Even More Questions! Yay!

From: http://geekychristian.com/questions-for-atheists-agnostics/

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?
No. I don't deny the existence of gods or Jedi knights or Sugarplum Fairies. What I deny is that there are any good reasons to believe that any of these things actually exist. But I could be wrong on all three accounts.

If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

That's just it: gods don't leave any reliable evidence behind.  If they did, there would be no atheists.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them?

No. I will agree that something can look designed even when it's not.

 If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

No, because you have not shown me what an undesigned universe looks like by comparison.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something?

Yes. That's exactly why I reject creationism.

If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Well, there are several problems with that. First of all, you can't establish that there exists a "beyond the universe."

Even if you could, you cannot establish that a "cause" for the universe (which i'm guessing you're going to special plead is the "uncaused cause," which opens up a whole other can of worms) even exists.

And even if you could, you cannot make any positive claim about who or what the cause is or was.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Yes, because we can objectively measure and detect gravity, magnetism and the wind.  We can also objectively study the individual human mind (psychology, neurology, psychiatry)

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

Only if you will agree that just because we can't see invisible unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

The Big Bang theory does not postulate the creation of "something out of nothing."  It states that all of the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into an immensely hot, dense singularity which began to expand roughly 14.5 billion years ago.  Explain to me how that constitutes "something out of nothing."
 
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

Only if the laws of preservation of matter and energy are valid.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

No, because you are basically saying that something that occurs naturally doesn't occur naturally; that the information therein was 'put there" by an outside agent that you can make no positive claims to knowledge about.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give),

This is fallacious and disproven by the fact that a single snowball can cause an avalanche.

then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

If that were the case, then removing parts of your brain would have no effect at all on your mind. But it does. 

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

"Right" and "wrong" are not tangible "things,' they are intangible descriptives and highly dependent upon a number of factors, not the least of which is the truth or falsehood of the starting assumptions.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver,

Stop right there.  Thank you for making my point about the truth or falsehood of starting assumptions.
On what do you base that claim? Scientific laws are based on observations of natural phenomena, not a "lawgiver."
  
does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Only if your premise is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is.  Even if such a "Moral Lawgiver" existed, I certainly doubt that it is any of the gods people currently worship and is certainly not the god of the Abrahamic faiths who condones slavery, rape, genocide, murder and human sacrifice.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

 If universes didn't occur naturally, you'd have a check mate. But you have no way of knowing that they don't since, as far as we know, this is the only one that exists.  Come to think of it, as far as we know, it's the only one that is existence.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods?

Yes, because small glass balls don't occur naturally in the woods and we know how they're made.  And since both the ball and the woods are located within the space-time construct of the universe, we know that the laws of cause and effect must be in play.

And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause?

Yes, because of what I just said.

 If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

If the universe were a glass ball located within the space-time structure of the universe, you'd have a check mate, but it's not. 
So......

-On what do you base the claim that the universe is a glass ball? 

-Cause and effect implies the existence of time (Cause precedes effect in time).  How can a cause for the universe precede the effect of the universe when time doesn't start until the universe does? Are you postulating the existence of some sort of "anti-time" that works in the reverse of time? If so, please show the data or rationale.  

-The only other way this can work is if you have separate and distinct states where the universe exists and the universe does not exist and there exists a breach between these two realities.  This violates your hero Geisler's law of non-contradiction because a breach in these realities would mean that an indistinction between the existence and non-existence of the universe exists, or to put it more plainly, there would have to exist a point where the universe exists and does not exist simultaneously.  This is impossible.  

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

You first must establish that such a thing as "beyond the universe" exists.  You then must establish that we can know anything about this "beyond the universe," and how we can know it. You then must establish that anything such as a "cause" for the universe exists in this beyond existent state of.....existence.  Even then, you still have miles to go before you can tell us what this cause is. 

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

How do you support the claim  that the universe is "fine-tuned for the emergence of life" when life is rare just in our solar system? If the universe were "fine-tuned for the emergence of life," then why do so many places hostile (to the point of fatal) to life exist? If the emergence of human life were "preplanned," why are so many places on earth hostile to human life? Furthermore, why are there so many life forms hostile to humans (bacteria, viruses, hippos)? If anything, this speaks of unintelligent or even malevolent design. 

Questions from South Africa.....

We're going world-wide again!
(Original post): http://deanministries.page.tl/Questions-To-Atheists.htm

Question 1: If there is no God, how do you tell right from wrong?


An action is right or wrong depending on a plethora of things. Is the underlying assumption behind the action true or false? What is the context in which the action takes place? Does the action unnecessarily harm someone else or cause them to needlessly suffer? It is in the answers to these questions that you find “right” and “wrong “



Question 2: If you had a gun in your pocket, would you kill me? Or would you decide it’s wrong? Why do you show compassion if Evolution is true?



Generally, I’d say “no.” However, if you pulled a gun on me, or you posed a threat to my life or the life of someone else, then perhaps I would, as anyone else would regardless of their religious point of view.

And if you’d learned anything from human evolution, you’d know that we evolved to be social creatures. This is because our survival in the early days (and today) depended on our ability to work cooperatively and form mutually-beneficial social arrangements.



Question 3: If the Atheistic worldview were true, we are just a conglomerate of chemicals that formed by chance. If this is true, how can you trust your own thoughts?



First of all, which “atheistic worldview” are you talking about? Secular Humanism? Nihilism? Existentialism? Materialism? Communism? You are going to have to narrow your definition a bit.

Second, evolution shows that humans are not “a conglomerate of chemicals that formed by chance.” Some evolutionary mechanisms are based on chance, but most are deterministic.

Third, if we could trust our own thoughts, then independent verification and evidence would be unnecessary.



Question 4: Take a watch. It was created by somebody in a foreign land. You have never seen the creator of the watch. But you believe without question that it was designed, created and has a creator. So then what makes you think the entire universe got here by chance, without a creator?



Watches don’t occur naturally. If they did, you’d have a valid point and a check mate. But we differentiate watches and other manufactured items from naturally-occurring phenomena because we have naturally-occurring phenomena to serve as a basis of comparison. You are basically asserting that nature doesn’t occur naturally. On what are you basing this assertion? Do you have knowledge of a naturally occurring universe that we can compare this “manufactured” one to? Furthermore, we know how watches are manufactured because we can see how they are produced. We can go to a factory and see how the watch goes from metal parts to finished product. We can learn the process ourselves and build watches. In other words, the process is discernible and repeatable. If you are asserting that we live in a universe that is manufactured, are you also asserting that we could possibly learn to create our own universes?

An Open Letter to Kim Jong-Un

Dear Tubby,

I realize that nobody in your inner circle has the balls to be honest with you, so that's why i'm taking the time to write this.

Look, I don't know what your deal is or what you are thinking, but somebody needs to set you straight.

I realize that you and the rest of the bowl-cut wearing fat-asses in your country are paranoid about a U.S. invasion.

But here's the deal: historically, the U.S. has shown no qualms whatsoever about invading a country based on flimsy or spotty reasoning.

Seriously, if we wanted to invade you bad enough, we'd have invented a reason to.

Just ask Iraq.

See, Chuckles, your country doesn't have anything we want. 

So, pipe down, go back to starving your own people and leave the rest of the civilized world alone until you have something interesting to say.

Thanks a bunch!

Friendly Relations

Heading to work the other day when I was greeted by this sign outside of a church:

Well, since you asked, it's working out just fine!

I can focus on being a good person and a productive member of society without having to apologize all the time for being human.

Traditional Marriage

I am a 39 year-old straight man.

I am married to a 43 year-old straight woman.

We have been married to each other for almost 17 years (in a row).

We have one child.

We were married in a church, by her uncle, a retired Methodist minister.

I work full time and am the sole breadwinner in our family.  My wife is a stay-at-home mom.

I tell you all of this to say that when it comes to a "traditional" marriage, it doesn't get more "traditional" than mine.

Opponents of marriage equality contend that allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the same rights to have their unions legally recognized will threaten traditional marriage. 

In my 17 years of "traditional" marriage, not once has the union (legally recognized or not) of a single solitary homosexual couple threatened my marriage. 

Allowing my gay friends and relatives and their life partners to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of a legally recognized married couple poses absolutely no threat to my or my wife's rights and responsibilities as a legally recognized married couple, any more than expanding the right of marriage to interracial couples poses a threat to same-race couples or inter-faith marriages poses a threat same-faith marriages.

What does threaten my marriage is a government being allowed to discriminate against people. 

The same governmen tthat can deny the right of legal marriage to a same-sex couple is the same government that can deny the right of marriage to any one of us for any arbitrary reason whatsoever.

Personally, I can think of no greater threat to my "traditional" marriage than that.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Dr. Martin Luther King

Doubting "Doubting Atheism"

http://www.lcwym.com/2012/11/doubting-atheism.html

Atheism cannot offer credible answers to my fifteen doubts.

Challenge: Accepted.

1. Why are atheists so obsessed with religion? 

If life were meaningless and ends at the grave, why even bother. If life is just a monopoly game that's going to be put up, why even try to take the property and money of others (in a metaphoric sense, of course)? It doesn't make much sense. Given atheism, nothing really matters since it's not going to last. So, again I ask you, why bother with religion and its negative effects?

You are equating atheism with nihilism.  These two things are not the same. The fact that life ends is the very thing that gives it meaning.  The fact that life in the universe is rare (as far as we know) is what gives it value. As we see it, you have one life and one shot to make the most of that life. 

As far as atheists' "obsession" with religion, we generally aren't.  That is, until someone wants to pass laws that effect all of us based on their interpretation of a bronze age religious text.  Or until someone wants to harass us and get us fired from our jobs because we don't share their interpretation of reality.  Or until someone traumatizes our children by telling them that their parents are going to hell. Or until one of our leaders wants to take us into a war on the orders of an invisible, inaudible, atemporal, immaterial deity that only communicates telepathically.   Or someone wants to shoe-horn religious dogma into the science and social studies curriculum. Or someone wants to kill, or imprison, or deport us for imaginary crimes.

Counter-question: If life is just a waiting room to a great beyond up yonder in the sweet by and by, why continue living?

2. Why are atheists so obsessed with monotheistic religions? 

Why only the big three? If all religions are equally false, why only bother with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What about Hinduism or deism? Again, it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps there's a reason that atheists are so amazingly obsessed with Christianity?

Christians and Muslims make up 57% of the world's population.  Islam and Christianity combined are the dominant faiths in 214 countries.  Of the 38 countries where blasphemy is a criminal offense of some kind, 37 are either majority Christian or Muslim.  Judaism is the evolutionary predecessor of these religions. 

When Hindus start trying to pass laws in the United States based on the Vedas, i'll criticize them.  When deists start blowing people up and beheading people for being infidels, i'll go after them.  When Sikhs start trying to elect candidates who call science "a lie from the pit of hell," or that the female body can shut down pregnancies that result from "legitimate" rape, or that prayer creates a halo around a woman's body that prevents date rape, i'll go after them.  When the largest organization of Wiccans in the world spends the better part of 50 or so years hiding and enabling child molesters within its clergy, i'll go after them as well. 

Counter-question: What makes your claim to one god any more valid than polytheists' claims to multiple gods?

3. How do atheists explain the beginning of the universe? 

Often atheists have pointed to the Big Bang to justify their worldview, but the Big Bang actually proves theism.

It does no such thing.  The Big Bang Theory establishes that the expansion of space-time had a beginning.

 Here's a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is called special pleading.  You are assuming that the laws of causation (before and after) which apply inside of time and space, apply to time and space itself.  But i'll put that aside and play along. 

For this to be true, there has to be 2 separate and distinct realities: the state of affairs where the universe does not exist (A) and the state of affairs where the universe does exist (B).  Furthermore, one of the four following contingencies must be true:

1. The universe doesn't exist. Disproven by the fact that it does.
2. The universe never began to exist. Disproven by the Big Bang.
3. The Big Bang (Y) was preceded in time by the cause (X). Disproven by the fact that a cause cannot exist in time because there is no time until the Big Bang.
4. X is the atemporal cause of Y.  For X to exist in A and be the cause of Y (which exists in B), then there has to exist some point where A and B are indistinguishable.  This means that somewhere there has or had to be a point where universe exists and does not exist simultaneously.  This is impossible.

There is great evidence for the Big Bang. We can be led to it by first stating this fact: The universe is either eternal, or it is not. If it's not, than my argument is scientifically supported. The universe cannot be eternal because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is running out.

Actually, it states that entropy (the degree of disorder) does not decrease over time in a closed system.  Please demonstrate to me and everyone else how the universe represents a closed system. 

 If the universe is eternal, it should've run out a long time ago. The Big Bang proves God because it proves the universe came into being from nothing, and nothing cannot create nothing, for it is nothing.
Therefore, Something must have caused the Big Bang. So how do you explain away this evidence for the existence of God?

"The Universe" refers to the four-dimensional construct (space-time) which we inhabit. The beginning of the Universe does not refer to "the creation of everything ex nihilo."   This construct did not come into being out of nothing.  The Big Bang speculates that the initial singularity that was the universe began to expand roughly 14.5 billion years ago.  Prior to that? No one can say.  Literally.  Not only does our concept of time not account for that, we don't even know what time was or how it functioned or if it functioned at all prior to that....or if "prior to that" is even possible.  Let me put this as simply as I can:

I have no fracking idea how the universe began and I feel quite confident that you don't either.

The difference between the two of us is: I can accept that I don't know something.  You plug in your favorite creation myth and call that "knowledge."  It's just a re-hash of the "god of the gaps" arguement.
You might special plead a god or gods or hyper-intelligent shade of blue into existence, but the fact of the matter remains:

You cannot make any positive claim to knowledge of a "cause" for the universe.

Even if you could "prove" a "cause" for the universe, you have no way of proving who or what that cause is or was.  The only thing you would have "proved" is deism: the existence of a non-specific creator.  You still have miles to go after that before you can "prove" theism: the existence of a particular god.

4. How do atheists explain away objective moral values?

I always find it hilarious whenever Christians ask this question.  Especially when I bring up how the Bible condones slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. 

Objective moral values are ones that are independent of human thought.

No. Objective moral values are ones that are independent of context, situation or time period in question.  Human morality cannot exist independent of human thought as it is a product of human thought.

If God doesn't exist, they wouldn't exist either. There'd be no one in charge to make a universal standard of right and wrong. It'd simply be a matter or opinion. But moral relativism fails. For one, it says that moral claims are only a matter of opinion but it asserts that as a fact.

Moral relativism does no such thing.  It is not "just a matter of opinion." Moral relativism basically means that moral claims are a matter a myriad of factors, which can include:

1. biological necessity.
2. context or situation
3. truth or falsehood of underlying assumptions
4. level of enlightened self-interest
5. level of socialization and cultural development

Christians play the same game with morality when confronted with genocide, child abuse, rape and slavery in the Bible. 

"Well, that only applies to that time period..."
"Well, that only applies to the ancient Jews...."
"Well, Jesus nullified that rule (even though Jesus said no such thing about Old Testament laws)

Also, we know things such as rape, murder, and child abuse are wrong, and if everyone agreed that they were right, they'd still be wrong.

We certainly don't know these things are wrong because of the Bible because the Bible condones all three of these things, and slavery too. 

We know things are objectively wrong because we feel guilt when we do what is wrong;

No.  We know these things are wrong because they infringe upon the rights of others, they contribute to human suffering, they destabilize societies, they perpetuate mental disorders, and we all have something called enlightened self-interest.  You guys call it the "golden rule" and it exists in every religion that has ever been.

If morality was just our opinion, we wouldn't feel guilty, for we would be doing what is right for us. So how do atheists justify the fact of objective morality?

The problem with objective morality is this: it creates a situation where there are no degrees of right and wrong.  If killing someone is objectively wrong, then there is no moral difference between one who kills in self-defense, one who kills accidentally, a soldier who kills someone in combat, or someone who stalks and tortures a victim prior to killing them.  Not even the most brutal dictatorships on earth have a legal system such as this. 

5. How do materialists justify immaterial realities?


Logic, math, morality, and other things such as free will, human dignity, and time exist. These things are all immaterial. We can't put the number 7 or the Law of Noncontradiction in a test tube.

But we can demonstrate logic, we can demonstrate math, and we can measure time.  Furthermore, logic, math and time all have practical applications in the material world.  Free will and human dignity are also concepts with pracitcal applications in the material world. 

But if God doesn't exist, matter would be all there is, since there'd be nothing to be the foundation of immaterial things. Everything would come through by matter, and thus, be matter. How can atheists give an answer to this argument?

On what do you base the assumption that all "immaterial things" need a foundation and what type of foundation are they required to have?   On what do you base the assumption that this "foundation" is a god?   On what do you base the assumption that this god is your specific god?   Can you measure or demonstrate this god?  

6. How do atheists explain the existence of the universe?

If atheism is true, there isn't a reason for anything. It's all an accident. There isn't any purpose. But if there weren't a purpose for anything, how do things exist?

Okay, you *really* don't understand atheism.  Atheism is not nihilism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That's it.  It makes no positive claims about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods, it is simply being unconvinced that the positive claims of theism are true. 

If God does not exist, the universe would have no meaning for its existence, and would, thus, not exist.
So how can we living in a universe that both exists and has no reason for its existence?

Until you can demonstrate the existence of a god or gods, this is pure speculation, Once you do that, you still have to demonstrate that the existence of anything is contingent upon the existence of a god or gods.  Once you do that, you still have to demonstrate that the god or gods in question are your specific god or gods.

7. How do you explain away circumstantial evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
Here are just two facts that help lead up to the conclusion that Christ is risen: 1. The early Christians died for their belief that He rose from the dead. You don't die for what you know is a lie. No one does, and no one ever could.

Simply put, they didn't believe it was a lie.  Early Mormons were persecuted and killed for what they believed, including Joseph Smith himself.  It does not verify any of the claims they made. 

2. Christianity started in Jerusalem. If the tomb weren't empty, the Jewish pharisees could've proved it and ended the Christian movement. But they didn't. How can an atheistic worldview explain this?

An empty tomb indicates only the absence of a corpse. 

8. If the gospels are just pieces of historical fiction, why are there embarrassing details in there?

Jesus being accused of being a demon. A prostitute wiping Jesus' feet, which was seen as a sexual approach.

Excuse me? When was foot washing ever seen as sexual? Foot washing is an old middle eastern tradition that was a show of hospitality and gratitude.  Typically, a host would offer a guest water to wash their feet in or offer to have servants do it for them.  There were no sexual connotations unless you put them there.

Peter being called "Satan" and denying Jesus three times. Jews being told to pay taxes to the Roman empire.

Simply put: these things fit the narrative.  The problem with the gospels is not that they are "historical fiction," but that they are unreliable as history. The average life expectancy during this time was between 28 and 52.  The earliest gospel on record is the Gospel of St. Mark, written 30-40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. It is highly unlikely that any contemporaries of Jesus' would have lived long enough to have written the Gospel of Mark.  That being said, i'll play along.

Exhibit A): We don't really know who the Gospel of Mark was written by, or about.  Church tradition states that it is the recollection of Mark the Evangelist, who was also John Mark referred to in the Bible, but that attribution was not made until the 2nd century by Papias of Hieropolis.  Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd century differentiated the two. 

Exhibit B): There are multiple versions of the Gospel of Mark, and several known editing insertions in all of them.  The earliest complete copies in existence date to the 4th century. 

So at the end of the day, the only possible first-person account for Jesus' life is a source by an anonymous author, which are the alleged recollections of a person whose identity is in question, in a document that has been heavily edited for style and content for the last 2000 years.


  One criteria of finding a historical truth is to see if the text is embarrassing to the writer. If it is, they probably didn't make it up. Could you clear this up for me?

There are five criteria for establishing the reliability of a source.

1. Accuracy
2. Authority
3. Currency
4. Objectivity
5. Relevance

The claims in Mark (and the other Gospels) cannot be independently verified.  In many cases, the claims of one Gospel cannot be verified by another Gospel. Accuracy: FAIL. 

The identity, qualifications and affiliations of the authors are all in question.  Authority: FAIL. 

The works were published no sooner than 30-40 years after the events described took place, and the only complete copies of the works themselves date to 400 years after the alleged event took place.  Currency: FAIL

The Gospels have been edited for style and content by institutions that have a vested interest in their veracity for the better part of the last 2000 years.  These institutions have a well-documented history of physically destroying conflicting or contradictory accounts with the full cooperation of the governing authorities.  Objectvity: FAIL.

9. If we are just matter, and not souls, why would some atheists support life-sentences?
The matter in our body is totally changed out every seven years. If Cartesian dualism—a view I embrace—is false, and we are just matter, that means I am not the same person as I was seven years ago. And this is also true for a criminal.The justice system is completely futile if atheism is true. If matter is who we are, why don't we change as our matter changes?

Neither I nor anyone I know puts forth the idea that we are "just matter."  Once again, you confuse atheism with nihilism.  I don't know enough about the human consciousness (and I would wager you don't either) to definitively and objectively say whether or not we exist independent of the body.  If your assertion is that we exist independent of the body in an immaterial undemonstrable state, then it is my assertion that you cannot say anything definitively and objectively about the subject.  If you can, show us your evidence and book a flight to Sweden to collect your Nobel Prize.    

10. Why do so many atheists deny historical facts?

Also funny coming from a Christian when so many Christians declare the United States to be a Christian nation founded on Biblical principles.

The common view today that most atheists hold is that Jesus didn't exist.

Actually, the view that most Atheists hold is that Jesus probably did exist, but did not possess magical powers, was not his own father and was not a zombie.

 But Jesus did exist. How do I know this? Historically reliable sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Jewish Talmud, and Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus. So why do atheists hold to the Christ-myth hypothesis in spite of what we know through historical facts?

Josephus:  wrote in the 90s, a full sixty years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection (not a contemporary).  Josephus was also a Pharisee, who would never have referred to Jesus as "the Christ" or "the Messiah."  The passage where he refers to him as such is a likely later insertion.   

Tacitus:  Textual evidence indicates that he was repeating what he was told by Christians and not what was in official Roman records.  He refers to Pilate as a procurator when he was actually a prefect, and he refers to Jesus as "Christ," which he would not have done unless
A: He was working off of what Christians told him. 
B: He was a Christian himself, which calls into question his objectivity on the matter (highly unlikely as he called Christianity a "pernicious superstititon") 
or C: His work was edited later.   

Lucian:  wrote a full 140 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection.  Since he doesn't name a source or offer any new information, his account is pretty much useless.   

The Jewish Talmud:  Not compiled until the second century, wasn't written down until the 5th century and the references to Jesus are inconclusive.  

Pliny the Younger:  Pliny simply mentions that Christians exist in Asia Minor around the year 100.  Nothing he wrote independently verifies anything written in the New Testament.  

Even if you could provide 100% independently verifiable solid evidence that there existed a man in 1st century Palestine named "Jesus" who started a Jewish cult that grew into Chrisianity, you still have provided no evidence whatsoever that he was who he and others are alleged to have said he was, or that he did what he is alleged to have done.   I can provide you with pretty solid evidence that no fewer than 5 Peter Parkers currently live in New York City.  With a little digging, I can probably find more that have either moved or deceased.  I could probably establish that a Peter Parker lived in New York City at the time the first Spiderman Comic Book was released.  But that does not in any way verify that any of these people named Peter Parker are, in fact,  Spiderman.

11. Why do most atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Denette, equivocate evolution with atheism?
Evolution does not prove God exists, nor does it prove God doesn't exist.

But it does show that a divine agent is not necessary for life to diversify.

Darwin did not kill God. Most Christians accept evolution. Why, then, do so many atheists point to evolution as if it disproves Christianity?

I might ask the same question of you, only I would replace "atheists" with "fundamentalist Christians."  Most atheists actually point to evolution as a disproof of strict Bibilical creationism.  If evolution does not pose a threat to Christianity, then why have so many Christian groups spent so much time, effort, energy and resources attempting to discredit evolution?

12. Why don't atheists actually question everything?


They're always advocating skepticism, but fail to question their own views, including that of skepticism. If we should doubt everything, why not doubt atheism?

So I should be doubtful of being doubtful of claims that are made without solid evidenciary support or logically sound reasoning? So basically, I should just accept these claims at face value.

This is just utter nonsense.  Skepticism and questioning what we believed and why we believed it is what led many of us (myself included) to atheism.  I personally spent the better part of 2 years actively seeking just one good piece of evidence or logically consistent reasoning to believe that a god or gods (ANY god or gods) are real.Couldn't find one.  If you know of one, I'm all ears.

 13. Where do rights come from?

Most atheists are supporters of the gay rights movement, and are furious when someone denies a homosexual of his or her rights just because of their sexual orientation. So it's pretty clear that atheists believe inalienable rights exist. But where do they come from? How can they be explained naturally?

Human rights are very similar to laws of motion.  They are descriptions of the natural state of things and don't "come from" anywhere but the human mind.  The idea came about when secular, non-religious Enlightenment-era thinkers decided to apply the same reasoning to the state of human society that had helped them make discoveries about the natural world and universe.  Like all  ideas, which are similar to living things, they change and adapt as new information becomes available. At first, the ideas only applied to white men..  But as our knowledge has increased (especially in the area of biology and human origins) we can see the unscientific absurdity of racism, sexism, and even homophobia.

Counter-Question: Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture (there are even clues in the Bible that King David himself may have been gay or bi-sexual) and has been observed in over 400 species of animals.  Two consenting adults in a monogamous homosexual relationship pose no threat to society, and homosexual parents provide stable, healthy and loving homes for children who'd otherwise not have one. Knowing this, how can Christians (or anyone else)  justify the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and that homosexuals should be denied basic human rights?

 14. How can there be no objective evil, but religion causes it?

 A top argument in the atheist arsenal is that religion causes evil. This doesn't prove a thing, for Pythagoras caused evil but no one doubts that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. But when atheists argue against religion by pointing out its sins, they assume that objective morality exists. If morality were a matter of opinion, there'd be no point in asserting it as a fact. So why do atheists use religious evil to try to disprove theism, when it actually does the opposite?

I'm not one to call religion "evil."  I will not be one who says that religion is at the root of our problems.  I will say that religion can exacerbate existing problems.  I will also say that religion doesn't really offer anything resembling real solutions to poverty, disease, war, social injustice or economic disparity.  Religion often serves as an enabler for mental disorders, and can encourage anti-social behaviors.  It often discourages or seeks to limit (often with the cooperation of government) scientific inquiry, academic freedom and artistic expression; all three of which can be shown to benefit both individuals and societies. As I said, i'm not one to call religion "evil," but I do question how such an institution can be called "useful" or "beneficial."

I will also not discount the beneficial things religious organizations and religious people do.  However, no beneficial or benevolent act done by a religious person or organization is one that could not have been done by a non-religious person or organization. 

15. Why are there no good reasons to believe atheism is true? 

Whenever I ask an atheist to disprove God, they can't do it.

Wow. You not only don't understand atheism, you don't understand how the burden of proof works either.   

I think the character Hermione Granger said it best in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows":

"You could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”

 I can't disprove the assertion that there lives a purple sand worm beneath the surface of Pluto that influences the outcome of all sporting events, but I have no good reason to believe that such a creature exists.

When something is true, there are good reasons to think it is true.

No. When something is true, you have evidence and logical reasoning to back it up and what you "believe" about it is irrelevant.

But there are no good reasons to believe God does not exist.

Actually, there are several:

-Atemporal, immaterial, undetectable, and invisible entities who only communicate telepathically bear a striking resemblance to imaginary entities.

-The only real evidence for the existence of gods are the wildly divergent claims of divine revelation by numerous prophets, true believers, shamans and mediums.

-A person's variety and level of religious belief is often closely related not to the validity of the claims, but to such accidental factors as geography, what religion their parents were, and what kind of society they grew up in.

-people who believe in a god or gods divorce, commit crimes, die of natural and unnatural causes, have abortions, have premarital sex, have unsafe sex, have bad things happen to them, live in poverty and go to prison at the same statistical rate (and in many of these cases, at a higher statistical rate) as people who don't believe in a god or gods.

So knowing all this, in response to your last question:

So why do non-believers count me as irrational when I embrace theism?

I offer my final counter-question:

Why should I count you as rational when you clearly embrace an irrational concept?

And yet again.....

Came across these beauties at work the other day.  Enjoy.  http://emach.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/10-questions-every-intelligent-atheist-must-answer/

Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?

Everyone is a moral relativist, some of us are just honest about it.  Did you cut off your right hand when it caused you to sin as Jesus commanded? Pluck out an eye after checking out some hot toddy across the room? I know nothing of an “absolute morality” wherein an action is always right or always wrong regardless of situation, time period in question, context or motivations and outcomes. Certain moral values are seen throughout humanity in every religion and even among other primates (Do not murder, do not steal, do not practice sexual infidelity). As Thunderfoot pointed out, even piranhas refrain from killing other piranhas. One of the best measures I can find to determining the morality of an action is whether or not the underlying assumptions behind the action are true or false. Take the Holocaust, for instance. The Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust because of two underlying assumptions: 1. minorities, “deviants” and handicapped people were not fully “human.” 2. The continued existence of these groups represented a clear and present danger to human civilization. Therefore, the logical outcome was the “final solution.” Clearly, this is a flawed conclusion because the first two premises are demonstrably false. Is this a perfect system? No. But it is a lot more honest an evaluation than doing something “Because __________ says to.”

Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

My “trust in science” is based on the fact that I don’t have to “trust" in science. 
Science demands evidence. 
Faith demands belief. 
Science demands fact-based, logically consistent answers. 
Faith demands belief despite the facts and despite logical inconsistencies. 
Science begs to be questioned. 
Faith begs the question. 
Science changes to account for new information. 
Faith ignores new information. 
Science screams “Here I am, come kick my ass, if you can!” 
Faith (in many cases) specifically forbids you from questioning it. 
Science takes nothing on faith, which is exactly why faith has nothing on science.

Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.

No. A religious person accepts claims made for which there is no evidence other than the claim itself OR no evidence other than being in agreement with an old book of such claims. To accept a scientific study as valid, all one need do is accept the validity of the scientific method. If you accept the validity of the process by which the conclusions were arrived at, then you know two things: 1. If the conclusions are in error, then the error will be exposed by further application of the scientific process. 2. Even if no error is present in the in the conclusions, the conclusions are still subject to change in light of new information. This is why all scientific knowledge is still referred to as “theory.”

Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?

The human brain.

Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?

That would be a pretty remarkable occurrence indeed! However, it would also be suspicious. My first question would be this: How would I know that they didn’t know anything about me other than my first name? How do I know they’re not lying when they say that? What sort of control mechanism was in place to insure that they hadn’t done a little research on genealogy sites about me or knew and communicated with people that knew me?

You claim that you had such a thing happen to you and that you are smarter than the average person and therefore more difficult to fool and that we should take all of what you say as totally valid because of this. Well, I hate to point this out to such an obvious intellect such as yourself, but you have no way of showing what you claim to have happened actually happened the way you describe it. You claim to have heard tapes and that you know that the medium knew things he couldn’t possibly have known before hand and you have this mountain of evidence, but I’m unconvinced. What, other than your word, do we have, and why should we believe you? You say that scientific claims should not be regarded as valid unless “you have observed … or observed and interpreted the evidence for yourself” yet you expect us to accept as valid your claim because you heard a tape of something that sounded pretty convincing and you are (allegedly) smarter than the average person. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it.

Is absence of proof the proof of absence?

No, but if you are going to claim the existence of a god, goddess or hyper-intelligent shade of blue, then it is beholden unto you to back that claim up with something other than “I can’t show how this is true, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t.”

What does the atheist position offer people?

It offers nothing but honesty.  It takes nothing from you, requires nothing of you and places no burdens upon you. 

I admit that Christianity has been the cause of great suffering for many people over the years, I also believe that it has been the cause of great happiness for many people over the years.

So has Scientology. So has Buddhism. So has Taoism. So has Islam. So has Zoroastrianism. So has Hare Krishna. So has Wicca.  The ability to bring happiness into people's lives is not a testament to the veracity of the claims made.  

Heroin addiction causes suffering, but also brings happiness to the user.  Temporary and illusory happiness, but happiness just the same.  Same with alcoholism, crack addiction, and prescription drugs.  Would you "rather take the good with the bad than take nothing at all" in those cases as well? 

When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true?

I start with the premise that we can know things. I go from there to the assumption that we can demonstrate and communicate what we know.  I will readily admit that either of these could be false...but we've gotten a helluva lot of stuff done by assuming that they are true.

If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?

I would simply ask why this particular book of allegories should be believed and accepted as the “one true word of god” as opposed to the hundreds of other religious (and non-religious) allegorical texts out there.

Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?

It’s not. 
What is important to me is that our society prize real knowledge over ignorance that disguises itself as real knowledge. 
What is important to me is that our government enacts legislation based on something other than someone’s interpretation of an ancient book. 
What is important to me is that we spend our time and resources on things that benefit everyone as opposed to doing things that are either ineffective, dangerous or that strip people of their basic humanity because someone’s religion says to.

Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?

I have no evidence that they exist, but one can logically assume that they can.

If you are an atheist, I am going to require that you also do not believe in E.T.

By what right and under what authority do you require me or anyone else to believe or not believe anything?

And if you acknowledge that E.T. has not been observed but is likely to exist, I demand that you also acknowledge that God has not been observed but is likely to exist.

I don’t assert that ET is "likely" to exist because we simply don't know. ET could exist because if conditions conducive to life exist here and if life is a naturally occurring product of the universe, it is then reasonable to assume that if similar conditions exist elsewhere in the universe, then life can exist there as well.

Would you like me to assert that a god or gods could exist? Fine. A god or gods could exist, but I have found no good reason to believe that they do.  So by what reasoning do you conclude that a god can exist other than the plethora of wildly divergent claims of divine revelation and unverified (and unverifiable) claims of supernatural phenomena?

And if one god can exist, why not 20, or a hundred, or a billion?

As Christopher Hitchens once said, Even if you prove deism, that is the existence of a creator god, you still have all your work ahead of you.  You still have to prove theism, the existence of a personal god who cares about you and what you do.