Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

I was surprised that one of my favorite arguments did go unmentioned: Given that so many mutually exlusive God claims exist within and throughout religions (to be exact: one claim for each individual believer) we should recognize that not only must (n minus one) be false (ie one claim hits the mark, all others miss), but they might as well all be false.

Also, I was intrigued to hear Tabash went through a 25 year journey of sucking up new age spiritualism. It’s kind of neat to be able to say (like DJ does who sometimes mentions his evangelist past): been there, done that.
My religious background consists of sitting through Sunday school (held Wednesdays) because I knew the confirmation gifts would finance my planned 6 week trip from NYC to SF and back from Germany; and being kicked out of religion class in 12th grade for asking Scott to ”Beam me up, there’s no intelligent life down here”. It has to be said: reading the wordy Germa academic theologians when you’ve decided that their premises are all worthless.

Another wonderful weekend installment from Point of Inquiry--keep ‘em coming D.J.!

In Re of D.J Groethe’s question to the effect of “ could it be possible that over time people who hear the atheist argument may eventually “convert” to atheism, I must respond in agreement to Tabash’s view in the affirmative (I myself can be counted as a fairly recent “convert”, if that is at all an accurate term for what I prefer to call my “coming of age into disbelief”.  While I have been a subscriber since adolescence to the evolutionary theory, I can also state honestly that my search for something to believe in has led me down many corridors of the pagan and Satanist movements.

Despite their promises of power, self-actualization and magic, what I came to find for myself was that magic is nothing more than wishful thinking and a foundation for self-delusion, power begins by conquering superstitious beliefs that inhibit your way of thinking, and self-actualization cannot be attained by way of adopting anyone else’s oppinions of achievment.  (I still meditate from time to time, but there is nothing inherently religious, or delusional, about personnal introspection).

After seeking magic and mystery from one religion to another, it became clear to me that if any one-god(or goddess) did exist, then surely one of them would have struck me down years ago for finding their “truth” and then walking away from it, only to join some other god’s faith.  The real problems that I invariably ran into, was when the philosophy part of the religion met with the part where I was supposed to pledge undying love to a god who I never really presumed the existance of beforehand.  Afterwards ensued several years in which I labelled myself “agnostic"--only because the thought of being an atheist just seemed ...well.....GODLESS!  (Imagine that).  It took actually hearing others speak out in defense of atheism to shake me from my needlessly theistic attitude.

Throughout all of my explorations down various walks of life, I have met those who rebuffed my views on evolution, or my defense of science and reason as blasphemous on one level or another.  It has been that one defining moment replayed over and over again, which eventually led me to lay down my search for belief entirely--and how strange it feels indeed to know that the one thing that I found to believe in was what I used all along as my guiding inspiration for my quest for belief in the first place--the need for an argument to base the direction of my life around, which allowed me to ask the why’s and wherefor’s of how the “great mysteries of the universe” came to be, and one which still allows me to sympathize with the scientific views and arguments which I hold so dear--incomplete as they will always be.  Such is the magic of dis-belief!

It is my oppinion on the subject that, rather than “becoming” an atheist, most people are probably naturally atheistic.  The battle between belief and disbelief really arises from one’s upbringing and social cues that encourage us to believe in something supernatural--no matter how silly those beliefs might actually be.  (I am reminded of the statement supposedly made by Anne Frank to Peter Von Damme just prior to their being captured “Oh, Peter--I really wish you believed in SOMETHING!  It doesn’t matter what--just so you had some idea of what life was all about..."). I’ll always consider Anne Frank to be one of my luminaries.  Without her first hand account of the attrocities of living in a world turned on it’s head by prejudice and blind fanaticism, our knowledge of a very dark part of human history would be left horrendously lacking.  Her diary is certainly firm grounds for what Paul Kurtz dubs the “New Secular Humanism”, but I’m afraid that I don’t agree with her views on faith.

I was surprised that one of my favorite arguments did go unmentioned: Given that so many mutually exlusive God claims exist within and throughout religions (to be exact: one claim for each individual believer) we should recognize that not only must (n minus one) be false (ie one claim hits the mark, all others miss), but they might as well all be false.

I enjoyed the podcast—thank you D.J., and in following up on Edward Tabash’s WWW site
http://www.tabash.com/index.php

Here is an interesting article by Tabash suggesting, among other things, that God should repeat the resurrection now that we have better tools to document it [LINK]

Like moreover, I was expecting a more focused list of arguments.  I found that a lot of time was spent on the argument that God needs to have a physical being in order to ‘think’ etc.—I’m not sure this is itself a good argument for believers who assume a priori that he doesn’t need to be physical. I think that the related argument that God is supernatural and we should be skeptical of claims about supernatural occurences might be a helpful supplement—

Lemme start with a disclaimer here---the logical debates against religion are a lot like LZ’s “Stairway to Heaven” for me. Loved them in high school, and loved debating my “born again” friends (and I won every time).  But after the 1,898,453,888 time I heard the same song played over and over again, by everybody, each time as if this was some brand new phenom discovery nobody else had ever heard before, I was much more interested in finding something else to listen to.  So I spun the dial and discovered a whole world of musical sounds to enjoy instead...Tuva....Polka....Crickets...Tinnitus

So I admit I’ve become “curmudgeonly” hearing it over and over.  That said, here’s my take:

Given centuries of bloody and idiotic conflict over “My Unprovable Belief is better than Your Unprovable Belief”, explain me this:  Where is the logical consistency to making this argument, while at the same time suiting up and charging into the same war with the same dang motivation as all the others: hell bent to tell everybody how they’re wrong, they’re deranged, they’re dangerous, they’re a pestilence, they’ve put their money on the wrong horse, and he’s right, and everybody has to believe what he believes?  “My No-God can beat up your God any day” is different?  I don’t think so.

Given centuries of bloody and idiotic conflict over “My Unprovable Belief is better than Your Unprovable Belief”, explain me this:  Where is the logical consistency to making this argument, while at the same time suiting up and charging into the same war with the same dang motivation as all the others: hell bent to tell everybody how they’re wrong, they’re deranged, they’re dangerous, they’re a pestilence, they’ve put their money on the wrong horse, and he’s right, and everybody has to believe what he believes?  “My No-God can beat up your God any day” is different?  I don’t think so.

It’s a good point. Let me say two things.

First, I do think the anti-theistic arguments are important because not everyone is aware that they exist. I do think they should be a part of life just like the pro-theist arguments tend to be. Anti-religious arguments should be current just as pro-religious ones are.

Second, yes, the back-and-forth does get tedious; one ends up seeing the same moves being made for the millionth time. And in the final analysis there are many irrational beliefs that we will never get rid of, and many of them cause no obvious danger. The reason we’re seeing more of the “angry atheists” in public now is largely due to the sociopolitical atmosphere in the US presently. Secularism is a good thing. Having religion infringe on science, religiously oriented policies influence science policy, or violations of the Constitution are real issues. IMO there are many ways to push back against the rising tide of theocratic belief here, and getting angry isn’t necessarily the worst policy, so long as it’s done in an intelligent and focused manner.

As we get to the day that secularism is secure in the US and it is totally acceptable to be a public atheist (or public homosexual, etc.), the “My no-God can beat up your God any day” arguments become less necesary.

I enjoyed the program.  He came up with thoughts I’ve had plus a few more.  He also made a good point that the more we as a society get a way from Biblical law the more humane we become and the gave the example concerning homosexuals.  I thought that was a good example, because he’s right, in the Bible men were killed for lying together.

Given centuries of bloody and idiotic conflict over “My Unprovable Belief is better than Your Unprovable Belief”, explain me this:  Where is the logical consistency to making this argument, while at the same time suiting up and charging into the same war with the same dang motivation as all the others: hell bent to tell everybody how they’re wrong, they’re deranged, they’re dangerous, they’re a pestilence, they’ve put their money on the wrong horse, and he’s right, and everybody has to believe what he believes?  “My No-God can beat up your God any day” is different?  I don’t think so.

It’s a good point. Let me say two things.....

I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.

I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.

For the record I agree with you 100%. Not all arguments are equally valid, nor do all arguments lead to true conclusions. I think, however, that Aesopo was making more of a claim about the debate itself—after a few iterations for all involved, it gets sterile, and simply shouting epithets and abuse at one another doesn’t help anybody.

I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.

Not all arguments are equally valid.  But when x=w + z, and y=w + z, then x=y.

And to pretend in one’s own argument:

“x = bad” because “w + z=bad” and ”x=w + z”;

but:

“w + z = #not# bad” when, and only when (in defense of one’s own pet “y”) “y=w + z”

that don’t make no sense.........no how........because what one has just demonstrated is that:

“w + z=bad” because of “x”, not the other way around.

If:  x=unprovable belief + rejection of others for their unprovable beliefs
and :  y=unprovable belief + rejection of others for their unprovable beliefs,

it’s hardly surprising that the xer’s refuse to “see the light” and turn into yer’s on the strength of the argument.

I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.

For the record I agree with you 100%. Not all arguments are equally valid, nor do all arguments lead to true conclusions. I think, however, that Aesopo was making more of a claim about the debate itself—after a few iterations for all involved, it gets sterile, and simply shouting epithets and abuse at one another doesn’t help anybody.

Yes, I do think this.  Maybe I’m in a bubble, but most of the religious people I know have heard all these arguments. Just like we’ve heard the arguments offered by religious proselytizers.  We think they are walking blindfolded on a yellow brick road to lala land.  They think we’re going to hell in a hand basket.  OK, so believers want to “save” unbelievers.  Unbelievers want to “save” the believers.  Same difference, when you come down to it.

Maybe I’m weird, but I’m okay with it if they think that’s where I’m going, because whether or not I’m going to hell certainly doesn’t hinge upon my changing their opinion on the question.

I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.

For the record I agree with you 100%. Not all arguments are equally valid, nor do all arguments lead to true conclusions. I think, however, that Aesopo was making more of a claim about the debate itself—after a few iterations for all involved, it gets sterile, and simply shouting epithets and abuse at one another doesn’t help anybody.

Yes, I do think this. .......  OK, so believers want to “save” unbelievers.  Unbelievers want to “save” the believers. 

.....Same difference, when you come down to it.......

To the extent that this is a philosophical debate, I agree with you to some extent, and I mentioned this as a criticism of Tabash in comment #3 above .

However, I do not think it is the “same difference” to argue for a round earth vs. a flat earth, to argue that the US did actually go to the moon vs. some elaborate conspiracy, or to argue that the geological record indicates the earch is immensely old vs. some “young earth creationist” hypothesis.  Similarly, to argue that atheism better fits the evidence and reality of the world and the universe is not “the same” as arguing that philosophically someone thinks there must be a Creator. 

I think it is not so much a matter of “saving” believers as waking them up.

Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism?  I missed that news.  I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.

If so, the flat earth/round earth analogy doesn’t fit.  Science can show the world isn’t flat.  It isn’t round because secular humanists say it is.  It is round because science has shown it is.  Not quite the same situation with atheism.

Good show I think. Ed did a fine job at revealing empathy with those he once shared common beliefs. Arguments were presented pretty well and I appreciate his advocacy.

Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism?  I missed that news.  I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.

If so, the flat earth/round earth analogy doesn’t fit.  Science can show the world isn’t flat.  It isn’t round because secular humanists say it is.  It is round because science has shown it is.  Not quite the same situation with atheism.

Thanks for your patience with my comments.

I think you raise a good point here.
An invisible God who doesn’t interact with the universe and does not answer our prayers cannot be falsified.

Here is an interesting book on this topic [Superior Beings]

However evidence continues to accumulate that certain events documented in Holy Scripture didn’t literally occur and are not literally true. We can start with creation/Adam&Eve;, work our way down to a Flood, and continue to Exodus.  All the ‘evidence’ in support of belief can be examined with skepticism and reason. 

Once there is agreement that the Old Testament was written by people and does not appear to be an accurate account, one is ready to move to the New Testament.

As Tabash notes—curiously miracles no longer as in the past

Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism?

Yes. Complexity does not precede simplicity.

Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism?  I missed that news.  I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.

Psst .. Aesopo ... trust me .. it is very likely you will get no where trying to be rational while the “New Atheist” crusade is in progress. There is an Atheistic apologia that has developed that makes “them” impervious to rationality.

1.) Religion must be destroyed or it will destroy all of humanity.
2.) Use theistic arguments as straw men. (i.e. - always mention Hitler when you discuss Stalin and never mention anti-religion)
3.) Science works only for your means, no science can be used that counters Atheism. (i.e. - science not only argues against “proofs of Gods” existence, but proves Atheism)
4.) Always, I mean Always be vague enough so that later you can claim to be misunderstood.
5.) The more forceful the language, the more you mean it.
6.) Do not, under any circumstances listen to scientist that study belief systems.(especially if they’re Atheist)
7.) Use words such as “apologist”, “appeaser”, “faith heads”, and “belief in belief” whenever possible when criticized.
8.) Only accept criticism when it conforms to the Atheistic ideals.
9.) Play victim, always say that you can’t criticize Religion in society, even as you buy your next book, read the paper, listen to the radio, podcast, and remember that no one was criticizing religion without putting their life in their hands prior to 9/11.(in the U.S.A.)
10.) 9/11 must make you think, it must motivate you, it must prove without doubt that Religion will kill us all.
11.) Exaggerate as much as possible, don’t hold back.
12.) Whore science.
13.) Worth mentioning again - play victim by acting exactly like the Religionists whose beliefs you are trying to destroy.
14.) Open dialogue with Religionists is a form of “belief in belief”
15.) Define words as you wish, including phrases.

I’ll add more later.

Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism?  I missed that news.  I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.

If so, the flat earth/round earth analogy doesn’t fit.  Science can show the world isn’t flat.  It isn’t round because secular humanists say it is.  It is round because science has shown it is.  Not quite the same situation with atheism.

The reason that I think it is a good analogy is that a too-large percentage of the US population believes in the literal truth of the Bible.  There is a great deal of material there that either contradicts itself (asking for something to be self-consistent is not “Popperian") or is contradicted by science or historial inquiry.  I think rather than focusing on philosophical arguments (which maybe was your concern anyway) one should focus on these concrete points.

I think you probably agree with this. I also agree that “atheism” cannot completely prove the non-existence of “God”, or “heaven/hell”. 

To get back to the Popperian thing, I’m not sure why the burden would be on atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist.

I am still waiting for paperback copies of the God Delusion to appear. However, in listening to the audio version I also thought Dawkins got sort of stuck on weaker philosophical points rather than focusing on concrete points which can be addressed.

I think that if religion is reduced to cover only that portion of discussion which does not overlap with science (as Gould suggests, or perhaps ‘defines’ religion), then perhaps we are at the stable Popperian point.

Psst .. Aesopo ... trust me .. it is very likely you will get no where trying to be rational while the “New Atheist” crusade is in progress. There is an Atheistic apologia that has developed that makes “them” impervious to rationality...I’ll add more later.

Wow.  This is some list already.  Can’t wait to see the rest.  Can’t make up my mind if this it sounds like, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”?  Or, as the lyric goes, “Become everything that you had hated”.

To get back to the Popperian thing, I’m not sure why the burden would be on atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Well, if I want to argue about it with religious folks, I’m obliged to give them a turn in the conversation to rebut (ie convert) me.  Fair’s fair.  And isn’t that jolly fun to listen to missionary arguments?  No.  The burden, in my mind, is being forced to entertain these same creaky, two hundred year old “arguments” a trillion more times.

Science will remain resilient against religious folk moving in and rearranging the furniture only so long as it enforces and adheres to the boundary lines science itself has long argued necessarily exists.  I believe.

Interesting article on my Phoenix Internet News site.  I still think our numbers are higher than indicated on the Pew poll.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=026060&From=News

From Mriana..."the more we as a society get a way from Biblical law the more humane we become”

I guess you’re referring to Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.  Hmmmm…

From Mriana..."the more we as a society get a way from Biblical law the more humane we become”

I guess you’re referring to Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.  Hmmmm…

No, I was referring to what Tabash said in the podcast.  Apparently you didn’t listen yet or listen very well.  If you did listen, I’m not sure where you got the idea of Hitler, Stalin, etc.  BTW, Hitler was Catholic.

My post was written with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.  Hitler was an atheist and a great proponent of Nietzsche, so much so that he presented a complete collection of his works to Mussolini as a gift.  He was also a great proponent of Darwin.  Hitler’s philosophy was a logical outworking of these 2 philosophies...Nietzsche’s “Superman” and Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”...and to hedge against the onslaught of posts following this...OF COURSE atheists are not all mass murderers or evil, etc.  I just feel it’s important to accurately portray the historical facts concerning Hitler, et al.

And your point is?  Several of us appreciate Darwin here, so what you said makes no sense in response to the thread.  And no, Hitler was NOT an atheist.  That is a fallicy that has been perpetuated for years now.  Also what does that have to do with my comment.  It would help if you would tie things together so they make more sense.

Well, you stated that the “farther we get away from Biblical law the more humane we become”.  I merely pointed out that man’s inhumanity to man has certainly not decreased in the absence of “Bilblical Law” in the regimes I mentioned (we’re talking millions and millions murdered).  As to Hitler, his gift to Mussolini of Niezsche’s works is a historical fact.  Why would he specifically present the complete works of arguably the most well-known atheist at the time to Mussolini unless he found them to be of great worth?  Have you read Mein Kampf?  If you did you would see the philosophical parrallels.  Lots of people grow up or are raised Catholic.  Does that mean they subscribe to the views of the Catholic church or even Christ for that matter?  I think not.  If you have evidence refuting my position regarding Hitler’s philosophy and worldview I would be interested to see it.  Thank you for responding to my post.

BTW, I appreciate Darwin as well, but Darwin himself had concerns that his theory would lead to “survival of the fittest” among mankind that we saw in the leaders I mentioned.  I can look up the reference if you like…

Well, as I said, I was referring to Tabash’s podcast.  He said something to that affect.  In reference to Hitler, 6 million Jews supposedly, not to mention Christians, like Corrie TenBoom’s family, who died or were killed for “Political Crimes”. Their crime was protecting Jews.  Of course, this also doesn’t include those with disabilities he had killed too, as well as countless others.

So many people try to refute that Hitler was not Catholic, but the truth of the matter is that he was.  Whether or not he was a practicing Catholic as an adult is another question.  However, I’m sure there are people here who can debate that one with you far better than I can.  I just know that he was not a professed atheist.

BTW, I appreciate Darwin as well, but Darwin himself had concerns that his theory would lead to “survival of the fittest” among mankind that we saw in the leaders I mentioned.  I can look up the reference if you like…

No, I’ve seen it, but little did he know, science would find his ideas of evolution accurrate.

As I read more posts on this forum it appears that anyone with a contrary view no matter how polite they are is immediately pounced on...hence my reference to “cheerleader” forums.  The “Christian” forums are the same way.  It’s pretty hard for a seeker of truth to find any solice amongst the zealots of either side.  I will not bother you with my posts any longer...thank you.

Oh I’m not pouncing you.  I’m just wondering why, that’s all.  Because I don’t appear to be a zealot?  Anyway, I don’t intend to be a zealot or be perceived as one.  I just find this situation a curiousity.  You are welcome though.  I thought since you did address me personally and no one else, I should at least give you the courtesy of addressing you and finding out your intentions.  I find it curious that you did not reply to anyone until I addressed you, then you replied to Brennen and myself, but only after I addressed you finally.  Very interesting.

Sorry couldn’t resist this last post.  Whether he was a practicing Catholic as an adult is kind of the question isn’t it?  You don’t just get a stamp of Catholic, or Buddhist, or whatever and that’s your philosophy for life.  Stalin was a seminary student before he lost his faith and rejected Theism.  Hitler’s adult writings and literary proclivities (Nietzche) are what is important, not that he once had a label of “Catholic”.  Hitler’s actions clearly were NOT a logical outworking of what Christ taught! And you NEVER judge a philosophy (Christianity or any other for that matter) by it’s abuses.  Hitler’s actions and those of Stalin, etc. are a logical outworking of Atheism.  Certainly not the only one, but definately a valid one.  Nietzche was one of the few 19th Century philosophers who was not a Utopianist.  He predicted that because of the “death of god” in the 19th century the 20th century would be the bloddiest century in human history.  Was Darwin or Nietzche responsible for what these men did...of course not, but philosphies have consequences if they are taken to their logical end.

I replied to the other post because I was on my PDA and that was the one that came up first.  No, I don’t think you’re a zealot...just speaking in generalities...sorry about that.  I’m always on a bit of an edge when visiting a forum where I might post a view that doesn’t sit well with the status quo...my fault...defensive mechanism I guess.  I appreciate you conversing with me.  Going to watch a movie now...have a nice evening!

Hitler’s actions and those of Stalin, etc. are a logical outworking of Atheism.

Utter rubbish.

Hitler’s actions and those of Stalin, etc. are a logical outworking of Atheism.

You’re going to have to demonstrate the logic behind this statement if you want to be taken seriously.

Oh I don’t know.  Where do you want to start?  The OT or the NT.  The Bible is full of violence.  In the OT God had so many people slaughtered and sometimes he told his people to kill the others.  In at least one instance, they kept the virgins for themselves.  In the NT, Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword. Not to mention the barbaric cruxifiction.  Need I continue?  Exterminating vast groups of people was not uncommon, esp in the OT.  God, as I said, ordered the extermination too. <-- That’s in response to Wezx statements.

1. I specifically said that those actions were not the logical outworking of what Christ taught, not the Bible in general.  Christ “turned the other cheek”, said “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”, etc.

2. To fotobits..."Utter rubbish” wow, what a stunning argument based in logic you threw at me.  Would you care to debate the topic or continue to post rude epithets?

3.  I will need you to give me an OBJECTIVE moral law that accounts for your paticular flavor of Atheism.  Perhaps you have certain ethics and moral values...where did they come from OBJECTIVELY?  An objective moral law is one that would exist whether anyone believed in it or not.  Without an objective moral law to define good and evil and an Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter, what allows you logically to differentiate bewteen YOUR particular worldview and that of say Stalin or Hitler.  The minute you use the word “better” as in “My world view is better” you have invoked a moral law.  Without a moral law or objective system of ethics your and Stalins worldviews are equally valid.  Please don’t bring up Kant, because don’t forget Kant was a theist.

I guess the ethics of God are being called into play concerning the OT.  Well, I would say this concerning the problem of evil and whether there is a God...I have read this elsewhere and find it quite interesting

In answer to the statement “There can be no god because of all the evil in the world”

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

Do you believe in a moral law so you can distinguish Good and Evil?

If there is a moral law there must be a moral lawgiver? (the complete lack of an objective moral law in the Atheistic worldview demands this)

But therein lies the rub...the moral lawgiver is the thing you’re trying to disprove.

Time + chance + matter does not have the capacity to create a universal objective moral law

I am reminded of when Bertram Russell was asked how he differentiated between good and evil.  Russell said “I differentiate between good and evil like I differentiate between blue and green”.  He was then asked, “But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between blue and green by seeing don’t you?” To which Russell replied “I differentiate between them on the basis of feeling, what else?”

My question to Russell would have been “Mr. Russell, some cultures love their neighbors, others eat them, do you have a preference?”

2. To fotobits..."Utter rubbish” wow, what a stunning argument based in logic you threw at me.  Would you care to debate the topic or continue to post rude epithets?

You made the claim. Prove it. BTW, “utter rubbish” is not an epithet.

1. I specifically said that those actions were not the logical outworking of what Christ taught, not the Bible in general.  Christ “turned the other cheek”, said “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”, etc.

He said far more than that and some of it wasn’t very condusive to peace.

I guess the ethics of God are being called into play concerning the OT.  Well, I would say this concerning the problem of evil and whether there is a God...I have read this elsewhere and find it quite interesting

In answer to the statement “There can be no god because of all the evil in the world”

That is not my answer to the question of no God.

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

No, I do not believe in evil.  People can do good things or they can do bad things, but I do not believe in evil.

Do you believe in a moral law so you can distinguish Good and Evil?

If there is a moral law there must be a moral lawgiver? (the complete lack of an objective moral law in the Atheistic worldview demands this)

But therein lies the rub...the moral lawgiver is the thing you’re trying to disprove.

Time + chance + matter does not have the capacity to create a universal objective moral law

I don’t have to disprove “the moral lawgiver”.  Moral law doesn’t need an invisible deity.  I could debate this with you, but it’s late and I really need to sleep, so I’m off to bed for the night.  Between now and when I get the chance, others can debate you though.  Although, I think you actually stepped into this one with your statement.

1. I specifically said that those actions were not the logical outworking of what Christ taught, not the Bible in general.  Christ “turned the other cheek”, said “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”, etc.

He (or the NT) also created the concept of hell, and claimed that those who did not follow him would end up there.

3.  I will need you to give me an OBJECTIVE moral law that accounts for your paticular flavor of Atheism.  Perhaps you have certain ethics and moral values...where did they come from OBJECTIVELY?  An objective moral law is one that would exist whether anyone believed in it or not.  Without an objective moral law to define good and evil and an Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter, what allows you logically to differentiate bewteen YOUR particular worldview and that of say Stalin or Hitler.  The minute you use the word “better” as in “My world view is better” you have invoked a moral law.  Without a moral law or objective system of ethics your and Stalins worldviews are equally valid.  Please don’t bring up Kant, because don’t forget Kant was a theist.

We’ve known since Plato’s Euthyphro that moral laws don’t come from God. If they exist, they exist outside of the commands of any being. What makes any being good, (including God, if there is one), is their following of the independent moral strictures.

So the theist and the atheist are exactly on all fours with respect to the “objective moral law”. The atheist just gets rid of all that prescientific fable.

I guess the ethics of God are being called into play concerning the OT.  Well, I would say this concerning the problem of evil and whether there is a God...I have read this elsewhere and find it quite interesting

In answer to the statement “There can be no god because of all the evil in the world”

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

Do you believe in a moral law so you can distinguish Good and Evil?

I am willing to countenance the existence of morally right and wrong actions, yes. And in the case of God, since he is purported to be all knowing and all powerful, he is responsible for the deaths of millions in natural disasters and from disease every year. So it looks to me like if God were to exist, he would be objectively evil, or at the very least without moral compass.

If there is a moral law there must be a moral lawgiver? (the complete lack of an objective moral law in the Atheistic worldview demands this)

You really should do some reading in atheistic morality before making such absurd claims. And as for the “moral law”, existence of it precludes a moral lawgiver. Moral laws do not come from persons. They come from the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of actions. Any purported lawgiver who prohibited morally right actions (as the god of the OT did rather frequently) would not in fact be a moral lawgiver, he would be an agent of evil and intolerance.

Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter

A chance? What are you talking about?

I should add that while Kant spoke about God, his moral philosophy does not depend upon God’s existence. It stems from an analysis of our moral concepts, and in particular the concept of being a person, and in coming up with a priori coherent universal moral laws (the Categorical Imperatives) by use of our ordinary concepts.

For more about Kantian ethics, check out HERE. One can be an atheist and follow Kantian ethics quite nicely. As one can be a Utilitarian, or a Secular Humanist.

And as for Hitler, he wasn’t an atheist. Neither was the Wehrmacht, as you can see from some of their kit.

Wezx wrote “Well, you stated that the “farther we get away from Biblical law the more humane we become”.  I merely pointed out that man’s inhumanity to man has certainly not decreased in the absence of “Biblical Law”

More wars, slaughtering, stoning in the streets came about after Christianity entered the civilized world.  Biblical law is made firm only by the tyrants who are in charge.  Tabash was very strong in his words to keep religion out of the American Government. 

Take a look at the influence from the Vatican on world affairs.  The Roman Empire conquered the world and the Vatican sent their Representatives to ensure Jesus was the leader of the Empire.  Have you not read about the Catholic Inquisitions and the indignities that they put all humans through?  This ripped through Spain, Italy, and came to the new world with the Conquistadores who raped and pillage through South America, Central America, Mexico and even the new nation of America. 

This was the Christianity that was supposed to gather up innocent people and show them the way to Paradise.  It was a movement so evil and terrible that these horrible men scared the innocent people to join them or burn in hell.  The problem is that it continues to this day.  If you don’t believe me, look for a revival meeting and go with an open mind but watch your wallet and virtue as both will be removed unless you are very alert. 

I say daily, that I want no church closed but I want all elected religious people to represent all of us as equals and stay away from the U.S. Constitution.

Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter

A chance? What are you talking about?

The correct word would be humility.

A world view based on evidence + humility - what we do not know

Well, not much left for me to say.  You guys basically said it all.  I wonder if he ran or if he’ll be back later? Who knows.

Oh dear, were we a tad rough on him?  I tend to be a bit of a bitch when my freedoms are in jeopardy. 

I hold the record for the most banned person on these forums.

No, Sandy.  I don’t think so.  I told he stepped into it with that last post.  I just wasn’t feeling up to dealing with him, esp that late in the evening.  I knew you all would after he said all of that.  I just went to bed knowing I didn’t have to deal with with his ignorance.    You all would educate him while I slept.