]

How many baby codfish die with each hatching? Are we not evolved codfish, according to you? How is one greater than the other? Yet, the baby codfish must die for the strength of the food chain to survive. When you can grasp the morality of a codfish, perhaps you can learn how that applies to man.

You don't like to answer question that cause cognitive dissonance within yourself, do you? It is a fact that your God of the old testimony kills babies, and this in huge numbers.... Now, stop talking about Codfishes and Red Herrings and explain, in simplistic terms to us intellectual inferior so we can understand, why your God of the old testimony had such great taste for baby blood...

 

[In situ]

It depends on what?

How much more information do you want?

Isn't that obvious?

Here -- let me simplify it for you:

Would you have ordered American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 shot down out of the sky?

YES or NO please?

Again; it depends on.... like am I allowed to be omnipotent or not, in your little question games? If I am not allowed to be omnipotent then what relevance does this little question game have?

 

[In situ]

I somehow don't think you're qualified to make that assessment.

You're entitled to your opinion, though.

You are too... and your opinion about my qualifications are duly noted.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How many baby codfish die with each hatching? Are we not evolved codfish, according to you? How is one greater than the other? Yet, the baby codfish must die for the strength of the food chain to survive. When you can grasp the morality of a codfish, perhaps you can learn how that applies to man.

Is this your way of saying that your god murdering babies is a good thing?