Cut and paste policy anyone??? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16604 Once again, this could have been your post if you respected the guidelines in this forum: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch30/default.htm
In response to: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch30/default.htm This probably was not worth my time, as this was one of the weakest papers I've ever addressed, but I did so anyway. Oh well... Incomplete and misleading: ag•nos•tic n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. Unfounded claims. Qualify or quantify. No. Christianity might be dismissed as illogical and/or disproved, yet the ultimate question of God still remain open. Again, incomplete and misleading. The universal position in atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not all atheists believe that God categorically does not exist. atheist n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. While indeed, a categorical refusal of all definitions of God is unsupportable, one can build an argument regarding any human definition of God. Of course, his argument founders anyway as it's based upon the false premise above. Wow... care to support the massive and unfounded presumptions in this statement? Unspoken and unproven premises: Unless both God and God's revelation is proven there is no reason to assume that there are any ethical standards that are not man-made. There is also no reason that even if religious doctrine was valid that man could not still develop his own valid standards and values. Logic and reason. If one man decides his human interpretation of religious doctrine is correct and another man decides his view, which is different, is correct, who will decide between them? It is time to pull out the ouiji board? Who was right during the Crusades? It seems to me that Christianity has given us no firm ethical viewpoint from which to judge. Many atrocities have been carried out in the name of God and Jesus. However, it is possible to found a stable ethical system upon the common needs of people. Do you really wish to try to support the notions that: 1. All religious assertions are true. 2. That the truth is unknowable except through divine revelation? If so, please do try. Otherwise this is unfounded nonsense. Please, if this were so, there would be no human endeavor (including religion) that was not dead. One setback, or even many setbacks, is not disproof of progress or the 'demise' of the paradigm. All unfounded conclusions. This argument is pathetic thus far. This is because investigation proved that God was not directly responsible for the everyday experiences in our lives. No miracles were found. Each turn revealed that there was a naturalistic explanation for those events that were previously attributed to God. This was simply discovery, not some attempt by man to eliminate the necessity of God. "Self-centered" indicates that the individual need only be concerned with their own affairs. Where does secular humanism suggest this? Please prove this assertion. Proof? No; a localized increase in order or complexity does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Further, there is no substantiating evidence for creation. Argument from authority. No one said it did. These were conclusions, not arguments. Of course, based upon his 'arguments' in this chapter, the author does not seem to be aware of the difference. Please provide this evidence. Argument from authority. Please provide argument or evidence that man is "his highest creation". Or even that God exists. Only if you value the fantasy of God above man. Please the provide the objective foundation for God and Christianity. Proof? Neither does the manifesto. Please note the transition from plural to singular. This is a fallacy of composition deliberately designed as a straw man argument. Please show that these are more than just unsupported declarations. LOL... then please do so. ~Raithere P.S. answers: How about voicing your own argument next time rather than simply borrowing chapters from other people's works.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ has the framed version, the contents page to get to the other chapters. Apparently Confuscianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Islam, judaism and Hinduism are all false and of little value. Who knew? Thank God some arrogant pissant debunked thousands of years of philosophy and religous comtemplation with a few five thousand word essays. What a great site!!
