Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hi Conrad, nice of you to reply. You wrote,

>>Sorry about the depression Sunday morning, but glad you enjoyed the debate. Actually I imagine most Rationalists enjoyed the weather on Sunday morning, being of a species that has evolved to do so, and yes it is all in our heads. Actually I suspect your depression might be caused by the realisation that there are flaws in the facade of the faith that you need to shelter under<<

No actually it truly was a beautiful Sunday morning and when I look at the beautiful flowers - butterflies - birds of Paradise - tropical fish - or a hundred other such beauties, I say “they are truly wonderfully made”. I can't deny their obvious beauty. But if what you say is true, then a battlefield of dead bodies is not an ugly sight neither; it’s all just “in our heads”. And if so, then there’s nothing really ultimately wrong or right, which is just what atheistic evolution says. Death and suffering are good and the means evolution advances.

As for my "
faith", Rationalists don't know much about what they 'attack'. It's what you put your faith in that matters. And my faith is not in ‘my faith’. I base what I believe on what I do know, not on what I don't know. Evolutionary Theory on the other hand, has so many flaws its requires more faith than I have. So apparently you have faith there's no God. Are you absolutely sure?

>>I wasn't aware that Bill was rude. As an academic you would have to admit that Ray was extremely glib and superficial; when he first produced that banana I thought he was joking, and the coke tin was not much better. The way he introduced and told the story about the 91 year old dying even made me doubt his sincerity.<<

It must be all in your head. I don’t think Ray lacked 'sincerity', he was funny and certainly not rude. Bill however made the mistake of 'playing the man', as if God’s existence was a ‘Ray Comfort thing’. He ignored the fact there's millions upon millions worldwide who sincerely insist God exists. Interesting Ray offered to pay an honorarium of $100 for Bill to share his thoughts. Ray said, "It's not easy to find atheists who are prepared to stand up for their faith (or lack of it). I was beginning to wonder if any did actually exist." You wrote,

>>On one point in your email you are definitely incorrect, Rationalists are not just anti-christian, we are anti all religions and superstitions<<

So I was correct then. Humanists and Rationalists by their own admission are "anti-Christian". Why this bias “attack”? Shall we shut down the church social services? (and hospitals and schools all founded on Christian principles to help others). And ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ – ‘turn the other cheek’ – all just a facade?

>>Recently we have been giving the Muslim faith a going over, and you may recall our putting up a $100k challenge to Jasmeen (?) leader and founder of the 'Breatherians'. The 'bias' you detect is only because the predominant religion in NZ is christianity and therefore it gains much of our attention. Our attack on religion is not on the basis of people not having the right to believe what they want, but because demonstrably false beliefs do have important social consequences for which we all suffer.<<

NZ is not Christian, but "predominantly" a heathen country. There are over 15,000 abortions every year this might cheer you (it’s anti-Christian) but it’s also anti-human. Seems to me that we all believe in something (like it or not) and Humanists and Rationalists determine “false beliefs” by what they think is right. Atheism is a belief like any, religiously held to regardless of contrary evidence. It certainly has “demonstrably false beliefs” that have “important social consequences for which we all suffer”. You people have strange ideas of 'false beliefs'.

>>Your comment on euthanasia and abortion - and homosexuality could be included here - bear this out. Irrational arguments on God not wanting these things have caused immeasurable suffering throughout the ages.<<

Immeasurable suffering”? What’s ‘ultimately’ wrong with ‘suffering? Evolution says 'suffering' is good. Millions of years of suffering resulted in you, if so, surely nothings ultimately wrong or right.

But I fail to see how having ‘irrational arguments on God’ justify atheism arguing for euthanasia, suicide, abortion or immorality as ‘appropriate’. And how can those who say there’s nothing ultimately wrong or right define what is ‘irrational’? Millions have been 'caused immeasurable suffering' because open mindedness, freedom, and tolerance but the problem with man is man. When man ignores what is ultimately right or wrong all is confusion.

>>Atheists, in general, do not see an embryo as a human being, and therefore see the mother as having a right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. We also see ourselves as having the right to decide on our own deaths if we feel this to be appropriate, without irrational religious based interference. Rational arguments against these things are a different matter.<<

Well that’s a real culture of death you support. Atheism is a self-centred religion where man becomes god. And man’s self-determination ("
interference") does away with life when it suits. In the end, direct or indirect killing of a human is considered good when justified by personal choice. “The right” has more value than life. ‘The right’ (‘ledensunwertes leden’) becomes nothing more than a killing machine; it’s a slippery slope. But if man is made in God’s “likeness” what a contradiction to atheism and what true sanctity and dignity to life there is. You wrote,

>>Recently we had for example an Atheist on the Rationalist Council who was vehemently opposed to euthanasia by the medical profession. She did not make any converts, but her position was respected because it was based on logic and not on faith<<

That sounds like 'the blind leading the blind'. Even if it’s logical, it doesn’t make it right to kill. And logic is a facade if you put your faith in man.

The dilemma of humanism is that man alone is autonomous. And in life he has no way to say certain things are right and certain things are wrong. He makes his own ideas of right and wrong, with no final authority. Humanism ends in despair, it has no meaning for man in moral things. If you begin with that which is finite you can never reach an absolute no matter how far you project it.

Regards
Mark Purchase


Index
Home
reply