tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23303154639445040392024-03-14T05:05:11.660-07:00Ex-Atheist BlogConsiderations about religion and atheismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-29623917841507832702013-01-04T21:43:00.000-08:002013-01-25T11:08:38.380-08:00Some Thoughts about New AtheismIn another post, I wrote already about some of my observations regarding <a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-vs-antony-flew-debate.html">William Lane Craig vs. Anthony Flew</a> and <a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html">William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens</a> debates.
<br />
<br />
The subject of the debates was the same - the existence of God. They both began in the same way: William Lane Craig presented the same 5 arguments for God's existence. Neither Anthony Flew nor Christopher Hitchens were able to refute them. However, the attitudes of Anthony Flew and Christopher Hitchens were completely different. Hitchens's speeches were just full of attacks on religion and hatred. Flew was much more respectful and avoided attacks. And he honestly admitted that he was unable to refute Craig's arguments. Hitchens did not do so. So, Flew made an impression of an honest and respectful person, unlike Hitchens. <br />
<br />
Flew was an "old atheist" (later, he became a deist). Hitchens was a "new atheist." I also watched videos of other three "horsemen" (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris). <br />
<br />
According to my observation, "new atheists" are just unable to be respectful to religion and religious people. My impression of the "new atheism" is that it is just a hatred toward religion and nothing more. They use a lot of arguments and points from what was written long time ago. The only thing they added to the "old atheism" is their hatred. But actually hatred toward religion is not something new because communists also hated religion. <br />
<br />
Well, somehow many people use hatred in order to gain popularity. In the past, some American televangelists used two things to make themselves popular: homophobia and anti-communism. Now they can use only homophobia. Obviously, homophobia and anti-communism are two forms of hatred. Communists used classism (class discrimination and poor people's hatred toward rich people) to gain popularity and get authority. Nazis used nationalism and especially anti-Semitism in order to become popular and gain authority. <br />
<br />
"New atheists" use another form of hatred - hatred toward religion. But their purpose is the same: to gain popularity and authority. It is not something new. Just it seems that it is much easier to become popular, criticizing and hating others, than by making something really constructive and valid. <br />
<br />
Another interesting thing is the use of terms. It is well-known that cults often change the meanings of the words. Communists did the same. According to the Soviet propaganda, the Soviet Union was the most democratic country in the world. They said that it was the country where people were really free. The progress was associated with the communist ideology. Those who rejected it, were considered reactionaries. And there were many other similar misuses of the terms. <br />
<br />
I noticed the same tendency among "new atheists." For example, in their language, "critical thinking" is criticism of religion. They will never admit that theists may be able to think critically. But they do not want people to challenge them or to use critical thinking toward their ideas. They think that they have a right to criticize theists, but they do not like to be criticized or challenged by theists. <br />
<br />
Then, they associate progress with their ideas. But who has ever proven that progress is possible only with atheism? I think no one among the Western people doubts that modern Russia is more progressive country than what the Soviet Union 30 years ago. However, 30 years ago, over 90% Russians were atheists. Now only 5% Russians are atheists. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-90426626077841606682013-01-04T20:10:00.000-08:002013-01-04T20:10:30.344-08:00Cults and New Atheism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHmE7m-n0op61efEyrodZXASSXEXwQoloAnNpxJaLzO9E5MS7ppfJ6h1O4dwsZ0w5xCeNEXZvZkUSEfr-kOPTi3WxNbHitT42USgV8mVXJ4NsqBf1OXYBycMJxs03JFXLisPCYemmvLTo/s1600/criticism.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="300" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHmE7m-n0op61efEyrodZXASSXEXwQoloAnNpxJaLzO9E5MS7ppfJ6h1O4dwsZ0w5xCeNEXZvZkUSEfr-kOPTi3WxNbHitT42USgV8mVXJ4NsqBf1OXYBycMJxs03JFXLisPCYemmvLTo/s400/criticism.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-73270382614231685822013-01-04T11:48:00.001-08:002013-01-04T11:53:24.657-08:00William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew Debate<b>William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew debate: Does God exist?</b><br />
<br />
<object height="480" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NixhL0CoH2s?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NixhL0CoH2s?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br />
<br />
I think this video is also worth watching. This debate took place in 1998 when Anthony Flew was an atheist. I think it is also interesting to compare this debate with William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens debate that took place 11 year later: <a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html">http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html</a>.<br />
<br />
The subject of the debates was the same - the existence of God. They both began in the same way: William Lane Craig presented the same 5 arguments for God's existence. Neither Anthony Flew nor Christopher Hitchens were able to refute them. Hitchens could have prepared better for the debate with Craig since their debate took place much later.<br />
<br />
It is also interesting to compare the attitudes of Anthony Flew and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens's speeches were just full of attacks on religion and hatred. This is actually my impression of the so called new atheism: the new atheism is just hatred toward religion and nothing more than that. Flew was much more respectful and avoided attacks.<br />
<br />
It is also important to notice that Anthony Flew eventually changed his views on God and left atheism: <br />
<br />
<object height="480" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SNkxpTIbCIw?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SNkxpTIbCIw?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins was very unhappy at this:<br />
<br />
<object height="480" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEPUn__hYso?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEPUn__hYso?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most respected atheist thinkers of the 20th and early 21st century (his scholarly works on David Hume are still studied today, and his "presumption of atheism" argument is still used by atheists).
<br />(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NixhL0CoH2s">From the description of Craig vs Flew debate</a>)</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-24639185040268985912013-01-03T23:55:00.001-08:002013-01-04T11:34:46.141-08:00"Four Horsemen" of New Atheism<blockquote>
The name "Four Horsemen" refers to <b>Richard Dawkins</b>, <b>Christopher Hitchens</b>, <b>Daniel Dennett</b> and <b>Sam Harris</b> and was first used during a 2007 debate in which they discussed their criticisms of religion and advocated critical thinking. (<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/richard-dawkins-issue-hitchens">http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/richard-dawkins-issue-hitchens</a>)</blockquote>
So, the name "four horsemen" is the name that they invented for themselves. They took it from the Bible, Revelation 6:1-8 (NIV):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
1 I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2 I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.<br />
<br />
3 When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” 4 Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make people kill each other. To him was given a large sword.<br />
<br />
5 When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. 6 Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “Two pounds of wheat for a day’s wages, and six pounds of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!”<br />
<br />
7 When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.</blockquote>
Well, the fourth horseman is clearly called Death. Others are not named. However, the second one is quite clearly identified with the war, and the third one is identified with famine. There are different interpretations of the first horseman. Some interpretors consider him to be Antichrist, some think that he is Christ. However, in the text of the Bible itself, he is identified with the conquest.<br />
<br />
So, the four horsemen are Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. I do not know how many people would like to call themselves one of these things, but Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens did so.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
In 2008, four prominent atheist authors got together to discuss
religion and their positions. The DVD was entitled "The Four Horsemen"
(in reference to the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse") and ever since they have been referred to by this title. They are:
<br />
<ul>
<li> Richard Dawkins - as Death
</li>
<li> Christopher Hitchens - as Famine
</li>
<li> Sam Harris - as Pestilence
</li>
<li> Daniel Dennett - as War
</li>
</ul>(<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism#.22The_Four_Horsemen.22">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism#.22The_Four_Horsemen.22</a>)
</blockquote>
Actually, they did not read the Bible carefully because there is no Pestilence among the four horsemen of the book of Revelation. However, it is still very remarkable how they call themselves:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li> Richard Dawkins calls himself Death.
</li>
<li> Christopher Hitchens called himself Famine.
</li>
<li> Sam Harris calls himself Pestilence.
</li>
<li> Daniel Dennett calls himself War.
</li>
</ul>
Very nice people, aren't they?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-82774076269295850662013-01-03T21:53:00.001-08:002013-01-25T11:12:00.934-08:00Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose?<b>Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose? </b><br />
<br />
There is one point that I want to mention. Richard Dawkins refused to debate with William Lane Craig one-on-one. <a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-god-delusion-debate-that-never-was.html">He did not appear to the debate on October 25, 2011 in Oxford.</a> However, one year before that, on November 13, 2010 they did meet in Puebla, Mexico. It was not one-on-one debate. It was a panel three-on-three debate on the subject <i>Does the Universe have a purpose? </i>The participants were: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins vs. Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that one year before, on November 29, 2009, Richard Dawkins claimed that he would never debate with William Lane Craig:<br />
<br />
<object height="480" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JFamS4RGE_A?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JFamS4RGE_A?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
This is how William Lane Craig <a href="http://apologeticjunkie.blogspot.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-vs-richard-dawkins.html">described their first meeting</a>:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc.
<br />
<br />
As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well, to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, "I´m surprised to see that you´re on the panel."
<br />
<br />
He replied, "And why not?"
<br />
<br />
I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."
<br />
<br />
His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted." At that, he turned away.
<br />
<br />
"Well, I hope we have a good discussion," I said.
<br />
<br />
"I very much doubt it," he said and walked off.
<br />
<br />
So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning,
should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get
back.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
So, Dawkins <b>did</b> <b>not</b> consider this event as a debate with Craig. Well, it was not their one-on-one debate. However, it was still a debate in which they both participated. So, his behavior seems to me quite dishonest and dubious.<br />
<br />
Here is the video (the beginning part is in Spanish, but the debate itself is in English):
<br />
<br />
<object height="480" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p6tIee8FwX8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p6tIee8FwX8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of reviews of this debate:<br />
<a href="http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/11/does-the-universe-have-a-purpose-a-review-of-the-panel-debate-with-craig-and-dawkins/">http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/11/does-the-universe-have-a-purpose-a-review-of-the-panel-debate-with-craig-and-dawkins/</a><br />
<a href="http://12tuesday.com/richard-dawkins-et-al-vs-william-lane-craig-et-al-debate-review/">http://12tuesday.com/richard-dawkins-et-al-vs-william-lane-craig-et-al-debate-review/</a><br />
<br />
Well, I was not quite impressed with this debate. It did not seem to be productive. It seems that there were too many people and their time was too limited. In any case, the atheist team did not win. It was very far from that Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-7258251841018775372013-01-03T06:03:00.000-08:002013-01-03T06:03:08.678-08:00William Lane Craig v. New AtheismRichard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett
are the four prominent writers of the new atheism, they are sometimes
called "the four horsemen" of the new atheism. William Lane Craig is a
prominent Christian apologist. He had public one on one debates with
Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and won both debates.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins refused to debate with Craig. Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to
defend his book <i>The God Delusion</i> in public debate with William Lane
Craig. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty.
Craig then gave a lecture, refuting Dawkins' arguments from his book.<br />
<br />
Craig
and Daniel Dennett did not have a public debate one on one either.
Instead, Craig gave a lecture, presenting evidence for God's existence.
It was followed by response of Daniel Dennett. Of course, Dennett was unable to refute Craig.<br />
<br />
In another series of videos, Craig gave his refutation of new atheist arguments against God's existence.<br />
<br />
I recommend everyone who thinks that Christian faith is illogical or irrational and
that so called new atheism is logical and rational to
watch all these videos:<br />
<a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html">http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html</a><br />
<a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-vs-sam-harris-debate.html">http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-vs-sam-harris-debate.html</a><br />
<a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-god-delusion-debate-that-never-was.html">http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-god-delusion-debate-that-never-was.html</a><br />
<a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/evidence-for-gods-existence-william.html">http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/evidence-for-gods-existence-william.html</a><br />
<a href="http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-refutes-new-atheist.html">http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-refutes-new-atheist.html</a><br />
<br />
Watch these videos for yourself and make your own conclusion: is Christian faith really illogical and irrational? is new atheism really more logical and rational than theism?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-53019544648504619372013-01-03T05:30:00.001-08:002013-01-03T05:30:16.552-08:00William Lane Craig Refutes New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence<b>New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (1 of 5)</b>
<br /><br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_EP4JsaLH6Q?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_EP4JsaLH6Q?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br /><br /><br /><br />
<b>New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (2 of 5)</b>
<br /><br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0KeMJf1A_Fo?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0KeMJf1A_Fo?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br /><br /><br /><br />
<b>New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (3 of 5)</b>
<br /><br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DIJBqETOseQ?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DIJBqETOseQ?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br /><br /><br /><br />
<b>New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (4 of 5)</b>
<br /><br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PBqI5oiKDYE?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PBqI5oiKDYE?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br /><br /><br /><br />
<b>New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (5 of 5)</b>
<br /><br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9rGl94GBSCk?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9rGl94GBSCk?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-65714243796110303242013-01-03T05:23:00.002-08:002013-01-03T06:04:36.684-08:00Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath) <b>Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath) </b>
<br />
<br />
This video is not a debate between William Lane Craig and Daniel Dennett. This is a lecture given by Craig where he presents evidence for God's existence. It is followed by response of Daniel Dennett, one of "the four horsemen" of the new atheism. Of course, Dennett was unable to refute Craig's excellent arguments. In the end, Alister McGrath, a Christian theologian, apologist and ex-atheist, gives his conclusion.
<br />
<br />
<object height="480" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Wzol00G2MM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Wzol00G2MM?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-63278919347664460252013-01-03T04:43:00.001-08:002013-01-03T04:43:19.918-08:00 Is God a Delusion? The Debate That Never Was: William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins?<b>Is God a Delusion? The Debate That Never Was: William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins?</b><br />
<br />
From the description of this video on YouTube:<br />
<blockquote>
Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. The invitation remained open until the last minute. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture to a capacity audience on the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book and responded to a panel of academics.</blockquote>
<br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l3HCthi2i_o?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l3HCthi2i_o?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-4066251237652348352013-01-02T13:47:00.001-08:002013-01-02T13:47:09.316-08:00William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris Debate<b>William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris - Morality--Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?</b><br />
<br />
This is a video of a debate of William Lane Craig and Sam Harris, one of the four prominent writers ("four horsemen") of the so called new atheism.<br />
<br />
This debate has basically the same scenario as Craig v. Hitchens. Craig very logically presented the moral evidence for God's existence. Harris could not refute it. Instead, he (as well as Hitchens) just changed the subject and attacked religion. So, most parts of their speeches were completely irrelevant to the subjects of the debates.<br />
<br />
<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rq1QjXe3IYQ?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rq1QjXe3IYQ?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-49563725490814278272013-01-02T11:00:00.001-08:002013-01-02T11:00:47.893-08:00Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig DebateIf somebody thinks that Christian faith is illogical or irrational and that so called new atheism is logical and rational, I recommend you to watch this video <b>Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist</b>.<br />
<br />
William Lane Craig is a famous Christian apologist. Christopher Hitchens is one of the four prominent writers of the new atheism.<br />
<br />
Craig presented five very logical arguments for faith in God. Hitchens was unable to refute any of them. Neither was he able to present any valid argument for atheism. <br />
<br />
Another one of the four prominent writer of the new atheism, Richard Dawkins, refused to debate with Craig. Probably, he refused because his friend Hitchens lost the debate with Craig.<br />
<br />
Watch this video for yourself and make your own conclusions.<br />
<br />
<object height="360" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FofDChlSILU?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FofDChlSILU?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-26287362765952895642013-01-01T11:19:00.003-08:002013-01-01T11:25:04.274-08:00Communist Ideology and AtheismCommunists in the Soviet Union and other countries were militant atheists and persecuted any religious people regardless of their religion. Why did they do so? The answer is very simple: the communist ideology is incompatible with any religion, but it is very compatible with atheism.<br />
<br />
There are some modern Russian communists who profess to believe in God. However, the thing is that the official ideology of the Russian communist party is different from the original communist ideology.<br />
<br />
In 1912, Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Bolsheviks eventually took the name communists. Mensheviks probably can be considered as socialists or social-democrats. The ideology of the communist party of the Soviet Union was the ideology of Bolsheviks, but the ideology of the contemporary Russian communist party is much more the ideology of Mensheviks, that is, they are actually socialists or social-democrats, even though they call themselves communists.<br />
<br />
There were no religious people among Soviet communists. There were religious people in the Soviet Union, but they did not accept the communist ideology.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism consisted of three parts:<br />
1. Marxism-Leninism philosophy,<br />
2. Political economy,<br />
3. Scientific communism.<br />
<br />
In turn, Marxism-Leninism philosophy consisted of two parts:<br />
1. Dialectical materialism,<br />
2. Historical materialism.<br />
<br />
Actually, historical materialism is based on the same principles as dialectical materialism. The main difference is that dialectical materialism deals with nature, while historical materialism deals with human society.<br />
<br />
Both dialectical and historical materialism are based on atheism. In fact, the word "materialism" is synonymous to the word "atheism."<br />
<br />
Although Western atheists and anti-theists may not like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism">historical materialism</a>, they will definitely like many ideas of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism">dialectical materialism</a>. In fact, they believe in many ideas of dialectical materialism already even if they have never heard this term.<br />
<br />
What is the basic question of philosophy? <a href="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Basic+Question+of+Philosophy">Marxism-Leninism answers this way</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
The basic question of philosophy is "the question of the relation of the consciousness and being, of the spiritual and the material in general. This question is the starting point of philosophical inquiry. Therefore, an answer to it, whether materialistic, idealistic, or dualistic, lies at the foundation of every philosophical doctrine. F. Engels wrote: “The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature … comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 283). <...>
<br />
<br />
"Engels was the first to single out the basic question of philosophy and elucidate its role in the construction of philosophical doctrines (ibid., pp. 282–91). According to him, the basic question of philosophy is the theoretical summation of the intellectual history of mankind."</blockquote>
So, Marxism-Leninism starts with what it calls basic question of philosophy and with its answer which is materialism. In other words, Marxism-Leninism starts with atheism. This is why Karl Marx wrote, "Communism begins where atheism begins." And this is why only atheists may be communists.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-49549847810313955252013-01-01T11:13:00.000-08:002013-01-01T11:13:05.325-08:00Happy New Year!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBhwVVgYEph4TBlkThfgIFQ98Cz-fg4lpzYCnXp1Jkt0nPXHwh4gWFTKH50nBNk6ZBXSi62Ndva_skVF6FrF3jS_s47wt3guyHanXsjxEAXLDfOeTvptYk4MhVQUTHL8YRyqoQk9LAL6U/s1600/new_year_2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="301" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBhwVVgYEph4TBlkThfgIFQ98Cz-fg4lpzYCnXp1Jkt0nPXHwh4gWFTKH50nBNk6ZBXSi62Ndva_skVF6FrF3jS_s47wt3guyHanXsjxEAXLDfOeTvptYk4MhVQUTHL8YRyqoQk9LAL6U/s400/new_year_2013.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-31466047795249712662012-12-21T23:51:00.000-08:002012-12-21T23:51:32.121-08:00New Atheism v. Religion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXMwcbbcjYydBMTVtLoLNzyheSEvtgGILw3dRZCJ3wZsKfExEFoPN9MSDQBALongOzcZqL4Jvn0EAS-M28K5bO9jkep92APAesTujKcJTMv3XK8Bqtg4dlf_7eLRQBxjFre4R4409iL3s/s1600/NA_Religion.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="360" width="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXMwcbbcjYydBMTVtLoLNzyheSEvtgGILw3dRZCJ3wZsKfExEFoPN9MSDQBALongOzcZqL4Jvn0EAS-M28K5bO9jkep92APAesTujKcJTMv3XK8Bqtg4dlf_7eLRQBxjFre4R4409iL3s/s400/NA_Religion.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-43235968884577184972012-12-21T13:46:00.002-08:002012-12-21T23:06:07.413-08:00Communism and New Atheism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp31s0IhfbQfKspFs_YMtLgXje31ksPoYtlgwmqZ8Iz3zxnEd28_XzGfwOT26iRKpii8M46VXlmfaLSBFECtQ5OVbpPM1dwQYW0jbUmioPjyIb3WA6DOeSimOqt3bwwKM0n06huu4pYew/s1600/Question_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="359" width="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp31s0IhfbQfKspFs_YMtLgXje31ksPoYtlgwmqZ8Iz3zxnEd28_XzGfwOT26iRKpii8M46VXlmfaLSBFECtQ5OVbpPM1dwQYW0jbUmioPjyIb3WA6DOeSimOqt3bwwKM0n06huu4pYew/s400/Question_1.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-32801519653856181042012-12-21T13:45:00.002-08:002012-12-21T23:05:54.087-08:00Lenin and New Atheism (2)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPqottHYbm95rXDvIuMzERFHaMBgLCSc-dxXVLaZBiRpP_KWiv5fyK-ieyaN1-KJYJ_t0Ty1df9zJ7KymYZ7XkkPRQZ-ekbcpl7vW8b70WXQy8Vdovffm-nrcRWxlOdUIK8fAFtSOp7OA/s1600/Lenin_NA_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="359" width="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPqottHYbm95rXDvIuMzERFHaMBgLCSc-dxXVLaZBiRpP_KWiv5fyK-ieyaN1-KJYJ_t0Ty1df9zJ7KymYZ7XkkPRQZ-ekbcpl7vW8b70WXQy8Vdovffm-nrcRWxlOdUIK8fAFtSOp7OA/s400/Lenin_NA_1.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-74413079462664506252012-12-21T13:44:00.002-08:002012-12-21T23:05:38.719-08:00Lenin and New Atheism (1)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixGXmj-nfUwtUvdvfZzry7fvt9vRyLOEXE6iUeirJy26p-ELg5oEjtapkO_G5bPsGFr7wpZj5kiMIgdxNB3XNVrFSSRhs_Fy0B9VCvwKhiYvfYlrP-dZ25NtdH9txfmbQicHhl8zKKNZM/s1600/Lenin_NA.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="359" width="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixGXmj-nfUwtUvdvfZzry7fvt9vRyLOEXE6iUeirJy26p-ELg5oEjtapkO_G5bPsGFr7wpZj5kiMIgdxNB3XNVrFSSRhs_Fy0B9VCvwKhiYvfYlrP-dZ25NtdH9txfmbQicHhl8zKKNZM/s400/Lenin_NA.png" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-79942113301602848362012-12-21T13:39:00.003-08:002012-12-21T13:39:57.953-08:00"Do Not Pray For Me"<span class="userContent">Why do some people who are supposedly atheists or anti-theists say, "Do not pray for me"? <br /> <br />
Well, I used to be an atheist. When I was an atheist, I did not believe
in God. Consequently, I did not believe in the effectiveness of
prayers. I did not believe that God answers prayers and so I did not
believe that prayers can change anything. If someone said that he or she
was praying or going to pray f<span class="text_exposed_show">or me, I would not care about it because I "knew" that it would change anything. <br /> <br />
Then, why do some atheists say, "Do not pray for me" if they supposedly
do not believe in God and God's answers to prayers? Well, I think it is
because they actually admit that prayers can have some effect and they
fear this effect due to some reasons. It may be a kind of irrational
fear actually. They may say, "There is no God and so God does not answer
prayers." However, there is something inside of them that tells them,
"No. God does answers prayers." Since they outwardly deny God, they know
that they are wrong with God. This is why they fear Him and fear His
answers to prayers. <br /> <br /> How to get rid of this fear? "20 We are
therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal
through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might
become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:20-21, NIV). The way to get
rid of the fear of God and of prayers is to be reconciled to God. <br /> <br />
I have been reconciled to God and I have no fears of prayers of other
people for me, whatever their prayers may be. Even if somebody is going
to curse me in prayers and ask God to do something bad to me, I do not
fear it because I know that God will answer only those prayers that are
according to His desire. And, of course, if people pray for me in a
positive way, I do appreciate it.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-11300952152022285592012-12-21T13:35:00.005-08:002012-12-21T13:37:07.938-08:00Why Does Religion Trigger Some Ex-Cultists?<span class="userContent">I noticed that some people are very sensitive
to any religious discussions and tend to overreact. This reminds me of
what I read in The Fight: A Practical Handbook to Christian Living by
John White. I have a Russian version of this book. John White is a
Christian and a psychiatrist. He wrote that when somebody had a very
negative reaction, he asked, "This affects you. Why?" Since I have only
Russi<span class="text_exposed_show">an translation, I am not sure about
the exact words in the original question. Maybe, he asked, "This
triggers you. Why?" Really, why? This is an interesting question. <br /> <br />
Several months after I left the cult, I noticed that I was able
to use my own critical thinking in most areas and discuss these things
without any problems. The only exception was religion. Thinking about
religion, I still thought in the same way as I was taught in the cult. It made me feel very bad about religion and any religious
discussions. It also gave me feeling that my mind was not fully free.
Although I was an atheist at that time, I decided that I need to learn
about other religious views. So, I began to study theology. I studied
various concepts and views. I really liked to study different concepts
of the same teaching, compare them and then make my own conclusions. It
helped me to develop my own critical thinking in religious matters and
it helped me to reconsider my religious views and get rid of the cult indoctrination. It was a very important part of my cult recovery.
<br /> <br /> What would be if I had not studied theology and just
completely turned away from any religion? I think I would still have
been in the same condition as 10 years ago. Any thought about religion,
about God or about the Bible would have triggered my memory about the cult, their doctrines and abuses. I would have still think about
the Bible through the "glasses" of the cult doctrines. Reading
any verse of the Bible, I would have understood it according to the cult interpretation. Thinking about any teaching of the Bible, I would
have thought about it according to what I learned in the cult. <br /> <br />
I think ex-cult members who just turned away from religion completely
may have the same problem. No matter how long they have been out, they
may still view religion in the same way as they were taught in their
cults. Then, religious discussions trigger their memory of their cults
and cause overreaction. This may be the real source of the problem.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span id=".reactRoot[251].[1][2][1]{comment4956926602233_5592798}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][1]"></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[251].[1][2][1]{comment4956926602233_5592798}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[251].[1][2][1]{comment4956926602233_5592798}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[251].[1][2][1]{comment4956926602233_5592798}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]">Actually,
I think it is one of the problems of completely secular approach to
cult recovery as well as atheist propaganda to ex-cult members. The
religious issues are just neglected and put away instead of being
properly addressed. In my opinion, these issues needs to be addressed,
which does not mean that ex-cult members should necessary become
religious believers. These are two different things.</span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-45655039659961833732012-12-21T13:32:00.002-08:002012-12-21T13:32:39.590-08:00"It Is Possible To Prove Anything, Using the Bible"<span class="userContent">Sometimes I heard people saying that it is
possible to prove anything, using the Bible. In principle, it is true if
a person ignores basic principles of interpretation of the Bible. <br /> <br /> One of these principles is that it is very important to <span class="text_exposed_show">consider
the context: the context of the verse, the context of the paragraph,
the context of the chapter, the context of the book, and the context of
the Bible.<br /> <br /> There is an old joke that illustrates the importance
of this principle: the Bible says that there is no God. How can it be
that the Bible says so? Let's read Psalm 14:1 (NIV): "There is no God."
Well, this is only a part of this verse. The whole verse:<br /> <br /> "The fool says in his heart,<br /> “There is no God.”<br /> They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;<br /> there is no one who does good."<br /> <br />
So, from the context of the verse, it is clear that it is was the fool
who says that there is no God. The Bible only quotes the fool's words
here.<br /> <br /> Now, who is the fool? Modern readers of the Bible may
think that the fool is a stupid person. However, in order to understand
the meaning of this word it is necessary to consider how this word is
used in Psalms and in other Bible books such as Proverbs, checking all
the other verses where this word is used. In Psalms and Proverbs, this
word is used rather for an immoral person than for a stupid person. The
context of Psalms 14:1 also implies that the fool is an immoral and not
stupid person.<br /> <br /> So, I think this example shows the importance of the context. There are some other frequent errors: <a href="http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2008/12/hermeneutical-errors.html" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank">http://lemanal.blogspot.com/2008/12/hermeneutical-errors.html</a></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-86072420453907016092012-12-21T13:31:00.001-08:002013-08-02T18:08:12.336-07:00Was Darwin an Atheist?Was Darwin an atheist? Probably, most people think that he was, but this is not so simple. <br /> <br />
"It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences." (<a href="http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-12-2008/106822-darwin_theology_degree-0/" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank">http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-12-2008/106822-darwin_theology_degree-0/</a>)<br /> <br />
British Journal for the History of Science published Steve Dilley's
article Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species: <br /> <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8269309&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S000708741100032X" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank">http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8269309&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S000708741100032X</a><br /> <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html</a><br /> <br />
As it is quite clear from the article's title, the author states that Darwin did use theology in the Origin of Species as a support for his ideas and that it is impossible to understand Darwin's work without understanding his theology.<br /> <br /> There is also quite famous testimony of Lady Hope who said that she had visited Darwin several months before he died and that he was fond of reading the Bible and had Christian faith at that time. He even regretted of his evolutionist ideas: <a href="http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank">http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed</a><br /> <br />
I am aware that there have been many attempts to deny her testimony. As for me, I do not see anything odd in this testimony. Many people who denied God their whole life become believers in God before their death. Since Darwin was very interested in theology when he was young and he even wanted to be a clergyman, it makes his turn back to God before his death even more possible.<br /> <br />I think it is possible that he did say about his evolution ideas: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I
threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." He never publicly denied his ideas, but no one can be really sure that he did not regret about his ideas privately.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-65565381908089080452012-12-21T13:29:00.001-08:002012-12-21T13:29:22.539-08:00The Bible and Oppression<span class="userContent">Many people who reject the Bible believe that
it supports various kinds of oppression. However, it is actually quite a
big question: What comes first: interpretations of the Bible that
support oppression or oppression itself.<br /> <br /> 150 years ago, many
American preachers used the Bible to support slavery of the black
people. Does the Bible support it? I do not think so. What was the cause
and what was t<span class="text_exposed_show">he sequence? Did the
wrong interpretation of the Bible cause the slavery of the black? Or the
slavery of the black existed in the society and then theologians
invented a special interpretation of the Bible to support it?<br /> <br />
It is interesting to note that the slavery of the black has never
existed in Russia. And Russian theologians never taught that the slavery
of the black was supported by the Bible.<br /> <br /> So, I think that in
this case it is quite clear that American theologians just invented
interpretation of the Bible in order to support the slavery of the
black. It is true though that when societal norms began to change and
the slavery was no longer considered as norm, some Christians continued
to believe that it was supported by the Bible.<br /> <br /> I think it may
be the case with all the other kinds of oppression: antisemitism,
racism, sexism, heterosexism, and many other. First, such things
appeared in the society. Then, the Bible was interpreted in such a way
as to justify these things. Later, however, people continued to believe
that the Bible supports such things while it was not the case.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"></span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[269].[1][2][1]{comment4925377293520_5563447}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[269].[1][2][1]{comment4925377293520_5563447}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[269].[1][2][1]{comment4925377293520_5563447}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]">If
the Bible was used to support slavery, racism, antisemitism, sexism,
homophobia, and many other kinds of oppression, it does not mean that
the Bible really supports them.</span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-65474695525770105412012-12-21T13:25:00.001-08:002012-12-21T13:25:49.402-08:00All People Believe in Something<span class="userContent">All people believe in something and disbelieve in something. And all people trust someone and distrust someone. <br /> <br />
Some people believe in God, some believe in a certain philosophy, some
believe in science or in philosophy of science (which is not the same).
Philosophies change all the time. In Acts 17, it is written how Paul
preached to philosophers in Athens. It is considered that these
philosophe<span class="text_exposed_show">rs were Stoics and Epicureans.
These philosophies were very popular at that time. How many people
believe in Stoicism and Epicureanism now and how many people believe in
Christ now? <br /> <br /> Many scientific theories also change over the
time. Some of them "proved" to be wrong. Eventually, scientists are
human and they make mistakes just like anyone else. <br /> <br /> Some
people trust politicians, some do not. Some trust Putin, some trust
Obama, and so on. I do not trust Putin, but I have to admit that if I
believe some people's negative reports about him, it means that I trust
them more than him. Probably, I do not fully trust any Russian
politician. <br /> <br /> Some people trust mass-media, some do not. In
fact, not everything reported by mass-media is true. For example, in
August 2008, there was a short war between Russia and Georgia in South
Ossetia. If you compare the reports of this war from Russian and Western
mass-media, you will think that these are reports about two absolutely
different wars. It is because these reports are completely different.
Who is right and who is wrong? I do not know. I do not know what really
took place in South Ossetia and Georgia in August 2008. I have to admit
that. I also have to admit that I do not fully know what took place
during the latest two wars in Chechnya because there are many different
and contradictory reports of those wars. I know much less about the wars
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and many others. I have to admit this.
These are just some examples. <br /> <br /> Why do some people think that it
is reasonable to believe in mass-media, politicians, and so on, but it
is unreasonable to believe in God? Why?</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-61231947748236593602012-12-21T13:17:00.001-08:002012-12-21T13:24:27.376-08:00On God's Existence (2)The Bible never "proves" God's existence. It just states God's existence. All the arguments for God's existence strictly speaking are not based on the Bible, though some of them use some ideas from the Bible. Why? I guess it might mean that God does not want to give people evidences of His existence that will satisfy everyone. Why?<br /><br />
Well, there are two kinds of objects of knowledge: things and people. People may learn about things, study them, measure them, make experiments with them, and so on. The knowledge about things can be objective. However, it is not so with people. People may hide their thoughts, feelings, and intentions from one another. They may pretend to be who they are not. They may deceive one another. They decide what to tell others about themselves and what to tell to whom. So, knowledge of a person depends on his or her openness to others. It is different from knowledge of a thing.<br /><br />
Using terminology of Martin Buber, these two kinds of knowledge are described as "I-it" and "I-thou."<br /><br />
I understand that some people believe in impersonal god. An impersonal god might be described as "it." But personal God is not "it." He is "Thou." What a human being may know about God is only what God wants to reveal about Himself. It is one thing to learn about God, and it is another thing to learn God Himself. I do not know how many people would like other people, for example, their friends, to know about them, but never to know them.<br /><br />
When people are studying something, they are in a higher position than the objects of the study. However, when friends are learning about one another, they are in more or less equal position. If people were able just to study God and everything about God as an inanimate object, would not they think that they are higher than God? Would God want to take position lower than a human being who studies Him?<br /><br />
Just as a human being may not be willing to share about himself or herself with enemies, in the same way God may not be willing to reveal Himself and give "sufficient" evidences of His existence to people who already set their mind to disbelieving in Him and denying His existence. I think it is quite logical.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330315463944504039.post-38314993213340189012012-12-21T13:16:00.000-08:002012-12-21T13:24:02.528-08:00On God's Existence (1)There are many people in Russia who do not believe that Osama bin Laden ever existed. They do not trust American government and mass-media. And they believe that Osama bin Laden was a fictitious person who was invented in order to justify American war in Afghanistan.<br /><br />
I do not believe in this theory. I believe that Osama bin Laden really existed. However, I do not think I would be able to "prove" to such people that he really existed. Why? It is because all the information about him that I can provide is from mass-media and they believe that it was forged. I am unable to introduce to them living bin Laden because he is dead and only very few people know where his body is now.<br /><br />
In the same way, I am not sure that I would be able to "prove" that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon or anyone else ever existed to people who do not believe in their existence.<br /><br />
As far as I know, most people in the Western countries, even atheists, do not deny that Jesus and Muhammad existed. In the Soviet Union, the official doctrine was that they never existed and most people believed in that.<br /><br />
It is not so easy to "prove" existence of a person, a human being, especially, if this person is already dead. It may be impossible to give sufficient evidences to convince some people who do not believe that someone really existed.<br /><br />
If it is hard or even impossible to convince some people that someone, a human being, really existed, will it be easier to "prove" the existence of God, especially, to the most stubborn atheists? In the same way as some people invent their own arguments against bin Laden's existence, atheists invent their own arguments against God's existence.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0