1. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #83322 by oldskeptic on October 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I think that Dinesh's tactic is well thought out even if his reasoning is not. He brings up Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as atheists, and the automatic response is to take on the most glaring error: Hitler was not an Atheist.

Then after his opponent has used his time making his strong argument against Hitler being an atheist Dinesh makes an untrue allegation that his opponent is trying to blame Christianity for Nazi Germany's atrocities but is giving a pass to atheism where Stalin and Mao are concerned. Making the opponent appear to be a hypocrite, by then it is usually time to get on to another subject, and Dinesh gets the last word.

Others increasingly are using this tactic. I would not call it an argument because it proves nothing and is only designed to damage credibility.

This is the way that I would handle this assertion that the greatest number of atrocities of the 20th century were caused by atheists:

"Would you like to give some evidence of how atheism was the proximate cause of these atrocities? Do have any data on how many people under these systems were imprisoned and or killed because they were not atheists? Any data on how many were imprisoned and or killed for other reasons? Or are you proposing that these atheist totalitarians killed indiscriminately simply because they were atheists?"

This, I think, would be an honest response to an intellectually dishonest question.

2. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42621 by oldskeptic on May 18, 2007 at 6:00 pm

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms Then Einstein came along with mass-energy equivalence; formally know as E= mc2. Which states that energy and mass are the same things in different forms.

It appears from these two laws that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed, which would make it eternal. So talking about matter creating itself is silly, talking about matter being created by anything out of anything is absurd, since it never could be created.

On the sub atomic level it is theorized that particles can pop into existence and back out of existence as long as the do not hang around very long, a billionth of a second would be too long. These particles must appear in pairs and obey certain rules, one of those rules being that they must be exact opposites with the ability to annihilate each other instantaneously, making overall a zero sum gain even for the fraction of time that they exist.

How this universe came about has nothing to do with the creation of anything. The matter and energy of the universe existed before the creation of the universe. The question is what form did it take; a question that we will most likely never have an explanation for that is not theoretical.

Going outside of the universe for explanations is impossible, and that is where we would need to go to prove anything concerning the universe before it was the universe.

As others have written here; positing an unexplainable god as the explanation is the same thing as saying, "I don't know."

In ancient times people tried to explain how things worked, but they lacked the vast amount of research that we have now, and the scientific instruments to test their assumptions. They came up with gods and supernatural explanations. It was the best science at the time.

Biz and Devo are living here and now but still relying on early myth to form their opinions.

When did faith come into whether the myths made sense, or not? My guess is it was when the old explanations started not to make sense. It is ironic that science probably was directly responsible for the invention faith.

3. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34266 by oldskeptic on April 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm

It seems that Devloved doesn't write much of his overlong screeds himself

Pertaining to his comment 34066

There are many other examples that could be cited in nature which require the most delicate of balancings in order for the stars, planets, life, and mankind to exist.
Before concluding this section, we will consider but one more: the distance that the moon is from the earth. If it were much closer, it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.
If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth.
A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans more sluggish. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breath. (We receive more of our oxygen from ocean plants than from land plants.) Why is the moon so exactly positioned in the sky overhead? Who placed it there? It surely did not rush by like a speeding train, then decide to pause, and carefully enter that balanced orbit.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-ma10.htm

Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, is not a grand design present from the very beginning? These phenomena don't mutate or change with time. The negative response of secular science to new evidence of design is interesting in that it shows the extremes to which man will go to maintain a belief in the random origin of all things. It has even been proposed that there really is an infinite number of universes, each with a completely different set of physical properties. According to such thinking, our particular universe just happens to have conditions suitable for human life, and that is why we are here to enjoy it! Of course, there is no way to detect any "other" universes or comprehend their underlying principles.

www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp

Most of the rest was a long quote that he at least managed to attribute to Dawkins.

Oldskeptic.