Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[ohreally]

Good luck demonstrating that there is only one true morality.

Give me an example of where there are two opposing truths about something.

Give me an example where you have actions and thoughts without using your brain.

[GrandizerII]

Good luck demonstrating that there is only one true morality.

Give me an example of where there are two opposing truths about something.

Think color blindness.

[Lek]

Give me an example of where there are two opposing truths about something.

Think color blindness.

Colors are caused by the absorption of parts of the light which hits it and the reflection of other parts. This is what causes something to be a certain color. What we see with our our eyes is our perception of that color. Even if a color blind cannot tell if a green object is green, it is still green. The color blind person may think it's pink, but it's still green.

[GrandizerII]

Think color blindness.

Colors are caused by the absorption of parts of the light which hits it and the reflection of other parts.  This is what causes something to be a certain color.  What we see with our our eyes is our perception of that color.  Even if a color blind cannot tell if a green object is green, it is still green.  The color blind person may think it's pink, but it's still green.

You are mixing up perception of color with the wavelength range corresponding to each labeled color. When people refer to a green car, they are not referring to the wavelength itself but rather to their perception of the color they see with their eyes in accordance with how colors are labeled.

Another example is beauty. You might see something as aesthetically beautiful, and that is a truth for you, but someone else might see the same thing as unpleasant to look at, and so that would be a truth to them. There need not be ultimate truth in every case.

[Lek]

Colors are caused by the absorption of parts of the light which hits it and the reflection of other parts.  This is what causes something to be a certain color.  What we see with our our eyes is our perception of that color.  Even if a color blind cannot tell if a green object is green, it is still green.  The color blind person may think it's pink, but it's still green.

You are mixing up perception of color with the wavelength range corresponding to each labeled color. When people refer to a green car, they are not referring to the wavelength itself but rather to their perception of the color they see with their eyes in accordance with how colors are labeled.

Another example is beauty. You might see something as aesthetically beautiful, and that is a truth for you, but someone else might see the same thing as unpleasant to look at, and so that would be a truth to them. There need not be ultimate truth in every case.

I think you just made a good case for the relevance of truth to people. The question I must ask myself then, as a follower of Christ, is whether or not I should follow my perception of truth or God's perception of truth as related in scripture.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose that depends on whether it;s more important to you to be a good person, or to please a fairy from a storybook.

[Doubting Thomas]

1.    If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered

And that's OK.  It's perfectly OK in science to say "We don't know."  It's also perfectly OK to have unanswered questions because attempting to answer those questions is what drives discovery.


2.    If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning


Only to those who derive their entire meaning based upon religious belief.  The rest of us make our own meaning in our lives.  

3.    When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific

Not any worse than religious strife, such as the crusades, religious defense of slavery, the Holocaust, constant turmoil in the Middle East, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, terrorism, etc.  The simple fact is that sometimes humans act horribly toward other groups of humans.  Neither religion nor atheism is ever going to stop it.


4.    If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved


They don't appear to be solved with a god, either.

5.    If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people


Not really.  We can still critique them on their actions, which is all we as humans should critique others for.  I don't care what someone else believes as long as they are good to other people.

6.    If there is no God, we don’t make sense


This is nothing more than a false dilemma.  Science makes plenty of sense while being completely secular with no religious belief of magic or woo allowed.

Religious apologists still come up with ridiculous arguments as to why there just has to be a god.  Unfortunately they're invariably always from a religious viewpoint and assumption that God already exists.

[Lek]

1.    If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered

And that's OK.  It's perfectly OK in science to say "We don't know."  It's also perfectly OK to have unanswered questions because attempting to answer those questions is what drives discovery.


2.    If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning


Only to those who derive their entire meaning based upon religious belief.  The rest of us make our own meaning in our lives.  

3.    When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific

Not any worse than religious strife, such as the crusades, religious defense of slavery, the Holocaust, constant turmoil in the Middle East, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, terrorism, etc.  The simple fact is that sometimes humans act horribly toward other groups of humans.  Neither religion nor atheism is ever going to stop it.


4.    If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved


They don't appear to be solved with a god, either.

5.    If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people


Not really.  We can still critique them on their actions, which is all we as humans should critique others for.  I don't care what someone else believes as long as they are good to other people.

6.    If there is no God, we don’t make sense


This is nothing more than a false dilemma.  Science makes plenty of sense while being completely secular with no religious belief of magic or woo allowed.

Religious apologists still come up with ridiculous arguments as to why there just has to be a god.  Unfortunately they're invariably always from a religious viewpoint and assumption that God already exists.

Which all ends up with the same question - does God exist or not? I guess we all just have to make that decision for ourselves.

[comet]

You are mixing up perception of color with the wavelength range corresponding to each labeled color. When people refer to a green car, they are not referring to the wavelength itself but rather to their perception of the color they see with their eyes in accordance with how colors are labeled.

Another example is beauty. You might see something as aesthetically beautiful, and that is a truth for you, but someone else might see the same thing as unpleasant to look at, and so that would be a truth to them. There need not be ultimate truth in every case.

I think you just made a good case for the relevance of truth to people.  The question I must ask myself then, as a follower of Christ, is whether or not I should follow my perception of truth or God's perception of truth as related in scripture.

are you a literal bible or non literal bible guy?

[FallentoReason]

I never understood the celebrity status of Dawkins among some atheists. He beclowns himself with straw man objections to serious arguments.

I agree with you. Also, I can't stop myself from rolling my eyes every time he says YHWH is a "big bully". Ad hominem, anyone?