I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[shantonu]

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

I beg to differ. A non-answer can't be judged in this fashion, primarily because the Christian poster on this site is usually swarmed by many Ex-cs spoiling for a fight. The Christian, possibly having a meat job and other interests, does not have the time to address everything. Just because he doesn't address you or a particular question of yours doesn't mean that he has conceded that he has no answer.

 

Of course that doesn't mean his answer would be substantial if it were addressed. But claiming a non-answer as a win is a hollow victory.

 

Oh come on. He's clearly dodging me because he can't answer. Unless he's a doctor or is raising a few kids, I've got a much more pressing job than he does. Trust me on that.

[shantonu]

Not to brag, but I have to say that I totally pwned LNC and he knows it. He could talk all this b.s. about Lucian and Pliny the Younger but he could not answer a straight question about killing babies. He probably just looked a bunch of stuff up on the internet, and when the answers couldn't be readily wikied or googled, he gave up. What a poseur.

 

I beg to differ. A non-answer can't be judged in this fashion, primarily because the Christian poster on this site is usually swarmed by many Ex-cs spoiling for a fight. The Christian, possibly having a meat job and other interests, does not have the time to address everything. Just because he doesn't address you or a particular question of yours doesn't mean that he has conceded that he has no answer.

 

Of course that doesn't mean his answer would be substantial if it were addressed. But claiming a non-answer as a win is a hollow victory.

 

And to be honest, it's not that difficult a question. He tried to answer it with a question. He asked me how I knew genocide was wrong. I gave him a very straightforward answer. I said that genocide was wrong because I know people that suffered through attempted genocides and I thought their suffering was horrible.

 

He then said that he knew that genocide was wrong because he believed in a transcendent God. Then I asked him how that was possible when that very same transcendent God has ordered a genocide (including the killing of babies) in 1 Samuel 15.

 

And then he had to stfu, as they say. I call ownage.

[Neon Genesis]

BTW, your argument that God requires a creator is a category error. God is not a physical entity and therefore requires no fine-tuning. Only physical entities require fine-tuning. IOW, there is nothing physical about God that requires tuning. Otherwise, I won't comment on your argument as I think it is a straw-man argument.

This is a load of crap. First of all, the Christian god most certainly does have a physical form. God is described as being a male being many times throughout the bible. God also appears in physical form many times, such as the burning bush and according to Trinitarian Christians, in the flesh of Jesus, who also somehow existed during the time of creation along with Yahweh. Even Abraham wrestled with God who appeared as a man in the OT and the bible specifically refers to Abraham as having seen the face of God. So, the Christian god most certainly does have a physical form but you've apparently never read the bible yourself to know this. And if non-physical entities don't require fine tuning, then are you confessing the wind does not need fine tuning? The wind isn't a physical entity either yet you say that since wind is part of the universe, it needs to be fine tuned. If the wind doesn't need to be fine tuned since the wind is not a physical entity, then neither does the rest of the universe since the wind is part of the universe. Gravity is another thing which has no physical form yet you say gravity needs to have been fine tuned? So either non-physical entities need to be fine tuned as well and the same should apply to God or if non-physical entities don't need to be fine tuned to exist, then the wind and gravity don't need to be fine tuned either, but since they're also apart of the universe, there's no reason why the rest of the universe can't exist without being fine tuned if the wind and gravity can't.

 

That is a fallacious definition of omnipotence and one that Christians and theists never use. You forget that God has more than one attribute, just as we have more than one attribute. God is also just and, therefore, cannot just look the other way when rebellion has occurred. No sovereign would allow his subjects to rebel without consequences. Why should God allow his creation to rebel without consequences?

How can you rebel against something you don't believe in? And why should a loving God care if people rebel against him or not if they're otherwise basically good people? Even if rebellion deserves a just punishment, how is eternal torture justified? That's like saying if a child runs away from home, that means the parent can beat the child to death. Since you believe people who rebel against God deserve punishment simply for not sucking up to God, then do you believe that the Holocaust was justified and that God was just in allowing Hitler to torture the Jews if it's justified to torture the Jew for rebelling against God? Don't you realize this is the same "logic" that Hitler used for the Holocaust?

[shantonu]

Nobody wants to challenge me huh? Afraid to get owned I guess.

 

Getting owned sucks, especially under God's justice.

 

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.

If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

 

Exodous 21:21-22 (emphasis added)

[shantonu]

BTW, your argument that God requires a creator is a category error. God is not a physical entity and therefore requires no fine-tuning. Only physical entities require fine-tuning. IOW, there is nothing physical about God that requires tuning. Otherwise, I won't comment on your argument as I think it is a straw-man argument.

This is a load of crap. First of all, the Christian god most certainly does have a physical form. God is described as being a male being many times throughout the bible. God also appears in physical form many times, such as the burning bush and according to Trinitarian Christians, in the flesh of Jesus, who also somehow existed during the time of creation along with Yahweh. Even Abraham wrestled with God who appeared as a man in the OT and the bible specifically refers to Abraham as having seen the face of God. So, the Christian god most certainly does have a physical form but you've apparently never read the bible yourself to know this. And if non-physical entities don't require fine tuning, then are you confessing the wind does not need fine tuning? The wind isn't a physical entity either yet you say that since wind is part of the universe, it needs to be fine tuned. If the wind doesn't need to be fine tuned since the wind is not a physical entity, then neither does the rest of the universe since the wind is part of the universe. Gravity is another thing which has no physical form yet you say gravity needs to have been fine tuned? So either non-physical entities need to be fine tuned as well and the same should apply to God or if non-physical entities don't need to be fine tuned to exist, then the wind and gravity don't need to be fine tuned either, but since they're also apart of the universe, there's no reason why the rest of the universe can't exist without being fine tuned if the wind and gravity can't.

 

That is a fallacious definition of omnipotence and one that Christians and theists never use. You forget that God has more than one attribute, just as we have more than one attribute. God is also just and, therefore, cannot just look the other way when rebellion has occurred. No sovereign would allow his subjects to rebel without consequences. Why should God allow his creation to rebel without consequences?

How can you rebel against something you don't believe in? And why should a loving God care if people rebel against him or not if they're otherwise basically good people? Even if rebellion deserves a just punishment, how is eternal torture justified? That's like saying if a child runs away from home, that means the parent can beat the child to death. Since you believe people who rebel against God deserve punishment simply for not sucking up to God, then do you believe that the Holocaust was justified and that God was just in allowing Hitler to torture the Jews if it's justified to torture the Jew for rebelling against God? Don't you realize this is the same "logic" that Hitler used for the Holocaust?

 

 

 

Apparently the God of Bible is evil. He justifies slavery. He kills first borns. He orders genocides. But you have to worship him anyway. After all you're just human. Who are you to challenge GOD?

[The-Captain]

Man I have to go soon and hang out with my Bollywood-hot Hindu girlfriend. I hope I get to put the pwn down a few more times.

 

You're a right bastard, you know that?

[shantonu]

Man I have to go soon and hang out with my Bollywood-hot Hindu girlfriend. I hope I get to put the pwn down a few more times.

 

You're a right bastard, you know that?

 

Yeah. But I can't stand her high-pitched singing if that's any consolation.

[Justin]

[

Regarding the temptation of Adam and Eve, it was not much of a temptation. If you think about the fact that there were thousands of fruit bearing trees in the garden, then one little tree should not be much of a temptation. Yet, that being said, given the fact that they had free will, they would have been tempted by something at some point anyway, even if it weren't the fruit of this tree. Do you have children? Did you know that they would do things that would require punishment before you had them? Why did you have them anyway? Just as we don't stop ourselves from having children just because we know that they will disappoint us at points during their lives, we knew we had a greater reason for having them. Just the same is the case with God. If he didn't provide a way for them to be reconciled from their sin, he would be evil. But, he made the greatest sacrifice to reconcile them to himself.

 

That is ridiculous. Whether or not there were thousands of other fruit trees in the garden is irrelevent. The fact is that "one little tree" was put there for the sole purpose of temptation. It should never have been there in the first place. It's like i have a roomful of kids and i stick a loaded shotgun in the room with them and tell them not to touch it. The point isn't that their curiosity will eventually get the better of them, it is the breath taking irresponsibility/wrecklessness/stupidity on my part. How could i have prevented little Johnny from blowing off his head? By not putting the god damn gun in there!!! Whats more, i then get made at the kids and act like it's their fault.

 

And your children analogy is even more insane. No parent would punishe their kids with eternal torment, no parent would kill all their kids because they did something wrong (the flood). No parent would curse their child's descendants or strike them down with some terrible disease or wipe them out with some natural disaster. Another thing is we don't have to power to forsee things like god does, so we do not have the ability to stop something before it happens. But god has this ability, yet does nothing. Still yet, he gets his panties in a wad at us for it.

[Justin]

OK, I will await your proofs that hell doesn't exist and that God doesn't exist.

 

Better yet, we await your proofs that they do exist. Or, if you like, prove that Allah doesn't exist, Brahma, Shiva, Thor or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to say your god exists, then that means you don't believe all these other gods exist. Prove it.

[freeday]

1. If I remember right, he asked you a question which you did not to answer. Although you heavily scrutinize his ethical framework, you are unwilling to discuss your normative ethics. I feel sure I could pick apart your ethical beliefs just as you do ours. Then what have we gained... nothing at all? No ethical system is without its flaws, just as christianity purposes some ethical dilemmas.

 

2 I could discuss the issue of cherem if you like, but I feel this would be a complete waste of time and it has been exhaustively posted on already. This would not change your mind, nor would you want to see my point of view.

 

1. I don't think an atheist would try to represent their ethic as without flaws, though one might try to make an it is better than case. The problem is of course that the Christian ethic being of a flawless God ought to be flawless. I have read and heard Christians arguing that this is the case. You may not agree with them for some yet unknown reason.

 

Anyway if it is not flawless, why should it be followed over any other?

 

2. What the hell has shunning got to do with this argument? Nice trick there by the way, showing off by dropping a Hebrew word that only a fool like me who wasted 4 years learning Hebrew might recognize. You showed the kid.

 

You misunderstood me, I do believe that God is flawless; just that there are some ethical dilemmas presented in the bible that are difficult to resolve, if not impossible, to your satisfaction. I wasn't showing off words, I am well aware that there are highly educated persons such as yourself on this board. I was short handing the whole moral issue he was questioning into one word for convenience . With people like you on this board, there is no reason for me to argue in defense of cherem, genocide, total consecration or whatever you want to call it since you know what I am going to say and have rejected the notion.

[chefranden]

1. That is a fallacious definition of omnipotence and one that Christians and theists never use. You forget that God has more than one attribute, just as we have more than one attribute. God is also just and, therefore, cannot just look the other way when rebellion has occurred. No sovereign would allow his subjects to rebel without consequences. Why should God allow his creation to rebel without consequences?

 

2. Regarding the temptation of Adam and Eve, it was not much of a temptation. If you think about the fact that there were thousands of fruit bearing trees in the garden, then one little tree should not be much of a temptation. Yet, that being said, given the fact that they had free will, they would have been tempted by something at some point anyway, even if it weren't the fruit of this tree. Do you have children? Did you know that they would do things that would require punishment before you had them? Why did you have them anyway? Just as we don't stop ourselves from having children just because we know that they will disappoint us at points during their lives, we knew we had a greater reason for having them. Just the same is the case with God. If he didn't provide a way for them to be reconciled from their sin, he would be evil. But, he made the greatest sacrifice to reconcile them to himself.

 

1. Why should God pissed off about a rebel creation, having been its creator? He is really pissed off at himself isn't he for being such a screw up isn't he? He's just giving the tin lizzie a kick because he hasn't got it right yet.

 

If God is the creator of everything, then well he is the creator of everything -- including the screw ups. If I create an new airplane and it's iterations keep falling out of the sky, who's probably at fault? If God can't create a pair of progenitors with an anti sin reproduction filter, you know just in case, then he can go suck an egg with his pissy ways.

 

Why did God let the whole shebang get out of hand in the first place. He should have killed Adam and Eve like he said he would, and started over until he got it right. What gives? Did he run out of dirt? I have a potter friend that has a junk pile. If he doesn't like a pot he made he pitches it. If your tea pot drips or dribbles he'll make you a new own free of charge. He's kind of particular about his tea pots. Tea pots that don't meet the muster get mashed. And don't you dare say we are not pots.

 

So latter having realized his error he drowns the whole deal, but instead of starting over he saves a few sin tainted fuck ups for breeding stock. But then maybe Yahweh was fresh out of Mormon god school and wasn't managing his planet so well. So anyway he waits 4000 years or so before he gets the bright idea of knocking himself out for a few hours as a fix. And I'll be god damned if that didn't fail as well. The joint is still fucked up*.

 

Well you'll probably say that heaven is the perfect place, not here. Well if God was going to get all pissed off over the earth, why didn't he just cut to the chase and stock heaven with perfect people? (Perhaps the Mormons are right and Yahweh can only make people by fucking his spiritual wives?) If he can only abide perfect people then why not just make perfect people or at least people that could be perfect if they chose to?

 

You are right about Yahweh having other attributes. He's not the omni-max being so many Christians make him out to be. He's a pissy whiner that likes to blame his lack of pottery skills on the pots. He sort of reminds me of the psychic that sells lucky lottery numbers out of the back of his rusted out Econoline van. Good thing God is not real or I have to try to kick his ass.

 

2. Fuck, not much of a temptation! You shall be as gods! Besides if it wasn't much of a temptation why was the penalty death, or rather eternal torment for countless souls?

 

By your reasoning here you are admitting that God didn't make Adam and Eve perfect to begin with. Knowing that they would screw up, he must have intended for them to screw up, because else-wise he would have just changed the recipe a bit. In spite of his intention he then gets pissed because they did what he designed them to do. Let's just shoot dogs because they have tails.

 

Of course you could argue that if he designed them to screw up and they screwed up that was perfection. But then where is the bitch? Perhaps God was bored with being content and said to himself, I know I'll make some things that piss me off, that will be different. So he likes being pissed off, drowning kittens, throwing plagues about, killing babies by making sure that the Pharaoh didn't give in to his demands, killing a baby for the sin of its father, vesting ten generations with punishment for the sins of their fathers (and then later saying he did no such thing), ordering genocide, condoning slavery, giving women chattel status, and ...

 

Edit:

 

*Knowing the record, I wouldn't be very excited about the rapture if I were you. I'm not sure that 2000 years of training in the Earth Simulator is going to do the trick this time either. Third time's the charm?

[Kuroikaze]

OK, I will await your proofs that hell doesn't exist and that God doesn't exist.

 

Are you seriously on about this again? I thought I made it clear that I'll provide that as soon as you provide 100% certain proof that Islamic god/hell does not exist.

 

It can't be done, because you cannot use deductive reason to prove a negative. Why should I be required to provide exhaustive evidence that your god does not exist when you cannot do the same with others? You just want to set up a double standard for your religion; unfortunately for you, that won't fly here.

 

You act as if I must have exhaustive evidence on EVERYTHING in order to disagree with Christianity, like somehow your religion is the default answer for everything and I must have another explanation for it in order to disagree. That is just stupid.

 

I didn't say that objective morality derives its meaning from supernatural beings. I said that objective morality cannot even exist apart from a transcendent and personal source. Now, if you are confident that they can exist apart from a transcendent and personal source, please explain.

 

And these two statements are qualitatively different how?

 

I don't even see this as something that needs proof, if you actually understood how morality/ethics are actually arrived at, and practiced in the REAL world you would know that you aren't even asking the right questions.

 

 

Objective morality must be grounded in an objective reality beyond that moral system. Again, if you disagree, please explain how you arrive at your conclusion.

 

If you don't believe that there is anything in existence that necessitates the existence of God, then either you deny objective morality or accept objective morality but can explain its existence in some other way, please explain.

 

You keep claiming circular reasoning, yet have not explained in what way the reasoning is circular. Please explain.

 

Maybe I just disagree with the way you define "objective morality." Fine, as you define the term I do reject the existence of such. I think absolute is probably more accurate to describe your view.

 

I just don't think the rejection of such leads to all actions being qualitatively equal. Even if I were a complete moral relativist it would not mean that there is no moral value whatsoever. There are lots of non-absolute moral systems which still believe you can arrive at an objective standard for ethics.

 

I would argue that realty itself is objective, and we are capable of forming a moral system simply by a mixture of observing realty and desiring certain things. For instance, we desire to live in groups, it is a human trait, we are social animals. We can see, objectively, that certain actions, theft, murder, rape, are not conducive to living in groups. The social structure breaks down if we allow these things unchecked.

 

Now, I'm not claiming this is an exhaustive description of ethics, or that this way of forming ethics is without flaws. However, flaws or no, it is, at the most basic level, how ethical systems ARE actually formed.

 

If you think people form their morals using pure logic you are just being silly.

When you make a ethical choice do you reach for your copy of Kant and say "what would the categorical imperative tell me?" When you fall in love do you say, "This person seems worthy of my love, I will commence loving her in 3...2...1... Now?

People just don't think this way.

 

 

You are mistaken, you are arguing for objective morality apart from the existence God. You have other questions that need to be addressed as well if God doesn't exist. So, you can't tell me that you aren't arguing for something by simply saying that you don't have enough faith to believe in God, if that is your definition of atheism (at least that seems to be the popular one these days.) I am not here to impress you with my knowledge, I am here to exchange ideas so that we arrive at the truth.

 

If you are here to exchange ideas then that's news to me, as far as I can see you are here to be a preachy sanctimonious ass.

 

That's not my definition, are you going for an award in strawmans or something?

 

I don't believe in god, because there is not any good evidence to suggest any of the gods conceived of in any religions actually exist. As to whether god exists in some kind of nebulous non specific religious sense, I don't know or care. There is no point in discussing the existence of something for which I have no good definition, as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

Actually, that is not my argument for fine tuning, so I won't address your particular version. However, here is the one that I use.

 

P1: The fine tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.

P2: It is not due to chance or necessity, therefore,

C: It is due to design.

 

Ahh, something new...well lets see here. I'm not sure you can prove, with certainty, that those are the only three options. I also tend to disagree with the way fundamentalists tend to define the word "chance."

 

You, pretty much, can not demonstrate P2 to be true with any high degree of certainty so you have nothing more than a bald assertion.

 

BTW, your argument that God requires a creator is a category error. God is not a physical entity and therefore requires no fine-tuning. Only physical entities require fine-tuning. IOW, there is nothing physical about God that requires tuning. Otherwise, I won't comment on your argument as I think it is a straw-man argument.

 

I am well aware that you are claiming god is of a different category. My point is that you cannot really demonstrate this claim. In the end you basically define god into existence, a gross misuse of logic if I've ever seen one.

 

You want to claim that god exists but is not physical, too me you have just said something that is categorically non-sensible. To exist is to be physical, unless you can demonstrate that non-physical things exist. You can't escape the problem by asserting that god is a spiritual entity with an atheist, because our problem with your claim at its root, is that we are not convinced that ANYTHING supernatural exists.

 

If you are going to claim that the universe needs a creator and god does not you need to provide some reason for the distinction or you engage in special pleading. In my opinion you have not successfully dealt with this, except by making a bald assertion that non-physical beings don't require "fine tuning." Even though you can neither demonstrate that non-physical beings exist in any meaningful sense, or that non-physical beings do NOT require "fine tuning." You don't get off the hook by making bald assertions.

 

 

You must explain why we should see patterns if the universe is the result of chance processes - you cannot just assume this point. That is the weakness of the anthropic argument, it assumes that which requires explanation.

 

Again, you misuse the term "chance." Evolution is NOT blind chance and provides ample explanation for why we see patterns. It helps us survive. Animals see other animals drinking from a pool of water and then dying, that animal will avoid drinking from that water, because he sees a pattern. Just because you are too ignorant of biological science to know what the explanations are does not mean that the explanations don't exist or are not valid.

 

Please explain how man can be anything more than a biological machine from your worldview. You assert this, but fail to explain why. Why shouldn't nihilism be the default? Why is nihilism any worse than optimism from your worldview?

 

Even if nihilism is no worse than optimism it would not necessitate that nihilism should be the default.

[Kuroikaze]

If suffering is just a brute fact, then why are people getting so worked up about it on this thread? Brute facts cannot be changed, they just are. However, apparently, some of your friends on this site disagree with this premise as they want to see it changed. They, in fact, want to blame a God, whom they claim not to believe in for this suffering. If suffering is a brute fact, we must get used to it since we cannot change it. In essence, what you are asking for is the equivalent of changing logical laws, which are also brute facts - to that I say "good luck." Maybe you can start with by changing the law of non-contradiction and then work your way up to suffering.

 

You are confusing your terms, the law of non-contradiction is a tautology, you can't change a tautology because the nature of the way it is phrased in language necessitates that it is true. However, it is not a "fact." The term "fact" is generally reserved for things that physically exist. The law of non-contradiction exists as a concept only, and the application of it to reality is always conditional. To compare the two is just pointless.

 

When I say suffering is a brute fact, I mean that it is a fact that people suffer, I would even agree that it is probably impossible for us to cease ALL suffering, unless, of course, we also ceased to be happy as well. I don't think it follows that we must simply "get used to it."

 

I can accept that our suffering is pretty meaningless in the big scheme of things. The universe will keep going if our whole planet is wiped out tomorrow. However, if I see someone suffering and I try to help, I don't need to provide a logical reason for it. I choose too, that is reason enough for me.

 

 

You don't seem to want to explain yourself when you make these sweeping assertions. For that reason, I don't take them at all seriously.

 

Wasn't expecting you too. I don't take you very seriously either, I wouldn't even bother if I wasn't bored with nothing to do most of the day at work.

[chefranden]

1. You misunderstood me, I do believe that God is flawless; just that there are some ethical dilemmas presented in the bible that are difficult to resolve, if not impossible, to your satisfaction.

 

2. I wasn't showing off words, I am well aware that there are highly educated persons such as yourself on this board. I was short handing the whole moral issue he was questioning into one word for convenience . With people like you on this board, there is no reason for me to argue in defense of cherem, genocide, total consecration or whatever you want to call it since you know what I am going to say and have rejected the notion.

 

1. Oh, you mean like one moral behavior contradicting another moral behavior, like Uzzah trying to save the Ark from falling in the mud and getting zapped for his trouble? It's like sort of a damned if you do and damned if you don't system -- something like evolution might come up with rather than what a rational God might come up with?

 

So the system can't be resolved to my satisfaction, but I'm going to be condemned for not being able to understand the system, because I'm just a stupid human. So what we have here is something like the Nazis gassing the retards? I've always wondered what "the testing" was about.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that killing cows and babies because their parents and owners worship a different god then me is likely morally reprehensible in any kind of an objective moral system. However it makes sense in an evolved relative moral system wherein my group's prosperity is worth more to my group than your baby's survival. That would make my baby's reproductive success more probable, and I would get to write the story and say God made me do it.

 

2. I see.

[pitchu]

LNC,

I say that a particular phenomenon is currently sort of ineffable [incapable of being expressed], and maybe someday will be known.

 

You say that is a "faith statement."

 

Whut?

 

Silly me, I'm suffering under the misapprehension that qualifiers like "currently" and "sort of" and "maybe" and "someday" are indicators of lack of knowledge. But I'm wrong! These words are indicators of faith. Wow. I guess I hadn't realized that. Maybe I was confused because you, and those who profess similarly to you, make "faith statements" that never seem to have a "currently" or "sort of" or "maybe" or "someday" anywhere to be seen or heard. Almost like your "faith statements" are peer-reviewed scientific fact.

 

I'll work on unraveling this snarl.

[Neon Genesis]

Nobody wants to challenge me huh? Afraid to get owned I guess.

 

Getting owned sucks, especially under God's justice.

Maybe we should just ignore LNC until he answers your question?

[LNC]

Go free? Since when does a guilty criminal go free just because they don't feel guilt. You have erected a straw man here.

 

It is you that claims that guilt is evidence of truth. Therefore if I show a lack of guilt, that shows evidence that Christianity is not the truth. You can hardly compare a guilty criminal to someone who has left a religion. A criminal is guilty regardless of whether they feel guilt or not. But your argument here is that if Christianity is the truth, then an ex-Christian would feel guilt for leaving it. However that is not true in my case.

 

Sure, if we are to judge based upon whether a person feels guilty, then a lot of convicts would go free. Feeling guilty gives evidence that there is a basis for those guilty feelings; however, lack of guilty feelings does not necessarily give evidence of a lack of guilt. That was my point and it stands. I haven't said that all those who leave Christianity will feel guilt, just that those who do have a reason for feeling that guilt. The fact that you don't feel guilt doesn't change what I said since I didn't say all people feel that guilt.

 

And just because one believes wholeheartedly in something does not make it so either. I don't think you truly understand just how insidiuous Christianity is when it comes to indoctrinating people. You don't just walk away from it without suffering ill effects psychologically. These things take time to heal.

And, I never said that it did. Tell me how you believe Christianity to be insidious, I am curious. I mean, I am sorry that you feel so ill-treated by Christians with whom you associated; however, I believe that says more about the people with whom you associated than it does about Biblical Christianity.

 

The evidence for is extremely weak. The evidence against is huge and overpowering. It's not a matter of choosing to accept the evidence. If the evidence is convincing there is no choice but to accept it. But the evidence is most definitely not convincing, not to me anyway.

There we will disagree. I actually think that the evidence against a Christian worldview is quite weak and requires more faith than that required for the Christian worldview.

 

I have no strong opinion on this. I choose to sit on the fence. As nice as it would be to know, I now realise that we may never know. However Evolution is starting to make more sense to me and when it comes to a creator, the question still remains "who created the creator?" And no I don't buy the arguments that Christians give about it. There is too much presumption in it.

 

However, evolution does not explain the origin of life from non-living matter, it only explains change over time. Evolution doesn't necessarily negate a Creator either. The question of who created the creator is an argument based upon a category error. When we consider that something requires a cause, that only has to apply to material entities as they are, according to science and philosophy, always effects of prior causes. However, immaterial entities do not fit within these same limitations, and so, do not require prior causes. Also, the definition of God is a necessary being (this is a philosophical, not a religious definition) and necessary beings are not contingent for existence, they are self-existent. Now, if you don't accept this argument, you are left with a bigger problem to explain which is how the universe violates known physics by existing forever; or, how an infinite regress can actually exist in the real world (which has logical problems that cannot be resolved). So again, you are left with bigger problems to solve if you negate the possible existence of a necessary being.

 

I don't see any fine tuning here. If evolution is how this earth got here, then life evolved to suit the planet, not the other way around. On another planet with a totally different environment completely different life may evolved, life that would never survive on ours. The hole didn't get there to suit the puddle, it's just natural that water should form that way. I see a lot of flaws in this universe and if I were to believe God created it, I could only come to the conclusion that it was a God who was not perfect, all powerful and all-knowing. No doubt it would be an amazing feit what he has accomplished, but it is far from perfect and finely tuned. I no longer look at the puddle and marvel how perfect the hole is. I have learnt to look at it from a different perspective which makes far more sense.

 

Either way you look at it, Evolution or God, the fact that we are here is infathomable. Absolutely incredible. But I no longer need to attribute God to it.

It doesn't matter whether you see fine tuning, the subject is not widely debated in the scientific community. Even Richard Dawkins admits to fine-tuning. However, evolution, contrary to your beliefs, is not how the earth got here, no scientist would argue that. Evolution is a theory to explain how life developed, not how it originated. We have no knowledge of life on other planets, and the best of origin of life research and cosmology is highly doubtful at this point that we will find higher life on other planets. I am curious as to what flaws you see in the universe that make you question its design. Again, for you to doubt the fine-tuning of the universe simply tells me that you have not read widely in the field, as this is not a disputed idea. Physicist Roger Penrose has calculated the “odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen sheerly by chance in the absence of any constraining principle” being “at least as small as about one part in 10^10(123) in order for the universe to exist.” That is one part in ten to the ten to the 123rd power and that is just one of many necessary conditions that exist in our universe that cannot be explained by necessity or chance.

 

I see no reason why we need God for moral values. In fact I'm incredulous when I hear people insisting that only a God could bring morals to humanity. I can see how evolution can take care of this and I didn't need evolutionists to lead me to that conclusion. Morals change as time goes by, we see it all the time. Culture defines them. People know when they are wronged, they don't like it, so rules will be constructed where certain behavior is considered not acceptable so as to protect people. It is most likely that rules will be dictated by those in charge, based on what they like or don't like. Seems pretty simple to me.

You changed my argument. I said that apart from the existence of God objective moral values can not exist. Evolution cannot produce objective moral values, nor can it produce moral values at all. The best it can do is produce instincts to act one way or another. The problem is that we often have competing instincts, and unless there is an objective standard that tells us to obey one and not the other, then all becomes relative. If, as you say, morals change as time goes by or that morals are defined by culture, then you are arguing for subjective moral values. And then we have to ask, which time defines morals? Can I change my morals today from what they were yesterday? How do we define culture? Can I be my own culture and define my own morals? If morals are subjective, should we really care if someone feels that we have wronged them when we don't believe that their standard necessarily applies to us? Should we say that slavery was OK in the 19th century since it was a generally accepted practice? Can rape ever be justified? How about racism? If not, why not?

 

I don't know if I have answered as you would have liked, but I've gone through the whole believing God to be the creator bit and I just don't buy it anymore. The arguments for a God creating the universe are just way too weak IMO. I God really did create me in my mother's womb then it was he who put in me the need to question and challenge, to look at things logically and rationally. He would understand why the evidence you believe to be so great is not convincing to me and others here.

I have given you other questions above that are raised by your worldview. I think that these are serious questions and I hope you take some time to think about them before you reply as the implications are even more serious. If the arguments for God are weak, as you say, then please provide me a valid alternative that doesn't require faith to believe. Again, evolution is a different field than cosmology, so you cannot apply that answer to this question. So, what are the alternatives?

 

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

Conviction is when we know we have done something wrong and we need to put ourselves right with God. Any one who claims to be a Christian would experience this. It is not condeming in the fact God does not accuse us of being evil sinners and that we will go to hell if we keep it up. It is more of a gentle thing, not something you'd feel guilt for if you put yourself right with Christ. No scriptures come to mind at the moment on that one. I wish I had more time to look up references, but it's 12:30am here and I need to get some sleep. Maybe I have explained enough for you to know what I'm talking about when it comes to conviction vs guilt.

 

OK, well there is a huge qualifier in that verse: "to them which are in Christ Jesus". This does not say that there is no condemnation, just none for those in Christ Jesus, and that is a great encouragement for those trusting in Christ. Now, I agree that Christians should feel conviction when we have fallen short of God's standard for us. However, the Bible does speak about condemnation and also about hell. In fact, Jesus spoke more about hell than he did about heaven. Here are some examples:

 

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matt. 12:36,37)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

 

These are just three examples that those who do not believe will be condemned; however, I don't want to leave the message there since there is also hope, even in the verses above, for those who believe.

 

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins...But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:1,4)

 

We have hope because of the free and gracious gift that God offers through his Son.

[LNC]

Interesting. Why would a materialist even care about morality since right and wrong are immaterial concepts and thus really don't exist. Thoughts, ideas, numbers, concepts, don't exist. You cannot measure these things scientifically, therefore, they are meaningless.

I guess you skipped the philosophy class.

 

Hey Han, it has been a while...

 

You mean that morality is material in nature, or do you mean that a materialist can accept something that cannot be proved by scientific testing and empirical verification?

[LNC]

I thought you believed in the First Cause? Or do you believe Free Will are by definition outside the causal chain?

 

I do believe in a first cause, it is the only position that makes logical sense to me. Freedom to choose is not necessarily determined by prior causes otherwise it would be determined and not truly free. I am not sure why you see a conflict in these ideas.

[LNC]

Oh. That's so wonderful!!

 

Hear that everyone??!!

 

It's not a religion at all....it's a relationship!!!

 

That's so fabulous!!!

 

Yes, it brings a tear to your eyes doesn't it? However, there is a true distinction that I am getting at here. Religion is man's attempt to get to God. Christianity is a relationship in which God comes down to rescue man.

 

And when I disagree with my "boyfriend", I can expect his justified reaction of dousing me in gasoline, setting me on fire, then telling me it's my fault it happened!

 

Woohoo!

 

Hooray for manipulative and abusive relationships!!

 

You know we all want one!!

 

So glad you came to share the Good News LNC!

 

Sorry to hear that you allow yourself to manipulated this way. However, if there is any abuse when it comes to the Christian message, it is man who is abusive of God. That is demonstrated prolifically on this website.

[Astreja]

That is your definition of god. It is not Mine. For instance, I consider an omniscient god to be eternally trapped in its own perception of What Was, What Is, What Will Be.

OK, then I could not believe or trust in your god as he would not be, by definition, God, but just god. There is a difference.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you claiming that your god is omniscient but not restricted by that omniscience? I can see that being possible if the omniscience was limited to the present moment only, but the moment a being has 100% accurate information about a future event, it and that event are inexorably bound one to the other.

 

In My opinion, "meaning" is wholly subjective, with no referent outside the subject consciousness. Our meaning is what we perceive that meaning to be, nothing more and nothing less... In such a scenario, even an illusion of free will would be sufficient to imbue life with meaning...

...You are speaking about living in some sort of illusion, but if that is OK with you...BTW, consciousness is illusion if man is a machine as well.

Yes, I'm quite fine with it. If consciousness is an illusion, it's a functional one. Likewise, one's sense of meaning can be part of that illusion.

 

You might hold out the hope of looking outside the bubble and finding another level of "meaning", but I suspect that this just puts you in a bigger bubble and doesn't actually solve anything. I prefer to stay on the inside and work with what I've got.

 

I don't generally waste time contemplating "who I really am"; I work to discover and express it.

How can you work to discover and express it without contemplating it?

I've found that thinking about and attempting to analyze life is an obstacle to direct experience of that life. My technique of choice is mindfulness meditation, which is present-oriented rather than past- or future-oriented.

 

Oh, and I'd also like to comment on this:

 

I said that apart from the existence of God objective moral values can not exist.

Quite frankly, moral-values-from-a-god look just as subjective as moral-values-from-humans. I don't think that moral values can be objective, either.

[MathGeek]

Sorry to hear that you allow yourself to manipulated this way. However, if there is any abuse when it comes to the Christian message, it is man who is abusive of God. That is demonstrated prolifically on this website.

 

If you feel that way, why did you come here ultimately? I think you know that all of us are not going to fall for your arguments to come back. Why accept the invite at all then?

[white_raven23]

Sorry to hear that you allow yourself to manipulated this way. However, if there is any abuse when it comes to the Christian message, it is man who is abusive of God. That is demonstrated prolifically on this website.

 

If you feel that way, why did you come here ultimately? I think you know that all of us are not going to fall for your arguments to come back. Why accept the invite at all then?

 

Okay....now I'm positive this is a troll. No one can be so stupid as to deliberately mistake what I meant that completely.

 

 

I call troll.

[Kuroikaze]

Yes, it brings a tear to your eyes doesn't it? However, there is a true distinction that I am getting at here. Religion is man's attempt to get to God. Christianity is a relationship in which God comes down to rescue man.

 

Oh hell no, he did not just use this little gem.

 

LNC, you are like a walking bumper sticker. I haven't seen a Christian willing to use such cheesy christianise lines like these in a long time, so thanks for the laugh. Whats next? Quote some Chick tracts?

 

Don't let me down now, you have set the bar for humor quite high, so if you are going to have to start saying some really absurd stuff if you want to keep me laughing.

[MathGeek]

Sorry to hear that you allow yourself to manipulated this way. However, if there is any abuse when it comes to the Christian message, it is man who is abusive of God. That is demonstrated prolifically on this website.

 

If you feel that way, why did you come here ultimately? I think you know that all of us are not going to fall for your arguments to come back. Why accept the invite at all then?

 

Okay....now I'm positive this is a troll. No one can be so stupid as to deliberately mistake what I meant that completely.

 

 

I call troll.

 

I am agreeing with you. According to a prior post, he said he was invited here by R.S. Martin and that he would normally not come to this type of chatboard. Don't know what to make of it myself.