A loving Christian brother just emailed me and said, “Man-o-man. There are some bitter, furious, Christian hatin' bloggers out there!!!” I told him that he is seeing comparatively nice ones. They know that I delete anything with blasphemy or cussing. He’s right though. Some of the atheists that are part of this blog are pretty nasty. So, I have decided to return a bit of the fire (in love, of course).
My new theory is that perhaps atheists evolved from the chicken, because they not only have chicken characteristics--a head, eyes, mouth, skin, neck, heart, earlobes and legs (homology structures), but they also have the chicken’s tendencies--they are chicken livered. They hang around Christians like annoying little bugs hang around light, trying to inject their poison whenever they can.
If you are an atheist, I hope I’m ruffling your feathers. I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Muslims what you keep shouting at Christians. Prove me wrong. Get onto a Muslim website and tell them that you don’t believe their god exists. Do your little “I don’t believe in Zeus” thing. Tell them they believe a myth. Make sure you use the word "fairytale." Talk about Mohammed as you do Jesus (use your usual lower case for Mohammed). Do your “I don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster” thing. Tell them that you believe that they weren’t made by (a) god, but that they evolved from primates (that will go down well).
Explain that you think they are blind simpletons to believe the way they do, and that even though there is a creation, you don't see any evidence that there is a Creator. Let them know that you think that it's intelligent to believe the way you do. You may as well explain that even though you don't believe in God's existence, you use His name as a cuss word, because you think it's worthless. Also, let them know in no uncertain terms that you believe that the Koran is full of mistakes (give some examples), and that their mosques are full of hypocrites.
You wouldn’t dare, because you are chicken-livered. You know that they are not like Christians. Despite the “anonymity” of your little chicken coop, they would come after you to lop off your head. And when they find you, you would fall on your knees and be praying to God for help, quicker than I can move a fly swat . . . and I'm pretty quick. So, think about what you are doing, and think about how much you value your life. Then think about what we are telling you. Think.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Atheists Evolved From Chickens
150 comments:
Eaaasy Ray, take it easy.... put the rubber chicken down and slowly back away...
Amen and Amen!!Sing it sister!!
Isn't it amazing how kind and respectful the raging atheist becomes in the presence of Muslims?
They know better,if they value their lives, than to curse,blaspheme and spit upon the name of Mohamed. Call him the greatest lier of all time!Tell them they are responsible for the greatest atrocities of all time.Better yet make a movie of Mohamed dreaming about having sex with his mother.Or how about this,have on display in a New York art gallery, a picture of Mohamed placed so that you can urinate on him.
Go ahead my brave atheist friends!
"I delete the bad blogs"
You delete blogs? You've got a lot of work left to do....
well, ray...
Christianity is what's poisoning our country more than anything right now. If the conservative christian agenda were to really be put into place (and I know you're working on it), people who love each other that are of the same sex will never be able to marry or even be accepted into society; young girls will be forced to take unwanted pregnancies to term, losing all rightful ownership over their own bodies; intelligent design would be taught as an equally valid theory next to evolution (yes, this is equally sickening). You are the people that most urgently need to be dealt with today in our country. These are issues that are of the utmost importance, and in that sense, they are worth discussing at every possible juncture. I believe that abortion should be legal, and I believe that very strongly, probably as strongly as you believe it should not.
But atheists are not soldiers as such. We have no lord for whom to fight. We have no ultimate cause for glory. We appreciate the world and nature as it is and as it came to be, and we understand that the life that we have on this earth is the ONLY life that there is. The little time that we do have on this incredible earth would be ill-spent waging wars. We won't spend this life preparing for the next, because what's next is worm food. Yummy!
And no, I don't believe in Allah, or Jesus, or Fairies, or the Spaghetti Monster (though I must admit to being a Pastafarian for a short time)--and I'll gladly share those views with ANYONE.
Sorry, forgot to address one thing:
I've been in a foxhole, and I was still an atheist. On my death bed, before my body goes to science, I'll still be an atheist.
So did I...it's hard to get out there and witness.
A loving Christian brother just emailed me and said, “Man-o-man. There are some bitter, furious, Christian hatin' bloggers out there!!!” I told him that he is seeing comparatively nice ones. I delete the bad blogs. He’s right though. Some of the atheists that are part of this blog are pretty nasty.
All right, which one of you atheists hurt Ray's feelings?
If you are an atheist, I hope I’m ruffling your feathers. I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Moslems what you keep shouting at Christians.
But Ray, Muslims aren't trying to inject their religion into the public school science curricula--you guys are.
Prove me wrong. Get onto a Moslem website and tell them that you don’t believe their god exists...Despite the “anonymity” of your little chicken coop, they would come after you to lop off your head.
What I ought to do is show your post to the Muslim websites you keep talking about, so they can see how you're trying to fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry.
Ray, let me be the first to apologize if any atheists posting here (or attempting to post anyway) have been at all rude or unmannerly. For the most part, I believe that they come here not to be nasty, but to refute or rebut arguments that some Christians have made. We should offer reason, not insult, and speak with lovingkindness and respect no matter what our differences.
However, to answer your question, the reason that atheists spend much more time disputing Christians is that Christians are the dominant religious persuasion in this country. Christians are by far the most active in trying to pass legislation or otherwise affect public policies in ways that non-Christians find inappropriate. In other words, I don't see any Muslims in this country trying to get school boards to change their curriculum to agree with Islamic law.
I certainly understand the point of view that if Jesus really is the only path to salvation, then it must absolutely follow that believing this and promoting that word to others is the most important thing that anyone can do in this life. I believe that most atheists understand this, at least those atheists who have come to their worldview from reason and experience rather than childish rebellion. However, many people, atheists among them, do not believe the Christian faith and Christian beliefs to be true.
I find that the large majority of atheists have come to their understanding after much careful thought and thorough reasoning. Many have grown up as Christians, and are very familiar with Christianity. In fact, many are much better acquainted with the gospel and the scriptures than the Christians they debate. I myself have always, so far as I can remember, known the Bible better than those who were using it to support their points of view.
Atheists do not hate God. How can you hate something that you have no reason to believe is there? What raises temperatures, and sometimes leads to conflict, is for the atheist point of view to be misrepresented, and for Christians to misrepresent their faith, or to insist on what atheists see as illogical arguments, or to insist in inserting their beliefs in areas where, at least from some points of view, belief systems have no place.
For atheists, as well as for those of many other faiths and sects, it matters not what others believe, so long as they remain free to believe what they wish themselves, or to believe nothing at all. No one objects to a Christian praying in school if they like, but not everyone wants to have official prayer as part of the official school doctrine. And after all, I don't here any atheists wanting to forbid you to pray in your homes, in your churches, or on the beach or anywhere else. Not everyone wants to be expected to join you, though. Jesus did say: "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Matthew 6:5-7
I hope I haven't strayed to far from your post, Ray. Essentially, all I'm saying is that if it seems that Christians are being singled out by atheists for criticism, it's because Christians have an especial need to do all they can to make Christianity a universal faith. I don't see the need, on your part or anyone else's, to be insulting or call names. Atheists can continue to make their case politely and with reasoned argument, and should expect the same in return.
God Bless you Ray! Don't be discouraged; know that we are praying for you and your ministry always.
Ray love the post I might add the reason Atheists attack only Christians is because they know deep down in their heart that it is true. The conscience tells them that what they are doing is wrong so they deny truth to try to comfort (no pun intended) themselves.
You know, they employ comment moderation, too.
You make a good point about atheists needing to educate muslims. I found your site through an atheist blog and felt concern for you and your readers. Not a bad idea to comment on a few muslim blogs as well!
People are not evolved from chickens because chickens are birds and birds evolved from reptiles. People are mammals and mammals evolved from reptiles. So birds and mammals come from two distinct lines of descent from reptiles.
Therefore, humans did not evolve from chickens.
That's a good one, Mr. Comfort. I've been to Muslim sites and posted, but I don't personally know any Muslims and haven't had to deal with them the way I have with Evangelical Christians. They have much more absurd beliefs than you, and are very much more dangerous. But you could easily be just as dangerous. You could easily be like Fred Phelps. But I would still like you to address my posts about your use of the Charles Darwin quote taken out of context in The Evidence Bible. I've posted about it in the "Something for Atheists to Think About" thread, and the "Science Confirms the Bible" thread, and maybe the "American Pie" thread. Please refer to them and reply. Please. Thank you.
Ray said, "why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Moslems what you keep shouting at Christians?"
They, the atheists of whom you speak, don't have the courage because their father is the father of lies:
So says our LORD in the Gospel of John, chapter 8:
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on my own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me."
Belligerent atheists have no reason to war against members of their own "family", i.e. the followers of a false religion.
Ray, thanks for the thought-provoking posts.
It is people like you that make people hate Christians. How does one "return a bit of fire" in love? If it were even possible to "return fire" in love you failed to do so. You are judgmentally pointing your finger at atheists. you call them "chicken livered" and then challenge them to persecute other religions the same way they persecute us.
You are pouring out hate and judgment on people because the persecute you!? Have you forgotten Matthew 10:23 [When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.] Jesus says WHEN (not IF) you are persecuted. And what about Matthew 24:9 ["Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.]
It maddens me to read your blog. You are just like the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. Do you not understand that you are scaring non-Christians away? Are you unaware of what you are doing? Your actions are not at all what Jesus would have done. I would bet you are door to door evangelist selling Jesus like you are a used car salesman. But the fact of the matter is Jesus is not a something one sells, and He does not will not and it isn't his priority to make us comfortable and happy. Jesus promises the exact opposite as I quoted in Matthew 10:23 & 24:9.
Evangelism is not meant to be non-personal or bitter (like you blog). One must Love people and develop a relationship with them before they will be willing to listen to you talk about Jesus. Jesus doesn't want us to argue with non-Christians nor be bitter. We have the perfect example of how to share the gospel in John 4 (the Samaritan woman at the well). Jesus could have said to her "You are an evil heathen and you need to repent and follow me!" But he doesn't so that he kindly and Lovingly speaks to her.
A group of Christians that are loving Like Jesus is the people at XXXChrurch.com they are going out to the "tax collectors" and prostitutes of our day. With a lovig message, and because of them many people have left the porn industry and/or kicked their addiction to pornography.
please email me so we can discuss this further.
Jensen
You are threatening me with Muslims because your arguments, protestations and remonstrations all amount to nothing.
If anything Comfort, this post proves once and for all what I have been saying all along. Your myth is a weak yet insidious fairy tale that belongs in closed groups and 'members only' societies. It has no place being forced into schools, governments or any public body.
Sorry Jensen. I had to edit out the web address you included in the blog. It's the rules--no web addresses. Blessings.
jensencbrock@gmail.com said...
It is people like you that make people hate Christians. How does one "return a bit of fire" in love? If it were even possible to "return fire" in love you failed to do so. You are judgmentally pointing your finger at atheists. you call them "chicken livered" and then challenge them to persecute other religions the same way they persecute us.
You are pouring out hate and judgment on people because the persecute you!? Have you forgotten Matthew 10:23 [When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.] Jesus says WHEN (not IF) you are persecuted. And what about Matthew 24:9 ["Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.]
It maddens me to read your blog. You are just like the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. Do you not understand that you are scaring non-Christians away? Are you unaware of what you are doing? Your actions are not at all what Jesus would have done. I would bet you are door to door evangelist selling Jesus like you are a used car salesman. But the fact of the matter is Jesus is not a something one sells, and He does not will not and it isn't his priority to make us comfortable and happy. Jesus promises the exact opposite as I quoted in Matthew 10:23 & 24:9.
Evangelism is not meant to be non-personal or bitter (like you blog). One must Love people and develop a relationship with them before they will be willing to listen to you talk about Jesus. Jesus doesn't want us to argue with non-Christians nor be bitter. We have the perfect example of how to share the gospel in John 4 (the Samaritan woman at the well). Jesus could have said to her "You are an evil heathen and you need to repent and follow me!" But he doesn't so that he kindly and Lovingly speaks to her.
A group of Christians that are loving Like Jesus is the people at XXXChrurch they are going out to the "tax collectors" and prostitutes of our day. With a lovig message, and because of them many people have left the porn industry and/or kicked their addiction to pornography.
please email me so we can discuss this further.
Jensen
Honestly Ray, I've never even been to a muslim's blog, as far as I know. I don't know anything about the Koran. I only know anything because of fiction books, The Kite Runner, A thousand Splendid Suns, A Long Way gone, etc.
Muslim activisim in american is just not something that shows up a lot in the bloggosphere. None of the presidential candidates are muslim. None of my state representatives are muslim. I only know 2 muslims. One I've talked religion to, and really only muslim in name only. The other is a coworker and a good guy, but he's never brought up religion.
I put muslim blog into google, and some of them might be interesting. I accept your challenge, and I'll read a couple of those blogs and see what I see.
Jensencbrock said... "But the fact of the matter is Jesus is not a something one sells"
For Ray, Jesus very much IS a commodity he sells. I suggest you listen to the radio show and take in some of the advertising therein... It is deceitful, misleading and would be considered fraudulent in my country.
Comfort's raison d'etre is money making. He can't tolerate an atheist point of view because it threatens his livelihood.
<< A group of Christians that are loving Like Jesus is the people at XXXChrurch they are going out to the "tax collectors" and prostitutes of our day. With a lovig message, and because of them many people have left the porn industry and/or kicked their addiction to pornography. please email me so we can discuss this further. Jensen >>
Jensen, apparently you don't know what they do. They are so filthy we won't even have them on our radio program. I am ashamed that they call themselves "Christian." It is so disgusting I will not allow discussion of it, because we have women on this blog.
By the way, Jesus spoke to the woman at the well about the fact that she was in adultery. She had violated the Seventh Commandment. He was confrontational and judgmental . . . just like you were with me in your blog, which is fine with me. Thanks for sharing your heart. May God bless you and yours.
Wow, you do ruffle feathers! I've been going through a study call 'The Truth Project'...it's awesome! It lays out how mind boggling it is to actually try and get a science based mind to explain things like 'where does evil come from' whe they also claim that 'man is all good, the only bad comes from the culture man is around' but it fails to see that man CREATES CULTURE AND THUS CAN'T BE IN inherently good! And if man is not inherently good how did we get worse in that area when evolution says we evolve into something better over time, we dont' get worse...oh...I could go on and on...if we only came from a box and the main thing that will make us better is to not believe we need redemption and to not believe that we are a fallen, sinful person than why is that when man looks inside and thinks of only himself that other people get hurt? isn't that wrong? And if we came from animals, and are on the same basic level as animals, "a pig is a goat is a boy" then why do so many people get upset when someone walks into a school and wipes out a ton of kids with an automatic weapon? If we can kill a chicken to eat it, why can't we kill a group of people that are getting in our way and keepign us from satisfying 'ourselves' which is our main purpose here if we in fact came from a box and have no purpose???? OH, it's so much babble I can't even believe it! It takes more faith to believe we evolved from an ape than it does to be a Christian....ah, do any of these people even know why the first settlers came to AMERICA? TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP GOD! So, I guess the best answer may be for them to leave America and stop holding us back from WORSHIPING OUR GOD AS THE FIRST AMERICANS WERE ABLE TO DO!!!!!!!!!
Sorry Eric. I had to remove the web site address. It's the rules.
Eric said...
Isn't that what your job is supposed to be? Convincing the 'Moslems' that Jesus was in fact the son of God and not just another prophet? How would anything an agnostic posted on a 'Moslem' blog be any less blasphemous than what a Christian posted? Or are you suggesting that Christianity and Islam are compatible?
ps. In your future postings on the Muslim blogs, informing them that accepting Jesus as their savior is the only way to get to Heaven, you might want to refrain from using the word 'Moslem' as some may find it offensive.
Kelli said:
do any of these people even know why the first settlers came to AMERICA? TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP GOD!
Yeah, the "Puritans" came to worship God, in their way. And if you didn't worship God in their way, you were in a lot of trouble. The rest of your post doesn't bear replying to. Unless you want to comment on Mr. Comfort's use of the Darwin quote taken out of context in The Evidence Bible (refer to my previous posts). Thank you.
As for atheists confronting Islam, has anyone here ever heard of Theo van Gogh? Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
kelli why do you need faith to believe in Evolution?
There are mountains of evidence that all corroborate evolution. Evolution is a grand theory which explains many of the details of biology.
Church leaders claim that mythological characters prior to (but similar to) Jesus were put into human history by the devil to confuse people who searched for the truth of the historical Jesus!
Do you think the devil polluted the earth with all this evidence for evolution to pull people away from god?
Comfort, nothing to do with atheism, but I think you need to familiarise yourself with the terminology of 'blogs' and 'blogging' - you maybe confusing some people.
I believe this issue has been flagged previously to you.
Ray, I think they prefer your blog because what they receive in return is our prayers for their salvation unlike Muslims they send you death threats & home made bombs in your mailbox or in your working places specially when you're working in a crowded area & tall buildings.
captian howdy said, "But Ray, Muslims aren't trying to inject their religion into the public school science curricula--you guys are. "
Don't know much about Islam then do you? Do yourself a favour. Read up on "Dar-al-Harb" (House of War) and "Dar-al-Islam" (House of Peace). Fact is, if you haven't 'submitted' to the 'religion of peace' then Muslims are at war with you until you submit. The war may just not be so obvious to you, but it won't end until there is Sharia Law in your neighbourhood.
Sorry dude, I choose the Law of Moses before I choose the Law of Mohammed.
A loving Christian brother just emailed me and said, “Man-o-man. There are some bitter, furious, Christian hatin' bloggers out there... ” etc.
ROFLOL.
TweeOne said...
...And no, I don't believe in Allah, or Jesus, or Fairies, or the Spaghetti Monster (though I must admit to being a Pastafarian for a short time)--and I'll gladly share those views with ANYONE.
January 24, 2008 7:32 PM
Ok... I'll personally put MY money where your mouth is. I will PAY IN FULL for your trip to Iran. (Round trip if necessary) Let me know when you are ready to go.
I'm not joking either go right up to the mosque and start spewing the same things you spout on the web.
Again, contact me when you are ready. I'll pay for the whole adventure....
cdecker - cool, will you and Comfort come along and explain what is going on. I am up for it, if you are.
cdecker....
I'll chip in for TweeOne to fly to Iran. Come on TweeOne, what do you reckon?
I don't believe in allah, Ray. You actually pointed out an interesting thing, religious people act violently in defending their deity. You'd think an omniscient and omnipotent being could be apply able to take care of himself/herself/itself. I don't pick on one deity, I call them all delusional. The Christian Right in this country is the predominant force that is pushing us toward a theocracy, like the Muslim nations. You all may act loving, but your not. Most of you hate homosexuals, detest reason and fight against science. When was the last atheist riot, Ray?
The US is one of the most religious nations and yet it is beleagured by many social ills, while nations that are the least religious such as France, Denmark and Sweden enjoy much lower crime and higher quality of life.
Ray, can you or anyone else name a good and decent act that could be performed by a theist and not an atheist? At the same time can you name an immoral act that could only be performed by a theist, and not an atheist? I can't think of any in the former case, and numerous in the latter.
By the way, Ray, we didn't evolve from chickens, we share a common ancestor when mammals and reptiles split. We are on a separate branch with chickens; though your crude analogy was interesting. I have a challenge for you, why don't you tell Muslims they are deluded....we are both atheists when it comes to Allah, Ray.
Also, all you Christians eating this up....how do you know Ray isn't lying about the "cussing" of "angry atheists"? There is no way for you to know whether this is propoganda or not. How do you know he doesn't have to edit alot of christian's swearing at atheists? Something to ponder.
@capt.howdy:
"But Ray, Muslims aren't trying to inject their religion into the public school science curricula--you guys are. "
They're not?
When was the last time you were in a public school?
There is more 'respect' for Muslims and their religion and their teachings than for Christians.
Students are taught, essentially, that the 'bad' Muslim (extremists) are rare and that most are 'good'.
((This from many friends who are public and private school teachers who are Christians, and cannot talk about their faith to their students, even when presented objectively.))
I think perhaps you do your research selectively. Perhaps you should be demoted to 'Corporal Howdy'.
-L.
Blogger rufustfirefly said...
"As for atheists confronting Islam, has anyone here ever heard of Theo van Gogh? Ayaan Hirsi Ali?"
Yes, she is an extraordinary woman. I've even linked to her site on my blog. Theo Van Gogh died doing what was right IMO. He was murdered by a coward. (I haven't seen their documentary yet.)
For the record, I've had the "pleasure" of debating muslims previously whether traditional, NOI, or what have you. I know of a few muslim blogs but for the most part, those who take on muslims tend to be former muslims (current apostates/atheists by the standard of that religion). At least from what I've seen. Most are civil, a few are dangerous. Whatever the case, I highly recommend it...admittedly, it is not for the timid (then again, engaging some christians is not for the timid, LOL). Different groups have different styles of difficulty, IMO.
"Matt" said:
"If anything Comfort, this post proves once and for all what I have been saying all along. Your myth is a weak yet insidious fairy tale that belongs in closed groups and 'members only' societies. It has no place being forced into schools, governments or any public body."
Matt (and other non-believers on this blog)-
As Ray stated - tell this to a muslim to his face.
I, too, think it is 'chicken' to offer the statements 'well, Christians are the predominate religion'... in the US or otherwise.
Shouldn't the other religions, therefore, be easier to handle, as they're 'smaller' and 'less influential'?
(my words, paraphrasing, not attributing to anyone else here).
We won't give up. Will you?
As with the rich man and Lazarus, my belief is that there is an unfathomable number of eternally lost souls in Hell screaming to you, yet cannot (and will not) be heard.
And Matt... I, for one, am no longer praying for you. Even though I'm sure you felt it would make no difference.
-L.
"Get onto a Muslim website and tell them that you don’t believe their god exists."
I don't suppose you have a "for instance." One can hardly visit a website that one doesn't know about.
More generally, I find that the christians here are keeping themselves just as safe as the non-believers.
@matt:
"cdecker - cool, will you and Comfort come along and explain what is going on. I am up for it, if you are."
Not to speak for Ray, but - why?
You've stated many times you don't believe in what Ray says, don't want his 'help' and through your actions here, probably believe that you (and/or 'TweeOne') can speak and think just fine for yourselves.
Or do you think you'd need a 'crutch' in front of a group which you fear?
-L.
This is a little bit off topic, but I have to say that I was struck by your response to one of the comments:
It is so disgusting I will not allow discussion of it, because we have women on this blog.
Why, yes. We women are delicate flowers who must be protected from any and all mention of sex, which is, of course, inherently disgusting.
Ray,
I love your blogs...they are always an adventure. Case in point. You started by encouraging the atheists to, basically, witness to another non-atheist group aside from Christians. We have taken this ride to you not being a technical person and we have started talking about evolution and how the Christians are poisoning this country. I mean this blog has been a roller coaster of conversation indeed...what a thrill ride.
First off, do not get stuck on the fact that Ray is not a techie. We geeks are a special breed and not everyone can speak our language properly. Ray is an awesome preacher and instrument of God so bear with him on the terminology. His misuse of the term "blogs" does not show he is ignorant as I am sure this was the intent of the comment.
Secondly, evolution. It is just as valid a theory (fact to most atheists) as is Intelligent Design (fact to ALL Christians). Face it folks, there is just not enough minutia in the evidence for evolution to prove it is actually fact. Evolution has the fossil record to prove its existence whereas Intelligent Design has the existence of the fossil record to prove its validity. Just as Christians do with God, you have to push the "I believe" button in your life to give it validity.
It amazes me how the scientific mind works. Its analytical and has a tendency to call any man made theory a fact to believe in until it is proven differently. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (dare I say creationism?) will be a debate that will not be resolved until such time as the day of judgment.
Lastly, the Christianity is poisoning our country thing. Christians need to be "dealt" with? That is just as hateful a reference as any I have ever heard. This is a Democratic Republic and we have a system to run our country. How do you suggest that this country deal with Christians? Remember, stronger and more powerful men have unsuccessfully tried to treat Christians as a group to be "dealt with" such as Julius Caesar (Im guessing that failed).
Face it, if Divine intervention did not exist, Julius Caesar would have eradicated Christians long ago as Hitler would have eradicated the Jews.
It is statements such as this that make me realize that the Christians in this nation need to stand to their feet and take their home back from those who believe that Christians need to be "dealt with" and try to force that issue in trying to restrict freedom of speech, prayer in school and even putting "In God We Trust" on our currency.
Its amazing how the proof of God's existence is evidenced throughout history and everywhere one looks and there are so many who simply refuse to see it.
I'm living in India right now, and this corner of India (Bangalore) has a pretty large Muslim population. I'd say the split is probably 60% Hindu, 30% Muslim, and less than 10% Chirstian. I have daily interaction with Muslim men and women. I've hired several Muslims at work. I chat with random Muslim and Hindu strangers at coffee shops quite often, and they usually eventually ask me what I believe in - I have a tendency to guide converstations towards philosophy :) They almost always assume I'm Christian (I'm white and have what they assume is an American accent), and many of them have never even heard of atheism. I've received many a blank stare when I try to explain that I don't think any god exists. Apparently everyone here follows one religion or another. They often assume I'm a moral abyss and can't be trusted, even though they're perplexed as to how I can convincingly pretend to be so nice and sound so well-educated...
It's actually the Muslims who are the most forgiving. I've had more heated debates with Hindus that Muslims here. Sure, they think I'm an ignorant infidel, but they mostly just shake their head and laugh, the same way they do with the Hindus and Christians. To them, everyone who's not Muslim is just misguided. But they're no more violent than the followers of the other main religions here. I've actually been invited to have dinner with a few Muslim families, especially after they found out I am an atheist. They just want to hear how I could possibly come to such a conclusion since I "don't seem like a bad person." :) I guess non-belief is quite the curiosity here. I've only ever felt threatened by one Muslim here, and that's because I tried to strike up a converstation with a Muslim girl at a coffee shop who didn't have a male chaperone. Apparently, that's quite a dangerous thing to do... not for me, however, but for her. Her brother, who was at the cash register at the time, ran out and started yelling at me, but calmed down after I apologized and claimed ignorance of the custom. We then, the three of us, had coffee on me and they told me about other Muslim customs I should be wary about and I let them know how silly I think that is compared to the way things work back home. It was all perfectly civil and nicely educational. I've met them several times at the same coffee shop and we're on a first name basis and sit together when it's convenient (i.e. the sister isn't alone).
The idea that Islam should be singled out as an especially violent religion is just ridiculous. All of the big religions in the world preach peace, love, and tolerance overall. The western mass media, for obvious reasons, has simply latched on to portraying Islam as a violent religion to help substantiate the war on terror. People are people, no matter where they come from or what they believe in. Most people are good, civil, and friendly. Of course, there's nutcases that subscribe to every belief system (yes, even atheism). But the violent people are always going to be a very small portion of any religion, and they'll always give the vast majority of moderates a bad name. Most people in India that I've spoken with think Christians are more violent than other religions simply because of what dear President Bush has been presiding over during his tenure as a world leader. It's all about perspecitve. This is the other side of the world, and Christianity is a very small minority. Just like how Islam is a very small minority in the States. Each side doesn't have very much personal experience to draw upon, so they form generalized opinions based on events which the mass media deems newsworthy - unerringly always the least flattering aspects of each religion.
So, to sum it up, I'd be willing to bet, even in a country like Iran, if you spoke with random people on the street almost none would get violently inflamed if you wanted to discuss their religion in unflattering terms. They'd just think you're ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about. But I'm pretty sure they'd still want to hear what you have to say, out of curiosity. Most religious people, of all religions, are devoutly moderate. And we can all be thankful for that.
Hugs,
Joel
Please stop posting about Atheists I have never seen one. Since I have never seen one and do not feel their is sufficient evidence for one I choose not to believe in these things you call Atheists.
cdecker,
""...(Round trip if necessary)...""
A one-way ticket will probably be sufficient, due to the nature of tweeone's visit. God Bless.
Well, Mr. Comfort, I think you got us atheists. Because we wouldn't dare tell a muslim that their religion is false. Well actually that's not true, I hear atheists doing it all the time. But I think that you can prove your point about us being chickens by being the brave christian and going to some fundamentalist islamic site yourself and posting your feelings about them, because I am sure, as an evangelical, you have the same desire to convert them as you do us. I am also sure that you feel that they are blasphemers and deluded as well since they don't subscribe to your own fairy-tale reality. Go ahead, you go first. Tell them they are going to hell. Tell them they are liars and fools. If you do this I will follow suit. Just let me know, post the site address and a copy of your post to them on whatever site you choose. Make sure it is fundamentalist site though, because progressive muslims, like progressive christians (unlike you) probably wouldn't get that upset.
Ray....could UFO sightings be the signs in the sky The Bible talks about regarding the last days?
Actually Sam Harris, for example, sends a lot of venom Islam's way in "The End of Faith". Most American atheists, however, are primarily concerned with certain fundamentalist Christian attacks on science education and Constitutionally mandated freedoms of conscience. Muslims, by not at this time constituting a significant voting constituency in the U.S., therefore don't get quite the attention.
But yeah, they're still whackjobs. :-)
to joel,
your in a country that i long to visit one day, God willing.
i'm probably not as smart or as educated as you but, i do want to share a wonderful testimony by a muslim who converted to christianity. i read his book, "unveiling islam" because i needed to personally prepare myself to talk with a muslim co-worker. i now find our converstions very interesting.
anyway, i would like to share the name of muslim who converts to christianity on "youtube". his name dr. ergan caner.
i like that your reasonable in your answers here on ray's blog. yet, i hope that you will keep an open mind to dr. caner's convertion testimony.
no agenda here, just a wonderful resource.
Joel -
It's nice that you had a good time with the Muslims you met.
You said :
" I let them know how silly I think that is compared to the way things work back home."
You let them know it was silly? Did you tell them that they were ignorant, and that their [G/g]od was a fairy tale, and that you thought they were deluded?
This is what we Christians get sometimes... especially on these blog posts/forums.
I would love to share a cup of coffee with you as well - my treat. I'd tell you some of our customs. And I wouldn't even yell at you for sitting with my sister (although her husband may).
Depending on how old you are (you seem to be mid- to late-20's), I may even introduce you to one of my daughters who are around your age.
We believers want to be kind and loving as well, and strive to do this in our everyday lives. However, perhaps some of us (myself included) have run out of 'cheeks' to turn, and have decided to take a stand - not for ourselves, but for our God.
-L.
Hi Ray,
As mentioned before, the reason why atheists aren't posting on blogs of most other religions is because its not so much the religion we have an issue with. You can believe and worship what ever you like. I respect that and encourage people to enjoy the freedoms we have in this country. The problem most of us have is when people spreading misconceptions and misinformation through their religion. Also we have an issue with those who try to promote the idea of religion and government. Certain parts of Christian religions are currently the only one doing this at a volume that really concerns us. It only appropriate that we speak up to protect the separation of church and state or call attention to incorrect claims and information being shared.
When I see this being done by a person that people consider an authority figure, it is even more important that I stir up a discussion. I never really expect to change any persons mind. I only hope to at least get them to think and understand a conflicting point of view and validate that they made their conclusions on accurate information instead of the baloney I see circulated certain religious sects of America.
Try as you might Ray, but you don't get under our skin, you only inspire us to speak my mind.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
I would just like to point out that I am an active member of an internet group called "All Hail Muhammad the teddy bear!" and I dismiss the stupid Muslims who claim that evolution is only a theory, and shout at us for "dressing our women like whores".
I'm not the one that believe that someone stayed in a cave and then was taken by a magical flying horse up to heaven to talk to an angel, and then magically got some scriptures - after all.
Which makes me wonder, who came first, the chicken or the athiest.
Or, why did the chicken...err...athiest cross the road? Likely to get to the abortion clinic.
If abortion is a violation of the "rightful ownership over their own bodies" then how does that right transcend placenta, into the baby's life and "rightful ownership." Technically, the aborter is violating the "rightful ownership" of the baby. If I swallow drugs inside balloons, can I refuse passing them while in police custody due to "rightful ownership over my own body"? Doubtful. When can the abortion discussion include the baby's rights?
tweeone said:
I believe that abortion should be legal, and I believe that very strongly, probably as strongly as you believe it should not…
…we understand that the life that we have on this earth is the ONLY life that there is.
There you go folks, the consistency of atheism! Life is valuable, unless of course it is defenseless, then go ahead and kill it.
I am an ex-Athiest. I came to my senses at 29 having studied astrophysics, biogenesis and philosophy in the hope I would prove there was no God. Guess what, I failed!, I couldn't find the first cause of matter, and neither can science.
Now I'm 46 and have been an evangelist / pastor in 17 countries, most of them Islamic. I'm living in Europe, and let me tell you Islam is no background noise here, what has been happening in Africa Will happen in Europe and then America. Yes I have met some reasonable and nice Muslims, discussed the Bible with them, won a few converts and made a few enemies. I discuss with respectfully, but tell them the truth in love no matter what the cost to myself.
It's interesting though, in street preaching etc, I have come under fire and been physically attacked not by Muslims, but by Atheists, Pagans and devout Catholics!. Muslims will respectfully wait until you are finished talking and then want to talk with you. I have only once been threatened with a knife by a Muslim brother, because my wife and I discussed Christianity with his sister and her Catholic friend. On the other hand, in Ireland (which is allegedly christian!) I have been attacked physically, stabbed, set on fire, shot at, urinated on and had many bottles thrown at me by atheists and Roman Catholics (who have no time for the Bible or anything Christian!).
What I'm driving at Ray is, don't ask the Atheists to go up to Muslims and call their god a fairytale, get them to go to Ireland and try shouting their Atheist taunts and slogans at Roman Catholics or Pagans & New Agers (of which there are plenty) and see where that gets them. They'd have more chance surviving in Iraq than Dublin!.
@joel
They often assume I'm a moral abyss and can't be trusted
Why trust someone who has no ultimate reason to behave morally?
The idea that Islam should be singled out as an especially violent religion is just ridiculous. All of the big religions in the world preach peace, love, and tolerance overall.
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (Sura 9:5)
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Sura 9:73)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (Sura 8:39)
"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (Sura 8:65)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Sura 9:29)
Hi Ray,
I know there's alot of post of this topic.
I just wanted to say that here in Australia, we are still keeping you in our prayers.
Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (NIV).
Be strong in the Lord.
I thank God for the work He does through you and all of the guys at WOTM.
God bless.
ybic, Michael :)
@Matthew Wooler
Thank you for responding to my question but I think you misunderstood (or I didn't ask it correctly) my second question. I wasn't asking wether you think heaven or hell exists or not, rather I was asking which is MORE cruel, having the option of heaven/hell or having no choice (no matter how you lived) but to be annihilated?
This isn't directed at wooler specifically but athiests (who post in blogs) in general. I find it convenient that when we're having a general discussion about the God of Abraham, He is "cruel" "evil" and I've even heard "megalomaniac", but when we discuss God personally to an athiest and how He would effect that individual's life, suddenly He doesn't exist.
@ Ray Comfort
I just recently watched that debate you and Kirk did on ABC Nightline with the "Rational Response Squad" (even though it was almost a year ago). The responses to this post reminded me of how vehement and vile Kelly (I like how it's just "Kelly", kinda like "Madonna" or "Cher") would respond to you two. At least Brian Sapient was intelligent and controlled but Kelly, jeez, talk about being SO angry at something that supposedly doesn't exist. Oh, and that woman that asked you the cancer question! Hilarious, and sad at the same time. It's amazing how sin can corrupt the mind.
Hi, I would like to comment on a comment from Charles. First of all, thank you for being kind. You said
"I certainly understand the point of view that if Jesus really is the only path to salvation, then it must absolutely follow that believing this and promoting that word to others is the most important thing that anyone can do in this life. I believe that most atheists understand this, at least those atheists who have come to their worldview from reason and experience rather than childish rebellion. However, many people, atheists among them, do not believe the Christian faith and Christian beliefs to be true."
Yes, you are correct. It is the most important thing we can do. What kind of person would I be if I truly thought ( and I do ) someone was going to suffer in Hell for all of eternity and I did nothing about it? Wouldn't you THEN question my beliefs? Just because you don't believe in something isn't going to change reality. If I don't believe in the law of gravity and I step off a building I'm going to plumit to my death because I've transgressed that law and my unbelief won't make a difference. Logically speaking, either I'm right, or I'm not. You can't have it both ways. If you're right what's the worst that's going to happen to me? Nothing. I just die. If I'm right, what's the worst that will happen to you? Because you've broken God's Law and because He is a perfect and just Judge He must carry out perfect justice. That should cause you concern. That should cause you to pause. I only say that because even though I don't know you I have enough love and concern for you to want you to be spared from that. Please think about it.
Ray! Awesome post! I think you definitely wrote what so many of us are thinking.
I, too, am so thankful for you and your ministry. I took the WOTM course at church and it was amazing. I have a lot of your books and have grown so much in my faith. Thank you for being faithful to the call God placed on your life.
It's too bad that these Atheists don't realize that they could post comments on here until the end of time and could not shake the foundation we stand on one bit. They truly waste a lot of their time (and ours) on something they don't believe.
Bigfoot... "I am an ex-Athiest. I came to my senses at 29 having studied astrophysics, biogenesis and philosophy in the hope I would prove there was no God. Guess what, I failed!"
You tried to prove something does not exist? There is your problem... I lost interest in your post at that point - once you said that, everything else became moot.
@Cypress Christian (edited)
"@Matthew Wooler
Thank you for responding to my question... ...I was asking which is MORE cruel, having the option of heaven/hell or having no choice but to be annihilated?
I find it convenient that when we're having a general discussion about the God of Abraham, He is "cruel"... ...when we discuss God personally to an athiest... ...suddenly He doesn't exist."
Hei, I edited down your response just for brevity, I don't think we lost any content per se.
1) It is hard to answer, because it is a false dilemma. The option does not exist.
Even if I were to try to imagine that it did, there is so much more I would need to know before I could answer - so much more context. What are the criteria for going to either place? What is the exact nature of either place? How do I exist in either place. None of this is defined and so I really can't answer.
Outline a clear hypothesis and I will try again.
2) There are two forms of argument you will get from an atheist. One will be "God does not exist" - and that is very straight forward...
The other argument is to appeal to the believers notion of god and get him to examine the premise and recognise it's flaws.
Obviously an atheist can use both arguments A and B with a believer, a believer can only use argument A with an atheist - the question of existence.
I appreciate your comments and questions. One of the reasons I get so frustrated is because more often than not on this blog, arguments will be treated in the "name, chapter, verse" style - with no reference to personal opinion. It is almost as if christianity demands the believer to become part of a hive mind.
In expressing you thoughts you have encouraged me and made it feel worthwhile coming here, because NOW, AT LAST, I am getting a debate and not a wall built of bibles.
the pari family said:
"Ray said, "why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Moslems what you keep shouting at Christians?"
They, the atheists of whom you speak, don't have the courage because their father is the father of lies..."
But you and Ray have no such difficulty, of course. So when can we expect you, Ray, and the other believers here to start doing some street preaching in Mecca? Remember the great commission! Let's see you go up to Muslims in Baghdad and call them religious hypocrites, liars and murderers the way you refer to atheists! It should be easy--after all, your God is real, remember? I'm sure the false god Allah is no match for the One True God(@).
To crunchymom3:
Thank you for your kind thoughts and gracious response. I respect your Christian faith, and it sounds like you live it in a true spirit of lovingkindness. I'm also familiar with Pascal's wager, which you referred to in your comment: one might as well believe in the Gospel, since if you're right, you avoid Hell, and if you're wrong, all that happens is that you die. If there were ever an argument for Christian belief that truly appealed to reason, this would be it.
I spent years as a Christian and many times made the profession of faith, asking for Jesus to come into my heart. And do you know what happened? Nothing. Not a thing. And it wasn't for lack of faith and it wasn't for lack of trying.
Furthermore, everything that I know points to a universe in which God is at very best completely hidden, in which case He/She/It might as well not be there at all. There are far, far too many factual and logical inconsistencies in the Bible for me to accept it as literally true. There is nothing I see or know that leads me to believe that the Christian god exists. For me to take Pascal's wager, and try to believe as a Christian just on the off chance that I might be wrong would be dishonest. I can't say that I believe something if I really don't. I don't believe that an all-knowing God would be so easily fooled or so easily bribed, anyway. Nor would I have any regard for a God that would accept such lip service. I have to have the integrity to stand by what I know, the best that I know it.
Carl Sagan once said something really beautiful, which has always stuck with me. "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by conventional faiths.” (My emphasis.)
I don't need to believe in God to find this world a constant source of wonder and amazement, worthy of respect and care. Nor do I need to believe that my morals and ethics need to be imposed from without to have meaning. For me, in fact, it's a stronger morality that tells us to behave with grace, honor and lovingkindness in the world, without having to rely on some divine judge to make the rules and approve or condemn our actions. Our lives are all the more precious because they are so fleeting.
I hope this helps explain a bit more about how I, and others like me, come to our understanding of life and how to live it honestly, ethically and thoughtfully. As, I’m sure, you do as well.
@atomicchimp
Also we have an issue with those who try to promote the idea of religion and government. Certain parts of Christian religions are currently the only one doing this at a volume that really concerns us. It only appropriate that we speak up to protect the separation of church and state or call attention to incorrect claims and information being shared.
Speaking of incorrect claims, the ‘separation of church and state’ was institued to protect the church from government intervention, not to keep politicians from expressing their religious views. Neutrality is a myth, the claim that God is not necessary for logic, science, or morality, is just as ‘religious’ as the claim that He is. If you doubt this, just think of your reaction to that very statement.
Cheers,
Sye
I doubt my comment will get posted, because we all know who the real chickens are. It's people who feel they have to protect fragile beliefs from people who disagree. Know who i'm talking about, ray?
Obviously you aren't talking from experience ray because if you were you wouldn't have mad such a fatuous comment as "you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Muslims what you keep shouting at Christians".
If you knew anything about sam harris you would know that he believes Islam is far more dangerous and fundamentalist than you soppy little christians, And he says so.
if you knew anything about Ayaan Hirsi Ali you would know that she requires constant protection for the very criticisms that you deemed her too cowardly whisper. she didn't whisper it ray, She shouted it and it may potentially cost her her life.
If you knew anything about Pat condell you would know the amount of disdain he has for islam and how NOT afraid he is to say it.
I could go on, practically every Atheist blogger has an extensive list of posts under the tag "islam". Go to my blog, See what i have to say about islam. Then perhaps retract you unfounded claim.
the fact is ray, as much as you may wish it were untrue, Atheists don't single out christianity. We believe all religions are as unfounded and ridiculous as the next. I suspect the reason it may appear that we single out christianity is because those are the only posts you pay attention to. Don't blame us for your ego.
Hello Ray,
I just wanted to first say thank you and the rest of the way of the master crew for finding the forgotten key that we as christians have lost for almost a century. It is because of you and your ministry that I am not only still alive today but am re-born in Christ. I have been sharing my faith with my co-workers, family and friends and just about everyone whom I have had the oppurtunity to share with by the grace of God. I just wanted to say something to all the atheists out there. You can try as you might to dis-proove God's existence but your only going to end up with is a big head-ache from thinking too much and a big tooth-ache from speaking too much. Just loose the precepositions and unclinch your fists. you can't make God disappear so stop trying, He on the other hand can make you disappear.
Ray made an excellent point that atheists only seem to attack christians but never seem to go against other religions. Perhaps it's because they were actually False converts who were led to believe that Modern Twisted Gospel that is really the poison in our country today that one person mentioned in his blog above. I can tell you this real Christians don't preach Christ saves with a hoover vac over your wallet and real Christians don't charge tax and shipping costs on God's gift of everlasting life.
Real Christians are out there making a difference in the world and are doing it quietly. We are fighting for truth and justice the very things things that founded this Great Country.
One thing I can't understand is why anyone especially women would want to have abortion. Men don't have the ability to have children so I can see why they would be insensitive to do such a thing but how can a woman want abortion. You have the greatest gift that anyone could ever receive the ability to feel a new life forming inside of you and bringing it into this world. Some women unfortunatly get raped and get pregnant because of that but that doesn't mean a child has to die because of it. If they don't want the child why can't they put it up for adoption so that those who are not able to have kids could love it and raise it.
Ray I hope one day God will one day raise up more laborers for christ and use them to bring about revival. Until then I will continue to do my part seeking and saving the lost in my area.
P.S. I hope you guys will have Transformed in NY someday.
@Sye Tenb:
Why trust someone who has no ultimate reason to behave morally?
Why trust someone who behaves morally only because he expects to get something out of it? Why trust someone whose sole guide to so-called "moral" conduct contains wildly inconsistent mandates, many of them condoning murder, rape, war, and slavery?
(Incidentally, there seem to be two Lauras commenting on this blog; I am the atheist one, not to be confused with the one who apparently thinks that Ray is doing something praiseworthy and socially valuable.)
To all the atheists: What would it take to convince you that God did exist? What would you accept as evidence?
(I asked this before, and I think a couple people answered, but then it got buried under a bunch of other posts)
I suggest that atheists don't go to Muslim blogs and bash on Muhammad not because they are chickens but because they are not threatened at all by a false god. Why rebel against something that is not true? They know it!
To all the atheists: What would it take to convince you that God did exist? What would you accept as evidence?
I really like animals, so I'm going to go ahead and request Balaam's miracle. I don't actually own a donkey, but I do have a dog, and while I certainly don't beat her with a stick, I do shoo her off the couch. If my dog were to turn to me right now and reproach me for not letting her sit on the furniture, then I would seriously reconsider my atheism.
Heck, it doesn't even have to be a talking dog. If one of my houseplants goes up in a pillar of flame and starts speaking to me, or if the block of tofu in my fridge lasts for a few thousand meals, or my goldfish literally coughs up this month's rent . . . then I will cheerfully dedicate my life to preaching on the streetcorners. Until then, though, I refuse to take this "God" fellow any more seriously than Santa Claus or Superman.
Adam and Hayley said:
Adam and Hayley said...
To all the atheists: What would it take to convince you that God did exist? What would you accept as evidence?
(I asked this before, and I think a couple people answered, but then it got buried under a bunch of other posts)
January 26, 2008 11:46 AM
Well, a personal, subjective experience might convince me, but I wouldn't expect it to convince anyone else. A spontaneously, miraculously healed amputee would do the trick. Some little kid who lost its legs to a land mine suddenly having its legs back...that would be amazing.
@laura (the one who says she's an atheist)
Why trust someone who behaves morally only because he expects to get something out of it?
Beats me, I wouldn’t.
Why trust someone whose sole guide to so-called "moral" conduct contains wildly inconsistent mandates, many of them condoning murder, rape, war, and slavery?
Beats me, I wouldn’t.
Cheers,
Sye
@Sye:
So, I take it you haven't actually
read this "Bible" thing of yours, then? Either that, or it's not your sole guide to moral conduct - in which case, we're glad to have you in the land of the functionally sane; I'm sorry I've been giving you a hard time.
(Links are apparently unwelcome here, but if you google "Donald Morgan," you should find a rather comprehensive list of Biblical inconsistencies and atrocities.)
To all the atheists: What would it take to convince you that God did exist? What would you accept as evidence?
Have him appear and actually talk to us. You say you're in contact with an intelligence. Produce him. Where everybody around can see and hear him. We are visual & verbal creatures. If he wants a relationship with us, that's the best way to do it.
The Bible says that God can't do that because we'd all be blinded. Another poster said something about God should be able to find the dimmer switch if he chose to, which I found amusing. My own take on this issue is that the simplest explanation that accounts for all observations is usually the best explanation. In this case, the better explanation is that God doesn't show not because his pride is injured, but because he isn't there.
Still, I'll offer an alternative route. Get a group together from your church for a prayer circle. Pray like crazy for the recipe for a cure for AIDS within say, a week. [Throw in that the vaccine will have a 100% success rate unless you got sick by indulging yourself in vice, just for a nice twist. In that case it completely fails.]
Tell you what. Just to show you the swell kind of guy I am, any proceeds from this glorious new antiviral you can split with the Big Guy. I won't ask for a cent even tho I thought of it.
@laura
So, I take it you haven't actually
read this "Bible" thing of yours, then? Either that, or it's not your sole guide to moral conduct - in which case, we're glad to have you in the land of the functionally sane; I'm sorry I've been giving you a hard time.
Oh, the Word of God is my ultimate authority alright, but it is in gratitude for what was done for me that I try to behave morally, not for rewards. Christ died for me, a wretched sinner, that I might have life, and live it abundantly, that’s already been taken care of, I try to live in thankfullness for that blessed gift.
(Links are apparently unwelcome here, but if you google "Donald Morgan," you should find a rather comprehensive list of Biblical inconsistencies and atrocities.)
Laura, I’m a presuppositionalist. I presuppose the goodness and mercy of God, and His word is in accord with those characteristics. Only when one presupposes that God is not who He says He is, does one misinterpret His word.
As far as “Biblical inconsistencies” go, I view the Bible as the inspired, infallible, Word of God, and trust that there is reconcilliation to any apparent inconsistency, while you, who do not believe the Bible to be true, will attempt to interpret the Bible subject to your presupposition. The question is, who can account for the logic either of us use to even examine the Bible? The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are accounted for in the nature of God. How do you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
This is a response to Charles response to my comment.LOL!
Hi! Thanks for responding. This is fun. I first have to say that I've never heard of Pascal or his wager.lol. What I said came truly from my heart. I have to say I'm a little confused when people say that they're Atheists. Aren't atheists certain there is no God? I mean I can understand not knowing or not being sure. I believe Agnostics are truthful in admitting that they just don't know. But how can you be SURE that there is no God? I would like your thoughts on this passage that I recently read.
"Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).
Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.
Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?"
I did not write this but I couldn't have said it better. It just seems to make so much sense, logically speaking. Anyway, I'd be very interested in your thoughts. Thanks :)
-crunchymom3
So, God has to appear, and do miracles for you to believe.
That sounds familiar.
To all the atheists: What would it take to convince you that God did exist? What would you accept as evidence?
Well, the problem here is that God doesn't do tricks to impress skeptics. He "works in mysterious ways." He manipulates the world in order to accomplish His desired results without breaking the rules. No reason is given for the change of heart, as His Word is full of instances of committing Himself to flagrantly obvious events that, while they wouldn't be concrete proof He existed, would certainly lend credence to the idea. The fact, though, is that it would be exceptionally difficult to prove that the god who reveals himself is actually God revealing Himself.
There are many different aspects to this game, and they don't overlap in a helpful way. In order to convince me that God exists and that the Bible is God's inerrant word, the following would have to occur:
1) I would have to accept a supernatural origin for the universe. That I don't is the primary reason I remain solidly an atheist. If I could be convinced of this, this doesn't really prove God's existence, it only makes it one of many possibilities. "When you understand why you don't believe in Thor..." and so forth. Still, it's a first step, and in order to convince me of this, I would basically need testable, repeatable evidence that something supernatural exists. It doesn't even have to be an angel or a stigmata or anything thematically Judeo-Christian in nature -- all I need is to see something that violates the laws of nature without redefining them; for example, a device that defies gravity but lacks a mechanism for countering it.
2) Once I've accepted the supernatural, then it's time to spin the roulette wheel. Christians love to argue that their faith is so consistent with reality while others are obviously false, but there are enough big claims in the Bible that are contrary to what has been learned about existence that I feel confident saying that this is not the case. If the Bible is literally true, then either everyone's five senses are incapable of communicating an accurate representation of reality to the brain or God deliberately designed the universe to look like everything happened exactly the way science claims it did; Big Bang --> abiogenesis (of some sort) --> evolution. Even if the moderate Christians who believe Genesis is a parable are right, and God kickstarted the Big Bang and guided evolution to produce humans, that one truth remains the same because we can't observe God.
That said, now that I've accepted the supernatural origin, the believability of one creation myth over another is utterly meaningless. Even if "God created everything in six days and Woman was made from one of Man's ribs" is more plausible than the Elohim terraforming Earth with nanobots, what does it matter? Believability is based on plausibility, and the supernatural is by definition impossible, much less implausible. That means another method must be devised. I suppose God revealing Himself to be Himself would be a start, but I'm not sure how exactly one would go about that, and even granting that an omnipotent being could probably find a way, not all deities are as unfailingly honest as God, and it could just as easily be a less trustworthy superbeing. So for this second point, I'm going to trust that God would know how to accomplish this if He existed.
Of course, there's a third problem of God convincing me that He and His Son are being/s worthy of worship, which is something I haven't believed since I first read the Bible.
Actually, there is one thing I could think of that would confirm it pretty well, and it would at least narrow the field down to only a handful of gods (no more than ten, at most): if babies never died. Death is, after all, the wage of sin, and I'm told babies are innocent. Shouldn't humans have an immunity to death until our first sin? As it is, infants die all the time from complications unrelated to free will, and the death of an infant does nothing but cause bottomless pain, and not that good kind of pain that builds character, either.
One last thing, regarding the OT: Those violent Muslim extremists tend not to allow comments on their blogs.
"There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
Hi Cruchymum? I know what you're trying to say; I've heard it before, but you'd have to say the same for bigfoot and Nessie, and leprechauns, and three headed bunyips, or Cloverfield monsters. With your argument there are absolutely no absolutes and therefore the craziest notions are credible.
"There is no toothfairy," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no toothfairy in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
However, I'm one hundred percent sure and absolutely confident that there is no invisible winged tinkerbell swapping my children's baby teeth for cash.
@crunchmom3
(Disclaimer: this ended up being a lot longer than I'd expected, so thank you in advance if you take the time to read it all)
I realize your question wasn't necessarily directed to me but I'd appreciate it if you would indulge me with a chance to respond to your question regardless.
As I understand it, you're asking how atheists can be sure there is no god.
You're right. We can't. You're very correct in stating that it is inherently impossible to be absolutely sure there is no god or gods or any other superhuman intelligence behind life, the universe, and everything. But here's the rub: it's equally inherently impossible to be sure that god does exist. That is, unless you know everything. And even Christians will be quick to admit that they do not know everything (apparently because only god knows everything). I am not arrogant enough to even attempt to say I am 100% positive there is no god. It would be folly to do so. But, as your, mine, and the quoted author's logic shows, it would be equally arrogant and wrong to say that you're 100% sure that god does exist. Because none of us knows everything. And even saying that god has personally informed us of his presence presents the same problem, for unless we know everything we're completely incapable of verifying beyond doubt whether what god says is true, if it was actually god saying it, or even if such a thing was ever said at all. Even if you attribute god the ability to get around this logical problem, that in itself begs the same question all over again. How can you be sure that god is able to prove that he exists in such a way that we could be certain of it without our having perfect knowledge of which to be certain of that presupposition? And how can you be certain of the answer to that question? And the answer to that question? And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Thing is, you can't be certain of anything even with a god whispering the answers in your ear unless you already knew the answer yourself. There is no logic that exists which can properly defend such a position. The same as there's no logic to defend an assertion that god does not exist.
In order to truly be 100% sure that god exists, we would have to be gods ourselves and know everything. And if we're gods ourselves, what do we need with another god? If we're gods ourselves, does the word god even have meaning any more? So, if you claim that you are sure that god exists, you must be a god yourself. And by doing so, you insinuate that a supernatural god does not exist, or at least is not, in fact, supernatural but just natural in the same way that we are. It all seems terribly futile, doesn't it? So, I can't say that god does not exist, and you can't say that he does - using your own logic.
So, where does that leave us? With probabilities, of course. I had a statistics prof in college who told me that one day I would realize that all the answers were actually only probabilities. At the time, I didn't believe him, to my obvious chagrin. Well, now I see the wisdom in that. I have taken the non-absolute stance that, based on the less than 1% of 1% of 1% knowledge of the universe I currently enjoy, god is astoundingly improbable. Not impossible, for I have no authority to state such an absolute, but simply so unlikely that it warrants no more credence than imaginative creatures such as unicorns or fairies or the Norse thunder gods deserve. Of course, the whole of human imaginings is altogether possible, in varying degrees, due to our inability to disprove them explicitly (which would, again, require 100% knowledge). But, I find it curious that both of us share an unwillingness to give such obvious fantasies pause for consideration since we've never experienced them ourselves and have nothing to base a belief of them upon. Yet the even more fantastic idea of the all-powerful-and-all-knowing-matter-less-being-that-exists-outside-the-universe-and-created-what-needs-a-creator-without-needing-a-creator-himself Christian god has stirred your convictions to the point where you're willing to defend the continued proliferation of the wild idea as 100% verified fact. Come on. Seriously?
Faith in fairies and unicorns and countless other mythological creatures is laughably pointless since we cannot prove nor disprove them and their very existence would outright contradict much of what's considered established fact (as far as such things can be considered facts). I would personally like it if unicorns and fairies did exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that they do. Doesn't god fall in with the same criteria? Do you actually claim to know that god exists? I doubt you can claim such a thing, if you're honest with yourself (and me, for that matter). More likely, you believe because the very possibility of god existing and the torments which supposedly await all of us who do not choose to believe are enough to elicit a bet-hedging reaction, similar to Pascal's wager. Trouble is, this type of belief is dishonest and the god from your Bible will likely see right through it. I think that if I'm going to hell for outright disbelieving, all Christians are going to hell for convincing themselves they believe because they desperately want to but nonetheless suffering nagging doubts in the back of their minds due to the fact that they cannot know with 100% certainty that god does truly exist. You can't truly believe if you have doubts, can you? Since the Bible seems to suggest that belief is a black and white dichotomy, having any doubt whatsoever would relegate you to the same fate as me, wouldn't it? Luckily, my belief system has no punishment for doubting what I believe, rather, it actually encourages it. I sleep surprisingly soundly as a result.
I find it completely more useful to limit my beliefs to things which are highly probable - or at the very least, more probable than not. Those probable things are the experiences which I can confidently assume all other life, or at least humans, also experience on a continual basis (assuming time exists, of course) and of which we're all quite used to relating to each other with startling precision. I assume gravity is highly probable because the idea of it neatly explains what I think I see happening around me and I think I feel happening to what I assume is my body without suffering from any unexplained contradictions from the other things I also think I experience. I can even explain my experience of gravity to someone else, and they'll almost always agree with my assertion since our two experiences are so similar. And the best part is, I can predict with great consistency what will happen to things when I drop them and witness the results for myself.
I can do none of those things with god, or hell, or the afterlife, miracles in the Bible (or any other holy book), or anything else which might point to a supernatural presence either within or without the universe. And until I can, it strikes me as pointless to worry myself over something which most likely does not exist. The same way I do not worry myself over the possibility of being struck dead by a rogue meteor or skewered by rabid unicorns on my way to work each morning. Such things are folly - or at least are highly probable to be folly.
I'll wait for the probability that god exists to hit about 51% before I start worrying myself about it. Because, I agree, if god does exist, that's a pretty big deal and warrants a great deal of my attention. However, god's probability, by my current rough estimation, is somewhere between 0% and 10% based on the information I've gathered thus far. And that says nothing about which god that 0-10% is likely to turn out to be, of any contrived thus far. Also, the trend, at least from my learning, is that the probability is getting smaller, not bigger. Anyway, if I'm just too stupid to interpret the evidence correctly, my money would still be on a god who just made the universe then went away to play with something else without a backwards glance. The personal god who cares about humanity's trifling worries such as that of the Judeo-Christian persuasion seems more much more unlikely. Why would he create such an unfathomably large universe if our tiny speck upon a tiny speck of a planet and its unimpressive self-aware fleshy inhabitants were the whole point of it? That's akin to me creating a planet-sized petrie dish to dawdle with the number of bacteria in a drop of water. Not too pragmatic, especially if I'm as clever as god's supposed to be.
Whoa. Long rant. Sorry about the length. Thanks for reading. Maybe this will help explain why it's highly unlikely that I'll ever be "saved" and why I think your beliefs are most likely misguided and do not warrant the amount of time/effort you direct to their maintenance.
Hugs,
Joel
Adam and Hayley said...
So, God has to appear, and do miracles for you to believe.
That sounds familiar.
What sounds familiar to me is that I hear Christians talk about "miracles" all the time, that they prove God exists (their God) and that Jesus is real. But I can't ask for the same? What makes Thomas so special?
Another thing about miracles proving to Christians that God exists and Jesus is real; what is it when A Muslim or Mormon or whoever talks about miracles they've experienced and how they prove their God exists, their beliefs are true?
Mike: I like your post except for one thing; Christians will say that babies aren't innocent because of Original Sin. Doesn't seem fair to me, but that's me. Apparently, only "unborn" babies are innocent. Once it's out of the womb it's in for a world of hurt. But then a lot of Christians will say that suffering is a good thing, that it makes sense. It's for God's glory, to bring us to him. Mother Teresa told those people in India that their suffering was a gift from God, a blessing, and they should be happy about it. If they say so. Whatever gets them through the night.
@Sye:
Laura, I’m a presuppositionalist. I presuppose the goodness and mercy of God, and His word is in accord with those characteristics. . . As far as “Biblical inconsistencies” go, I view the Bible as the inspired, infallible, Word of God, and trust that there is reconciliation to any apparent inconsistency . . .
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but it looks to me like you're saying that what's in the Bible doesn't really matter to you. You have, in your own words, a "presupposed" notion of God, and when the Bible appears to contradict either itself or your presuppositions, you quickly look the other way and say "But that's not what it really means."
I didn't approach the Bible with any particular atheist presuppositions. In fact, I identified as a Christian the first couple of times I read it. However, whatever presuppositions I had about the goodness and mercy of God went unsupported by both the Bible and, to an even greater extent, the real world.
Maybe you can believe in a good and merciful God even after you read about Him slaughtering all the first-born sons of an entire nation. Maybe you can even still believe in a good and merciful God after you visit a pediatric cancer ward (or do any of a thousand other things to make yourself immediately aware of terrible and senseless human suffering). But I can't, and I take this to be a mark of my fundamental sanity; at a certain point, faith begins to look an awful lot like willful self delusion.
Sye TenB Said:
"Speaking of incorrect claims, the ‘separation of church and state’ was institued to protect the church from government intervention, not to keep politicians from expressing their religious views."
I never said I had a problem with any person expressing their religious views or ideals. The issue is when people try to use the government to promote and implement them. That is often what I see happening. Trying to promote ID or creationism in public school systems is an example thats been in the new lately, but not the only active issue. The reason people left England and we have the separation of church & state, was because England's government and the catholic church were entangled. Due to the tyranny experienced and rights withheld under these conditions our founding fathers set out to prevent this happening again .
My concern with people promoting the entanglement of religion and state is to protect many things including your right and a politicians right to voice their personal religious or non-religious views.
"Neutrality is a myth, the claim that God is not necessary for logic, science, or morality, is just as ‘religious’ as the claim that He is."
Please show evidence or citation to support your assertion.
"If you doubt this, just think of your reaction to that very statement."
How ever I do or don't react does not validate your statement.
Word Is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
I find that atheism is a completely unreasonable position. Those who are atheists are simply pretending that God does not exist. They may even have faith in the lie that God does not exist. God exists. It is a fact that can't be denied. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God has given tremendous evidence of His existence and will hold us accountable for what we have done in our lives. You, yourself, are proof that you are Created and that your Creator exists. You are created and designed. If an atheist will be reasonable then he will find that God indeed exists. I will challenge the atheist to commit to love the truth. Commit yourself to believe and know truth. Whatever the truth is...believe it.
The hearing ear and the seeing eye the Lord has made them both.
Joel said..."I have taken the non-absolute stance that, based on the less than 1% of 1% of 1% knowledge of the universe I currently enjoy, god is astoundingly improbable." Hi joel, I would like to take a stab at some answers here. I seem to sense that you feel the most noble stance is one of skepticism, because we cant be 100% sure, and I, to a point, agree that we cannot be 100% sure via arguments and reasoning. However to say that God is astoundingly improbable is to ignore the tremendous pile of complex highly organized matter present, in spite of entropy working to disorganize said matter. No god = Consciousness emerging from dead chemicals. How does that work, and how has that been demonstrated to be the case? Further, the DNA sequence for a "simple" single celled organism needs to be in a precise order, and the info(A T C G, the 4 nitrogen bases) strung out into book form would fill 1000 Encyclopedia Brittanicas, but this precise stream of info was supposedly organized by chance and time? What chemical process organizes matter to this extreme level, and further does so in a protected environment to preserve this freak chance occurance from the elements? Is time and chance really the most reasonable answer? Afterall, which of these would you trust more- two pages of info are spit out of a printer-one was written by a person, the other was produced by a random letter generator...which would be more likely to be intelligible? If a person is honest here, the most reasonable answer is the page spit out by an intelligence, in this case a person. Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that intelligence is more likely to organize given material in a productive way than a random process, then it is in fact reasonable to believe an intelligence created us- a highly complex organism. It is unreasonable to not allow that option to be on the table of possibilities...however naturalistic science no longer allows it due to a philosophical rejection of God.
you also said.. "it strikes me as pointless to worry myself over something which most likely does not exist." Then I am sure you do not fear an honest exploration of what we consider facts, but it sounds like your philosophy will only allow you to accept a certain type of fact to be knowledge. I would ask you to be skeptical of skepticism, and if you are not, why, and how can you be sure that what you have represents knowledge? In reading your post, you sound very sure that you are right in your thinking, and that the knowledge that you have is the most reasonable....I humbly disagree, and hope you keep exploring for Truth. It is there, if only you remove some roadblocks.
Hi Joel :) Thanks for reading my comment and replying. I did read all of what you said and would like to respond as well.
You said:
"As I understand it, you're asking how atheists can be sure there is no god.
You're right. We can't. You're very correct in stating that it is inherently impossible to be absolutely sure there is no god or gods or any other superhuman intelligence behind life, the universe, and everything."
So why do you call yourself an Atheist instead of an Agnostic? (Still confused on that one.)
You said:
" But here's the rub: it's equally inherently impossible to be sure that god does exist. That is, unless you know everything. And even Christians will be quick to admit that they do not know everything (apparently because only god knows everything). I am not arrogant enough to even attempt to say I am 100% positive there is no god. It would be folly to do so. But, as your, mine, and the quoted author's logic shows, it would be equally arrogant and wrong to say that you're 100% sure that god does exist. Because none of us knows everything. "
I'm sorry, but you've misread or misunderstood the quote. No, I do not have to have absolute knowledge to know something exists. You've made the point that none of us knows everything and that's correct, and yet we know that lot's of things exist. I don't have absolute knowledge of the universe but I know that my house exists, my friends exist, my family exist, ect. Point being, of course, is that you do not need absolute knowledge to know that something exists.
You said:
"Do you actually claim to know that god exists? I doubt you can claim such a thing, if you're honest with yourself (and me, for that matter). "
I absolutely claim with %100 certainty that God exists. And, yes, I'm being completely truthful (what's the point of being dishonest?). I know, because I KNOW Him, like I know my own children. I have a relationship with Him and I know you don't understand that because you don't have that.
You said:
"I'll wait for the probability that god exists to hit about 51% before I start worrying myself about it. Because, I agree, if god does exist, that's a pretty big deal and warrants a great deal of my attention. However, god's probability, by my current rough estimation, is somewhere between 0% and 10% based on the information I've gathered thus far. "
What in the world?!? LOL-I have to admit, that last part left me speechless. But, even then, with your "current rough estimation" of somewhere between 0-10 percent probability that God exists, isn't that enough to make you really seek to make sure you're right? Hell, is for eternity and you don't want to be wrong about that.
George Gallup, the famous staticion said, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."
Albert Einstien said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
Well, this little chat has been fun. I enjoyed sharing with you. Thank you for taking an interest. I must say that I've been to this blog several times now, and while it has been really neat getting to talk with different people, it is time for me to move on. Thanks again for the chats :)
-crunchymom3
rufustfirefly said...
"Another thing about miracles proving to Christians that God exists and Jesus is real; what is it when A Muslim or Mormon or whoever talks about miracles they've experienced and how they prove their God exists, their beliefs are true?"
The beliefs of these religions can't all be true, they make contrary truth claims.
If a Christian makes a blanket statement to you that Miracles prove God exists and Jesus is real, and just leave it there in the air as though that is sufficient, they should do a little more work than that, I agree. Here is a little more for you....the miracles had context...prophesy led to Christ, the miracles were a sign of His authority, Jesus made claims that gave them this context as well (Matthew 9:6).
Jesus disciples stuck to the resurrection claim in the face of extreme persecution,being rejected by many of their own people, and through beatings, prison, and martyrdom Christianity spread....would you endure that for a lie, in the environment of eyewitnesses who could shout you down if you spoke lies? And if these were lies (or exagerations), why would they presume to hold any kind of moral authority, when a group of people could enter the door of your church and produce eyewitnesses that could deny the miracles? Instead of denials, his detractors said they were works of Beelzubub, and the Talmud ( a Jewish source) claims that Yeshu (Jesus) was to "be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." Notice that His enemies who would have him killed did not deny that he was performing signs.
Muhammad was challenged to perform miracles, but never took it up (Sura 3:181-184, 4:153, 6:8-9 17:88-96) he said he was just a man (17:93) and the Qur'an was what authenticated his status as prophet (17:88). Miracle stories are found in the Hadith, a later collection of his sayings and doings. They are not early enough to place them at the scene, so to speak.
I do not take the miracle claims of Mormonism to be true. They are polytheistic, and its founder Joseph Smith appears to be a charlatan who was inconsistent in his teaching, and morally suspect.
In summary miracle claims are central to Christianity, those claims had context. Muhammad denied the need to perform miracles, and I don't see a good reason to take Mormonism as legit.
I've witnesed to many Muslims.Matter of fact the last one was in a cab on the way to WOTM ministry.He thanked me,I gave him a nice tip as well as a million dollar tract.
Here's the deal my atheist friends.
As a Christian we do not discriminate with whom we lovingly share the Gospel.
We don't change the message or how we share it based upon the person with whom we are sharing the Truth with.
Sometimes we start the conversation by asking a person's religous background.But we do not change the core of our message based upon if they are a Muslim or an atheist or a homosexual.
Every sane human being has the moral law written on his heart from birth. We all know it is wrong to lie,steal,cheat,commit adultery,blaspheme etc.No one had to teach us these things.
Every sane human being also has a conscience including YOU my atheist friends.And you know there is a god out there somewhere.
I've found the reason you reject God usually falls into one of these reasons:
Self righteousnous and pride-In other words you're not letting anyone tell you what to do!Furthermore, you consider yourself too intellectually superior to even consider what these simple minded dullards must be using as a crutch.
Sin-I like it!If I admit there is a God,then He probably has rules. It's highly likely His rules and my sin won't mix.
Sinful act/Abuse-You've either comitted a sin that is so terrible or had one comitted against you that is so awful that even God cannot handle it.(God can and will handle either of these).
It's usually the first and or second of these for most people.
Where do you fall?
TweeOne said...
young girls will be forced to take unwanted pregnancies to term, losing all rightful ownership over their own bodies
Are most atheist pro-choice?
@Laura
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but it looks to me like you're saying that what's in the Bible doesn't really matter to you.
Nope, read my post again, I said that the Word of God is my ultimate authority.
You have, in your own words, a "presupposed" notion of God, and when the Bible appears to contradict either itself or your presuppositions, you quickly look the other way and say "But that's not what it really means."
Nope, I look for, and usually find, resolutions to passages I do not understand, and trust that there is a resolution for those that I do not.
I didn't approach the Bible with any particular atheist presuppositions. In fact, I identified as a Christian the first couple of times I read it. However, whatever presuppositions I had about the goodness and mercy of God went unsupported by both the Bible and, to an even greater extent, the real world.
Christians believe that God is all good. If you had such a presupposition, you would have evaluated the Bible based upon that presupposition, and not on the presupposition that your view on morality was above God’s.
Maybe you can believe in a good and merciful God even after you read about Him slaughtering all the first-born sons of an entire nation. Maybe you can even still believe in a good and merciful God after you visit a pediatric cancer ward (or do any of a thousand other things to make yourself immediately aware of terrible and senseless human suffering). But I can't, and I take this to be a mark of my fundamental sanity; at a certain point, faith begins to look an awful lot like willful self delusion.
Problem is Laura that without God, you have no moral complaint against anything. Whatever happens, just happens. According to your worldview, what is the difference between genocide, and killing bacteria? Without God, either life is equally meaningless.
I have asked this question a number of times on this board, and have yet to receive an answer, Laura, by what standard of morality do you condemn God?
There was also a question in my last post which you neglected to answer, perhaps you could tackle that one as well: How do you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
I never said I had a problem with any person expressing their religious views or ideals. The issue is when people try to use the government to promote and implement them.
Um, like abortion, or teaching evolution?
My concern with people promoting the entanglement of religion and state is to protect many things including your right and a politicians right to voice their personal religious or non-religious views.
Alright then, what standard should government build their moral views upon?
Please show evidence or citation to support your assertion.
Just read your own post. You mention 2 points which you feel are religiously motivated, and neglect ones such as evolution and abortion which are currently supported by the government and held just as religiously by their supporters.
How ever I do or don't react does not validate your statement.
Sure it does, it shows how religious you are.
Cheers,
Sye
Ray,
Could you please explain to me why exactly you insist on getting the so-called atheists here so fired up. Apparently you are enjoying this. I admit getting them to talk about God is a good thing, but c'mon man, I fail to see what your purpose is here in the way you are doing it. Why are you adding fuel to their fire?????? I bet you didn't act like this when you went to dinner with 40 of them. I'm sure by some of the comments you have made you have lost their respect as well. If you ever had it.
-SM
Problem is Laura that without God, you have no moral complaint against anything. Whatever happens, just happens. According to your worldview, what is the difference between genocide, and killing bacteria? Without God, either life is equally meaningless.
So you feel that God is the only thing that gives life, human or otherwise, meaning? As an atheist, I simply don't accept this premise, and I don't see why you would expect me to. I firmly believe, as do most atheists, that life (human and otherwise) is precious, and I do not need a supernatural entity to tell me this.
Indeed, the basic framework for what most people consider to be moral behavior - empathy, altruism, a sense of "fair play" - has very real biological roots, and can be observed in primates and even other mammals. (de Waal's classic book Chimpanzee Politics provides an excellent introduction to this field.)
This is, of course, not to say that there is no qualitative difference between the morality of chimpanzees and the morality of humans. As humans, we are uniquely able to consciously elaborate on (and in some cases, contravene) our innate moral impulses. Atheists are just as capable of this as religious people; we just don't have to go through the rigmarole of pretending that our derived concepts have somehow been divinely revealed.
I have asked this question a number of times on this board, and have yet to receive an answer, Laura, by what standard of morality do you condemn God?
I'm not condemning God any more than I'm condemning unicorns or Cthulhu or the tooth fairy. I'm just pointing out that the existence of disease and natural disaster and other external sources of human suffering inevitably point to the absence of an all-good, all-powerful God. You can perform all the mental contortions you like to get around this ugly fact, but for those of us in the reality-based community, it's a real sticking point.
Alternate answer: I judge God by my moral standards, which are essentially the same moral standards shared by a much larger community, including many moderate Christians. Let's say a group of scientists deliberately induced incurable cancer in several young children. You would, I hope, be utterly horrified, as would I and just about everyone else on the planet. There would be a near-universal consensus that this was wildly acceptable behavior. Why, then, is it okay for your omnipotent God (who supposedly controls the universe right down to the rogue division of cells) to do exactly the same thing?
(Bear in mind that when I "judge" God, I judge him as a fictional character. I could just as easily share my less-than-flattering opinions on Batman's moral character, but that doesn't mean I believe in the existence of Batman.)
There was also a question in my last post which you neglected to answer, perhaps you could tackle that one as well: How do you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview?
I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here, or why it's relevant. I'm not a philosopher or a mathematician, but I can tell you that the ancient Greeks formulated many of the theories of logic that gave rise to formal logic as we know it today. (Needless to say, the Greeks were not inspired by the Bible when they did so.)
<< Scott Moore said... Ray, Could you please explain to me why exactly you insist on getting the so-called atheists here so fired up. Apparently you are enjoying this. I admit getting them to talk about God is a good thing, but c'mon man, I fail to see what your purpose is here in the way you are doing it. Why are you adding fuel to their fire?????? I bet you didn't act like this when you went to dinner with 40 of them. I'm sure by some of the comments you have made you have lost their respect as well. If you ever had it. -SM >>
Scott, I have held back from calling them "snakes" or a "generation of vipers" or "filthy dreamers" or "brute beasts," as the Scriptures do the ungodly. Your inference is that I am doing this for pleasure. I am not. I am deeply earnest in my desire to reach them with the Gospel. I write and speak from my convictions, and if that stirs a fire in atheists, so be it. I have learned through open air preaching thousands of times, that if you don't have an "edge" (be slightly provocative) when you speak, you will become one big bore and lose your hearers (and who can blame them for leaving). The same applies with this blog. Thanks for being upfront and sharing your thoughts.
Laura said...
"we just don't have to go through the rigmarole of pretending that our derived concepts have somehow been divinely revealed."
We of course don't characterize our sincere belief as pretending, I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs and aren't pretending.
"the existence of disease and natural disaster and other external sources of human suffering inevitably point to the absence of an all-good, all-powerful God. You can perform all the mental contortions you like to get around this ugly fact, but for those of us in the reality-based community, it's a real sticking point."
You are familiar then with the typical arguments that christians offer to the ugly realities of pain, however I would also add that the bible tells us that we can expect pain and suffering in this fallen world, and if it tells us to expect it, should we be surprised when it appears? I know atheists aren't, as it is all around us. We are in the same reality that you are Laura, we just see the world differently than you.
"I judge God by my moral standards...Why, then, is it okay for your omnipotent God (who supposedly controls the universe right down to the rogue division of cells) to do exactly the same thing?" Because our claim is that He created you, and as your creator, He is not held to the same standards as the created. Romans 20-22 Thanks Laura, I have a feeling you will have considered me to have wasted my time, May the God you don't believe in bless you anyway!
@ Ray
Well!! I guess I cant argue that. I guess putting it that way, you are being kinda nice. Hadnt really thought of it that way. I was looking at it like this is a place for Christians to converse. I will keep this in mind..Thanks for the reply and I appreciate your kindness.
Though maybe you should rename your blog title to "un-comfort for atheists". lol
-SM
Oops, there was a bit of a typo in my last comment: "wildly acceptable" should be "wildly unacceptable."
Also, Sye Tenb, you seem to be making the claim that evolution is a religious belief. It's not. It is an evidence-based scientific theory,* and like any other scientific theory, it is subject to revision if and when it does not adequately explain reality as it is empirically observed. As it so happens, evolution very neatly explains the diversity of life on earth.
*Note that "theory" in the scientific sense implies a much stronger degree of certainty than "theory" in the colloquial sense, where it is often used to mean "guess" or "hunch." Scientifically speaking, gravity is just as much a theory as evolution - and I assume you still want gravity to be included in state-mandated science curricula, right?
Because our claim is that He created you, and as your creator, He is not held to the same standards as the created. Romans 20-22
Sorry it should read Romans 9:20-22
Go Ray! May I copy and paste this? I would like to save it. It will be very useful to preach this outside the science building at Edinboro University.
Self-replicating chemical molecules (combinations of atoms) came about by chance and time and the right group of chemicals together for a long time. The DNA of a full bacterial cell did not occur based on chance alone. There was hundreds of millions of years of natural selection.
DNA is a key piece of evidence for evolution. It proves conclusively that humans were not created by god but evolved from simpler life.
Everytime I look into my beautiful daughter's eyes, I know that there is a God, and He is Good.
Christians talk a lot about the Law of Gravity and then they say the Theory of Evolution. Why don't they talk about the Law of Natural Selection?
Gravity and Evolution are both Theories. Based on Christians contrasting the Law of Gravity with the Law of the Lord. The Law of the Lord is really just the Theory of the Lord. A theory all based on subjective accounts!!
All scientific studies of prayer have shown they are not effective.
Someone wrote: "Self-replicating chemical molecules (combinations of atoms) came about by chance and time and the right group of chemicals together for a long time. The DNA of a full bacterial cell did not occur based on chance alone. There was hundreds of millions of years of natural selection.
DNA is a key piece of evidence for evolution. It proves conclusively that humans were not created by god but evolved from simpler life"
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Surely you have some proof of this. I will believe this when you take a rock, and produce a self replicating piece of DNA out of it....
and they say Christians believe farytails.....
That was a good laugh...that was a good one ... funny post .... These atheists is whacky....
@laura
So you feel that God is the only thing that gives life, human or otherwise, meaning? As an atheist, I simply don't accept this premise, and I don't see why you would expect me to. I firmly believe, as do most atheists, that life (human and otherwise) is precious, and I do not need a supernatural entity to tell me this.
Problem is, without God, such a position is entirely arbitrary. Without an absolute moral standard, what is good and why should anyone behave morally good?
Indeed, the basic framework for what most people consider to be moral behavior - empathy, altruism, a sense of "fair play" - has very real biological roots, and can be observed in primates and even other mammals.
Animals kill and eat each other too, surely you wouldn’t consider that immoral? So, based on observing animals, should we be altruistic, and empathetic or should we kill and eat each other?
Atheists are just as capable of this as religious people; we just don't have to go through the rigmarole of pretending that our derived concepts have somehow been divinely revealed.
I never said that atheists cannot behave morally, you too are benefitting from God’s grace, the point is that you have no absolute moral standard, and no ultimate reason to behave morally. Tell me, what difference is the way Hitler or Mother Theresa lived, to them now? Without God, to them, there is zero difference, they’re both dead. Ultimately without God, there is no reason to choose kindness over treachery.
I'm just pointing out that the existence of disease and natural disaster and other external sources of human suffering inevitably point to the absence of an all-good, all-powerful God. You can perform all the mental contortions you like to get around this ugly fact, but for those of us in the reality-based community, it's a real sticking point.
Problem is, the second you call any of those things ‘bad’ you borrow from my worldview. What is ‘bad’ according to your worldview, except an arbitrary stipulation?
Still though, how do yo know that God could not have sufficient moral reason for what occurs in this world?
Alternate answer: I judge God by my moral standards, which are essentially the same moral standards shared by a much larger community, including many moderate Christians.
Sure, we share simillar morality, Christians however, profess where they come from, atheists deny it.
Let's say a group of scientists deliberately induced incurable cancer in several young children. You would, I hope, be utterly horrified, as would I and just about everyone else on the planet.
I would have reason to be horrified, as I have an absoulte moral standard, you don’t so you wouldn’t.
There would be a near-universal consensus that this was wildly unacceptable behavior.
But in a hundred years, according to your worldview, it would make zero difference to those scientists.
Why, then, is it okay for your omnipotent God (who supposedly controls the universe right down to the rogue division of cells) to do exactly the same thing?
God is the potter, we are the clay. Things happen in this universe for a reason which is perfectly sufficient for God.
I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here, or why it's relevant. I'm not a philosopher or a mathematician, but I can tell you that the ancient Greeks formulated many of the theories of logic that gave rise to formal logic as we know it today. (Needless to say, the Greeks were not inspired by the Bible when they did so.)
So, could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before the Greeks ‘formulated’ the laws of logic?
Also, Sye Tenb, you seem to be making the claim that evolution is a religious belief. It's not. It is an evidence-based scientific theory,*
I have yet to see one piece of evidence that one kind of animal became another, and I’m sure that you haven’t seen one either. No doubt everything you believe about evolution came from faith in a book – how preposterous! :-)
Cheers,
Sye
@tropical pete
The Law of the Lord is really just the Theory of the Lord.
Nope, the Law of God has been revealed to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.
Cheers,
Sye
Tropical Pete said..."Self-replicating chemical molecules (combinations of atoms) came about by chance and time and the right group of chemicals together for a long time. The DNA of a full bacterial cell did not occur based on chance alone. There was hundreds of millions of years of natural selection."
Chance and time and the right group for a long time reads as "we don't know (time), luck did it(chance), via natural selection." Astronomical odds for this one Tropical...but I suppose that since we are here, that proves it- ohhh wait....for natural selection to occur, don't there need to be cells to select? The nature of my objection is that the first cell to have arisen and then flourish is astoundingly improbable via the evolutionary model(s). And why is it that science gets to have the kind of faith in itself that it boasts of TIME (which allows entropy to do its work- crumbling, spreading and disorganizing) and CHANCE (luck) to be taken as a serious answer to the origin of life versus alternate explanations? Where do you scrape up that tremendous faith? But those other explanations don't get to play with yours, because they are fantasies, but time and chance are real answers, yep. Take another look at the amazing complexity of the simplest of single cell organisms, and ponder the elegant machine created by God.
"All scientific studies of prayer have shown they are not effective."
Prayer is not physical. One doesn't have to bow the head or fold the hands to pray, that's tradition.
Prayer is supernatural, outside of science, outside of physicalness.
Of course science cannot study prayer.
This maybe a dumb analogy, but I'll try it, using science terms here goes: Using science to study the supernatural is like using litmus paper to study the atom. My analogy may be dumb, but I mean that science is incapable of studying something that is not physical or natural, but outside of nature.
God is outside of nature, He is outside His creation, not a part of it. We know God exists because of His creation, this is a simple truth told in the Bible (Romans).
We cannot see gravity but we can sure study it's effects. We cannot see God, yet we can see and and study His effect on the universe.
Ray's point in "building/builder and painting/painter" is very simple logic, and it is quite correct. But for those who seek complex answers, probably way to simplistic for them, but still true nonetheless.
Sye
"I never said that atheists cannot behave morally, you too are benefitting from God’s grace, the point is that you have no absolute moral standard, and no ultimate reason to behave morally."
It amazes me to think that Christians think this way. It's like you've dehumanified atheists by thinking that way. I think it's shameful of you to think 'atheists' don't have a reason to behave morally, *shakes head*. Sometimes I feel that Christians only act on their moral laws to appease their god, rather than wanting to create a safe world to live in. But this whole labelling of people as Christian or atheists and then claiming to have copyrite of all the good social behaviours is weird.
Problem is, without God, such a position is entirely arbitrary. Without an absolute moral standard, what is good and why should anyone behave morally good?
Simply put, the essential basis of my moral standard is empathy. I consider how I would like others to act towards me and attempt to act that way towards others. (Yes, yes, the Bible contains a similar injunction - Matthew 7:12, I believe. But just about every other major religion in the world has a similar rule, which suggests to me that these religions are codifying something inherent to the human psyche, not introducing a foreign notion.)
Yes, there is a degree of selfishness in my choice to behave thus. I do my best to treat others with compassion at least partially in the expectation that I will be treated likewise in return. Like any other sane human being, I am psychologically wired to feel distress when I am confronted with immediate human suffering, and so whatever attempts I may make to alleviate that suffering are in part undertaken for the purpose of making myself feel better.
(Before you seize upon this as an admission of the moral inferiority of atheists, let me point out that your behavior is almost certainly driven by the same psychological machinery; you just invoke a supernatural score-keeper when asked to rationalize it. And in any case, expectation of eternal bliss /avoidance of eternal punishment hardly qualifies as a selfless motivation for altruistic behavior.)
Re: my theoretical scenario of scientists inducing incurable cancer in children: I would have reason to be horrified, as I have an absoulte moral standard, you don’t so you wouldn’t.
And yet I would be horrified nonetheless. As I mentioned previously, human beings (like other primates, and even rats) are wired to experience distress when we see others of our kind suffering. In this case, however, we are set apart from other primates by our ability to process indirect evidence of the suffering of others - for example, a newspaper article or a news report - and then imagine that suffering keenly enough to feel sympathetic distress (and hopefully, take some sort of action).
If you were confronted by a newspaper article describing just the scenario I outlined, you would most likely first imagine how those children and their parents felt, imagine how you would feel if a similar thing had happened to you or your child, and naturally feel sorrow and outrage. I very much doubt that you would need to consider God or the Bible at any point in this thought process. Only later, when asked to justify your initial horror, would you say something along the lines of "Well, God doesn't like it when people do this sort of thing."
But in a hundred years, according to your worldview, it would make zero difference to those scientists.
Well, yes, according to my worldview, my theoretical evil scientists would not face eternal damnation. In a hundred years, they'd meet the same fate - decomposition - as all the rest of us, sinners and saints alike. That wouldn't make what they did any less wrong. Or are you claiming that bad behavior is bad only because we get punished for it?
So, could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before the Greeks ‘formulated’ the laws of logic?
I'm still not sure what you're getting at with this line of argument. Logic is a system of human thought designed to help us better understand the world around us. The world around us exists as it is regardless of whether or not we understand it, although a better understanding of this world yields all sorts of tangible benefits.
I have yet to see one piece of evidence that one kind of animal became another, and I’m sure that you haven’t seen one either. No doubt everything you believe about evolution came from faith in a book – how preposterous! :-)
First of all, let me say that I've done a fair amount of lab and field work in both biology and paleobiology; my understanding of evolution is based at least partially on direct personal experience.
That being said, yes, a lot of what I know about evolution comes from books and articles. Note the plural. Note also that I don't hold any one of these books or articles as absolute gospel truth, and neither does any genuine scientist. The ever-growing body of research on evolution is assiduously peer reviewed, tested and retested, tweaked and revised.
Not all written sources of information are created equal, nor are all approaches to integrating this information into one's overall body of knowledge equally valid. Let's say you needed to undergo a complicated medical medical procedure, and you were trying to choose between two doctors, Doctor A and Doctor B.
Doctor A reads all the latest medical literature in his field. He carefully analyzes the papers that he reads, comparing them with each other and his own experiential knowledge. If he is faced with convincing evidence that a newer medicine or procedure yields better results, he further educates himself on that medicine or procedure, until he is certain that it is indeed the better option and is fully qualified to employ it.
Doctor B only really trusts one book, and it's a very, very old book. Although it's not actually a book on medicine, he's firmly convinced that it's the single best source of information in the entire world, and every word in it is pure truth. When newer studies suggest -- and they frequently do -- that the information in Doctor B's book is outdated or downright incorrect, he insists that the people who performed those studies are mistaken; perhaps they're even deliberately lying, because they hate his marvelous book. Doctor B does things like he's always done them - his book hasn't changed, so why should he? - and won't let any amount of hard evidence change his mind.
Which doctor would you go to, and why? If Doctor B's approach to medicine is invalid, then why would it be a valid approach to any other science, or reality in general?
As for you having yet to see one piece of evidence that one animal became another - well, speciation, like continental drift or the expansion of the universe, is something that's difficult to observe directly in real time. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are some well-documented cases of ring species currently undergoing speciation; Larus gulls and and Ensatina salamanders are the classic examples, and a google search should yield you some basic information. I'm sure you are also familiar with antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, and DDT resistant mosquitoes - what do you think that is, if not evolution in action?
Finally, if you happen to be anywhere near the American Museum of Natural History in NYC, might I recommend their history of life display? They have some excellent fossil sequences, which you may find more convincing than mere books.
Mothandreust said...
"I think it's shameful of you to think 'atheists' don't have a reason to behave morally."
The issue is one of grounding of morals. No doubt that atheists behave morally and can be great people to know and live by the golden rule. What can't be adequatly explained is why they would say that one particular moral issue is absolutely wrong without an appeal to a moral framework, a framework which has to be grounded in something. Since an atheist does not believe in God, the appeal to grounding of said framework goes to people, or a society.
Here is the problem with that. Hitler was evil, Mother Theresa was good. This is not a controversial statement, the problem is that Hitler would disagree. Hitler would use his framework to justify what he did, and if morality is grounded in people and societies, he was a person and he created a society and you have to say that your framework was better than his. But if it is grounded in people WHY is your framework better,does it not it reduce morality to an opinion on the same level as "I like chocolate better than vanilla"? But even atheists know that moral qualities are more significant than mere opinion, some things are simply wrong, atheists understand that, but have a problem with WHY it is absolutely wrong for everybody. Frameworks grounded in people easily shifts with opinion.
A theist appeals to morality being grounded and created by God. That no matter what framework a person uses to justify his or her moral actions (people change their mind all the time afterall) that wrong is wrong and right is right, it was written on our hearts by the creator and will always stand no matter what a group says. We can point at any group in history and determine that their actions were good or bad with confidence and not say that is is merely my opinion that they were evil.
I understand that this is vehemently denied by atheists and it scares them, but the fact is an atheist is equally sure that he or she is right in their own opinions, so being sure that one is right is not evil in and of itself. I say this because the idea that one is sure he is right is being labelled dangerous by some. But to label one as dangerous implies that you are right and they are wrong.
I hope this answer clears up the issue for some.
Laura,
You made a lot of good points, but unfortunately you still haven't answered Sye's overarching question. He's asking how you can know that your morality is valid (or know anything at all, for that matter) without an all-knowing god to have revealed the absolute truth to us.
Just pointing to moral relativism won't appease him. You need to give him some other wild-eyed guess as to where truth and law and morals come from, if not from god. Or at least convince him that absolutes are not necessary. If you remember the reasoning he keeps falling back on I think you'll agree that you're not addressing the problem he's posing, but simply addressing the symptoms. The trouble is, of course, that no one can answer his big question without either employing circular reasoning or just saying "I don't know." I've gotten as far as having him admit that he's also using circular reasoning to 'prove' god is necessary for absolute knowledge. But he shrugged out of that trap by rationalizing that he's using a special type of circular reasoning that is mildly more acceptable (although still a very weak form of argument - similar to "I'm right because you can't prove that I'm not... even though I can't prove that I am, either"). Unless someone can properly convince Sye that the whole basis for his argument is totally invalid, he'll keep hitting you (and everyone else) with his famous: "The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are accounted for in the nature of God. How do you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview? "
Of course, we can't answer that because in order to do so we would have to lower ourselves to his level and use ghastly circular reasoning. I'm surprised Buddhists don't use his question as a mind-breaking mantra. It's one of those unanswerable questions like: "Does a tree falling in the wood make a sound if there's no one around to hear it?" Lots of fun at boring parties, but has no practical application.
Laura, if you can convince him that his position is untenable, you will have my undying respect :) I've tried and failed so many times that I eventually succumbed to weakness and gave up. Based on what I've seen of your posts here, I think you'll have a better chance than I ever did. Have a go at it, I'll try to help where I can. A guy named Hans is also giving this problem his attention on another thread but he doesn't seem to be getting much of anywhere with the admirably stubborn and patient Sye Tenb :)
Good luck!
Joel
Ray,
I'm certain you don't know what you're talking about. That is why instead of taking offense to your little rant here, i pity you.
Perhaps you don't see atheists disagreeing with Muslims because you yourself are not a Muslim. I do it all the time, I know many others who do as well. Sam Harris devotes a large portion of his book "the End of Faith" to pointing out the inconsistencies, shortcomings, and atrocities of the Qur'an.
Could it be, Ray, that you don't see this happening en masse simply because you live in a society that is dominated by Christianity? Perhaps because you spend most of your time in a Christian community you are only seeing a tiny part of the bigger picture.
Finally, Ray, you don't even accept evolution as plausible... how could atheists have evolved from chickens if evolution doesn't happen?
Laura, if you can convince him that his position is untenable, you will have my undying respect :) I've tried and failed so many times that I eventually succumbed to weakness and gave up.
I imagine that I, too, will eventually tire of beating my head against this wall. But at this point, I'm still enjoying myself, and I rather suspect that Sye is enjoying himself too - he gets to spread the word to the godless heathen, and all. As long as there's no real animosity on either side, I intend to keep up the debate. And in the very unlikely event that I manage to convince Sye Tenb of anything, I will play "We are the Champions" at maximum volume, while running a fake slow-mo victory lap through my apartment building.
And just so this comment has some real content:
Here is the problem with that. Hitler was evil, Mother Theresa was good. This is not a controversial statement.
Actually, by purely humanistic standards, Mother Teresa was not such a wonderful person. Not as bad as Hitler, of course, but not the exemplar of selfless charity that we tend to imagine when we hear her name. The fact is, her hospices and orphanages were dangerously unhygienic and criminally underequipped - and they continued to be so even after her "humanitarian" efforts received international attention and massive financial backing. Mother Teresa, it seems, was not particularly interested in giving the poor healthier and richer lives in this world. Rather, her concern focused on the fate of their immortal souls, and of course, there's nothing like suffering and poverty to make a soul pure and holy and pleasing to God - or so Mother Teresa believed.
I would love to post this article to my website.
Ray you make a valid and justified point in your article. Thanks for the post. You have given me an idea and inspiration.
Tropical Pete said...
People are not evolved from chickens because chickens are birds and birds evolved from reptiles. People are mammals and mammals evolved from reptiles. So birds and mammals come from two distinct lines of descent from reptiles.
Therefore, humans did not evolve from chickens.
Tropical Pete, Ray was employing humor in his title, not trying to prove the myth of evolution.
Laura said....
"if Doctor B's approach to medicine is invalid, then why would it be a valid approach to any other science, or reality in general?"
Laura, how have you or anyone refuted Doctor B's book? The fact that it is old doesn't speak to its truth (this fallacy has been labeled "chronological snobbery"). There are presumptions in your example, assertions are made, evidence not presented or ignored. In a way, I am about to return that favor, but as you can present evidences, so can I.
You didn't say if doctor A's books and manuals are true, but rather, he is making the best efforts with the tools he has at his disposal, and as new facts emerge, he is free to change his mind.
What if evidence Doctor A had previously ignored came to light that showed the entire paradigm and its metaphysics behind what he held to be true, were false? Doctor A was able to function with his old paradigm in place, and there were reasons to justify it, but on honest reflection of this other evidence was not able to hold to the old metaphysic, but realized the empirical evidences could be understood in a different metaphysical framework, and in fact, it was more logical to do so. Then Doctor A would no longer refer to his previous manuals in the same way.
Regarding Doctor B, you misunderstand him. He refers to his mind, logic, and a pile of other books, including Doctor A's! Doctor B claims his book is true, but for certain discussions he places it aside, taking from it a metaphysical understanding (which is far from refuted) which he applies to the same empirical evidences presented by Doctor A (as you presented him), AND has evidence based answers to the same questions. The problem is Doctor B is not taken seriously, and he is dismissed with ad hoc arguments and presumptions that fail to address his answers. Also, his theories will not be peer reviewed, because they don't conform to naturalism. They will then point out it is not valid, because it is not peer reviewed. Also, Doctor B recognizes that certain aspects of these newer theories are valid observations and are true, but that they carry them into invalid conclusions
"continental drift or the expansion of the universe" why would a christian have to deny those things? The Big Bang needs a big banger- I don't deny the big bang, it was the moment of creation of the universe.
"I'm sure you are also familiar with antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, and DDT resistant mosquitoes - what do you think that is, if not evolution in action?"
Is that all you mean by evolution? The bacteria remain bacteria, the resistance is in their genes. The mosquitos are still mosquitos. The debate on evolution rests on one creature evolving into a different creature. Not small changes within creatures- did you not know this!? There are scientific evidences that show that there are limits within any particular animals gene structure that allow it to go only so far in variation...breeders run into this, and the weak variations would never survive in the wild. This does not mean they are breeding new undiscovered animals, rather, variations of the same animal. You and others must go further than this...
Laura said...
"actually, by purely humanistic standards, Mother Teresa was not such a wonderful person."
That is all you pulled out of my post to say, huh?
In regards to absolute morality, everyone should desire that. To be a Jew in the 1930's was to watch the framework of morality shift from " Its wrong to murder people" to "Its neccesary to murder people who are weak, when doing so improves the genetics leading to a stronger race of people" Any Jew or Gypsie or person considered inferior felt this shift in a real and palpable way. Morals are not relative, some things are wrong, period. When something unjust happens to a relativist, they protest as loud as any objectivist, and this shows that relativism can't be lived out (unless you remain silent as terrible things happen to you). To cling to it is intellectually dishonest, if you are going to open your mouth to injustice. Want to know what a person really believes? watch their reactions.
Athiets, a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument, you all argue, but the christians have experienced love inside and peace in their mind cause God is not hating them anymore and is not going to torture them. Your just jealous sinners.
Sye TenB said:
"Um, like abortion, or teaching evolution?"
Since I never brought up abortion and it is a little too complicated of a subject to speak about, I'll stick with evolution.
Teaching evolution is based on the fact that it is the best theory that is supported by evidence from many fields of study such as Biology, Micro-biology, Geology, Paleontology...
Some of the evidence includes several transitional fossils for:
-Fish to Amphibians,
-Amphibians to Reptiles,
-Reptiles to Mammals,
-Reptiles to Birds
-Land Mammals to Whales
-Horses
-Non-human apes to modern humans,
to name a few.
Since evolutions is the most supported scientific theory on the subject and no other theory has close to as much supporting evidence and/or has been refuted, it should be taught in the science class room.
"Alright then, what standard should government build their moral views upon?"
So are you telling me that if I am not Christian or follow the Christian teachings, I would have no morals?
Our government itself does not have a set moral view. The moral views in our government come from the many different moral views of the different schools of though and philosophies held by the people of our country, religious or atheist. Different than you may think, morals standards are not an absolute. Some things might be pretty black and white like, not killing someone, but others are many varying levels of gray and require a continued discussion, debate. Even the moral standards of the Christian religion are constantly shifting to match the cultural norm though the previous standards were said to be supported by the bible.
I'd get into the development of the idea of moral through evolution but I'm to tired to try to explain. I can only assume you must have already heard this, if not, maybe another time I will go into detail. I do want to note that there are animals other than man who have more primitive sets of moral standards too.
"Just read your own post. You mention 2 points which you feel are religiously motivated, and neglect ones such as evolution and abortion which are currently supported by the government and held just as religiously by their supporters."
Again, I never mentioned abortion and will not start a discussion on this issue.
Please provide citation for your assertion that supporting evolution is religious. I cannot understand how the supporting of a theory that has been validated so much and not refuted since Darwin purposed it, can be called religious. Am I religious if I agree with the theory of a gravity?? Would you not agree that the best scientific theories available concerning any subject are the ones that should be taught?
"Sure it does, it shows how religious you are."
I was asking for citation on the point that god was necessary for logic, science, and morality. I never claimed he wasn't, I just have never seen any evidence to validate this claim. Since I exist and logic, science, and morality exist, and I've seen no evidence to support that any of these things were created by a super being or that said super being exists, I choose not to believe the god explanation. Since I have seen much evidence of their natural development, I choose to go with the best explanation supported by evidence and not by blind faith.
Are you asserting that though there is no support for the god theory, that if I choose any other explanation, no matter how much evidence there is to supports it, it would be to religious for me to agree with it and support it?
If you believe you have evidence to show that the god theory is more supported than evolution, please present the evidence and I will evaluate it.
Word is Bond!
Atomic Chimp
Ray - Your so bad!
i love you man ;-)
i would like to submit the following as further examples of non-(satire) proof of how some well known Christian and atheist, (evolved)...
Famous Last words (or)
Tales Before The Crypt
A Heavenly Greeting,
The famous Christian, Dwight Moody...
awoke from sleep shortly before he died and said:
"Earth recedes. Heaven opens before me.
If this is death, it is sweet! There is no valley here.
God is calling me, and I must go."
And Moody's son said,
"No, no, Father. You're dreaming."
And Moody replied, "I am not dreaming.
I have been within the gates.
This is my triumph;
this is my coronation day! It is glorious!"
Augustus Toplady,
preacher and author of the hymn, "Rock of Ages":
"The consolations of God to such an unworthy wretch
are so abundant that He leaves me nothing to pray for
but a continuance of them. I enjoy heaven already in my soul."
Lady Glenorchy:
"If this is dying, it is the pleasantest thing imaginable."
John Pawson, minister:
"I know I am dying, but my deathbed is a bed of roses.
I have no thorns planted upon my dying pillow.
In Christ, heaven is already begun!"
Adoniram Judson, American missionary to Burma:
"I go with the gladness of a boy bounding away from school.
I feel so strong in Christ."
John A. Lyth:
"Can this be death? Why, it is better than living!
Tell them I die happy in Jesus!"
Martha McCrackin:
"How bright the room! How full of angels!"
Mary Frances:
"Oh, that I could tell you what joy I possess!
The Lord does shine with such power upon my soul!"
Sir David Brewster,
scientist and inventor of the kaleidoscope:
"I will see Jesus; I shall see Him as He is!
I have had the light for many years.
Oh how bright it is! I feel so safe and satisfied!"
A Moslem woman,
whose child had died at 16 years of age
asked a Christian missionary,
"What did you do to our daughter?"
The missionary replied,
"We did nothing," But the mother persisted,
"Oh, yes, you did! She died smiling.
Our people do not die like that."
As it turned out, the girl had found Christ
and believed on Him only a few months before.
Fear of death had gone and hope and joy had taken its place.
A Chinese communist,
through whom many Christians had
been executed, said to a Pastor:
"I have seen many of you die.
The Christians die in a different way.
What is your secret?"
In Contrast:
A Hellish Goodbye...
Last words of some famous atheist:
Thomas Payne:
"I would give worlds, if I had them,
if the Age of Reason had never been published.
O Lord, help me! Christ, help me!
Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone!"
Voltaire:
"I am abandoned by God and man!
I shall go to hell! O’ Jesus Christ!"
David Hume:
The atheist died in utter despair
with an awful scene crying out,
"I am in the flames!"
Karl Marx:
Was on his deathbed surrounded by candles
burning to lucifer and screamed at his nurse
who asked him if he had any last words,
"Go on, get out!
Last words are for fools who haven’t said enough."
Nietzsche:
Died insane, completely out of his mind.
Sir Thomas Scott:
"Until now I thought there was no God or hell.
Now I know there is both, and I am doomed."
Sir Francis Newport:
"Do not tell me there is no God for I know
there is one, and that I am in his angry presence!
You need not tell me there is no hell,
for I already feel my soul slipping into its fires!
I know that I am lost forever."
If this does not scare the hell out of you,
I'm sorry! :-(
John MacArthur..
Pastor, Teacher @ Grace To You - gty.org
"The particular love of God for His own is overwhelming.
It is powerful. If you don’t stand in awe of it,
then you don’t really grasp its significance.
We ought to be in awe, and like Israel, humiliated before such love.
He does not owe it to us. Yet He condescends to love us nonetheless.
If our hearts aren’t stirred with love for God in return,
then there’s something terribly wrong with us."
One question -
Why do atheist always blame God for everything?
to: Charles, the nicest atheist i've came accross in my life.
he said..
Atheists can continue to make their case politely and with reasoned argument, and should expect the same in return.
i say - Amen,
but the mass majority of them - do not!
This is a moderated blog - Nice folks like Chalres hang out and try to logicly debate their views.
check here -Ben Stein's Expelled No Intelligence Allowed
see blog:
darwinism-the-imperialism-of-biology
- for a less moderated blog. You will see what i mean. i had to remind one guy that the FBI does monitor blogs sometimes for hate mongers and such.
Ray, may God's double blessings be on you and all the folks @ Way of the Master. In Jesus name, Amen!
In Christ,
cody ~
Atomicchimp said
"Different than you may think, morals standards are not an absolute. Some things might be pretty black and white like, not killing someone, but others are many varying levels of gray and require a continued discussion, debate."
That there are levels of gray on moral issues issues does not demonstrate that there are no moral absolutes. There are levels of gray in knowledge, this does not mean we have no knowledge.
"If you believe you have evidence to show that the god theory is more supported than evolution, please present the evidence and I will evaluate it."
okay- via problems with evolution
1. genetic limits- breeders run into these, see my post above on this. Science uses fruit flies to speed this process up due to short life spans...they are still fruit flies, the freaks die off.
2. cyclical change- within these genetic limits changes observed tend to shift back and forth- Darwins finches exibit cyclical changes rather than projecting forward into new species.
3. irreducible complexity-The eye is a complex organ that can not function without all of its parts in place,and as a complex organ, a gradual process for this is counter intuitive at best. How would natural selection build an eye piece by piece with an end goal in mind, while through the ages it is non functional? see cambrian explosion below
4. non- viability of transitional forms-if a scale became a feather, a creature with a half feather/ half scale would be easy prey on land, and it couldn't get to the air to escape- hopping birds are easy catches for predators so would a hopping bird/lizard transition unable to fly.
5.Molecular isolation- DNA similarity between apes and humans- is this common ancestry, or could it be a common creator. perhaps we share a common genetic code because a creator designed us to live in the same biosphere. see my comments on the complexity of DNA in an above post esp in regards to probability and implications of a stream of precise data.
7. Stasis- most species that we observe (including in fossils) tend to appear and die out looking much the same.
8. Cambrian Explosion- the precambrian period is known for its lack of fossils, except notably, for recent finds of sponge embryo fossils (how soft would they be?). At the "explosion" all animal groups appear separately, fully formed with eyes and spines and defensive structures out of the blue.HINT- This does not support gradualism.
9.Soft tissue lost in fossils-99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in any fossil. This leaves the door wide open in using the fossil to determine ancestral relationships.
Does it ever dawn on any of you that similarity of structure may be evidence of a common designer rather than a common ancestor? Designs that work are reused in many different forms in engineering, so we can't say that it is illogical to conclude this on pondering it.
I did not appeal to the bible once here, I appeal to scientific evidences and application of a theistic philosophy of science versus a naturalistic philosophy of science.
@mothandrust
It amazes me to think that Christians think this way. It's like you've dehumanified atheists by thinking that way. I think it's shameful of you to think 'atheists' don't have a reason to behave morally, *shakes head*
Well, first of all, I said no ultimate reason, still though, your response is, not surprisingly, devoid of that reason.
Sometimes I feel that Christians only act on their moral laws to appease their god, rather than wanting to create a safe world to live in.
That's not why I try to behave morally either.
But this whole labelling of people as Christian or atheists and then claiming to have copyrite of all the good social behaviours is weird
The floor is yours, please give us a non-arbitrary reason why people should behave morally.
Cheers,
Sye
Atheists are weaklings.
@Laura
Simply put, the essential basis of my moral standard is empathy.
So why should anyone else be empathetic if they don't want to?
I consider how I would like others to act towards me and attempt to act that way towards others.
And why should anyone else live like this if they don’t want to?
Yes, there is a degree of selfishness in my choice to behave thus. I do my best to treat others with compassion at least partially in the expectation that I will be treated likewise in return. Like any other sane human being, I am psychologically wired to feel distress when I am confronted with immediate human suffering, and so whatever attempts I may make to alleviate that suffering are in part undertaken for the purpose of making myself feel better.
Why do you get to define what is sane? Why can’t “sanity” be harming people for your own pleasure? How do you know that you ‘evolved’ right, and those who like hurting people evolve ‘wrong?’
And in any case, expectation of eternal bliss /avoidance of eternal punishment hardly qualifies as a selfless motivation for altruistic behavior.
That’s not why I try to behave morally. I try to behave morally out of thanks for what was done for me. (Jesus paying the penalty that I deserve for my sin).
And yet I would be horrified nonetheless.
Yip, because, although you deny it, you too were created in the image of God.
As I mentioned previously, human beings (like other primates, and even rats) are wired to experience distress when we see others of our kind suffering.
And some animals are wired to kill and eat each other, why not do that? (You neglected to answer that question from my last post).
I very much doubt that you would need to consider God or the Bible at any point in this thought process. Only later, when asked to justify your initial horror, would you say something along the lines of "Well, God doesn't like it when people do this sort of thing."
Nope, I would say because it was absolutely morally wrong, and if questioned on that stance, I would explain the source of absolute morality – God. You, on the other hand, have no absolute standard by which you can call anything ‘wrong.’
Well, yes, according to my worldview, my theoretical evil scientists would not face eternal damnation. In a hundred years, they'd meet the same fate - decomposition - as all the rest of us, sinners and saints alike.
So, if one enjoys being ‘evil’ and can get away with it, why shouldn’t they be ‘evil.’
That wouldn't make what they did any less wrong.
Well it sure aint wrong to them anymore (according to your worldview).
Or are you claiming that bad behavior is bad only because we get punished for it?
Nope, nothing like that in fact. Bad behaviour is bad because we were created in God’s image, and are to live according to His absolute moral standard.
I'm still not sure what you're getting at with this line of argument. Logic is a system of human thought designed to help us better understand the world around us.
So, could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans ‘designed’ the law of non-contradiction?
The world around us exists as it is regardless of whether or not we understand it, although a better understanding of this world yields all sorts of tangible benefits.
Um, God exists as it is regardless of whether or not we understand Him, although a better understanding of God yields all sorts of tangible benefits. (How do you like your argument now? :-)
The ever-growing body of research on evolution is assiduously peer reviewed, tested and retested, tweaked and revised.
By scientists who presuppose that evolution is true.
Doctor B only really trusts one book, and it's a very, very old book. Although it's not actually a book on medicine, he's firmly convinced that it's the single best source of information in the entire world, and every word in it is pure truth.
Problem is, you are question begging if you relate this story to the Bible. You first have to assume that the Bible is not the inspired infallible word of God, for you to equate it with your story.
Which doctor would you go to, and why? If Doctor B's approach to medicine is invalid, then why would it be a valid approach to any other science, or reality in general?
I’d go to the better doctor, whether he can account for his ability to reason, or not.
As for you having yet to see one piece of evidence that one animal became another - well, speciation, like continental drift or the expansion of the universe, is something that's difficult to observe directly in real time.
This is where you invoke your God – TIME.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are some well-documented cases of ring species currently undergoing speciation; Larus gulls and and Ensatina salamanders are the classic examples, and a google search should yield you some basic information. I'm sure you are also familiar with antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, and DDT resistant mosquitoes - what do you think that is, if not evolution in action?
They are still the same kind of animals, birds are birds, bacteria is bacteria, and mosquitoes are mosquitoes.
Finally, if you happen to be anywhere near the American Museum of Natural History in NYC, might I recommend their history of life display? They have some excellent fossil sequences, which you may find more convincing than mere books.
All fossils do is show that something died, they do not, and cannot show that one kind of animal became another.
And in the very unlikely event that I manage to convince Sye Tenb of anything, I will play "We are the Champions" at maximum volume, while running a fake slow-mo victory lap through my apartment building.
Sure, why keep the self-deception to reasoning? :-)
And just so this comment has some real content:
Actually, by purely humanistic standards, Mother Teresa was not such a wonderful person. Not as bad as Hitler, of course, but not the exemplar of selfless charity that we tend to imagine when we hear her name.
Irrelevant. What is ‘good’ without God, and why should anyone be ‘good’ instead of not being ‘good?’
Cheers,
Sye
@atomicchimp
Since I never brought up abortion and it is a little too complicated of a subject to speak about, I'll stick with evolution.
Teaching evolution is based on the fact that it is the best theory that is supported by evidence from many fields of study such as Biology, Micro-biology, Geology, Paleontology...
Only if one presupooses that creation is not true.
Since evolutions is the most supported scientific theory on the subject and no other theory has close to as much supporting evidence and/or has been refuted, it should be taught in the science class room.
Creation has lots of supporting evidence, you just discount it based on your presuppositions, as I discount your ‘evidence’ based on my presuppositions.
So are you telling me that if I am not Christian or follow the Christian teachings, I would have no morals?
Nope, just no ultimate standard of morality, and no ultimate reason to behave morally.
Our government itself does not have a set moral view.
Sure it does – murder – bad, paying taxes – good.
Even the moral standards of the Christian religion are constantly shifting to match the cultural norm though the previous standards were said to be supported by the bible.
Behaviour has exactly nothing to do with the existence of absolute morals.
I'd get into the development of the idea of moral through evolution but I'm to tired to try to explain. I can only assume you must have already heard this, if not, maybe another time I will go into detail. I do want to note that there are animals other than man who have more primitive sets of moral standards too.
Can’t wait, this should be good.
Again, I never mentioned abortion and will not start a discussion on this issue.
You didn’t have to. I just gave you a view which is supported by the government and is held religiously. You have yet to refute it.
Please provide citation for your assertion that supporting evolution is religious. I cannot understand how the supporting of a theory that has been validated so much and not refuted since Darwin purposed it, can be called religious.
Please provide citation for the assertion that supporting the existence of God is religious. I cannot understand how the supporting of a fact that has been validated so much and not refuted since the existence of man, can be called religious. (How do you like your argument now? :-)
Am I religious if I agree with the theory of a gravity?? Would you not agree that the best scientific theories available concerning any subject are the ones that should be taught?
Only if they are consistent with one’s justification for one’s ability to do science.
I was asking for citation on the point that god was necessary for logic, science, and morality. I never claimed he wasn't, I just have never seen any evidence to validate this claim.
This is question begging. If God exists then every one of your thoughts, and experiences, is evidence to validate this claim. God is necessary by the impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for logic, science, and morality acording to your worldview?
Since I exist and logic, science, and morality exist, and I've seen no evidence to support that any of these things were created by a super being or that said super being exists, I choose not to believe the god explanation.
Again, question begging. If God exists, then everything is evidence to support that He does.
Since I have seen much evidence of their natural development, I choose to go with the best explanation supported by evidence and not by blind faith.
Don’t suppose you care to share any of the evidence with us do you?
Are you asserting that though there is no support for the god theory
Prove this please.
If you believe you have evidence to show that the god theory is more supported than evolution, please present the evidence and I will evaluate it.
Alright, your ability to reason is evidence that evolution is false. Please expalin the validity of your ability to reason, apart from God.
Cheers,
Sye
There are scientific evidences that show that there are limits within any particular animals gene structure that allow it to go only so far in variation...
Kindly point me in the direction of these "scientific evidences." For my part, I would recommend that you read Sean Carroll's "From DNA to Diversity" or "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" (the latter has some gorgeous illustrations), Wallace Arthur's "The Origin of Animal Body Plans," or Rudolph Raff's "The Shape of Life." If you're fuzzy on the mechanics of macroevolution - and it seems that you are - these titles should give you some good background information. (Carroll is probably the most layperson-friendly of the authors I've listed.)
I will cheerfully read and respond to any literature supporting your viewpoint that you would care to recommend, if you will do me the same favor.
Laura, how have you or anyone refuted Doctor B's book [the Bible]?
Insects have six legs, not four (cf. Leviticus 11:20). There we go. I just proved that not every word in the Bible is absolutely, infallibly true.
(Donald Morgan has a much more comprehensive list of Biblical fallacies; just google his name. I mentioned this in a previous post, and I doubt you'll think any more of it than Sye Tenb did, but I would urge you to glance through it nonetheless.)
Re: Moral absolutism versus moral relativism:
As I see it, "good" and "evil" are culturally mediated concepts, not absolute, quantifiable properties. What seems wrong to me may not seem wrong to you, or the man standing on the corner, or even (with apologies to Godwin) Adolf Hitler. Institutions that centuries ago were widely regarded as acceptable and even salutary - e.g., slavery, the subjugation of women, the execution of thieves and other petty criminals - are today seen as abominations. Centuries from now, the things that we (Christians and atheists alike) currently take to be moral common sense may become no more than quaint absurdities.
That being said, a significant body of evidence suggests that human beings (as well as certain other animals, among them primates) are equipped with a psychological toolkit that tends to give rise to altruistic and empathetic behavior. In other words, there exists a biologically determined human moral instinct that tends to give rise to cross-cultural core notions of "good" and "evil."
Furthermore, I cannot help but be skeptical of your claim that the Bible provides its followers with any sort of absolute, timeless moral code. In theory, this may be the case, but historical practice has certainly proved otherwise. For instance, a Puritan in mid-17th century Massachusetts would have almost certainly accepted that God not only condoned but demanded such actions as "burning rebellious servants, maiming political dissenters, hanging Quakers, executing witches, and crushing an old man to death with stones when he refused to testify before the court."(The quote is from Max Sugar's "Regional Identity and Behavior.") These same Puritans were fervent admirers of Christ and readers of the Bible, and certainly not any less concerned with living a godly life than you are.
The popular understanding of ethical behavior has shifted greatly during Christianity's two thousand year tenure; how is this in keeping with your assertion that the moral dictates of the Bible are absolute and unchanging? Like most other holy writs, the Bible invites endless and endlessly inconsistent interpretation. (Yes, some of these interpretations are genuinely ennobling and inspiring. Some of them are just downright silly. You know those snake-handling sects in the Appalachian mountains? Well, just like you, they're perfectly certain that they're doing what the Bible tells them to.)
Tropical Pete said...
kelli why do you need faith to believe in Evolution?
----------------------
cody says-
cause, faith is what it takes to believe in fairy tales.
So atheist understand - a theory is not a Fact!
That they in good conscience and with sound mind, can not claim a theory as fact to prove they don't have faith in God, (when it is no more than a diff faith) - without the complete facts. ???
You believe it - you claim to know it.
i feel that way about my Christian faith, i believe it - so much, i have past over into the realm of knowing it!
___________________________
There are mountains of evidence that all corroborate evolution. Evolution is a grand theory which explains many of the details of biology.
There have been mountains of garbage - (grand theories) of fairy tales to try and convince folks that a theory is a fact?
In fact, there are sea shells on the mountains - where evo can't go!
____________________________
We have accounts of over 500 eye witness' to "corroborate" that Jesus did in fact do what the Bible claims - if you had any witness' to evolution it would be much easier to prove they were either liars, or insane -
than the witness' for Christianity - since we have over 14,000 documents from the era, and anyone claiming to witness evo -
well according to evo's claims they would have to be - millions of years old?
______________________________
And though we may never know this side of Glory, even if the young earth'ers - are wrong, and the universe is (billions and billions) ;-)))of years old.
The Bible has allowed for that too!
God is not bound by time - He is form everlasting to everlasting, without end, one to which a 1000 years is as a day and a days as a 1000 years.
How can you put that in a box?
i hate to be cheesy and digress to Pascal's wager, but what passable advantage is there to faith in nothing?
The Bible answers this -
there is but one reason anyone would deny God. - They love the darkness more.
Garret,
You made some great points!! As a programmer, I too reuse code and call it from several points in a program. This is because I have created a code snippet that works in multiple application. I had not thought of the commonality of the same creator.
Thank you for bringing these points up.
Laura said...
"if you're fuzzy on the mechanics of macroevolution - and it seems that you are - these titles should give you some good background information. (Carroll is probably the most layperson-friendly of the authors I've listed.)"
Thank you for providing user friendly sources for understanding the mechanics of macroevolution. We are talking of large generalized concepts, of neccesity not breaking into details, I am not a scientist. I WILL PROVIDE MY SOURCES IN A POST THIS EVENING FOR YOU.
"Insects have six legs, not four (cf. Leviticus 11:20). There we go. I just proved that not every word in the Bible is absolutely, infallibly true."
The Christian position is that it is infallible in its original manuscript. From carm.org under bible difficulties
" What a lot of Christians don't know is that the autographs (original writings) are inspired, not the copies. The autographs are the original writings, the original documents penned by the biblical writers. The copies are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. But don't worry, the Bible manuscripts are 98.5% textually pure and only are very small amount of information is in question because we have repetitive facts, instructions, and information found elsewhere in the Bible. Nevertheless, through the copying method over the years, various textual problems have arisen. Following is a list of the types of errors that have occurred in copying the manuscripts. I've used English as examples instead of going into the original languages for examples. His "don't worry" statement refers to the academic science of textual criticism, and is fleshed out on the intro page.
The site goes on to answer specifics, this is a VERY old debate with reams of info. I can provide book sources too. Be sure you are attacking the christian position as known by theologians, not the commoner on the street, you expect the same in regards to evolution.
" As I see it, "good" and "evil" are culturally mediated concepts, not absolute, quantifiable properties." I understand you see it that way- a good book on relativism at the micro (individuals) and macro (societal) is "relativism, feet firmly planted in mid-air" Gregory Koukl, and at his website str.org under relativism. An Athiest must have an evolutionary model for morality, and seek out natural indicators. I understand that you will be unconvinced unless you first accept a god, let alone God. Relativism does not fit with how people really behave, see my post above, see str.org. If you were to be horribly mistreated or violated, the moral wrong of it would haunt your thoughts and feelings for weeks or years, you cannot say they are not quantifiable, as a non physical reality is not physically measured anyway.
"I cannot help but be skeptical of your claim that the Bible provides its followers with any sort of absolute, timeless moral code"
If by observing the behavior of many who have called themselves christian throughout history, I would not blame you. The bible is very black and white in morality, the behavior of many of the biblical characters falls far short of those morals too, from which we learn. I know many seriously apostate christians, and I wish they would not call themselves christian. People fall short of perfect morality, that does not mean morality is an illusion.
"For instance, a Puritan in mid-17th century Massachusetts would have almost certainly accepted that God not only condoned but demanded such actions as "burning rebellious servants, maiming political dissenters, hanging Quakers, executing witches, and crushing an old man to death with stones when he refused to testify before the court."
That puritan would have sincerely believed those people were threats to himself and others. He believed he had a moral obligation to settle those threats...that he settled those issues in a wrong way is not proof of non objective morality, ALSO he would have taken the influences of non biblical superstitious beliefs into his decision making.
If you were absolutely convinced that a witch was about to kill you, you would take steps to settle that threat. The particular steps you take will be judged by future moral relativists and will be deemed good or bad....what makes them good, what makes them bad? Relativism cant answer that question in a coherent way without an appeal to a standard outside of itself.
If that standard is a shifting opinion based framework, we could find ourselves in very dark places when your opinion does not line up with the majority. This is the dilema of the moral reformer...if majority says what is right, then a moral reformer is wrong. What if the majority lived by this "rape establishes dominance, dominance establishes authority, authority establishes order" The moral reformer stands up, a lone voice " Rape is a terrible violation of a person and is wrong, why can't we establish authority through other means?" In their eyes, he is commiting an an evil that threatens the very foundation of law and order, and he is promptly raped and it is good in their eyes. Something is horribly wrong with that no matter who you are, or when you lived, it is just WRONG. This is known to be so, it is part of our fabric, we can feel it and KNOW it with confidence.
Laura said..
Insects have six legs,
not four (cf. Leviticus 11:20).
There we go.
I just proved that not every word in the Bible is absolutely, infallibly true.
Here i go.
It may - just be possible, that their terminology was a bit diff than ours today - in the eng trans
KJV - says fowls? - not being a scholar of the original books i accept the Bible (mostly) on faith - much like evos accept much of their faith in theory?
But, if you look at John MacArthur's NKJV Study Bible - they were more alluding to grasshopper types that could be non-scientifically described as having 4 legs and two arms?
just a thought - we all believe what we want to - until you come under conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Another thought is that 4 legged insects may have been among the thousands of species that have gone (ex-stint) in the passing away of this planet?
The Lord has blessed me greatly - i have never given much thought as to which insect i may have to eat, and it would have to be a have-to situation - Yuck!
I'm thankful - that if put in that situation - i can refer to my Bible for guidance.
God is Good!
I found this article to be hilarious. I can almost hear your mind snapping as you write it. I'm an atheist. I don't set out to pester people about their religious belief, (I'll leave that to you, tracts and all) but when someone starts an argument you can bet I won't shy away. I have no qualms with debating religious people of any stripe. The reason we gripe about Christianity so much is because it, unlike Islam, is the religion so many politicians and televangelists try to shove down America's throat. Also, the idea that Muslims will come and lop off my head for debating them on the internet is hilarious.
Laura,
Here are some books, including the ones referenced for my post. Thanks
"Darwin's Nemesis"- William A Dembski a series of articles, 19 different authors, it would be well worth a read through, In regards to the Intelligent Design movement, and two dissenting contributions.
"Darwin's Black Box"- Michael J Behe PhD in Biochemistry. He takes flack from Darwinists, be sure to read his responses and the book ( I have yet to delve deeply into it)
"I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" Geisler and Turek This is what I modeled my list on. I recommend a good look here, the book is not perfect, few are.
"The Case for a Creator" Lee Strobel the whole "case for" series for that matter.
Thunton P. said...
I found this article to be hilarious. I can almost hear your mind snapping as you write it. I'm an atheist. I don't set out to pester people about their religious belief, (I'll leave that to you, tracts and all) but when someone starts an argument you can bet I won't shy away. I have no qualms with debating religious people of any stripe. The reason we gripe about Christianity so much is because it, unlike Islam, is the religion so many politicians and televangelists try to shove down America's throat.
Thunton P,
How is Ray shoving anything down your throat? Did he force you to come to his blogsite? You chose to come to this site like the rest of us so you really don't have a gripe. You also said you don't set out to pester people about their belief....so why are you here? If it's cause you want to know more...fantastic! If it's to debate people of any stripe...isn't that pestering?
Nothing passive-aggressive here...
Seems to me that if Christians act better than Muslims, it's because Christians don't have as much faith as Muslims do.
See, Christians are basically hypocrites, claiming to believe in God, but in fact revelling in all the benefits of a secular democratic society.
Sorry, but Jesus ain't impressed. Can't serve two masters.
I don't know if anyone is still reading this far back, but for whatever it's worth, here's my reply to Sye Tenb. (Yes, this is rather belated; I've had a hectic couple of days.)
The floor is yours, please give us a non-arbitrary reason why people should behave morally.
By your stubbornly theocentric standards, atheism cannot offer an absolute, "non-arbitary" reason for people to behave morally, nor can it offer an absolute, "non-arbitrary" moral code. This does not constitute a compelling argument for the existence of supernatural beings.
Imagine that I told you that we were being watched over by a super-advanced race of aliens from a distant galaxy. As it so happens, these aliens cannot abide sin of any sort. (Being that their mental capacities far exceed the bounds of human comprehension, these aliens are of course uniquely qualified to define "sin".) In any case, in their quest to eradicate sin from the universe, these aliens have installed undetectable nanoscopic thought-reading chips in our brains. If we do anything these aliens don't like - murder, steal, feel romantic attraction to a person of the same gender - not only will they know, but they will punish us for it. How? They'll use their super-advanced technology download our consciousnesses to their super-advanced computers (which are, of course, housed in an extra-dimensional warehouse on Altair 4). After the earthly bodies of sinners perish, their digitized minds will be made to experience the sensation of needing to sneeze but not being able to, while sitting in drafty room without a sweater, for all of eternity.
Presumably, you wouldn't believe any of this, and you would inform me (gently or otherwise) that these aliens were pure fiction. And when you did, I would offer the following response: "But if the aliens don't exist, then there's no non-arbitrary reason for us to behave morally!" Would this in any way provide proof for, or even evidence of, the aliens' existence?
And some animals are wired to kill and eat each other, why not do that? (You neglected to answer that question from my last post).
Like other members of the order Primates, the animal known as Homo sapiens is not wired to commit indiscriminate intraspecies violence, as this would be a distinctly non-adaptive behavior for a slow-to-reproduce mammal whose success depends on communal living. Granted, we are capable of intraspecies violence, and occasionally even cannibalism – from a purely biological standpoint, there are certain instances in which violence yields advantageous (or at least not prohibitively disastrous) results.
In other words, human moral systems do not arise from our biology alone. Many traits frequently recognized as “virtuous” – particularly altruism, empathy, and fairness – appear to have their roots in instinct; however, elaborate moral codes are culturally transmitted, not biologically inherited. So, where did these moral codes come from? As it so happens, humans are perfectly capable of inventing intricate systems of prescriptive behavior without divine assistance.
So, could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans ‘designed’ the law of non-contradiction?
As I attempted to say in my previous comment, no. The sun is what it is. What we think it is has no bearing on its actual existence. I still don't see how this supports your argument.
Alright, your ability to reason is evidence that evolution is false. Please expalin the validity of your ability to reason, apart from God.
I know this was from a reply addressed to somebody else, but really, it's too good to pass up. Why wouldn't our ability to reason be the product of evolution? It's as biologically based as the ability to swim or fly or lay amniotic eggs or photosynthesize, and it's certainly an advantageous trait - one that natural selection would favor.
Garret -
Thanks for the recommendations; I've put them on my "to read" list.
(I have already read Behe, and I must confess that I remain an unreformed 'evilutionist.' Many other people have long since pointed out the fatal flaws in the irreducible complexity argument, so I won't recount them all here.)
Hi Laura, Thank you for your contributions here, I enjoy reading yours, and others comments. when you said "By your stubbornly theocentric standards, atheism cannot offer an absolute, "non-arbitary" reason for people to behave morally, nor can it offer an absolute, "non-arbitrary" moral code. This does not constitute a compelling argument for the existence of supernatural beings."
I would offer that it is not an argument FOR supernatural beings, but rather AGAINST atheism re its ability to adequately explain moral truths that we all share. The grounding issue, the "why". It also would not argue the Christian God in particular, further arguments would be needed to get there. What would the compelling reasons be to believe in the Altair 4 beings? I have a ton of compelling reasons that I accept the Christian God, as you can tell, though you consider most or all of them suspect.
you said "elaborate moral codes are culturally transmitted, not biologically inherited"
Yes, but simple moral truths are as evident to all as the difference between 4 things, and 6 things.
and you said "humans are perfectly capable of inventing intricate systems of prescriptive behavior without divine assistance."
These things are precisely what I railed against with the grounding issue, the "why". Your statement ultimately leads to relativism. The bible shows many societies that did just what you say, invented their own system, did as they saw fit in their own eyes...but the very question is, did one of those societies (the Jewish one) actually have a divinely revealed system, not all societies.
@laura
(Yes, this is rather belated; I've had a hectic couple of days.)
I hear ya. Thanks for your reply.
By your stubbornly theocentric standards, atheism cannot offer an absolute, "non-arbitary" reason for people to behave morally, nor can it offer an absolute, "non-arbitrary" moral code.
Can it by your standards? If so, what is it?
This does not constitute a compelling argument for the existence of supernatural beings.
Compulsion has nothing to do with this. For all I know, you could be compelled by things that are false.
Imagine that I told you that we were being watched over by a super-advanced race of aliens from a distant galaxy.
I’d ask you to prove your claim.
Presumably, you wouldn't believe any of this, and you would inform me (gently or otherwise) that these aliens were pure fiction.
Nope, I would tell you that this does not comport with God’s revelation.
And when you did, I would offer the following response: "But if the aliens don't exist, then there's no non-arbitrary reason for us to behave morally!" Would this in any way provide proof for, or even evidence of, the aliens' existence?
Nope, because it is false. Still though, what is your non-arbitrary reason to behave morally?
Like other members of the order Primates, the animal known as Homo sapiens is not wired to commit indiscriminate intraspecies violence, as this would be a distinctly non-adaptive behavior for a slow-to-reproduce mammal whose success depends on communal living. Granted, we are capable of intraspecies violence, and occasionally even cannibalism – from a purely biological standpoint, there are certain instances in which violence yields advantageous (or at least not prohibitively disastrous) results.
How do you know that those who ‘evolved’ to be suicide bombers did not evolve ‘right?’ And how do you know what success for animals is? Is survival of the individual at all costs ‘success?’ Is survival of the ‘community’ at all costs success, or is justice, altruism, or aesthetics success?
In other words, human moral systems do not arise from our biology alone. Many traits frequently recognized as “virtuous” – particularly altruism, empathy, and fairness – appear to have their roots in instinct; however, elaborate moral codes are culturally transmitted, not biologically inherited. So, where did these moral codes come from? As it so happens, humans are perfectly capable of inventing intricate systems of prescriptive behavior without divine assistance.
Please provide one example of prescriptive behaviour that humans invented.
As I attempted to say in my previous comment, no. The sun is what it is. What we think it is has no bearing on its actual existence. I still don't see how this supports your argument.
So did the law of identity exist before humans ‘designed’ it? You say that humans ‘designed’ logic so how could this law have existed before humans? You see Laura, you appeal to the laws of logic, yet your position that humans ‘designed’ them is untenable.
I know this was from a reply addressed to somebody else, but really, it's too good to pass up. Why wouldn't our ability to reason be the product of evolution? It's as biologically based as the ability to swim or fly or lay amniotic eggs or photosynthesize, and it's certainly an advantageous trait - one that natural selection would favor.
The best that evolution could give us is “That which helps us to survive.” It cannot give us ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood,’ and truth is necessary for reason. Perhaps you could tell us how you know anything to be ‘true’ according to your worldview.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. I don’t believe in Intelligent Design either.
Sye said:
"P.S. I don’t believe in Intelligent Design either."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. That comment dragged me back into this one. What do you mean you don't believe in Intelligent Design? Are you saying that out of a wish for semantic precision or do you actually not believe in the Creation myth in the book of Genesis? You've repeatedly said that you believe the Bible is the infallible word of god, so I'm perplexed as to how you can claim you don't believe in Intelligent Design, unless it's just the term you don't like. I'm truly curious. Would you mind explaining?
Thanks,
Joel
Let me start out by saying that I am a Christian. I was saved at the age of eleven, and I do believe in God and his ability to save a soul.
Now that I have established this fact, I would like to say how disappointed I am in this article. It saddens me to see how a member of my own community, a body that is supposed to be based around love and acceptance, would go so far as to label and demean another religious belief.
No, I do not agree with atheist. I am very strict in my beliefs. I think that abortion is wrong. I believe that people who are not Christians are going to hell.
However, I would never stoop so low as to call another person a name or clump a group of people together and judge them. The right to judge a soul is not mine, and it is not yours.
That right is God's alone.
We are supposed to set an example to those who are around us, and I am appauled that a man of your age and standing would write such things.
It is not the atheists who disappoint me at this time. It is you.
@Joel
You've repeatedly said that you believe the Bible is the infallible word of god, so I'm perplexed as to how you can claim you don't believe in Intelligent Design, unless it's just the term you don't like. I'm truly curious. Would you mind explaining?
The Bible speaks of creation in 6 days, intelligent design does not. It is an unbiblical hypothesis.
Cheers,
Sye
@sarah
The right to judge a soul is not mine, and it is not yours.
Even the Bible has occasions of righteous mockery of unbelief, that is not judging the person, it is judging their position, exactly what you did with Ray.
Cheers,
Sye
Hi Ray!
Loved the post.
To those who object to the language, go read Matthew 23:27 where the religious leaders are compared to whited sepulchers (white-washed tombs) filled with dead men's bones.
Elsewhere they are called snakes!
There is nothing wrong with a bit of judgement. In fact Christ even commanded us to do so (John7:24), provided it is done righteously.
Thanks
Ray,
You are entertaining as always, but even you must recognize that these statements are nonsense.
Given all your interactions with atheists, do you still fail to understand what atheists believe?
Atheists do not believe in your superstitions, or those of any of the thousands of other religions. We believe your god to be mythical and as equally unsupported by evidence as Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Thor, the Toothfairy, and thousands of other mythical characters. I don't know of a single atheist that has been "chicken" about making this claim regarding any religion.
So, I am not sure how you have concluded that atheists show some extra deference to Islam over Christianity.
As a US citizen I would be equally offended if it were Muslims seeking to use my government as a tool to promote their religion. In the current environment, it is Christians who are so insecure about their beliefs that they insist on using the government as a tool to spread their superstition. If Muslims were attempting to gain control of local school boards and insist on Islamic views in textbooks, you can rest assured that atheists would be there to fight against them imposing their goofy religion on others (is that the attack on Islam you dared me to make?). Contrary to what you have stated in your blog, I, like nearly all other atheists, am equally opposed to all irrational superstition--not just yours.
By the way, the views you have expressed here are more articulately contradicted by a prominent and outspoken atheist from Austin, TX (Matt Dillahunty, tv@atheist-community.org), who hosts a TV show and internet radio show. He has offered numerous times to have you on as a guest or to formally debate you in order to bring these different views into the public forum. Why not accept his invitation?
I think your confusing what and how athiests approach Christians with how they confront you and your little movement , I come from a mixed family christian mother and atheist farther nether pushed there point of view on me or my brothers and sisters but we were christened CofE.
we see on your sites and videos thing like the banana video, which from the moment it turned up was ridiculed because just a little bit of proper research would have told you that bananas were made that way by man and bear no resemblance to anchant bananas,
countless people have pointed out your error yet no retraction has ever taken place, this is just one example of thing you get wrong and we know that you have seen the real evidence against the things you preach yet to this day you preach you anti science ideas with no proof, what I'm getting at is, its people like you that make people like me actually question are religion and were it come from? is it factual?
only to find that no , its a human story based on myths from other cultures. Why did jesus not write anything down he lived long enough he could read and write, he had great wisdom, why was it 35 years after his death we get the first storys and those that follow contradict them, because there not real
the christians burned down the Library of Alexandria , why did it have other truths they did want people to read??
like the wizard of OZ we start are journey down the road looking for the mighty wizard only to find him and see he is fake and his string are being pulled by a man who think you must keep the myth alive or the people will fall in to anarchy
but at the end we see that there is no need for this wizard (god) we had what it took to get were we are going all the time, inside us.
no gods need apply. its a much better story than the bible and has a better ending. so Atheists
are rood to you because you actively want to push your myths on them, they fight you with science because it shows you to be wrong so often but being an atheist doesn't come from a love of science its personal to every individual . (oh and chickens don't have earlobes they have ears but no lobes that why they don't wear ear rings )
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Ruth
http://besttoddler.com
sye:
i don't even know why i'm bothering to explain this to you, as you seem to be closed to all of the excellent explanations provided by other commenters, such as Joel and Laura. it seems like you just accuse people of your own faults; for example, YOU are the one "begging the question" by inserting your conclusion into your premises. also, you love to *try* to poke holes in evolution, morality, etc., but you don't provide any PROOF of your alternative viewpoint.
anyway, i'll try to make this short and sweet(but still, i don't want to leave any dark, dank, stinky corner for you to wriggle into). here's an absolute basis for a fundamental system of morality. SUFFERING SUCKS. yes, we've all experienced suffering, and we all know it sucks. there are, for example, many responses to pain stimuli, involving the instinctual need to avoid pain at any cost, that have (dare i say) evolved. the reasons for this are obvious(mainly, that the experience of pain is a signal that damage is being done to the organism, thereby threatening its survival). on a larger(societal) scale, these inherent "pain-fearing" traits are projected onto the "community" of a more advanced organism, whereby the organism "senses" that damage done to its fellow organisms represents a "bad" thing. yes, and here's where the word "bad" comes in. originally, and in the simplest terms, "bad" is anything that is detrimental to the survival of a species. of course, individual organisms don't actually go through any mental process of considering what is best for their species(it would be ridiculous to think that). rather, natural selection has favored those species whose members exhibit behavior which is beneficial, not only to themselves, but to their species as a whole.
when i say the organism "senses" its relationship to other members of its species, i am referring to the evolved trait of empathy, which is crucial for certain organisms, but not so crucial for others(for example, those which reproduce en-masse). that should answer your question as to why we don't just go around killing "willy-nilly", as other animals SEEM to do. still, there are organisms that DO produce en-masse, and yet still seem to have VERY stable "moral codes"(such as ants and other colony-type insects), whereby they cooperate VERY well with each other, and have very stable societies. basically, you don't seem to understand how "morality" works in favor of maintaining the health of a species. as for "absolute morality", it's insane to judge animals for killing for food, when if they didn't, they'd starve to death. you seem to think they just kill for the sheer pleasure of it. it seems to me that the only animals who ever kill for the sheer pleasure of it are humans. and yes, i believe, strictly speaking, that such people are maladapted to live in a healthy society.
unlike other animals, which apparently only have a sense of empathy that they seem not to understand, we humans, now that we have developed such advanced brains, CAN consciously think about what is best for our species as a whole(should we so choose), and our evolved sense of empathy(which trait obviously originally served the purpose of maintaining the health of a community of organisms) has extended itself to ANYTHING that we, as individuals, consider to be "suffering". this, of course, includes physical pain, but naturally, it also includes ANYTHING else that we, as individuals, have determined to be "suffering". individuals may not consciously realize it, but such feelings of empathy were obviously just traits that we inherited from our ancestors, which helped us(as a species) to survive. also, it just so happens that, now that we live in a technologically advanced society, we have the luxury to ponder such questions as morality. now, even though we ALL have a solid basis(the knowledge of suffering) for our individual opinions on morality, the application of this knowledge varies from person to person.
*continued*
now, THIS is where the "relativism" that you fear SO much comes into play. yes, every individual has a different idea of what "suffering" is(and to different degrees than other individuals), and different opinions on how best to alleviate suffering(some, for instance, believe that inflicting suffering on those who cause suffering is "right", whereas others believe that inflicting suffering is ALWAYS "wrong"). there are even some people(psychopaths, sociopaths) who don't even CARE about the suffering of others. this says NOTHING about some theoretical "system of moral relativism", it only speaks to the malformation of the brains of these individuals. by what basis can i(and others) judge that these people's brains are, indeed, malformed? by the realization, as i explained before, that "suffering is bad". any person with a WORKING brain can easily determine that: "if suffering is bad for me, then it must be bad for others." by extension, there is an INBORN, EVOLVED mechanism which compels healthy individuals to shrink away from causing harm to fellow members of their species. in some individuals' cases, this empathy even extends to other animals that they deem to be "sentient"!
as you can see, on a more complex scale, more and more variations occur in individuals' personal moral structures, according to what they deem to be "suffering", and how best to alleviate it. however, in the brain of every NORMAL individual, there is an inborn knowledge that "pain hurts", and "suffering is bad". actually, i'm quite surprised that you don't seem to recognize that complex morals(by and large) ARE relative, and we(as a species) need to DEAL with that fact, instead of ignoring it, and resorting to an ancient(and contradictory) set of beliefs. i won't even get into what various religious texts say about slavery, misogyny, and about various deities committing genocide, and ordering it to be committed by their followers. i think that any moral person would consider these things "wrong", because they cause MUCH more suffering than they alleviate. it's as simple as that. you don't need to be "given" a set of morals to recognize when you see something that causes suffering. on a side note, i DO believe people should seriously contemplate such issues, since it's not all "cut-and-dried", as you seem to think.
as i said, i won't get into the condemnation of any specific religious belief system. what i WILL do is admit one thing. now that i have presented my case for a NATURAL origin of morality, and therefore the basis for a system of ethics(which, as i have admitted, can be difficult to formulate, based on different opinions regarding suffering), i will grant that you can insert any explanation you choose as to WHY this is the case. you can worship any deity you want, and imagine that s/he/it waved a magic wand and created these natural survival instincts in each organism. but i think that you should accept the fact that i have, indeed, presented a SOLID basis for a NATURAL set of morals, not contingent upon any "lawgiver", but contingent merely upon the knowledge that "suffering sucks". i think we can ALL agree on that point(assuming we have working brains), and therefore take steps to alleviate suffering in all its forms.
*continued*
certainly, there are disagreements as to what FORMS suffering takes, and how best to alleviate it, but why can't we have an intelligent discussion about it? what's so wrong about establishing a SOLID code of morals on our OWN, using the brains that we have? unlike you, i truly do not believe that we HAVE established this "perfect system" yet. fine, if you insist on believing that it already exists, and that it was created by a lawgiver, then i won't quibble with you over minutiae. basically, i think we can all agree that there is SOME possible system of ethics which would be beneficial to the most amount of people, and harmful to the least amount of people(and by "people", i mean sentient people, who have the capacity to experience suffering, not a puddle of semen or a collection of cells in a petri dish). i say this system doesn't exist yet, and we should formulate it. if you say "it already exists", then we can just change the language, and say let's "discover" it! because obviously nobody has "enlightened" us to this "perfect" system yet, so i'm sure you wouldn't object to trying to know the mind of this creator you believe in.
now, speaking of creators: despite the fact that i don't believe in a sentient, intelligent, anthropomorphic creator of the universe, i would still agree that, IF such a being existed, and if such a being were omnibenevolent, and it wanted us to be omnibenevolent too, then we should indeed strive to be omnibenevolent! but let me also ask you this: IF such a being did NOT exist, wouldn't we still have VERY GOOD REASONS to try to be omnibenevolent anyway??????? that is absolutely the MOST shockingly ignorant part of your comments that i've seen. namely, your speculation that if such a being doesn't exist, then we would have NO reason to be good??? it's...ridiculous! outrageous! laughable! as for people with WORKING brains, i think it's obvious why we should try to be good(um, maybe for all the reasons that i've given here regarding suffering sucking?). but even for "average evil joes", there's still a reason to at least TRY not to be bad! uh...can you say "criminal justice system"? by the way, i think it's a lot easier to convince people of the existence of a terrestrial criminal justice system than a celestial one. just FYI.
regardless of the existence of an established system of justice, once again, as any rational mind can discover, those who inflict suffering will MOST LIKELY eventually experience suffering BECAUSE of the suffering that they have inflicted. obviously, this is not always the case, and there is no "natural" system of balance whereby each and every perpetrator gets punished for each and every crime. some people would like to think that this happens in "the next life"(and of course, the types of things that are considered "crimes" vary wildly and often have little to do with ACTUAL human suffering), but this is extremely lazy thinking, and it prevents people from dealing with REAL suffering in THIS life. in fact, that is WHY justice systems have been created: out of the realization that suffering sucks, and is harmful to societies; therefore, systems must be established IN THIS LIFE whereby the inflicting of suffering IN THIS LIFE is discouraged. of course, we are FAR from establishing a perfect justice system, and we won't get anywhere until we start seriously thinking about the REAL foundations of moral principles, and stop shirking responsibility by attributing moral foundations to some creator, basically saying "it's out of my hands, it's already been decided for me".
*continued*
anyway, i've already gone on far too long. besides, judging by your previous posts, i have the sinking feeling that all of this is going to go in one ear and out the other. i just hope that someday, you can learn to have a civilized, rational dialogue about morals and ethics, and try to consciously use your OWN brain to formulate a system for yourself, whereby the greatest number of people benefit, and the least number of people suffer. does there really need to be an "answer" deeper than this? because suffering sucks, and preventing suffering is the right thing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
peace,
-b
Post a Comment