Lexi,

mjpb hasn't gone to any length to justify his faith and nor have I been harassing him to - contrary to the impression you seem to be under - and even if I was, I would be well within my rights to considering the wild accusations he’s been throwing around.

mjpb is the one who has been insisting that he justifies his faith while at the same time, pulling all sorts of little stunts that bring his sincerity into question; the worst of which was pulled last night (speaking which, I'm sorry you had to do this). The thought that he could attempt to manipulate one of the kinder and gentler people on OLO to try and save his own skin from the predicament he has now found himself in makes me sick to the stomach.

Again, I’m sorry you had to do this.

mjpb,

That was really low.

I’ll be interested to know what you say about the fine tuning evidence but on the face of it this incorporates reasoning and evidence two things that I believe that you claim are never used to support theism. (I’ve read your charming response to Lexi.)

1. Oxygen on earth is 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent fires would erupt spontaneously. If it were 15 percent we would suffocate.
2. If the atmosphere were significantly less transparent not enough sunlight would reach us to sustain our life but if significantly more transparent we would get fried.
3. Another anthropic constant is the gravitational interaction between the earth and the moon. Increasing it would make tidal effects on oceans would be too severe, mess up the atmosphere for us, and the rotational period would be too severe. If it was less orbital changes would cause climate instabilities.
4. Then of course there is gravity. Altering it by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent would mean we couldn’t exist.
5. If the centripetal force of planetary movements didn’t exactly balance gravitational forces nothing could orbit around the sun.
6. If the universe expanded one millionth more slowly than it did the expansion would have stopped and just collapsed in a heap without any stars (where even the raw materials of our bodies are formed) but if the expansion had been faster no galaxies would form.
7. If Jupiter was not in its orbit we would be bombarded with space material.
8. If the rotation of the earth took significantly longer than 24 hours temperature differences between night and day would be too great and if shorter atmospheric wind velocities would be severe.
9. If the axil tilt of earth was slightly altered temperatures would be too extreme.
10. If tectonic plates moved too much the earthquakes would wipe us out but if there was none nutrients on ocean floors would not be cycled back up to continents.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross observed 122 constants that need to exist for life to exist today.

“So how does someone … blindly?”

“blindly”?

Why do Christians differ? Why do atheists differ? CS Lewis has a neat poetic summary of the subject that many Christians relate to based on their own experience.

How could it apply to atheism in the sense of a mere absence of belief?

‘’I had explained to you that there is no such thing as a “secular fundamentalist” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3079#72527.”

In response to me answering your question of where are the secular fundamentalists with:

They are hanging around with the homophobics who fear sameness and most of the Christian fundamentalists who just get the description as a pejorative description which doesn't literally apply.

It is a convenient term like religious fundamentalists and is misused for the same reasons. Provide a better term that describes the relevant people more accurately (without pretending that they have a mere absence of belief) and agree not to describe anyone displaying religious orthodoxy as a fundamentalist and I’ll consider it. (I note that your explanation is contrary to the view of the President of the Atheist Society. He talks of atheists holding a philosophy and his actions and some words point to a belief that there is a set of common beliefs enabling posters with slogans to be put up on behalf of atheists.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2369#52262 )

If hypothetically there is a philosophy of atheist fundamentalists it intuitively would seem to be something like this: Humans don’t need God/We have come of age and no longer need religion which is a relic from the superstitious past/ We are the masters of our fate etc. Does the idea of such a philosophy mean anything to you?

On that note the atheist ideal also seems to be able to evoke strong passions (which is apparently a reason to abolish religion). Think of the French revolutionaries and their guillotines. Atheist porn writers painstakingly like to separate atheists like Stalin from atheism because they are said to be motivated by Marxism not atheism. Does that mean that the ruthlessness of Stalin was for economic ends (free cabbages for all is an example that has been sarcastically suggested). It couldn’t have been a vision of building a perfect state without God? If not then why close down the Churches and shoot or jail priests and bishops? Obviously not all atheists are Marxists just like not all religious support bad behaviour in the name of religion but wherever atheism has been established as the official state doctrine human rights haven’t been closely observed to understate things considerably. You might take comfort that it wasn’t specifically done in the name of atheism. If so you are entitled to derive comfort but the practical significance is questionable.

Further, during your conversion to atheism what was your reasoned conclusion regarding atheist porn writers hiding behind intellectually dishonest claims that they don’t need to have a burden of proof (as I discussed on p39) and pretending that anti-theists have a mere absence of belief in a higher (and there is no evidence of theism but this is bracketed because you assert so strongly it is untrue)? In the process of concluding they had a stronger argument why did you think they hid behind those things?

By the way if atheism is a mere absence of belief in God what separates an atheist from an agnostic?

“I even clarified it for you at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3079#72615, and yet here you are referring to “secular fundamentalism” as if it could exist.’

'Theists don’t absorb arguments that contradict their religious beliefs. They can’t, because unlike atheists, they let their position on this subject define who they are as a person. I remember putting up that metaphorical wall as a barrier myself as a theist. One example is when I used to debate creation and evolution. I can remember all the arguments I used in favour of creation, but can’t remember many of the rebuttals I got at all.’

I couldn’t get to your second link so I will take your word for it. Are you saying that as a theist you had a blind spot to the wall you put up? Did anyone point it out and if so what was your reaction?

“I’ve been through the lack of reliable evidence for Jesus a few times recently (you must’ve missed it all), so I’m not very enthusiastic about boring everyone with it all over again so soon, but here it goes.

<<Josh McDowell has three volumes on the historical evidence of Jesus and the rise of the Christian Church from the first Century.>>

“I know, and the evidence and the reasoning contained in those volumes are as poor as that which can be found in the books by Lee Strobels. He also dishonestly uses the same façade as Strobels, painting himself as a sceptic who did some honest and unbiased research and discovered that there really is some reliable evidence for Jesus, when there isn’t.”

Strobels paints himself as a former atheist who converted. I followed a similar process so I’m biased but what evidence do you have that he is being dishonest?

”…there really is some reliable evidence for Jesus, when there isn’t. Obviously I don’t have the time or post allowance here to go into why Josh McDowell’s evidence isn’t evidence, but you can find all his arguments debunked at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/.”

On that page it states:

“Although I agree with McDowell that there was a historical Jesus, I shall argue that most of McDowell's sources do not provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.”

The reference you give relevantly includes something from an author who agrees that there is an historical Jesus. For an atheist skeptic to claim that while undermining the strength of the independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus my inference is that there must be some reliable evidence. Why else would he make that concession? It just seems that the authority you seem to give for the proposition doesn’t seem to support it. I am interested in your thoughts on this.

<<There is more written evidence for the historical Jesus than for Julius Caesar...>>

That’s probably true if you were to do a word count. But it’s quality, not quantity.

””For Julius Caesar, we have contemporary accounts, government records and Caesar’s own writings. We have none of this for Jesus. No contemporary accounts, no writings from Jesus, no carpentry works, no government records of his birth, trial or crucifixion - nothing.”

Julius Caesar was an Emperor…While there are no contemporary accounts there are accounts from close in time. Given the small populations at the time I would have thought it would be hard to convincingly conjure up an imaginary friend that close to his life time.