tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post5976902043281898593..comments2024-03-18T03:44:16.370-07:00Comments on Christian Apologetics UK: Response to the New Atheist Rosa Rubicondior - Christians! Be Sensible Now And Tell Me This.failedatheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-37170209493094375162022-06-28T07:51:28.722-07:002022-06-28T07:51:28.722-07:00now 2022 and still nothing...now 2022 and still nothing...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-24426621146571255652017-02-20T13:33:18.245-08:002017-02-20T13:33:18.245-08:00Rosa,
You may have noticed that this blog is no l...Rosa,<br /><br />You may have noticed that this blog is no longer updated, that might explain why no one has responded. <br /><br />Something being objectively true/false in this case refers to something being true/false irrespective of personal feelings. So if Christianity is true or false it cannot be based upon feelings but evidence (of varying degrees of certainty) from a number of different areas. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the blog.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure you could check the last post and see that the blog is no longer running, not that much work to check is it? <br /><br />If you fancy a discussion let me have your email and we can chat that way. I won't be updating this website again although I will check back this week to see if you've left me an email address, Cheers<br /><br /><br /><br />failedatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-50751902841346744002017-02-20T03:29:22.624-08:002017-02-20T03:29:22.624-08:00And a year later, still nothing...And a year later, still nothing...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-5551775423327502752017-02-20T03:28:29.758-08:002017-02-20T03:28:29.758-08:00Again, there is that tell-tale lack of a response....Again, there is that tell-tale lack of a response...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-19434715711709194982017-02-20T03:26:57.358-08:002017-02-20T03:26:57.358-08:00Readers may note the lack of a reply...Readers may note the lack of a reply...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-71319026226932642422015-02-25T15:59:58.662-08:002015-02-25T15:59:58.662-08:00And STILL no objective evidence and yet STILL no r...And STILL no objective evidence and yet STILL no recognition of the fact that this means Christianity cannot be objectively true, so, in the words of the blog, must be objectively false. <br /><br />Coming up to three years now an not a single Christian has found the moral integrity to deal with this fundamental fact.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-44485611314875310132014-02-03T13:35:30.241-08:002014-02-03T13:35:30.241-08:00Daniel.
Or will you be using the traditional excu...Daniel.<br /><br />Or will you be using the traditional excuse used by those who claim to have objective evidence that their superstition if true when asked to produce it - that I wouldn't understand it and it would be wasted on me?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-54594614676837387682014-02-03T13:30:51.994-08:002014-02-03T13:30:51.994-08:00Daniel.
Great! So when do you think you'll be...Daniel.<br /><br />Great! So when do you think you'll be in a position to present to the world the objective evidence which convinced you of the objective truth of Christianity? Or are you using a private definition of the word 'objective' which doesn't include objectivity?<br /><br />The problem is, as the blog says, Christianity is either objectively true or it is objectively false. It follows then that if you have no objective evidence it cannot be objectively true, which only leaves you with one other possibility - it is objectively false.<br /><br />Please let me know when you have the objective evidence ready. I would like to be in on that momentous event which will undoubtedly earn you world-wide fame and fortune and almost certainly result in you being declared a saint and going into the history books as one of the most famous people ever to have lived - the first person ever to objectively prove a religion to be true.<br /><br />How long do you think you need?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-31204517573631660492014-02-03T12:10:37.535-08:002014-02-03T12:10:37.535-08:00Rosa, if Christianity is objectively true then it ...Rosa, if Christianity is objectively true then it is true irrespective of whether you think it is false. If it is objectively false then it is false irrespective of what I think. That's the nature of truth, our opinions don't have any bearing on it. You wrote a post and we took the time to respond to your questions and suitably deal with what you believed to be good objections. <br /><br />You have presented nothing that would lead me to believe that my Christian theism is false. I think there is a good cumulative case for it and you disagree. Your assumptions that Christianity is dangerous are unfounded and I don't really have much time for something so clearly unreasonable and unfounded. Some Christians have been dicks and atheists have been dicks, it doesn't mean that either of them are false because of that. It would be like claiming atheism is false because of Stalin's five year plan for atheism, its moronic.<br /><br />Peace<br /><br />failedatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-89499525989121242952014-02-02T13:24:57.306-08:002014-02-02T13:24:57.306-08:00"Christianity is objectively true or objectiv..."Christianity is objectively true or objectively false irrespective of what you believe about it."<br /><br />Is it time we now concluded that Christianity is objectively false because you can't demonstrate that it is objectively true and, in your words, there are only two possibilities?<br /><br />If so, can I assume you have stopped promoting it to children, and vulnerable and impressionable adults as an objective truth and now tell them that it is objectively false? That would be the honest thing to do, after all.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-75899376207021505132013-06-23T13:19:14.386-07:002013-06-23T13:19:14.386-07:00floggin a dead horse:
"Om what scientific bas...floggin a dead horse:<br />"Om what scientific basis are you claiming that science is the only justifiable basis for knowing?"<br /><br />Planes fly, Cars drive, rockets go to the moon, mars and beyond (AND BACK!!!). You are reading this post, on a computer, connected to a gazillion other computers and, in the blink of an eye, my response will be posted for a gazillion people to see. <br />Science WORKS is all the proof I need, no need for "asserting" or "believing". <br /><br />You theists should really stop using this as an argument, it's merely a shovel to dig yourself deeper in the nonsense you call "truths". It only shows the incredible depth of your self-delusion.Multifarioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349076237866460562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-29643329566621118312013-04-02T01:07:14.457-07:002013-04-02T01:07:14.457-07:00It would appear that we are just to take your word...It would appear that we are just to take your word for it. How did you know that 'fact' without any evidence which you are able to share and which may be evaluated by others, please?<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-80013242275244896712013-04-02T01:02:11.290-07:002013-04-02T01:02:11.290-07:00"Christianity is objectively true or objectiv..."Christianity is objectively true or objectively false irrespective of what you believe about it."<br /><br />Given your failure to respond to my request for the objective evidence which would establish the objective truth of Christianity, for a little over ten months, is it time yet to conclude that there is no such objective truth and hence, given your statement above, that you now accept it is objectively false? <br /><br />Or do you require more time to get that objective evidence you seemed to be so confident could be produced last May?<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-33954020589101420832013-04-02T00:56:55.035-07:002013-04-02T00:56:55.035-07:00Nice attempt to duck the question rather than answ...Nice attempt to duck the question rather than answer it.<br /><br />It looks as though that claim that Christianity is objectively true can't be substantiated. I'm no theologian, but how does making a claim for which you have no evidence differ from bearing false witness - something which I understand Christians regard as a sin - please?<br /><br />As you pointed out, "Christianity is objectively true or objectively false irrespective of what you believe about it."<br /><br />Does this mean that, since it is evidently not objectively true, as evidence by your inability to produce any scientific evidence for it, that it is objectively false?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-32049716317458396682013-04-02T00:53:01.918-07:002013-04-02T00:53:01.918-07:00>God's character demands that sin be dealt ...>God's character demands that sin be dealt with justly -- A Holy God cannot simply wink at sin. Two thousand years ago, God the Son -- the second person of the Trinity -- stepped into human history, living a perfect life in full obedience to the law of God. In love, he went to the cross and bore the punishment that we deserve as a consequence of our sin.<<br /><br />That was the claim I asked you to deal with, however, my question was very explicitly about how a blood sacrifice works to achieve that exactly.<br /><br />You failed to address that question. Does this mean that you don't know how a blood sacrifice works but have merely assumed it must do in some mysterious way?<br /><br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-58195177619099654382013-04-02T00:49:13.560-07:002013-04-02T00:49:13.560-07:00>"I do not read the story of Adam and Eve ...>"I do not read the story of Adam and Eve literalistically, as actual history. So why do you?"<<br /><br />Does this mean then the the idea of original sin is false or merely allegorical? <br /><br />If the latter, allegorical for what, exactly please?<br /><br />If the former, why then should we be bothered about any notional need to atone for it, and what was the human blood sacrifice of Jesus for?<br /><br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-25731986014707888022013-04-02T00:45:53.792-07:002013-04-02T00:45:53.792-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-11820205035324386172012-07-13T17:39:31.786-07:002012-07-13T17:39:31.786-07:00Om what scientific basis are you claiming that sci...Om what scientific basis are you claiming that science is the only justifiable basis for knowing? Thats isn't a scientific claim, it is a faith claim. So is science your religion?Donald Sensinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01395472322281027191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-27878379400659739642012-07-13T17:35:38.456-07:002012-07-13T17:35:38.456-07:00What continually makes an impression on me about N...What continually makes an impression on me about New Atheism (I am ordained Methodist clergy) is how fundamentalist it is. It's as if the New Atheists can conceive of no God to renounce except that which pop culture - and here is America, the entertainment industry - presents, which is a cartoon of devoted faith.<br /><br />So I would say in response to the first question, "I do not read the story of Adam and Eve literalistically, as actual history. So why do you?"<br /><br />If we can lead these folks to start to understand that much of the Bible is less about "truth" than about understanding, then they can start to see the shallowness of their arguments.<br /><br />As converted atheist scientist Alistir McGrath wrote, "My own conversion was intellectual. I didn't need a quick spiritual fix. Instead, I encountered a compelling and luminous vision of reality so powerful and attractive that it demanded a response. Christianity made more sense of the world I saw around me and experienced within me than anything else—my earlier atheism included. I discovered the sheer intellectual capaciousness of the Christian faith—its remarkable, God-given ability to offer us a lens through which we can see things, bringing everything into a sharper focus. It's a light that illuminates the shadowlands. That's why I've come to love Lewis's great one-liner: "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not just because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."Donald Sensinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01395472322281027191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-62567196211133670202012-05-28T09:28:15.088-07:002012-05-28T09:28:15.088-07:00>Our universe was intended as a place where men...>Our universe was intended as a place where men could live in communion with God. Life was never intended to occur apart from the conscious presence and intervention of God. <<br /><br />I take it that you will be presenting the definitive evidence upon which that assertion is based in due course?<br /><br />Or are we just to accept your word for it?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-79341805880272551992012-05-28T09:25:39.019-07:002012-05-28T09:25:39.019-07:00It's interesting that you say Christianity is ...It's interesting that you say Christianity is objectively true or objectively false because that clearly implies you have an objective basis for your belief and are not depending on faith alone. In other words, just as science does, you are relying on evidence for your belief, so this evidence can be scientifically examined and tested - something which is of course impossible for subjective faith.<br /><br />Before we go any further, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me precisely <b>what</b> objective evidence you have, why it convinced you, how it was independently validated and so shown to be evidence for the Christian god and for no other, and where I may see this evidence for myself, please. If you <b>have</b> subjected it to scientific scrutiny perhaps you could point me to the results.<br /><br />Once we have established this objective basis for our discussion we can proceed to discuss its reliability and validity.<br /><br />When ready, you may contact me on Twitter - @RosaRubicondior - or you may leave as message on my blog at <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Rosa Rubicondior</a>. I eagerly await your response.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-57981465492988455592012-05-28T08:19:01.076-07:002012-05-28T08:19:01.076-07:00Phil,
thanks for taking the time to read the post...Phil,<br /><br />thanks for taking the time to read the post but I feel I must highlight that this was NOT meant to be an extensive response to each question. I think the short paragraph responses are suitable for demonstrating that the questions are not defeaters. I appreciate your well written response to questions 6 but I did specifically aim to keep them as short as possible since this is a blog, not a book. Answering all those questions in that detail I deemed unnecessary and would have resulted in a post people wouldn't bother getting to the bottom of. <br /><br />However I don't accept your assertion that our response 'produces the bizarre, distorted version of the faith'. Nor that we think you can experience God through studying the Bible simply intellectually, I can't help think that your reading certain assumptions into what's written, to my knowledge none of us here think that.<br /><br />By all means feel free to respond to the atheist article yourself, the more the merrier :)<br /><br />'I apologize for seeming to dismiss the work of some who imagine themselves mature, well-educated believers.'<br /><br />No need to apologise, we're just normal Christians not intellectual heavyweights.<br /><br />Cheersfailedatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-73292398113426762332012-05-28T08:01:23.880-07:002012-05-28T08:01:23.880-07:00Please permit me to submit the following as a more...Please permit me to submit the following as a more complete, far better answer to the questions being posed here.<br /><br />Let's start with question 6(A):<br /><br />Our universe was intended as a place where men could live in communion with God. Life was never intended to occur apart from the conscious presence and intervention of God. In fact, it does not occur without His presence; all life depends on His constant, current, personal, intimate attention.<br /><br />Rebellion against God is the first, the most serious, and in fact the only sin possible. All other sins arise from it and are sub-instances of it. It is in the absence and ignorance of God that we begin to behave in a manner unlike Him. The very definition of immorality is "behavior contrary to the character of God." That's what sin is.<br /><br />The sin in Eden was not something about which they could not know. They could not know the distinction between good and evil because they had never experienced evil; but they could, and did, know "God's will" as opposed to their own intentions. It was the only thing they <i>did</i> know. The sin consisted of abandoning God's instructions for their own intentions, thus severing their dependence on the divine and substituting self-will.<br /><br />Here we get to question 1: It is the reliance on ourselves independent of God that produces all the misery in the world. In fact, that's the very definition of hell. "God must punish sin" is only true in the most trivial sense. It is far more accurate to say that sin is its own punishment. Hell is not "the place where God sends sinners to punish them," so much as it is the place where God gives sinners what they have asked for (e.g. a world without His intervention) and abandons them to the full impact of their sins. It is the sins, themselves, that produce the "lake of fire" in which the wicked are destroyed.<br /><br />His intention is to redeem us from the destruction we wreak on ourselves; that's what "save us from our sins" means. Forgiveness is only the very first step. We need to be taught again to rely on God, and that takes a lifetime of reconditioning. He sent the Holy Spirit in which we are able to live that way, not by our own power, but by His.<br /><br />All the correct answers to the rest of the questions can be deduced from the foundation I've laid out. <br /><br />All the things I've said can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers and the great saints of the faith. They can also be defended by resort to scripture if you insist that I do it.<br /><br />Only, take careful note: parsing the Bible for systematic understanding produces the bizarre, distorted version of the faith that your post represents. It arises from the almost animistic belief that by merely studying the Bible on an intellectual plane, one is encountering God. <br /><br />The people who do this err; the scriptures exist for us to get to know the living God, they are not a substitute for knowing Him. God is not a book, He's a person. He has a character. He does not merely give us the book; He gives us Himself, and communicates freely to those who have ears to hear. If you get to know the character, you'll understand the book. If, however, you study the book as though it was the object of the exercise, and neglect getting to know the very real God who inspired it, you end up with stilted, disjointed, meaningless factoids that mean very little and make no sense.<br /><br />I apologize for seeming to dismiss the work of some who imagine themselves mature, well-educated believers. I don't know any better way to say what I'm saying. If I were an atheist, I would not accept the answers you've given; but the view I've presented here makes cohesive sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com