Atheistwatch
by
3y ago
(1) Is just plain wrong. The ordering in a snowflake or salt crystal is efficient and dependable, but due entirely to natural processes. that  is totally begging the question you have no proof that it;s natural you have no evidence you are asserting it because it deals with nature you assert a prori no God therefore no God (2) "Usually"? You need to do better than that in a proof. why? minor exclaims would not disprove the perponderemce of evidence (3) and (4) are basically the sad out argument that a law of nature needs a law maker, failing to realise that a law in nature is quite differe ..read more
Visit website
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
Joe:We don't have two competing scientific hypothesis,we have a scientific hypothesis that checks out and that's proximate cause. Then have a distal cause which a totally different concept and can;t be compared as a scientific hypothesis. - What we have is a scientific hypothesis and a religious hypothesis that makes assertions about reality, but has proven to be wrong over and over again. Every time that occurs, the religious hypothesis is eventually pruned down. It still makes claims about souls an the immaterial nature of mind, but those claims will be pruned away in due time. What's le ..read more
Visit website
Follow up on exchange with I' Skeptical
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
Joe HinmanJuly 5, 2016 at 11:04 PMim-skepticalJuly 5, 2016 at 7:30 AM Joe:you also seem to to think that the point of belief is to explain things scientifically This is a classic mistake atheists often make.It's not.Scientific explanations do not a priori comlpete with belief in God. - In my opinion, we believe things because belief is what motivates us to some kind of action. If we want our actions to be beneficial, it is helpful to have beliefs that correspond to reality. that doesn't mean they have to explain science there's more kinds of knowledge than science As an epistemological to ..read more
Visit website
Dualing Fallacies: God of Gaps vs .Fortress of Facts
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
im Skeptocal, "God of The Gaps" The Skeptic Zon, (Juky 2, 2016) blog,vURL http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/  Once again skeptical is shooting his mouth off about things he doesn't quite get right, here we have a classic example of what I call the atheist fortress of facts, I have a two parter on it in the classics, bit it';s basically just the idea that science is a big pile of fact, atheism has a bigger pile than Christianity so it's more scientific.To see why the idea is antithetical to science see my classic posts Answering the atheist fortress of facts, part 1 and part 2/ The God o ..read more
Visit website
Debuncking the Atheist Fortres of Facts part 1
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
  This is part of a larger framework that includes the theories of Thomas Kuhn and argues that science is a social construct. That part of it will be saved for another time. This section, although long is answering an argument that I see atheist touting all the time. They always deny it but it's unmistakably there.   Section one documents that there such an attitude among atheists and gives some preliminary arguments. Section 2 shows the truly unscientific nature of the attitude.Nowhere is the arrogance of humanity more apparent than in the many tendencies to treat God as a big man in the s ..read more
Visit website
Second response to Bowen is up
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
On cadre blog I am debating Bradley Bowen of Secular poutpost blogvom historicity of Jesus, the external evidence, evikdence not ikn bible, My response to his repsonse to my argument 2 om Papias http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-argument-2papias.html ..read more
Visit website
Aterlialist Reduction of Religous Concepts
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
two recent posts on CARM. These are not typical of all atheists but they are typical of a certain segment who I think just can't stop liberalizing metaphors and can't understand concepts. Originally Posted by Dr Pepper The existence of God all boils down to a few simple questions. What is it? Where is it? When is it? and Why is it?Meta:you guys keeping to reduce God to psychosocial dimensions. you are still trying to make God a thing in creation. God si not a thing in creation. It's senseless to reduce God the physical. Physical is a illusion. it's a product of mind. God is not physical, phy ..read more
Visit website
Naturalism is not an argument against God
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
Dr. Jeff Lowder of the secular outpost writes against a highly conservative Christian apologist named Anna Marie Perez.[1] He is especially incensed by her comment: Atheism is a religion. Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith. They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got. They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God. When they are called out for having faith, they’ll say so ..read more
Visit website
My 5th and final argument in the ]debate with Bowen
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
A. Historical methods (1) the document not the people is the point One chief observational sorely lacking  in the discussion with mythers is the premise of starting from the sources we have rather than criticizing that which we don't have. Historians don't base their occlusions upon the documents we lack but upon those we possess. What do the documents we have tell us. Don't worry about what they don't tell us. Chitneis p39 discussing internal and external evidence.[1] the question we don;t have anyone who knew Jesus personally writing about him (supposedly) is bunk. Start from what what t ..read more
Visit website
I am debatimg
Atheistwatch
by
4y ago
On CADRE blog I', debating Bad;y Bowen of the Secular outpost.please read and follow along. http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/06/debate-bradly-bowen-vs-joseph-hinman.html ..read more
Visit website

Follow Atheistwatch Blog on Feedspot

Continue with Google
OR