-
Website
http://exchristian.net/ -
Original page
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/04/handful-of-christian-arguments-tactics.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
In one of the pages there was an example, and this was meant as an answer to the question "How do you know God exists", the writer said you wou can see design everywhere.
As an example, he pointed out how you can tell that Mt. Rushmore wasn't formed by erosion.
And I thought, "Ah Ha! You just admitted that the faces weren't made by erosion whereas he rest of the mointain was."
If Everything was designed, then there would be no way to tell the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't, because nothing wasn't.
And, since the mountain itself was formed by random erosion and the faces were actually intentionally carved, and the faces are evidence of design and erosion is a sign of random force, then God didn't design anything.
Kind of like trying to argue about how good an artist Picasso was by saying "You see this? This is a Dhali painting. Dhali was a huge fan of Picasso (Dhali was a surealist. Amongst other things he painted melting clocks. He also wanted to be as famous as Picasso. But he painted in a completely different style). Now, only a great master like Picasso could have inspired such a masterpiece. I mean, look at the realism! Not like this painting over here. The colours are all wrong and the hands look like a child drew it, and the eyes are on the wrong side and the mouth is way off." "Uh, that IS a picasso!"
Just like everything else.
Okay, now go and look at nature and tell me it was designed intelligently. Look at disease; birth defects; Down's syndrome; retardation; insanity. Intelligent design? That's a joke, right?
Hi ubergeek. I like it when you talk to me. And why in the god's names do you call yourself a geek? You call yourself the opposite of what you are? Okay, so I'll call myself the Blessed Virgin.
What was there before watches, Sundials, yea Jesus might could have handled that one!
The only reason a watch was invented was to keep up with the movement of the Earth.
In other solar systems, there's probably no need for a watch, unless it's time to go to church, I sure as hell hope not!
Most definitely. This is what I tell my fundy husband often. He follows the rules to perfection, and when something goes wrong, he justfies himself by the rule. When we argue about it, I say to him that he would have made a perfect follower of Hitler.
Jim said, "I see all Christians today as first class idiots who let others do their thinking for them."
That's exactly what I was. I was an idiot. I only broke away when I decided to stop being lazy and think for myself.
A baptism-like ritual (the "mikva") was required for Gentiles to convert to Judaism. John the Baptist insisting that Jews needed to be baptized was a commentary on the state of religious practice in his day and a foreshadowing of what was coming next (Christ).
It sounds like you've met some pretty lame Christians. I mean, it seems fair to allow for people to interact with the world in different ways, i.e. to allow some to be ultra-intellectual, others to be more experiential etc, but in my opinion that doesn't give anyone the justification for totally abstaining from being thoughtful. For example, I hope that any Christian who compares an atheist to Hitler gets a rude awakening from their listener. Besides the fact that they are committing the informal logical genetic fallacy, they are opening themselves up to the same criticisms they are leveling against an atheist. For example, if Hitler being an atheist made him as evil as he was, then the same argument could be leveled against Christians for the (horribly misunderstood) crusades.
So yeah, unfortunately there are a bunch of boneheads out there, on every side of the fence, not just the Christian side. So it seems that while some Christians may not be the brightest bulbs in the box, it could still be an open question whether or not intelligent Christians actually exist.
Regarding the idea of the beginning of everything. There is an ancient idea called the unmoved mover, which I imagine that at least a few of you are familiar with, and I believe it goes back to Plato, though I may be mixing up my ancient Greek philosophers. Basically, the idea was that as Plato was grappling with the idea of where everything came from, he saw an infinite regression, something he realized was not possible. So he came to the conclusion that even though everything in his experience had a cause, there must necessarily be one thing that did not have a cause. He called this the unmoved mover, or the causeless cause. If the universe itself is the unmoved mover, then it becomes subject to the same criticism as God does. Further, if Hawking is right and we find that the universe "doesn't need God," we still have not answered the question of whether or not God exists. We have actually only decided that the origins of the universe cannot positively prove his existence. However, I think that God better explains the circumstances of the origins of the universe, and these are the circumstances: either the world/universe had a beginning, or it did not. If the world did not have a beginning, then the universe is infinitely old. If the universe is infinitely old, it is impossible to reach any given point in time because there would be an infinite distance to traverse between any point. This becomes self evident when we consider that the universe would stretch out infinitely into the past. However far back you go, there would still be farther to go. So now turn that idea around. If we were infinitely farther back into the past (which would could not be, because history by definition is finite, but for the sake of argument we'll allow this for a moment.) we could never get to this current point in history, because it is infinitely far away in the future. Again, by definition, that infinity could not be traversed. Hence, by the rules of logic, the universe must have a cause.
Where what we understand in the universe fails to account for what we know to be true (namely, that by definition the universe must have a cause in history, because history is finite and must necessarily have a beginning) we must turn to something that is neither dependent on the universe nor the universe itself. By this reasoning, we must assume that something outside and separate from the universe exists because it cannot be bound by the same rules as the universe. This is the beginning of my belief that God must exist. No, we haven't gotten as far as the Christian God, or a personal God or anything like that, but this line of reasoning leads me to believe that something separate and distinct from the universe must exist, and the most likely explanation is a creator of some kind. Oh, and I want to call attention again to the fact that if you want to disqualify this line of reasoning by saying that I have moved the problem of infinity on to God rather than onto an inanimate universe, I would again like to mention two things; first, that this objection disqualifies the universe as an uncaused entity in and of itself (i.e. if God cannot exist because he is uncaused, then the universe cannot exist because it is uncaused. You can't have it both ways) and also because I have made a key distinction: God must be separate and distinct from the universe in order for the idea of being uncaused to make sense.
So this is absolutely more than enough writing for anyone to write, not to mention for anyone to read. I'm not nearly as qualified as someone like Stephen Hawking, nor as someone like J.P. Moreland, N.T. Wright, or Alvin Plantinga. So thats probably enough horrible reading punishment for anyone, if anyone is even left. At the very least, you have the advantage of a dissenter to make your discussion more meaningful than simple agreement with each other. Thanks for listening, and if you made it this far, I'm so sorry for my long-windedness. :-)
But what you said at the beginning of your post, that some christians are not very smart, is very interesting.
Christians purport that once someone accepts christ into their "heart" as their personal savior, god's holy spirit enters that person. The holy spirit is essentially god, supposedly. God is said to be omniscient, supposedly. So, how is it that when someone has god's "spirit" inside of them, it doesn't make them any smarter? Wouldn't some of that mind-boggling amount of knowledge about every event that ever occured about every living (or non-living) thing rub off on its host a little bit?
I'd appreciate it if you could shed some light on this!
Looking forward to more.
This guy has a million dollar voice.
Welcome to the church of logic.
Surely the lord has blessed your work webe with this man of logic coming aboard.HA HA
Hitler doing the work of the lord.?
G Bush doing the work of the lord.?
Dangerous stuff.
Well presented.
Thanks again
That about sums up the bulk of your post. Why not just be honest and say, "I don't know, but I believe."
At this point in human evolution we simply cannot know some things. The limitation of our minds, bodies, knowledge, etc., makes it impossible to go much beyond our own moon right now. We've got a long way to go to getting a real good grasp on the Universe. We're not a whole lot better than our ancient ancestors who looked up at the night sky and thought the stars were gods and that thunder and lightening was evidence of their anger at something.
Even if it is true that there must be a causeless cause, that does not imply that that cause must be a conscious supernatural entity, and especially not that any such entity must match the description favored by any particular religion.
Theotherian,
Thanks for a well-written, well-mannered post. The WM did sum up your argument pretty well though, and he's right - you could've left off with that. All the same, I'll never begrudge anyone the chance to philosophize.
Just a couple things...
"...either the world/universe had a beginning, or it did not. If the world did not have a beginning, then the universe is infinitely old. If the universe is infinitely old, it is impossible to reach any given point in time because there would be an infinite distance to traverse between any point. This becomes self evident when we consider that the universe would stretch out infinitely into the past. However far back you go, there would still be farther to go."
Not necessarily. I don't think cosmology has solved the issue you bring up, though there has been quite a bit of interesting discussions on the topic.
Of note, is that you can have infinite space that has a finite beginning. The Theory of Relativity allows for the collapse of three-dimensional space into a singularity at a finite point in the past. In a singularity, things can still be infinite and yet have zero separation between any two points.
Confused yet? It's a mind-bender, that's for sure.
I think it was Hawking that pointed out that at a singularity, all we know about physics breaks down.
There's a lot more to this, but I'm not really up on my cosmology. So in short, space and time are two separate but equally important dimensions. It is possible to have infinite space and finite time, leaving the question of cause/creation open in spite of having an infinite (boundless) universe.
"God must be separate and distinct from the universe in order for the idea of being uncaused to make sense."
Well, sure. However, the universe requires no such separation from itself in order for the idea of being uncaused to make sense. Thus, the universe doesn't need a prima mobile (God) in order to exist.
The bottom line is as the WM said, it is a matter of faith to believe in a God that necessarily must exist outside the physical realm. That being the case it is pretty much pointless, but a sometimes enjoyable pastime, to discuss whether such a being actually exists or not.
Brigid/Blessed Virgin (blessed maybe),
You're a sweetheart, you know that? I like talking to you too. All the same, I took a test that confirmed that yes indeed, I am not only a geek but an UBER geek. The doctors say there's no cure, but it's not fatal so I can live with it. :)
However, if a "God" exists and the universe doesn't need said "God" as an explanation, then it would be reasonable to conclude that man---who would in no way come close to being as "complex" as such a system as the entire universe---would not "need" said God as an explanation either. If we "don't need" said God either, then by definition and function, "it" is most certainly not a personal being even IF "it" did exist. If it is not a personal being, then whether "it" exists, or not, is totally immaterial from our perspective. Said "God" is essentially "dead weight". So in other words: Who cares? (Mind you, this has has zero to do with the existance of "Biblegod", who "is" an alleged "personal being".)
So--while it was refreshing seeing a post that didn't come across self-rightious and bigoted---it seems we're still back to square one: If there is evidence that the Christian god exists anywhere outside of someone's head, I'd love to here it.
Lorena, you are married to a fundy? You just shocked my pants off, and that aint easy. Just out of morbid curiosity (tell me to shut up) do you two get along in the bedroom? Baby, for the life of me, I cannot imagine sleeping with a christian. I aint kiddin, I would get it on with a Clydesdale before I came within spitting distance of a christian. Do talk to me, and I'm sorry if I pissed you off. Really I'm sorry, but I'm a big dummy with my mind on sex all the time.
Theotherian: the universe is infinite in all directions. It goes infinitely into the past (which means there is no past) and infinitely into the future (which means there is no future). But we can travel the distance between any two points. We can identify two points, and the distance in time and space between them, without contradicting the infinity of the universe.
I also believe that the universe is not only infinitely large, but also infinitely small. Makes your head spin, huh?
ubergeek.......I become fonder of you with every passing hour. Hey, don't you wish that more people like theotherian would show up here? I like these debates, but you know......I do not live by intellect. My life is mine to live as I choose, and I do not need philosophy to back it up. I do not need to justify anything. I do not need to win an argument. The existence or non-existence of a god means nothing to me. Why do we need supernatural beings? I have my friends, and I have my Mistress, and I can assure any passing christian that my life is as precious to my as theirs is to them.
Okay, before I start quoting Walt Whitman, I better stop. Love you 'geek.
You are one perceptive woman. In many ways I am lucky because I don't know any different. But I often hope it could be better...a lot better (the sex I mean).
On the other hand, he is not a macho man. He is kind, gentle, understanding, and he gives me room to be who I want to be. For a fundy, he is an absolute treasure. I don't know how many men would like to live with an opinionated, restless woman like me.
But the issue I mentioned is a problem. And I argue that it is caused by his fundy beliefs. The way he sees god translates to his everyday life. Let me illustrate.
I send him an email asking him to make supper. The email contains instructions on making, say, quick pork chops. I make a mistake and instead of 1/4 teaspoon of salt I type 2 teaspoons.
He doesn't question the amount of salt. He follows the instructions to the letter and if the food sucks, it is my fault because I wrote the recipe (common sense is never applied).
Then when we argue about it, I tell him that he behaves like the loyals of Hitler. And I tell him that just as he didn't question the "salt," he is failing to question the church's teachings as well.
Anyway, so goes my life.
For more information on the issue you raised, you can read this entry from my blog:
http://exfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2006/04/everybody-was-having-sex-but-me.html
Anyway, when Webmaster (name? sorry) said summed up my argument, I think that on at least one hand he was very perceptive:
"I think that God better explains the circumstances of the origins of the universe..."
That about sums up the bulk of your post. Why not just be honest and say, "I don't know, but I believe."
As others observed, we are talking about ideas where our knowledge is incomplete, so of course our beliefs are going to play a major role. My argument was not meant to be a deductive argument, but was rather an inductive argument. And lets be honest, when we are talking about areas where there is no available deductive argument, our presuppositions are most likely going to determine our conclusions.
Less complicated question first: how can a Christian, supposedly indwelt (sorry, Christianese, which looks surprisingly like Chinese when written out...) by the Holy Spirit still not be smart? At least, this is how I understand the point of Michelle's post.
Well, the answer is fairly straightforward I think. Basically the Christian life is first and foremost a process. That is, conversion to Christianity does (at least according to orthodox belief) mean the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for every believer. BUT, it does not mean an immediate and complete change for every (or even necessarily any) Christian. So we should not expect all Christians to immediately become geniuses. Anyone here disagree based on their experience? Didn't think so. :-) Further, Christianity is not a "Well gosh, now I'm a Christian so God does my living and growing for me." If this was true, there would be little to no reason for most of the New Testament epistles to have ever been published.
In a nutshell, part of the job of the Holy Spirit is indeed to illuminate Christians even in the context of knowledge. BUT the Holy Spirit does so in conjunction with the effort of the Christian. And we all know that many, perhaps most people in America have little to no interest in growing their intellect. Sadly, the same is true of many Christians, and I think that it is fair to say that doesn't make them better Christians.
Now, back to Cosmology and the inductive argument for God. You will never hear me deny that faith plays a major part in being able to believe in God. However, I do not believe in blind faith. I have reasons and evidence for believing in God, just as many or (gulp) all of you have reasons and evidence for not believing. The question is, who has the more convincing evidence.
Okay, easy and less important arguments up front. The massive appeal of religion. The overwhelming majority of humanity believes in a god or gods of some kind. Why? If design is present in the world, a logical step would be to say that the majority of humanity pursues religion because it was designed into us. Further, the presence of morality supports a theistic worldview. If no God exists, I can't think of a convincing reason to call an action "right" or "wrong". And the emotivist answer doesn't seem to pose a satisfying solution, because I don't just not like torturing babies for fun, but I know that people ought not to do it.
Further, the problem of evil actually supports a theistic worldview. Unless there is a conception of goodness, evil does not exist. In order to make the argument against God by using the problem of evil, one must first believe that there is objective evil. In order to believe that, one must first believe in God for the same reason morality without God doesn't make sense. A little bit of a tangent on this one is to point out that people are quick to condemn God because of the presence of evil, but slow to praise Him for the presence of good. If the presence of evil is damning for God, why don't we get confused about the presence of good?
While I agreed with the weakness of teleological arguments for God taken by themselves, taken in conjunction with the other arguments I believe that we do find design. The universe does seem to be heading somewhere, life does seem to have a purpose, and why in the world does the universe obey all these rules anyway? Its what you might expect if a personal being designed it all.
Finally, and perhaps amazingly to many people, I believe that history itself may provide the most compelling arguments for the existence of God, and especially for the justification of Christianity as the one true religion. The reason is simple. If we evaluate Jesus' life and the records about it as we evaluate the rest of history, I can find no better explanation for the evidence than that Jesus did indeed die, and on the third day rise from the dead.
Okay, so I sketched (emphasis on sketched) an inductive argument for the existence of God for you. Again, this is a long post, and I really tried to shorten it by briefly outlining arguments, so please be charitable towards the arguments. That is, please try to understand them in the best possible light before setting up straw men. I'm really glad that you guys seem interested in discussing, and I'm sorry that I didn't get to address all the posts about cosmology but #1 I won't pretend that I totally understood every argument I heard, I'll have to think on some and #2 there are about a million of you, and somewhere around one of me. :-) Thanks again for listening, and I'll respond when I can!
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm
"Okay, easy and less important arguments up front. The massive appeal of religion. The overwhelming majority of humanity believes in a god or gods of some kind. Why? If design is present in the world, a logical step would be to say that the majority of humanity pursues religion because it was designed into us."
First, I think you'ld agree that most of the world's religions are based on superstitions. What you're calling design is really nothing more than humanity's need to label the unknown. (Its a lot less frightening that way.) And I don't see this as design so much as a psychological defense mechanism. A good example of this can be found in your first posting where you take an unknowable phenomenon (the nature of time) and admit that you are more comfortable thinking that some god must have been the first cause at the beginning of everything. Likewise, humanity felt more comfortable thinking that gods caused the rain and made flowers bloom rather than facing an un-named unknown.
Now, if everybody had an unexplainable need to believe in some guy nailed to a cross, then you might be able to say that there is a god and he designed us to believe in him.
Second, religion has very often been used as a powerful political tool for controlling the masses. Those in power have always benefitted from supporting a belief in supernatural beings. Particularly if these being "wanted" the rulers to stay in power. This has as much to do with the "popularity" of gods as anything.
"Further, the presence of morality supports a theistic worldview. If no God exists, I can't think of a convincing reason to call an action "right" or "wrong". And the emotivist answer doesn't seem to pose a satisfying solution, because I don't just not like torturing babies for fun, but I know that people ought not to do it."
There are lots of animals that are bigger, stronger, faster, more perceptive and more dangerous than human beings. And yet, we have dominated all life on this planet for several thousand years. Why? Two reasons: we're smart and we work well together. But working together is more than just tolerating one another. It requires strong social tools like bonding and trusting and sharing. Christians like to talk about morality like its some big, magical thing. But, in reality, its really just a combination of empathy, sympthy, honesty, generosity and compassion. Nothing mystical or un-natural about these things; they're just part of the building blocks necessary for building the social skills that our species needed to survive and prosper.
"Further, the problem of evil actually supports a theistic worldview. Unless there is a conception of goodness, evil does not exist. In order to make the argument against God by using the problem of evil, one must first believe that there is objective evil. In order to believe that, one must first believe in God for the same reason morality without God doesn't make sense."
The "problem of evil" does not require belief in absolute evil. In fact, its quite the contrary. The problem states that:
1. If there is an absolute good (god), then there must be an absolute evil.
2. And if god created all that exists then god must have created absolute evil. ('cause evil is part of all that exists).
3. But how could absolute good create absolute evil?
If you throw out the notion of absolutes (and god right along with'em) the problem goes away.
So, what is evil? I like to think of it as a standard or a label that we apply to things that we consider really, really bad. It exists in the same way that humor, affection and beauty exist. We know what they are, we know them when we see them, but you can't bottle them and show them off to other people. They are all apart of our personal, subjective perspective of reality.
"The universe does seem to be heading somewhere, life does seem to have a purpose, and why in the world does the universe obey all these rules anyway? Its what you might expect if a personal being designed it all."
No, its what you'ld feel more comfortable believing in rather than facing the possibility that there isn't anyone "at the wheel" and no purpose that would make any sense.
"If we evaluate Jesus' life and the records about it as we evaluate the rest of history, I can find no better explanation for the evidence than that Jesus did indeed die, and on the third day rise from the dead."
The records we have of Jesus's resurrection come from copies made from unknown originals written by biased people whome we cannot identify. We can't even be sure there ever was a Jesus.
You want a better explanation? How about Emperor Constantine formed the council of Nicea in 325 AD (a committee of government appointed experts) to better define what christianity was (because it was really eclectic back then) and they picked and choosed and rewrote and edited the literature they had available (whether it was authentic or not) and created a book which would satisfy the Emperor (not god) as the basis for the official christian church. All dissenting literature was destroyed and anyone who objected or found fault with the book was told to like it OR ELSE! Subsequent generations of the church refined and retooled the book until it was more or less self-reliant. Does this sound at all plausible?
You seem to be very intelligent. You should explore beyond the boundaries of what you've been told. I think you would benefit greatly from this.
sorry :).
I would like to thank you for not being a typical Christian who presents little to no empirical evidence for their belief. I would like to continue this theme of discussing ideas while not trying to force anything on anyone.
While science cannot explain human ethics, at this point in time, that does not necessarily mean God is its driving force or creator. I think Marc Geddes makes a good point in the quote below by suggesting that evidence leads one to believe our minds are likely “equivalent to the physical processes at work in the brain.” If that’s the case, then it would help make God one more step removed from our daily existence.
“to scientific rationalism, there are no supernatural forces at work within the cosmos. Only natural physical forces, operating according to the laws of physics. Human bodies and brains are physical objects. And so all of our thoughts (including our value systems) could be described in terms of physical processes occurring within our brains. The scientific, materialist perspective takes some getting used to when we attempt to apply it to our own minds. To this day many intellectuals and religious folks alike still have difficulty coming to terms with the idea that we are equivalent to our bodies and brains - that all the wonders of consciousness can be explained through entirely natural processes and there are no supernatural elements at work.
But the evidence for the materialist scientific perspective is over-whelming. For instance drugs and illness clearly alter our mental abilities and states. Specific brain injuries result in specific mental disabilities. It seems very likely that the mind is equivalent to the physical processes at work in the brain.”
I believe it is probable that there is a mathematics of morality and maybe even to the purpose of life. The way I see it, morality is based on what is most beneficial. In most actions taken I go through tons of calculations/scenarios to help determine what will be the best outcome based on past experience and observations. Again, Marc puts it well: “The two great themes of morality then are Harmony and Expansion. On the intrapersonal level Harmony manifests itself as the harmonious functioning of a sentient being as a whole - loosely 'Health'. And expanions (moving towards ones values) manifests itself as 'Happiness'. On the interpersonal level we perceive Harmony as 'Altruism' - people interacting together to help each other. And the movement towards an enhanced range of action for all translates to the fourth fundamental value - increased freedom or 'Growth'.”
If you want to understand some of the reasons why I am interested in this theory, then I HIGHLY recommend reading from this link for a healthy introduction into some enlightening concepts.
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/comments/towards-a-science-of-morality/
I have some qualms with total acceptance of Christianity and list a few reasons why in this link.
http://www.exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/04/my-anti-testimony-or-i-was-christian.html
Countless actions of God don’t make sense to me anymore. Combine that with all the apologetics involved with the Bible, the hypocrisy and corruption of today’s and yesterday’s church with Occam’s Razor and it leaves you doubting.
Theotherian wrote:
“That is, conversion to Christianity does (at least according to orthodox belief) mean the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for every believer. BUT, it does not mean an immediate and complete change for every (or even necessarily any) Christian. So we should not expect all Christians to immediately become geniuses. Anyone here disagree based on their experience? Didn't think so. :-)”
I stand to reason that along with intelligence can come morality and not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of allowing a being to confront needed changes in one’s life has the same effect as being open to new ways of thinking and new approaches that produce more beneficial results. Again, if we take the materialist scientific perspective or something similar to it, then we can see that it’s not God doing the change but the power of the individual’s mind. I know that’s very humanistic but I only throw it out as food for thought.
Another quote:
“The overwhelming majority of humanity believes in a god or gods of some kind. Why? If design is present in the world, a logical step would be to say that the majority of humanity pursues religion because it was designed into us. Further, the presence of morality supports a theistic worldview. If no God exists, I can't think of a convincing reason to call an action "right" or "wrong".”
As Dave (WB) said earlier, we’re still very primitive in our understanding of the universe. Tell me what is easier: explaining our reality in terms of religion or science? What takes less work? I have the answer; It’s religion.
To address your second question point - based on the links I have provided I’m not convinced you’ve looked hard enough to know why we consider certain action’s “right” or “wrong.”
That was my attempt at being concise. =) It’s stinking 4a.m. and I’m not investigating any other points until a later time.
"Well, the answer is fairly straightforward I think...I believe"
"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"—Reference.Com
You made a few dogmatic sounding statements—statements Christians frequently use to describe the Christian life and process—but you failed to offer any references supporting your dogmatism.
You present your opinions cogently, but your foundational method is shaky at best, so all I keep coming away with is someone who expresses their opinions well.
Summation: "I think...I believe."
Thanks Tigg. A concise and accuarte analogy for defining evil. I'll remember this one.
Yes, actually I do wish that, of the faithful that do show up here, more of them would be like Theo. Less liklihood of conversations degenerating into a "dog"-ma fight.
I live my life less by a well-defined, conscious philosophy than by the seat of my pants. But it's fun to philosophize and it helps me work out a better definition of what I think about topics like this. Besides, I really like some of the conversations that result.
I think we'd be great friends if we lived near each other. You're quite obviously a passionate individual who most likely wears her heart on her sleeve (when she's wearing anything, that is ;)). We have a couple things in common: you like sex, I like sex, you like women, I like women...we're made for each other! ;)
BTW, it may be hard to do but if you're a bit patient, eventually the posts you make will show up on the main site. Sometimes it takes hours, others minutes.
Love back at ya, sweetie!
"Evil", as it pertains to religious dogma, is presumably supposed to be objectively defined. "Evil" is "wrong"; "Holiness" is "right." This is objective? Bull. There's hundreds of denominations/sects of Christianity, NONE of which completely agree on what is "wrong", and what is "right". It's completely subjective, just like ALL religious dogma. We, as the human race, might be able to get away with saying "wrong" is simply doing unnecessary harm to others; "right" is minimizing harm to others. The idea that morality is "Divinely" inspired is a joke. There are things that we, as a civilized society, have evolved to know are "wrong" that are NOT in the Holy Bible, or any other holy book. Tell me, how is this possible if our "divine baby sitter" didn't spell it out for us in his "word"? Waiting.
I am so pleased that you responded to me. And if you are "opinionated" and "restless" then we are sure to get along.
I am deeply involved with a woman who I am proud to call Mistress. I belong to that woman body and soul. To please her is my greatest pleasure. But she has never, never hurt me; she has never so much as raised her voice to me.
'scuse me Lorena, I am getting emotional and maybe not thinking real clear. I have heard how some christian men treat their wives and it makes my flesh crawl.
I like men; really I do. There is no such thing as a 100% lesbian. I have my boyfriends; even Mistress has a boyfriend. But I could not bear to be "bossed" by a man, and being bossed in the name of jesus is a horror beyond words.
I hope you continue to write to me.
Ubergeek, it is always good to hear from you, and you are right, my heart is on my sleeve. It is damned inconvenient. My feelings can turn on a dime and I can cry and curse like a Russian whore.
I was sorry that Theotherian did not respond to me--I thought I had some good points. Anyway, the thread has gone into the problem of evil. The problem of evil is all about the suffering of the innocent, children especially. A just god would not sit by and watch the innocent suffer, otherwise god is not just. And if we say that god has some secret reasons for the suffering of the innocent, that makes it worse. What kind of all-powerful god needs to hurt people in order to reach his goals? But the plain reality is that the innocent suffer.....senselessly. I cannot believe in the christian's just god because I have a heart.
Here is where I get called an existentialist: without god, there is no objective right or wrong. Any "moral" act must be one of our own choosing, and involves neither reward nor punishment. People like me just about go nuts when they look out at this world and know that our pains and pleasures have no meaning. I never tire of saying that I quit the church when I learned about the inquisition.
Did you ever hear about Gertrude Baniszewski? Google up and get sick, baby. And now I got to go because I'm whimpering.
Peace, boom.
boomslang, your name sounds vaguely obscene. I love it. About all this "proof" about god's existence.....we can offer all the proof we like about the existence of a creator, but it will never add up to the christian god, or the jew god, or any other god. The best you can come up with is some deist prime mover.
catholic theology has been running this game for centuries. Aquinas had some claptrap in the summa about how god's essence is the same as his existence--he is his own essence and his own existence--in other words, it is god's nature to exist, and not possible for him not to exist. It's a word game and means nothing. Anyway, from this dubious beginning, aquinas goes on to comment on everything from killing heretics to virginity.
The very idea that a god exists and is presiding over this absurd world is enough to loosen my bowels. I think I need to go the ladies' room.
See you honey.
Very, very, well put.
Theo,
"And lets be honest, when we are talking about areas where there is no available deductive argument, our presuppositions are most likely going to determine our conclusions."
That is among the most reasonable statements I've ever seen come from the mind of a modern Christian. That said, I'm going to respectfully disagree.
Our presuppositions certainly determine what we hope to (or think we'll) find, and our willingness to accept certain knowledge as valid or invalid. However, to say that they are entirely responsible for determining our conclusions doesn't take into account new knowledge that change our original perceptions.
Those who cling to what they suppose to be true in the face of new and contradictory information are engaging in what many would call dogma.
Dogma: A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.
http://dict.die.net/dogma/
Anyone who has been "converted" from one idea or worldview to another can attest to this.
"Basically the Christian life is first and foremost a process."
Every life is a process. We all learn and grow according to our "gifts." If a certain philosophical point-of-view helps a person to grow and learn, that's fine. However, when a particular philosophy is determined by a select few to be the only valid course for all, conflict will arise.
"If design is present in the world, a logical step would be to say that the majority of humanity pursues religion because it was designed into us."
First off, this statement assumes design, which I'd simply like to point out is not at all a settled issue.
Briefly, the design inference revolves largely around irreducible and specified complexity, along with the alleged fine-tuning of the universe, and of course, the designer.
While complexity and fine-tuning can be argued in scientific terms by those qualified to do so, the designer element is by definition outside the scope of anything but philosophical inquiry. That means that we can't even have a discussion about design without assuming a designer. Do you begin to see the problem?
Incidentally both Behe and Dembski, while giving lip-service to the idea of a non-divine designer, state quite explicitly they cannot see how design could be accomplished by anything other than a divine being. But I digress.
Second, this statement (and the paragraph that frames it) appears to be committing the bandwagon fallacy, or argumentum ad populum. That is, since many people believe in gods, gods must exist. This doesn't follow.
"If no God exists, I can't think of a convincing reason to call an action "right" or "wrong". And the emotivist answer doesn't seem to pose a satisfying solution, because I don't just not like torturing babies for fun, but I know that people ought not to do it."
How about species survival? There are even some animals that appear to display some sort of altruistic or "moral" behavior. Are we to assume then that God gave them moral sensibilities?
Ask any ten random people what they believe is moral. Let's assume they're totally honest with you. Although you'll get nearly all of them to agree on some fundamentals (murder, theft, incest), you'll also find a great deal of diversity in what each believes defines a particular act as immoral, as well as some disagreement over what should be considered immoral in the first place.
Ask any ten Christians the same thing, again assuming they're totally honest with you. I'm willing to bet you'll find similar results.
"...I believe that history itself may provide the most compelling arguments for the existence of God, and especially for the justification of Christianity as the one true religion. The reason is simple. If we evaluate Jesus' life and the records about it as we evaluate the rest of history, I can find no better explanation for the evidence than that Jesus did indeed die, and on the third day rise from the dead."
You make a couple pretty big leaps in this paragraph, and now you're sounding more like a standard Christian apologist.
Your qualifying remark here - "...If we evaluate Jesus' life and the records about it as we evaluate the rest of history..." - is simply another way of saying we should accept the biblical record based on the documentary evidence. Even accepting the Bible as a remarkably well-attested document doesn't mean we necessarily must accept everything written in it as true or accurate in every respect.
Supernatural events and mythical creatures are part and parcel of ancient writings. By the logic you present here, we should accept these things as true as long as there is enough attestation to the manuscripts themselves.
In simpler terms, it's a huge leap from believing the mundane aspects of the biblical account occurred to believing in supernatural events (including Jesus' alleged resurrection). It's an even bigger leap to assume that documentary evidence proves God's existence, or that Christianity is the "One True Faith."
"...without god, there is no objective right or wrong. Any "moral" act must be one of our own choosing, and involves neither reward nor punishment."
Well said! My problem is getting out my thoughts succinctly. I read too much, so I tend to get wordy.
"People like me just about go nuts when they look out at this world and know that our pains and pleasures have no meaning."
No meaning? They mean something to somebody, and as long as we're open we can learn from each other. And love is enough meaning in itself. Sappy? Sure, but I still believe it's true.
I want to tell you a story. Several years ago, a friend of mine was committed to a mental hospital. She was seriously depressed and had tried to kill herself. After several months, her doctors granted her a christmas furlough, and when she got to her parent's house she went and hanged herself with a length of chain.
When I got the news I almost went to the nuthouse myself. I fell to the floor and screamed like a banshee and pissed my pants. My big sister got me to the emergency room where they got me quiet, and after an hour or so I left with a prescription for Valium. I finally got myself pulled together, but I never got over the grief. Every time I go to her grave, I sob like an idiot.
'geek, believe me when I tell you that I can feel pain just like the next woman. But I look into the empty sky and I know that there is no god who wants to comfort me. I am alone with whatever pain I have to endure. I have my friends, and I have my beloved Mistress, but to say that we will have our answers in heaven makes me want to start throwing and breaking things. Bill Shakespeare wrote that life "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is about all I am able to believe in.
Well damn, now who's sappy? Shit. Thanx for listening. Big Hi to Lorena.
First, I grant that deductive arguments are more convincing. The problem is not that I can't present a deductive argument for the existence of God, the problem is that you won't agree with all of the premises. See the Kalam cosmological argument and the link I previously posted for a deductive argument. Further, the problem of evil was then presented as a deductive argument on the atheist side. But again, there is a disagreement on the premises. I do not grant that there is an absolute evil. As a matter of fact, in the tradition of Augustine (and modern day, in the tradition of C.S. Lewis) I would claim that evil in and of itself is not actually a thing, but is rather a perversion of what is good. This is evident in the fact that we don't find people desiring evil for the sake of evil. To elaborate, people desire or do something evil with the expectation that good will occur to someone, even if it is simply pleasure on the part of the evil doer. And pleasure is not an evil thing, but a good thing. As such, with evil being a perversion of what is good rather than being a thing itself, God is not subject to being the creator of evil. God's good creation has been perverted by others - see humanity and yes, even satan.
Ethics: As I have researched, I have come to the conclusion that any sort of hedonism or utilitarianism must be rejected, because (1) some things which are pleasurable are obviously wrong and (2) because I can use these systems to justify murder. First, there are some people who are mentally ill and get pleasure out of things which society labels wrong, such as murder or rape. Basically, if what is right is subjective, then we have no way to communicate with each other what is right, and anarchy rules. It is no use claiming that what is better for humanity is what the unrighteous should do, because we have no justification for caring to do what is better for humanity. As a matter of fact, if we are depressed, then we might get pleasure out of dying and taking as many people with us as possible. Misery loves company. Finally, if you argue that we ought to do what is best for humanity, you are now appealing to an objective standard, that human life is valuable and we ought to respect it. But why? My pleasure doesn't necessarily justify that. So should I do it because its my duty (deontological ethics). But why is it my duty? Does someone make it my duty? And deontology doesn't seem to account for the whole of human existence. For the failure of subjective ethics to justify or condemn an action by itself, it does seem to at least occasionally corroborate what is right. The idea of duty, much like Kant's assertion that a truly significant moral action is only one that you struggle to do also fails to account for the whole of human existence. Also emotivism, that right and wrong are actually statements of feeling about certain actions. And yet our societies are not built this way. If a man steals my wallet, I want it back not just because I don't like having my wallet stolen, but because that wallet is mine, and contains some of the product of my work, which I own (see John Locke) and I am entitled to that, and no one should be allowed to take it away from me. Yes, this does have something to do with the necessary constructs of society (a contract with society, if you will) but the constructs of society still fail to address value questions. For example, there is no compelling reason to believe that what is good for society is truly good. If we look at it objectively, I can see no reason to assign positive value to what is good for society, or even to consider my continued existence a good thing. Bertrand Russel is one of the few atheists who took atheism to what many believe is its logical conclusion, and gave up trying to assign value to anything. Of course, he continued living, which means he didn't go all the way, but there it is.
I'm going to take a quick break to point out that some of what I have just said was basically putting thoughts into the atheist's head, which isn't always a nice way to go. Please don't take it personally, I can only speak as best I can from my perspective, and this is how I have evaluated the arguments and their logical conclusions. Take it or leave it, I still respect your point of view. :-) And also, I have tried to take a sampling of what I have read from you plus a little of what else is out there for ethical theory and answer it, this is still not comprehensive.
Alright, so what ethical system should we choose? I think that Aristotle and his virtue theory have it right, and here is why. First and foremost, it is the only system that is internally coherent. The idea that we should find the virtuous person and be like him supposes something objective. And as shown above, a subjective ethical theory opens us up to obvious inconsistencies, not to mention that it renders ethical discussion incoherent. There is a virtuous person, and we ought to be like him. This solution also provides a theory with a reasonable origin for objectivity. We must ask the question of where our ethical standard has come from, and ethical theory is necessarily personal. It doesn't govern the interrelationships of rocks and glaciers, it governs the actions of human beings, which are fundamentally different. Apples do not come from orange seeds. So ethics and morality must be governed by an individual. And Virtue theory when applied to God is not subject to the criticism of being aritrary, because it is not a condition that God set, but is God's state of being. Neither God nor morality are logically prior, they are the same thing. I also believe in virtue theory because its what Jesus taught. :-)
Another important note on belief and inductive argument. Mr. Webmaster, you are subject to that same criticism. Forgive me if I misjudge you, but I assume that you are a scientific naturalist because that seems to be the tone of the website. So why are you a philosophical naturalist. Why? Either your reasoning is circular and you believe that scientific naturalism justifies itself (which is unfalsifiable, which is widely recognized to generally be an indicator of either shoddy reasoning or falsity itself) or you believe in the verification principle. But the verification principle simply moves the criticism back a step to the verification principle itself. Basically, you are a philosophical naturalist because you believe that this is the best explanation to the way things are. You can't prove it, you can only make a statement of belief about it. As a matter of fact, the tools of philosophical naturalism are science itself, which by definition can only address the material world. Science cannot reject the supernatural or the immaterial because it cannot address them in the first place. Philosophical naturalism rejects the supernatural and immaterial because it believes that they don't happen. The philosophical naturalist may argue that science will eventually explain every question, but this is patently untrue because I can ask immaterial questions, like "why should I do x?" Science, at this point, is simply mute, because the question does not make sense. However, I ask this question every day as I make decisions.
Finally, the most exciting part. History!
The New Testament is far and away the best attested ancient literature. Period. First and foremost, the sheer number of available manuscripts far outstrip any other piece of ancient literature, and the amount of time between composition and our first available documents are again by far the shortest of any ancient work. The earliest piece of the New Testament we have appears in the early to mid 2nd century, a fragment of the Gospel of John which most scholars date to about 90 AD. This means that less than 100 years and possibly as few as 40 have elapsed between the writing of this book and the first available manuscript we have. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus appear around 250 years after the completion of the New Testament. There are over 20,000 partial and complete ancient copies of the New Testament. Want to hear some comparisons? There are 8 ancient copies of Herodotus, none closer than 1300 years to the original manuscript. There are 20 copies of Tacitus, none closer than 1000 years. 20 copies of Livy's Roman History, none closer than 900 years. And yet the general trustworthiness of these non-biblical texts is generally unquestioned. Further, Within these 20,000 + NT manuscripts, there are about 150,000 variants. Sounds like a lot, right? Not really. First of all, if the same variants occurs in 5000 manuscripts, it counts as 5000 variants. So we can get rid of most of these as repetitious. As a matter of fact, Bruce M Metzger in his book "The Text of the New Testament" tells us that of all these variants, only about 20 are of any significance, and none of them affect any core doctrine of the Christian faith. It is widely accepted by textual critics that we can be certain that the New Testament we read today is in no way significantly different from the original text that was written.
So what was written? First, the Gospel of Mark was most likely written before 70 AD. Obviously there is some disagreement, but scholarship tends to lean towards 70 or before, at least because Mark was supposedly written before any of the other Gospels which were in large part dependent on Mark. Tracking the movement of ancient texts suggests that 20 years (the approximate time between the writing of the first Gospel and the Gospel of John) is simply not enough time for the tradition to have developed so far. The important point is that if Mark was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the historical claims in Mark would have been subject to verification. For example, was the tomb of Jesus really empty? Well, yes, and here are a few reasons. Number one, Christians were making this claim before the fall of Jerusalem. Which means that anyone could have gone and seen if the grave Jesus was buried in was actually empty. They wouldn't have forgotten where the grave was, because the tombs of Jewish holy men were venerated. Whether or not all the Jews believed in Jesus, at least some of them did, and would have venerated his tomb as a prophet's. His tomb could not have been lost. And besides the four gospels and their statements about the empty tomb, we have Paul's witness in 1 Corinthians 15, universally accepted by scholars to be a genuine epistle of Paul written about AD 50-55. Definitely close enough to Jesus' death to be verified. So whether or not we can trust the Christians to report accurate history, we can listen to the witness of history as to whether or not there is an answer to the Christian's claim of the empty tomb. The silence speaks loudly.
I'm a little bit tired of the claim that the earliest Christians either could not or did not write accurate history. To say that they could not write accurate history is to assert that they were liars, and nothing less. The reason for this is that there is a heavy emphasis on truth and historical events in the earliest Christian writings. A good example of this is the Gospel of John, where "truth" is one of John's main themes. Paul writes "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain." Paul staked his whole faith on the reality of history. And if the most prominent followers of Jesus were liars, why? It didn't make them rich, it didn't make them powerful, and it did make them dead. Usually in a horrible way.
Next, I don't know how much biblical history you've actually read, but Jesus studies since the enlightenment have been divided into three main phases. These phases are the first, second and third quests for the historical Jesus. The first quest basically denied that we could know much about the historical Jesus besides what we wanted to make up. Albert Schweitzer ended this quest with the aforementioned observation. The second question basically denied that knowing anything about the historical Jesus mattered. The third quest, which is now picking up a lot of steam, asserts that we can know a lot about Jesus, and we know it by placing him in his Jewish context. The funny thing is that this new quest and the direction of current scholarship is becoming more and more optimistic about what we can know about the historical Jesus. The field generally agrees that Jesus really existed, that he really had a ministry, that he really did miracles (whether they were truly miraculous or a sort of placebo is another matter) that he really was crucified, and that his followers really did believe in Easter. These are some pretty significant statements. There are the additional findings of archaeology confirming the general trustworthiness of the narrative books. All the names are right (though Quirinius in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke remains unnacounted for) and the places are all accurately described. And that is just the beginning.
But for now, its the ending. My laundry is long done and is now all wrinkled probably, so I've gotta go. Thanks for hanging in there again, and hopefully you all still want to talk. Sorry that I didn't get to everything that you guys brought up, and sorry that I'm not the smartest guy in the world so I could give you the perfect answers, but that would probably take some of the fun out of it anyway. You guys have a good night, and I'll get back to you when I can!
Oh, and by the way, everyone gets confused about this, but theotherian is actually the other Ian, so you guys can call me Ian instead of Theo if you want. Or just think of me as a character on the Cosby Show.
Night!
Just 2 observations: the sheer number of your manuscripts does nothing to validate them. It just means that people back then were indulging in a lot of pleasant fiction. I do not care if there are 500 billion manuscripts
I am familiar with the argument that the disciples would not die for a lie. theo, the deaths of the disciples are legends. No one knows how they died, and for that matter, no one knows if they or jesus existed in the first place. You are relying on scripture to prove scripture, and on religion to prove religion. Christians have really no defense of christianity, they can only preach.
Face it, sweetie.....if you are going to be a christian, you have only faith; not proof; not arguments.
Since I got the floor, I wanted to add a few more things. I guess verbosity is catching.
Your appeal has been to the sheer number of nt manuscripts. Of course. This stuff was written and circulated among the ignorant and superstitious masses. The amount of stuff that was written counts against the nt, not for it. People wanted to read about miracles and heaven and hell. You mention there are only 20 copies of Tacitus; 20 copies of Livy. How many people in the ancient world wanted to read that stuff? In this world, ancient or modern, the good stuff is rare; the cheap stuff is plentiful.
There are lots of objections to your bible being the word of god. Some minor stuff: matthew quotes a non-existent prophecy (2:23) Both mark and john leave out the immaculate conception. Did they not know about it, or not believe it to begin with? The virgin birth, after all, is a core doctrine. All 4 gospels have different versions of jesus' last words. These are just a few of the discrepancies that point to the bible as human, not divine.
The major thing is the wild notion that before god could forgive the smallest of our misdemeanors, his combination human/divine son had to be butchered in a roman exection, and if we find that ludicrous, he will burn us in hell forever. That is not just ludicrous, that is crazy; and theo, I do not care if you have a pile of manuscripts that reaches from here to the moon, it is still crazy. I do not care if all 6.5 billion people on earth believe every word of the bible, it is still crazy.
I think the point has been made
"The major thing is the wild notion that before god could forgive the smallest of our misdemeanors, his combination human/divine son had to be butchered in a roman exection, and if we find that ludicrous, he will burn us in hell forever. That is not just ludicrous, that is crazy; and theo, I do not care if you have a pile of manuscripts that reaches from here to the moon, it is still crazy. I do not care if all 6.5 billion people on earth believe every word of the bible, it is still crazy.
I think the point has been made"
BRIGID. Isn't it amazing how even the Christians who come onto this site, who are smarter than the rest, and still have functioning brains, so conspicuously dance around and pretend not to see that the whole "God knocked up a virgin so he could have a special son (What are we? Chopped liver?), in order to sacrifice that son to himself, to atone for sins that he invented himself," SCENARIO, as pagan thinking, and a collation of pagan myths that show up in the very first creation stories?
Even the ones who will spend days here talking about a bunch of stupid Jewish history, will never address the most obvious irrational aspects of their religion. I have a theory, that they think, if they totally ignore the problem in YOUR paragraph above, it will go away.
Dan (Agnostic, Humanist, Rationalist)
"The major thing is the wild notion that before god could forgive the smallest of our misdemeanors, his combination human/divine son had to be butchered in a roman exection, and if we find that ludicrous, he will burn us in hell forever. That is not just ludicrous, that is crazy; and theo, I do not care if you have a pile of manuscripts that reaches from here to the moon, it is still crazy. I do not care if all 6.5 billion people on earth believe every word of the bible, it is still crazy.
I think the point has been made"
BRIGID. Isn't it amazing how even the Christians who come onto this site, who are smarter than the rest, and still have functioning brains, so conspicuously dance around and pretend not to see that the whole "God knocked up a virgin so he could have a special son (What are we? Chopped liver?), in order to sacrifice that son to himself, to atone for sins that he invented himself," SCENARIO, as pagan thinking, and a collation of pagan myths that show up in the very first creation stories?
Even the ones who will spend days here talking about a bunch of stupid Jewish history, will never address the most obvious irrational aspects of their religion. I have a theory, that they think, if they totally ignore the problem in YOUR paragraph above, it will go away.
Dan (Agnostic, Humanist, Rationalist)
Label me whatever you'd like and continue to post long, complicated posts, but in the end all you've said is that you prefer to believe in Christianity.
I no longer believe in talking snakes, chatting donkeys, flying fiery chariots, world-wide floods, magically refilling pots of food, flying undead god-men, or any of the other fantastic, wonderful, amazing, myths from any culture. Of course I could be mistaken, and in the near future giant flying locusts are going to sear the ground and kill most of humanity. Not to mention that big animal with all horns that wants to rule the world. In fact, I don't believe in golden fleeces or cyclops monsters either, though I do appreciate the imaginations of the men who invented these myths.
Anyway, I consider myself a non-theist, an atheist if you prefer. I'm all for "what could be." I love a good story. But, until I get more evidence of what is, rather than what might be, I remain a skeptic of Bronze Age, tribal, cultic, magical deities.
I asked my priest those very things when I was just a girl: why did god have to kill his son before he could pardon those who broke the laws that he made himself in the first place? He had no answer, and he got a little pissed. I still chuckle about that.
"..brevity is the soul of wit..." Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2.
Although your argument was well-written, it was much longer than necessary. Like you, many of us can only handle so much time sitting in front of a computer screen engaged in very time-consuming discussion. Some of us spend entirely too much time in front of the computer!
For all your words, however, the webmaster is still right that you are still simply saying that you prefer to believe.
In addressing your comments, I will try to refrain from repeating myself, though it appears that some repeating may be necessary.
"I do not grant that there is an absolute evil...I would claim that evil in and of itself is not actually a thing, but is rather a perversion of what is good."
I think it's safe to say that most of us here could agree with this assessment quite easily.
"See the Kalam cosmological argument and the link I previously posted for a deductive argument."
For the sake of brevity, see a refutation here
"Basically, if what is right is subjective, then we have no way to communicate with each other what is right, and anarchy rules. It is no use claiming that what is better for humanity is what the unrighteous should do, because we have no justification for caring to do what is better for humanity."
Are you trying to say that we need God to justify caring about the future of our society, or humanity as a whole? As should be apparent, society is made up of people who by necessity (for survival) became (mostly) cooperative agents. This cooperative arrangement is absolutely necessary for species survival and for us to thrive. If we did not "care" for our neighbors, they will not "care" for us, and suddenly *poof* we (as a race) are on the brink of extinction.
What is right is largely subjective because each society determines what is most advantageous to its continuation/survival and ability to thrive. When societies are in conflict, either they find a way to mutually agree to certain standards, one absorbs the other, or one is obliterated.
When it comes to the finer points of ethics (that is, those that don't directly affect survival or our ability to thrive), there needn't even be a debate.
"As a matter of fact, if we are depressed, then we might get pleasure out of dying and taking as many people with us as possible."
First, ethics/morality are not likely to stop anyone depressed enough to commit a murder-suicide. We are also not discussing mental illness or its implications. Ethics and morality are warped just as surely in someone suffering from a mental affliction as are their other thoughts. I've been there. I know.
Second, it might be said that survival itself (and thriving of course) is pleasurable, and that our seeking to improve our chances by caring for our neighbors would be part of this.
What I'm saying (I'm hurrying so this may not be clear - I'll elaborate later if necessary) is that ethics and morality do not need God in order to exist or be communicated from one human or society to the next. They can have evolved from a perfectly natural instinct for survival.
As for the portion of your post dealing with history, you really did not need to write all of that out. Most of us are familiar with how well-attested to the Bible is. I still maintain (and you have not rebutted the argument) that this adds nothing to an argument for the existence of God. By that logic, any document that meets some arbitrarily assigned amount of attestation should be believed as true, even if what it says is outlandish.
"I'm a little bit tired of the claim that the earliest Christians either could not or did not write accurate history."
Historical accuracy by ancient standards was much lower than it is today. To demand (or assert) that ancient peoples - even Christians wanting to be truthful - wrote with the same degree of accuracy as modern historians and without bias is ludicrous. Even historians today can't escape being at least mildly biased, and in some cases make mistakes themselves, even in this so-called Information Age.
I'd expound more on this but I really have to run.
Maybe more later. Love to all - 'specially Brigid.
I have a few more comments, and some more time. By the way, in the following remarks, I'm assuming you're a proponent of objective morals as provided by God through the Bible. If that's inaccurate, then I've gotten the wrong impression from your post. Let me know.
"...if you argue that we ought to do what is best for humanity, you are now appealing to an objective standard, that human life is valuable and we ought to respect it."
and
"If we look at it objectively, I can see no reason to assign positive value to what is good for society, or even to consider my continued existence a good thing."
I suppose in a strict naturalistic sense this can be considered potentially valid. The natural world is a brutal place, and does not care if you live or die.
On the other hand, none of us views our own lives (or more broadly, society) objectively. At least, not on a regular basis. When we do, we are struck with how insignificant we are in relation to the universe. While this feeling can certainly be uncomfortable, it is no more an indicator of the validity of Christian belief than is the vastness of the universe.
I agree that valuing humanity as an objective concept would necessarily imply an objective standard. However, humanity is made up of billions of subjective individuals, trying to thrive and survive in a brutal world. Furthermore, those members of humanity that do not contribute to our ability to survive and thrive (or are actively working against it for their own gain), are not usually valued. Sure, we give lip service to the notion that "they're people too," but deep down we really don't care whether those folks live or die. Naturally, they feel the same about us. Once again, this is subjective value judgments in action.
Values arise subjectively because each of us assigns our own value to people and possessions based on what we feel. There are those who value possessions more than people, and those who value others more than themselves. And of course, there are those who value nothing but themselves. Another consideration is that in most cases we assign value in degrees. For example, your wallet is valuable to you for the reasons you mention, but your family might be more valuable than everything your wallet contains and/or represents. That is, if you are presented with a choice between giving up your wallet or your family, you'd likely choose to give your wallet - gladly. Why? Not ethics or morality as defined by the Bible, I assure you, though you may later describe it that way.
Another example would be a situation in which you might be compelled to lie to protect someone from harm. Bearing false witness is a sin, being one of the Ten Commandments, yet I'm quite sure that if some menacing person carrying a gun came to your door asking to see a member of your family, you'd lie your silly ass off to protect them.
And yes, strictly speaking it is true that we assign value based on the measure of pleasure we get from something. However, this isn't necessarily a predictor of behavior either. For example, we may not value money very highly under normal circumstances, where in other cases the temptation may be too great and we wind up doing something we feel deep in our hearts is reprehensible, all for the sake of the money we claimed not to value.
And since the topic of this discussion is related closely to Christianity, I submit that being a Bible-believing Christian does not insulate you, or equip you for battle against temptation any better than any other ethical system, even a humanistic or non-theistic one. In fact, I might go further and say Christianity enables a person to cave to temptation, since they believe that they will receive divine forgiveness. Perhaps you've heard of priests centuries ago claiming exemption from civil law?
Finally, what of the ethical systems which eschew personal possessions entirely? Even your Bible advocates giving up concern for, and pursuit of, worldly possessions. What does that say about your feeling that your wallet shouldn't be stolen because it's yours? It is notable you didn't say it's unethical because of your belief in God and His commandments. So much for morality and objective ethics issuing from the Word of God.
On Ian's History...
"To say that they could not write accurate history is to assert that they were liars, and nothing less. The reason for this is that there is a heavy emphasis on truth and historical events in the earliest Christian writings."
Truth and accuracy, though related, are actually mutually exclusive. It is possible to be completely honest, totally sincere, and absolutely wrong. The authors of the Gospels (and the other books) needn't have been liars. This implies the intent to deceive. All that needs to be considered is that they reported events according to their understanding of them. A simple forgotten word could change the meaning of any one of Christ's reported sayings. As an example of loose standards (by today's measure), you may be familiar with Eusebius' quote of Papias:
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."
What Peter seemed to be concerned with is communicating to Mark what he probably considered to be the substance of Jesus' message. Mark may have reported accurately what Peter told him, but that does not mean Peter was concerned with accuracy. Peter needn't have to have been dishonest, either. Peter had an understanding of Jesus' message that was his, and perhaps shared by some of the other apostles. Furthermore, since Peter is thought to have died before the Gospel of Mark was written, then we have to consider not only Mark's memory but Peter's. Finally, Matthew and Luke borrowed quite heavily from Mark, meaning that some of the same inaccuracies crept from one Gospel to the next, preserved in such a way that today Christians stand in awe of the "remarkable consistency" between the accounts.
The point is that attestation does little to confirm the accounts directly, mostly indicated excellent preservation of the original texts. In short, although the Bible has been on the world's Best Seller list for nearly two millenia, it adds nothing to an affirmative claim of God's existence.
Well, I've got to go to bed now. Have a great day tomorrow!
"Furthermore, those members of humanity that do not contribute to our ability to survive and thrive (or are actively working against it for their own gain), are not usually valued. Sure, we give lip service to the notion that "they're people too," but deep down we really don't care whether those folks live or die. Naturally, they feel the same about us."
When I wrote this, I was thinking primarily about those who actively work against our survival. There are those who do not contribute but are valued, of course.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that this is a subjective matter.
I think we've reached the point now where we're not understanding or agreeing with each other's arguments.
I don't see evidence of a god being active in our daily lives at all. We've given reason why we have difficulty taking the Bible at face value.
If there's a god out there, I think it should be clear which god we should worship. Why does it have to be so confusing if that god really wants to be known? Nearly every religion thinks they have it right and put others down; Whose to say anyone has it right? Tolerance of other beliefs is welcome.
People can believe what they want to believe, but please let's not try to force a belief onto another.
Keep spreading hate and fear and then see how many people join you. The main way you'll with converts is with love. Your approach is disgusting and it appears to me you have not even bothered to understand our concerns.
Have fun living in your own little world.
"Thursday, May 04, 2006
Teen-Sex-Free Porn
Teen Sex Free Porn - 8:29 AM
Welcome to the Teen-Sex-Free Porn movement, where porn stars and anti-porn activists unite! We can unite because we all agree, child pornography is wrong. Nobody likes child pornography, anti-porn activists don't like *any* porn, much less child porn, but even porn stars agree child pornography is bad for porn's reputation, so both sides can come together and support this movement to free porn from teen-sex."
http://teen-sex-free-porn.blogspot.com/
Yeah, you freak. You actually have the audacity to come onto this site, and tell people they are going to hell and are damned forever, and then... your religious beliefs, have no problem siding with porn stars as long as they are supporting your views on one topic?
Well, if that's the case, why not get a bunch of terrorists to side with you on "one" topic, I mean, does it really matter what else those people do?
You hypocrite, what a loser.
And, you said:
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"
Your god is a manipulating bastard, literally speaking. Why don't you go find somewhere else to throw stupidity around, perhaps over at some christian site, I mean, many of them are willing to accept anything blindly without even asking a question to see if your words are worth the time. As for me, you are a waste of bandwidth, and cognitive energy, your words are as useless as your manipulative gods', perhaps this post will "flush" your waste down the proverbial cyber-toilet.
Thanks for the help in fending off this jerk.
If they succeed in shutting down a part of the sex industry, it will have a dramatic impact on the social lives of many religious leaders.
Well, without the option for going out and getting their flesh fix, I suppose we'll see more and more religious leaders turn to church members for assistance in meeting their sexual needs. The only way to hide a secret, is to confide in someone who has as much to lose - church members ;-) Have a great one.
Who is Christ to you?
The only reason you make all the claims about god is because someone brainwashed you enough when you were younger to believe unquestioningly in the book written by those same semi-literate men. Here's a clue...it was made up in order to control people, not to enlighten them, same as it is today.
Who is god? Depends on whom you ask. Allah? Thor? The Great Spirit? Yahweh? Jehovah? Ra? Take your pick...they are ALL man-made.
And why do you say I'm brainwashed? you act like my christianity is a disease or something. And yes, when i was younger, I did recieve Christ as my personal savior, I wouldn't think of calling it brainwashing.
And yes, other religions do have different gods. Most of them were real people who lived before them that were wise, heroic, or just, worth remembering. But they weren't actually gods, they called them that. I'm talking about GOD. You know, "Alpha and Omega", the first and the last, ring a bell?? HE was the author of the Bible. The men that wrote it(ex:Moses, John, Paul, etc.)were writers inspired by God. They were regular people with regular problems. They didn't even know their work would be part of the Holy Scriptures one day.
And the Bible wasn't made for controlling people. It's a story. It's God's master plan for mankind. It tells what happened, what is happening, and what will happen for eternity. We either accept it, or reject it. It's your choice.
That's easy. Because you say stuff like this:
"The Bible contains everything one would need to know for their whole lives, and their afterlife."
-Wes.
so why do you call that brainwashing?
You should put the "I Believe" statement before all that. I don't know how you can make such a blatantly ignorant claim. Sure, there may be bits of global wisdom in there, but there's nothing in there that is unique or original to YOUR religion. And how can you apply the bible to the afterlife? Have you been there? Where is your proof that the bible is all you need to know for the afterlife? On what authority can you make such a claim? See where I'm going? You're going to fall back onto your beliefs to form your rebuttal here because you have no choice but to do so. You have NOTHING to base your claims here, except "I Believe", and that just leads you back to the bible (where your beliefs originate), and that makes this whole debate circular and meaningless. You have not thought it out before you penned that statement; you are just simply parroting out the same rhetoric that every christnut does when visiting here, without contributing anything of any real value. -Wes.
How is this different from the god of the Bible? What, other than years of Christian indoctrination, predisposes you to think that ???? was not merely some proto-Canaanite warlord who kicked butt and became a legend to the ancestors of the Israelites?
And how can you (presumably a human mortal like the rest of us here on this site) be in any position to actually identify an "Alpha and Omega" if one existed?
4given, I doubt very, very much that you are privy to any spectacularly superior knowledge of Life, the Universe and Everything. All you have is a dusty old book that you've stapled to the inside of your brain with your own fears and hopes.
Words are unable to prove the existence of gods. Stop trying to use the Bible to prove itself -- It just makes you look foolish.
Wes, you want to know the proof about the afterlife. It's all in the Bible! (yes, I'm back to that subject) What do YOU believe happens after death? Well, "I Believe" that you can know for sure where you're going after death. It's in the Bible. And I know, you don't believe in the Bible. But you know, there are so many scholars and historians that have tried to prove the Bible wrong for years. They can't do it.
Astreja, you asked for evidence of an Alpha and Omega.
Rev.22:13- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
I believe it because it's from the Bible. That's the strongest evidence I can come up with.
The Bible is true because the God in the Bible says it is true.
What don't you get, Wes? It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Oh, and scholars have been trying to prove that Allah doesn't exist, and you know what? THEY CAN'T DO IT!
Quoting from the Bible proves nothing. Nothing at all. The book cannot be used to prove the existence of gods, worldwide floods, talking snakes, or people rising from the dead. What you may call a "miracle" is, in our eyes, further evidence that the Bible is primarily mythological rather than factual or historical.
The book is a compilation by many authors, many of whom are unknown. Some parts, such as the flood myth, were plagiarized from earlier works. (q.v. the Akkadian epic of Atrahasis).
Other parts of the Bible are attributed to specific people but probably written by somebody else. It is unlikely, for instance, that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
And, to add insult to injury, the Biblical canon was assembled several hundred years after the alleged birth and death of Jesus. This happened at the first council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The books you have in your precious little Bible were the lucky ones -- Many others were voted off the island by the three hundred or so clergy in attendance at the meeting. So your alleged "truth" depends very much of the whims of a group of men who assembled at the command of the emperor Constantine.
You can quote from the Bible till you're blue in the face. You can rock back and forth in your chair and clutch the book to your chest and whisper "I do I do I do believe in Holy Spooks." We won't try to stop you. But neither will we believe you.
Rev.22:13- I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
I believe it because it's from the Bible. That's the strongest evidence I can come up with.
No, that isn't "evidence" at all. You're quoting a book which I personally think is sub-standard fiction.
If that quotation "proves" the existence of an "Alpha and Omega" (whatever that is), then Detective Comics #27 proves the existence of Batman and Fellowship of the Ring proves the existence of Frodo Baggins. In my experience your god is no more and no less real than the above-noted characters.
Oh, and for the record, my initials are AO. ;-)
That's nice...totally redundant, but nice. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but John Travolta believes what he believes, because he believes it's the "truth". Now, is that some astonishing disclosure? 'Point is---what is "believed" to be "true", is not always what IS "true".
Personally, I "believe" you are BOTH mistaken in your "beliefs", however, if either, or both of you could offer convincing evidence that your "belief" is true---beyond in your head---I'd be happy to change my view of your "beliefs".
Anony-non: Since I know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west...if I believed that it did not and that it rose in west and set in the east...then I would be wrong
Well, if you believe the sun "rises", you're wrong, regardless. It only appears to "rise"--evidence that some Bronze-aged misconceptions have carried into the 21 century in the form of "adage"..i.e.."Hey!...did you see the 'sunrise' this morning?"..or, "Let Jesus into your heart!"
Now, back to your point---you "know" that the sun "rises" in the East, do ya? Yes, there is objective empirical evidence that the sun first becomes visible in the East, because of the direction in which the earth revolves. We know this because of "scientific inquirey". Furthermore, this phenomena is readily available to EVERY human being, not a "select few", hence, why the issue isn't currently being debated. Think about it. There is no "DOUBT".
Now, if you "know" that your Jesus exists in the same way, there would likewise be objective evidence to put forth as to "test" your "Jesus" hypothesis. But guess what, Anony?...guess what MikeG, Pray4U, Unblinded, Pat, and any other Christian reading this??? THERE ISN'T ANY. 'Nope....there is no evidence, thus, I disbelieve your fantastic mystical claims.
Good day.
Have you read Chris Hedges's book "American Fascists"? Hedges went to James Kennedy's church and watched the way the women behaved in family units. The only difference betwen them and Muslim women is the burka. They are trained from childhood to be subservient and submissive to men.
Agki
I can't disprove the existance of a god, that's just stupid. But it's ignorant to accept any improbability without probable evidence. In contrast, the intelligent way to think of spirituality is to simply say "I don't know." And then to live well, possibly in search for that answer, and hope for the best.
As it is, religions create friction because of group seperation, superiority complexes, encrouchment, and so on. The harm of a "harmless" religion is it's ability to foster harmful users of its power. It would be better if the general public could see the unseen harm as of yet and simply toss religion as another form of communistic dictatorship style of rule.
Come out of the barbaric superstitious past and evolve with the rest of the intelligent community. Throw off the shackels of dogmatic violent domination and embrace the species as one under a peaceful search for knowledge, understanding, and survival. As one we can sustain, divided we will commit suicide.
With that being said I have one more thing to say before i click the post button. If we all believe in one God and our God is the true God then why are there so many religions? Why do people argue about beliefes? I don't try to argue with people, when people ask me what i am i say Monotheologic ( or I believe in one god) so really i shouldn't consider myself a roman catholic.......................
I am a follower of Christ, and I have found your site a good database to back up my arguments. Thanks
.....and I'm SURE your so called "arguments" you made from culling this website's database, wouldn't put a "DENT" in our sound reasoning.
BTW....Where do you think you're following this christ to?
Last I heard, he was quite the dead guy.
ATF (Who thinks Dent's arguments stand up just fine.....in front of his mirror that is)
Remember thinking is bad for faith in the Bible God.
Good Luck in mantaining mental radio silence.
I mean, his first few dont even touch on the existence/non existence of God, so after accusing Christians of side arguments, he goes onto use a whole heap of side arguments on the whole apologetics issue.
Example, who cares if Hitler was a Christian? A careful look at the context of his political agenda and his statements from the early 1940's (not JUST mein kampf and other writings which were written much earlier), not to mention the broad goals of his regime will clearly show that he was a catholic who abandoned his faith in favour of the atheistic ideology he'd created...however, regardless of that, it has no bearing on the validity of the Christian faith. Absolutely none.
Secondly, argument from design. Why don't we apply the same principle to the creator? He exists in a different realm. If he DOES exist, then what makes you think you'd be able to understand him anyway? He clearly tells us in the bible that he exists outside of time, a concept which he created our finite minds within. What makes you think our finite minds should inherently be capable of stepping outside the concepts within which we exist? You see the universe is inherently physical in its nature, so we should technically be able to explain where it came from, using physical measures. Not sure why you'd assume the same of a supernatural creator.
And what sort of proof are you after, I wonder. Thats what this boils down to, ultimately.
However, I wonder where you get the idea that something you cannot begin to fathom exists? Where did you acquire the ability to step outside the concepts of reality in which you exist to imagine this creature you label a god? And, more importantly, I wonder what evidence you can present that you have a personal relationship with this disembodied entity?
You say that people who do not believe in your god should be able to explain where the universe came from. I wonder, can you explain where the universe came from? If your answer is, "God did it," that's a poor answer. In that case my answer would be, "Nature did it." Surely you can see that "Nature did it," is not really an answer. It doesn't explain anything. In similar fashion, "God did it," adds nothing to the conversation at all.
Instead of putting the burden of proof on the person who doubts that there even is such a thing as a god, how about presenting the evidence you've accepted that you think is proof positive that a god DOES exist. If I were trying to convince you that I'd taken a ride on a UFO, you'd doubt my story and would want a little evidence that I wasn't a nut case, right? Wouldn't it be silly if I demanded evidence from you that I did not ride in a UFO? Wouldn't it be silly if I expected you to provide me with evidence that UFOs don't exist outside the human imagination?
If you believe in a magical "realm" where magical entities live, and you expect others to believe in this magical place, what evidence do you present on behalf of this belief?
Oh, and the honest answer to the question of where the universe came from -- no matter whom you ask -- is "I don't know."
Argument from Design.
The whole point of the argument from design is first to convince listeners that everything has to be designed. Everything is the fundamental assumption.
Now that in itself is a separate argument because its pretty much self-evident we dont have access to the heavenly factories and store houses (as written in the Bible) where snow is produced.nor for that fact blueprints of photosynthesis or angelic (or demonic) workers) helping to manufacture atoms and molecules.
Rain falling on a muddy slope creates a landslide - but that landslide is NOT DESIGNED. A lightning storm strikes a forest and it burns but teh forest fire is NOT DESIGNED. Woemn give birth to babiesbut they DO NOT DESIGN the baby.
But Trav is obssessed by a particular Counterargument against ID.
Its merely to show that ID itself rests on a circular argument.
If Everything is designed - then wherefore not the supernatural relam and the entity that is hypothesized to create the physical world.
The problem with that argument is that it creates two more questions - on ethat reproduces the original problem with the physical world argument.
a.) wherefore is the supernatural world
b.) why cannot everything in the supernatural world be designed too? (which is completely hypothetical cause Travis unable toa ctually point to supernatural things and then we can formulate a methodology to determine if they are designed.)
Trav's only counter argument is that our finite minds cannot comprehend such an entity,
That actually is an assertion - not evidence. Furthermore the arguments veracity doe snot depend on our finite minds comprehending the said supernatural entity, Actually its obvious that its not our finite minds are not in question. The argument from design has become an argument from ignorance.
Now that the argument ahs shifted to the observable physical realm to the non-evidenced spiritual realm - the apologist thinks he can get away from the cheap trick of saying " You cannot question me."
But yet all he has done is multiplied the problem about design twice to two worlds (one that cannot be proved). Furthermore creators as a class does not preclude creation - eg. people who design - may be designed themselves. This is essential to mantaining coherence in ID, or else engineers and architects are excluded from being designed. LOL!
If designers as a class may be designed.
if the fundamental assumption is Evrything has to be designed
Then the only reason for Trav to stop at his supernatural realm entity (which cannot be obsevres) makes no sense. Its a conundrum and why this particular ID argument fails on its own ASSUMPTIONS. The only way to get by the paradox is an appeal to basically the Bible God. (which is not part of ID argument rationally but an appeal to authority which can be detached from ID)
But thats the point! Its not really a coherent well-thought out argument - its a MENTAL LOOPHOLE so people dont really have to question the veracity of their beliefs.
ID does not prove the Bible God. It merely proves that if you consider there to be DESIGNED - then you run into a paradox you hope is saved by your scripture. Unfortunately ID does not save the Bible, you need the Bible to Save ID.
LOL!
Thats why its a weak argument.
As for the Hitler question.
Its all too normal to see the trite argument that atheist have no morality bandied around with the names of several dictators.
Unfortunately both Hitler and Stalin did have allies within the church and the religious institutions in their country. He did not like the institutional church but hey so do many so-called "true christians" who feel that church is all about religion and not moreabout the "true" message of Jesus christ.
He distrusted the church because he realised that they had got him in power only so that he could be used like a pawn against the communists (which they were), and he on the other hand wanted to use them to further his own ambitions (which he did), and the population would follow whoever triumphed on the internal political battle between the Nationalist Socialist and the centre-right parties trying to utilise Hitler. (And they did)
More to the fact Hitler was NOT an atheist - he was another one of the "TRUE BELIEVERS" in God. Once again the apologist gives half-truths.
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".
"For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life".
"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history."
Even more striking is the fact that Christians (and remember Germany had both sizeable numbers of Protestants and Catholics, did not only not stop Hitler they actually fought and died for him and his govt in great numbers. The fatality rate in which German soldiers were willing to die were much higher than that in WW1.
furthermore the Nazis never won a single election, it was through the machinations of the centre-right (including the largest christian centre party) that got the nationalist-socialists in power.
The point ultimately is that the argument that Atheist have no moral centre is meaningless when you compare what religious folks get up to when they are told to shoot and kill their neighbour. Check out the religious stats (christian btw) of the population in Rwanda during the genocides. Check out Stalin's patronage of the Orthodox church which actually increased by the time he died.
It illustrates the methodology of Trav's poor attempt at argument that he immediately associates Hitler which he feels was never a Christian like Trav himself automatically qualifies Hitler as an atheist. Its this lack of logic coupled with disregard to evidence that makes apologetics dangerous to the discovery of truth. Hitler may not have been a Trav-like Christian, but he did believe in God and did condemn atheism. And more to the point- many who believed in Christian god also believed in him. Their christian morality notwithstanding when it ultimately came to rascism, atrocity and murder.
As for the where the universe came from - we dont know yet.
But thats not an ecuse for saying Polly Pocket, the Booga Booga man, A Hebrew War God or an invisible flying old man on a cloud creared it.
Theres a line between honesty and wishful fantasy.
If your hypothetical is true, I think the question would then become--if "he", "she", or "it"...as in a "god", exists, but yet, we cannot "understand" this incomprehensible, elusive entity, then tell me---what exactly would be the point in worshipping, extolling, praising, or even giving such a "being" a second thought? Notwithstanding, your hypothetical is a far cry from what Christans and other Theists who believe in a personal "God" propose. That's right, they only claim that their favorite deities are incomprehensible and "beyond our understanding", etc., when questions and/or contradictions are put to them about their "God" that they cannot answer. Otherwise, they claim to know the mind of their respective "gods" just fine. Double-standards out the gazoo. Typical.
Trav: Example, who cares if Hitler was a Christian?
Evidentally, "Christians" seem to care the most, as they are always denying the fact.
Nonetheless, the difference here is, "Christians" are the ones who are proposing that they have a "Holy Ghost" residing inside them, guiding them into Holiness and Righteousness; not Atheists. You see, when human beings are f%ck-ups, as in Hitler's case, Christians more often than not seem to want to disassociate these thugs with their chosen philosophy, when their philosophy clearly states that all human beings are inherhently "evil"; that being a "sinner" is unavoidable. See? Thus, "Hilter" was compatible with/suitable for the "Christianity" philosophy after all.
Secondly, you guys seem pretty intent on bringing down my "different realm" argument. But, unsurprisingly enough, none of you actually provided a solid answer to my question. What makes you think you can understand God? Can an ant understand a human? We are mere ants in comparison to the one who created us.
Look at the fine tuning of the universe- it provides solid evidence that the world in which we live was designed with us in mind. A claim repeatedly made, surprise surprise, in the bible. Of all places! And of course the appearance of design doesnt completely prove a designer. But it does unmistakeably point towards the strong possibility of such.
Look at the historical evidence for Jesus. Or even more importantly, look at the weakness of the alternative hypothesis. It never happened, the disciples made it up- People dying for the sake of a lie? The early Christians changed the bible- Why would they include the testimony of a woman as the first to see the empty tomb (woman's evidence wasnt even considered in a court of law in those days)? etc etc etc. The fact is, if you look at the new testament and the early church history with an open mind, the most likely conclusion is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, especially when you consider the prophecies he fulfilled, which were written hundreds of years earlier.
If your god is incomprehensible to our puny little minds, how is that you comprehend her? You do consider yourself human, right? If you cannot understand your god, then what is the point of discussing something no one can understand? Huh?
The universe is not fine tuned for human life. Human life is fine tuned to a tiny little dust mote called Earth.
Let's talk about that wonderful design. Let's talk about birth defects, tsunamis, all manner of diseases, super novas, extinct animals, earthquakes and volcanoes, sex organs right next to bowels, tonsils, wisdom teeth, cancer, etc., etc., etc. Oh yeah -- that's some great design, there. Pure genius.
Imagine, people dying for a lie! Could it happen? Like Muslim extremists? Like Nazis? Like Mormons and JWs? Naaaa, no one would ever die for a lie.
If you look at the evidence and the history, it is obvious that Joseph Smith did receive golden tablets from an angel as well as magical glasses to translate those tablets into the Book of Mormon. Yup -- no doubt, it's all true.
Tell me, buddy, what happened at that tomb. Each of the gospels tells a different story. I'd like to know exactly what happened that morning. Do you know which version I should trust?
2. Yup which I demonstrated easily is a circular argument you are still relying on.
You need ID to back up the Bible. But you need the Bible to save the coherency of ID.
So when you say, "What makes you think you can understand God? "
you just prove my point - its circular thinking. You are relying on the Biblical idea of a God in order to try to salvage ID which is supposed to be a separate scientific argument to back up the veracity of the Biblical God.
To those that are interested - read my above argument that demonstrates whats the cheap trick in this argument.
2a. by the way Trav's supposedly superb argument "What makes you think you can understand God?" is another cheap sophist trick.
The reason is simple - it begs the question.
The ID argument is all about - Does God exist? we havent got a satisfactory answer cause Trav's version of ID is circular.
If Trav asks that question "How do you understand God?" - he skips a logical step and implies that God already exists and its his version of God.
we cant get there till Trav proves his version exists.
Christian apologetics 101.
Use rhethoric to avoid the logical difficulties or consequences of your arguments.
Its kind of like mental bait and switch. Thats lying and not logic.
3. A claim also made in the Koran and numerous other religions. Surprise. Surprise. Hence Allah must be real and Jesus is not the Son of God! Ta da! This methodology of Christian apologetics negates itself without realizing the implications of that argument is actually non-exclusive.
Meanwhile the argument is merely described by the analogy....
Its like saying ships were solely built so barnacles can live off their hulls.
4. No historical evidence other than a badly executed hack job by Christian apologists trying to add a couple of lines to Josephus hundred years after Josephus and supposedly Jesus died.
The Bible being quoted as evidence for the Bible is like saying Harry Potter is about a real boy and quoting Harry Potter as evidence. yes completely admissible in a court of law. (sarcasm)
Or like saying the events in the Koran are real and solely relyin gon the Koran as evidence.
once again circular thinking.
Hey - check out the terrorists in 9-11 - people die for lies all the time. If a person died for his beliefs - that means automatically they are true? Its a non-exclusive answer once again.
What prophecies? - the one that he told the people living that he would return in their lifetime?
Check out how Christian prophecies "shapeshift" like the one given by Malachi that Elijah would return and world would be destroyed.
John 12:1 says John the Baptist fulfills the prophecy in Malachi yet is contradicted by 3:1, 4:1, 5.
If its vague enough - you can stuff whatever contextual event within the words and then just gloss over the parts of the prophecy that don't work.
A good prophecy would be - in 1567 - seven men from Seville shall fly at 3 in the morning.
Rather than an obviously poorly constructed one meant to be non-falsifiable lie like
" I see some sort of weird bird shape over a dark city........when the moon has become the color of curdled milk"
Look at the historical evidence for Jesus. Or even more importantly, look at the weakness of the alternative hypothesis. It never happened, the disciples made it up- People dying for the sake of a lie? The early Christians changed the bible...
Great argument for the historical evidence for Jesus. (sarcasm) Just say, "look at the historical evidence", then diverge, listing ridiculous rationalizations and non-sequiturs -- without ever supplying actual historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
--S.
The Catholic church had no problem with Hitler and Nazism, at least until they saw how the war was going. Why didn't a bunch of "holy" guys see the "truth?" Great photos of priests and bishops giving the Nazi salute here (scroll down.)
Your god exists outside of time, but he has no qualms about threatening to torture us for eternity - that is, in linear time - for failing to recognize him.
As I said, Hitler was not a Christian- he had a catholic upbringing and then abandoned it in favour of atheism
::sigh::
Yes, and as I said, Christians are the ones who are evidentally more concerned with whether "Hilter" was a "Christian", or not. For your review, I said this in response to this inquiry...
Trav: "... who cares if Hitler was a Christian?"
Who cares? Answer: CHRISTIANS care. Again, they(and as evidenced, you, too)want to disassociate any human being who acts deplorably, with the Christian philosophy.
Trav continues: Thats what all the evidence points towards.[that Hitler wasn't a Christian]
WHAT "evidence"? If you are thinking about using as "evidence" the fact that "Hitler" killed people to see an agenda through, thus, making him ineligible for "Christ-hood", then you are only underscoring my previous point. Good grief, firstly, the Christian biblegod killed people right and left, and did this..why? To see "His" agenda..i.e..to promote and propagate a specific blood-line, that's why. Thus, "Hilter" could've easily, conveniently, and rightfully used those instances in the bible as his own authority.
Notwithstanding any of the above, let's say that what you assert on no evidence is actually true--that "Hilter" converted to "Atheism".
Okay, here we go......SO WHAT? This says not one thing/does not one thing to make the alternative, i.e.."Theism" a "Truth". If every person on the globe deconverted from "Theism" and started killing people, that does not make "Theism" a "Truth". Thus, your argument is a non-sequitur from the get-go.
But my point was this- the only conclusive thing you can say in favour of your assertion that Hitler was a Christian was that he labelled himself as such, early in his life.
Memo: ALL "Christians" LABEL THEMSELVES. There is no other way to adopt the Christian philosophy as your own, but to decide for one's OWN self that said philosophy is "Truth", at which point one labels one's SELF as a "Christian". 'Get it?
In light of that, what negative consequences does that bring for the truth of Christianity? Absolutely none
' Sorry, nice try, but lack of negatives does not make a postitive. Repeat: you can try to disassociate your choosen religious philosophy with any and all negative aspects you'd like---that does not substantiate the claims that Christian doctrine proposes. Only positive evidence can do that, and per usual, you, the self-labeled "Christian", evidentally have zilch.
Yes, let's stop right HERE, and look at your historical evidence for Jesus.
Unless you have 'dug up' some new found remarkable evidence, all the existing evidence has been disputed (easily) time and time again; even here on this website.
Your entire xtian religion revolves around this jesus figurehead, yet secular history is deathly quiet about his presence on this earth, let alone all those biblical miracles he's reported to have accomplished, which only live inside the pages of your fable book.
How can ANY 'man' have had such a huge following, been so controversial for his day, and yet avoided being noticed by the major historians of the day?
Did Daddy-god sneak down to earth and burn all the written records of jesus, except what he wanted to much later be included in this piece-meal bible book?
Was jesus perhaps deaf, dumb, and blind, such that he was incapable of writing any messages to his beloved creation?
Was the devil sneaking into their camp at night, burning anything jesus and his men had written down that day?
How DO we explain this huge mystery, hmmm
ATF (Who is all excited about the evidence that Trav will surely come back with)
All 'false religions' (wink wink) everywhere have their origins in tales and ideologies that someone made up, wouldn't you have to agree?
In the time of christ there were already myths about dying/resurrected saviors and all kinds of crazy gods and people were perfectly happy to believe and act upon this crap. Why would the jesus story be any different from what people already enjoyed believing?
Why are you so enamored with this argument? All religions and cults cling to their beliefs and dedication to their leaders, to the extent that they are frequently quite excited to die for them. Can you please cross this one off your list of 'amazing proofs' so you don't look so rankly brainwashed that you are unable to see or consider any embarssingly obvious contradicting evidence around you, and thereby answer your own question in your own thinking brain? Thanks.
if there's any logic to you,it will just amaze,amuse you,what these folks think,
it's mind boggling,to say the least.may their warped mind have mercy on them.
Thats a good line.
When you have faith in bullshit, you get an unhealthy dose of fantasy that makes you unable to distinguish right from wrong, true from false.
(i respect others beliefs but these are some facts)
you can see it in many different cultures. there are many different beliefs in the world and science is based on facts and logical theory.
evolution takes place over millions & millions of years spiecies evolve and become extinct (if its there time eventualy). over millions eco systems change!
not all animals in egsistance can be placed on the earth at once! that would simply be unstable. as i said millions & millions!
Yes humans are animals too.
And we monkeys are NOT our closest relitive. APES are our closest known relitives.
monkeys are different from apes! do some research.
i've stumped many religious people by questioning there theorys.
i've yet to see any proof of the egsistance of any of the invented gods.
.................................i could write for a wile longer but in need to get to sleep for school tomorow. i'm only 16 mind my spelling =]