…Continued

<<The big bang attempts to explain the beginning of the universe. However, what did it begin from and what caused it to begin? Ultimately, it could not have come from a matter/energy source, the same sort of stuff as our universe, because that matter/energy should also be subject to the same physical laws, and therefore decay, and it would have had a beginning too, just further back in time. So, [the universe] had to come from? Nothing! Nothing became everything with no cause whatsoever. Magic!>>

Oh, the humanity!

You forgot that energy cannot be destroyed.

<<"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada.>>

No-one has asserted that. This is a strawman.

Need I go on?

I could continue to discredit this entire article, but I think most should get the drift by now.

Fifty bucks says this guy doesn’t make an appearance to defend is patently absurd claims.

AJ,
Don Batten first published this article on his website on April 21. It is possible, or likely, that he's not aware that it has been republished here.

But you're saying you'd bet money that Don wouldn't be willing to defend his position from atheist challenge. Could you specify what conditions need to be met before handing over the money, and to whom would you donate the money?

This intriguing comment was made by grateful in respect of myself, and another poster:” everal elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder “
No basis for the comment is given.
Do you have a qualification in psychology, grateful, or evidence of some particular gift which enables you to know this?
I await your clarification with interest.

Dear Grateful,

<<What studies are you referring to? What are their proofs?>>

I was referring to the studies of Robert Spencer.
There are many hours of his presentations on youtube.
Essentially, he makes and substantiates two points:

1) The Quran calls for violence (here are some of his shortest clips):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUT41-8yzEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knryaTzu9nM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enN8rvNAC8U

2) The Quran is inauthentic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ0uV1GjyXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Que1xs81Wts

Now I understand that many Muslims consider him the devil and I don't like his character either, but I am convinced by the forensic evidence that he brings.

And I will be exalted if you or any Sheikh is able to prove him wrong by scientifically refuting his points one by one.

Now unlike Mr. Spencer who cares not for religion, as a lover of God and in order to save from disgrace the name and the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, whom I consider a man of God, I am obliged to reject the Quran as a fake composition that was forged several generations later by unrelated violent men who used the Prophet's name in vain for their political ends. Included in that is their fake line-of-transmission which they claim in the Hadith.

I believe that many Muslims are doing great and are showered by Allah's blessings for their observances of Islam everyday. I believe that Islam in general and Sufism in particular have competent Sheikhs who can lead the people in the ways of Allah. Therefore other than the Jihadists and their ilk, Muslims need not change their life: they can and should continue worshipping Allah in the same way - all they need is to drop the moral burden of considering the Quran an absolute authority as if it was the words of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him: it isn't. Nothing of course prevents Muslims and their Sheikhs from continuing to adopt those of the practices within the Quran that are good, wise and wholesome. Isn't this what most Muslims already quietly do anyway?

Dan,

I thought that might be a possibility.

<<Don Batten first published this article on his website on April 21. It is possible, or likely, that he's not aware that it has been republished here.>>

You’re acquaintances with the bloke. Perhaps you could alert him to the article’s publishing here?

<<But you're saying you'd bet money that Don wouldn't be willing to defend his position from atheist challenge.>>

Not necessarily in every case. I’m sure he’d probably debate these ideas in a formal debate in front of an audience (heck, William Lane Craig does it all the time, and he’s not much better), and for precisely the reasons that I don’t like such a format.

Firstly, unlike a less formal, sit-down discussion (where each participant can cut the other off when they see that they've already ruined their argument with a flawed premise, or are about to go off on an irrelevant tangent), formal debates have the unfortunate consequence of allowing each participant to stand there and attack strawmen, or an argument that wasn’t made, or to perform the Gish Gallop (named after Duane Gish’s notorious tactic firing off so many claims that it would be impossible to adequately answer them all in the time allowed).

Which brings me to the second reason why I don’t like the formal debate format, and why I think Batten would probably debate his ideas in such an arrangement, and that is that creationists (as with other forms of denialism) only seem to care about planting seeds of doubt in the minds of sceptics. When the evidence is weighed so heavily against one's position, it’s about the best they can hope for, I guess.

At least here on OLO, there's the possibility of discredited everything someone says line by line, leaving nothing unchallenged. Gish Gallop or no Gish Gallop.

<<Could you specify what conditions need to be met before handing over the money, and to whom would you donate the money?>>

Just an appearance here would be enough. I’d be happy to give the money to any worthy cause, so long as it’s secular.

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You wrote :

« … I would also agree with your later conclusion that believing the accounts [of the gospels] requires much faith »
.

I am delighted to see that we agree, Dan. Having broken the ice on that, the way is now open for what I trust will be truly meaningful discussion – whether on the subject in hand or any future debates on OLO.

Another matter I hold important is that it should also be possible to establish mutual respect for those, such as yourself, who place their faith in the existence of deity and the supernatural and those, such as myself, who do not.

Having “seen the light”, rather late in life, as to how and why the “god concept” germinated in the mind of primeval man and developed into modern day religion, I could, perhaps, be described as a Christian atheist - as I am a baptized “person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods” (OED definition of atheist).

However, having given it some thought, it makes no sense to define myself either as a Christian or an atheist – not a Christian because convinced that there is no god, Jesus could not have been his son, and, not an atheist because it makes no sense defining myself by reference to something I am convinced does not exist.

I prefer to define myself simply as "a very ordinary person".

I am, nevertheless, quite comfortable with the idea that others may wish to define themselves as either theists (persons who believe in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe) or as deists (persons who believe in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe) – [OED definitions].

I thought I should mention this in case your natural temperament commands that you make the odd derogatory remark about atheists. If so, please be assured that I shall not in the least be offended.

.