Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – just more rebuttal

Nothing much new here, just keeping a copy of a rebuttal to a very ignorant christian who just offers the same old nonsense. This is a response to a “Professor Leighton Williams” who should stick with economics.

Oh, I also made cookies, mamouls, and put them in a moon cake press. Nothing like mixing cultures.

and here is a cute picture of Ulysses hugging his kick stick:

The professor offers the same failed claims like all Christians and many  other theists.

Atheism is a conclusion that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist.   Williams is an atheist and a theist too.  One doesn’t preclude the other.  

Since Christians can’t even agree on a version of Christianity, no reason to believe their baseless claims. 

He trots out fine tuning first.  Unsurprisngly, this is the puddle argument, where Williams claims that universe fits him ever so well so there must be some god that cares for him and only him.  Alas, for his argument, humans fit the universe, not the other way around.  Modern physics does not say that the universe is balanced on a “razor’s edge”.  It says that there are certain contants that we have.  We simply don’t know if there could be others, and the theist assumes his god makes his universe for him and thus the constants are for him and him alone. 

The universe is indeed intelligible, and nothing show a supernatural being is needed for that.  We understand what we are part of, and only after much work.  Math describes reality, it is not apart from it.  No need for a multiverse either.  Why not have a life friend world? That is what these theists can’t answer. 

Theism isn’t simple.  It requires an entire industry of apologetics to make it make sense and still these theists can’t produce a single god.  Nothing shows a rational mind is needed for a universe at all.  This is just the Christian making assertions based on a presupposition that they cannot show to be true.  We don’t’ know that things are arbitrary.  We do know that theists have spent millennia trying to produce their gods.

Consciousness is still a mystery.  That doesn’t mean it always will be.  Again, the theist tries the god of the gaps argument.  Our minds work since if they did not, we would be dead.  Evolution accounts for this just fine. 

Williams also shows he has no idea what evolutionary theory even says, and attacks a strawman.  Why shouldn’t our intelligence be truth tracking?  Why isn’t knowledge about the universe needed for survival?  Williams shows again his ignorance since eventually our sun will die and to continue to exist, humans need to know about our universe. 

No luck, we are just part of the universe. If things were intentional, funny how this god might have wanted not to make the sun give us cancer.  

Atheism inherits no “epistemic problems” as Williams tries to claim.  He tries the old lie that his imaginary friend is needed to know things.  He has no explanation why, he only needs a job for his god.  If our minds are evolved to help the species survive, why wouldn’t it be trustworthy? This is the problem that they can’t answer.  They must posit a presupposition: god is necessary, and then must find things that their god does.  Curious how this always fails.  Why shouldn’t the mind be able to grasp things like mathematics since that helps us survive?  Logic also helps us survive, by how it describes the world.  Alas, for metaphysics, that’s just the theist trying to make up nonsense that doesn’t exist, and then try to pretend it does. 

Theism and its many many many versions offers no stability, but a bucket full of crabs that can’t agree on whose imaginary friend is the right one.  Then Williams makes this up: “If reality is grounded in a rational Creator, it is reasonable to expect that our faculties are generally fit for truth, even if imperfectly so.”

Curious how a perfect god manages to make an imperfect human, and then blames the human for its failure. 

Williams then tries to claim that truths mean his imaginary friend exists.  This is just another presupposition with no evidence.  He of course tries morality and fails since Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants.  Christians also must invent reasons why their god doesn’t  have to follow the morals it supposedly gave to humans.  If the following of morals depends on who someone is, then that means morality is subject to who someone is, and is thus not objective.  BTW, his god never gives morality to humans.  It doesn’t want them to be moral.  Eve takes morality. 

He then tries meaning, which fails since humans give ourselves and othes meaning.   Christians can’t even agree on what meaning their god has given them, so again, no reason to believe any one of them.  Meaning and purpose need no god.  Humans give ourselves value too and each has different values.  What we do see in many religions that their gods have no values, holding human life as worthless with their many genocides. 

So, “Why Christianity” since there are many many different versions.   There is no face it points to since christains can’t agree on what their god wants, who it saves, how it saves, etc.  Christainity certainly makes claims and so does every other religion.  A unique claim makes nothing true. 

The story is quite the mess and is completely incoherent.   Jesus fails to be the Jewish messiah per the bible itself.  Jesus has no weakness and there is no love, just the demands for obedience.  The cult promises an afterlife and tells slaves to remain slaves.  This works well with a slave owning culture.  There is no resurrection, and curious how no one noticed the events claimed by the bible: the major earthquake, the sky darkening and the dead jews wandering around.  Three of the four gospels miss that last one, and Paul himself has no idea what happened during this supposed event, despite supposedly being in Jerusalem and part of the Jewish establishment. 

Williams tries the “but but people changed” alas he forgets all cults change people. 

The last is the most hilarious: the shape of divine goodness.   Curous how nothing shows his god exists or is “perfectly good”. Christians can’t even agree on what “good” is.  There is no solidarity from a “sacrifice” that was no sacrifice.  Sacrifice is permanent loss. The only one who had a perment loss in this story is Judas, who died and was damned so this god’s human blood sacrifice by torture to itself worked out.  That is not love at all. 

Williams nonsense is a complete rejection in favor of ignorance and faith.  His myths explain no better than any other set of myths.