Atheism As A Valid Worldview

AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism As A Valid Worldview

I think we've allowed long enough the absurd idea that Atheism is a valid worldview; from its non sensical view of morality to its inability to make sense of knowledge, rationality, science, how did it ever get so deeply entrenched in our minds. Its destroys the very foundation of civilization. It's too harmful to allow any longer. We should call it out! Who's with me?

AtheismIsNonsense

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY #56

 

HisWillingness wrote:

So ... after Jesus' birth, where did Mary and Joseph go?

 

Matthew 2:14 wrote:

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

 

Luke 2:39 wrote:

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Did they go to Israel or Egypt? That's not consistent.

If you read Matthews account, Jesus is about2 years old when the Magi visit Jesus.

Matt. 2:16 - When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under

In Luke 2:39, he's just over 40 days old (according to the book of Leviticus) Luke 2:22 - When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem

Remember the Magi weren't at his birth. When Messiah was born, that's when the star appeared. Not being Israelites, they probably were astrologers, saw the star and investigated the matter, eventually coming across Hebrew literature and went to acquire about the child from King Herod. Now I don't know why Mary/Joseph/Jesus were in Bethlehem at the time the Magi found him (probably on their way for the feast of the passover according to Luke 2:41 - Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.).

The two Gospels are not speaking of the same account.

 

HisWillness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If any one has a problem with Christianity, it’s not because it’s not logical or internally incoherent. It’s personally disliked. The atheist criticizes Christianity because he’s ignorant of its philosophical claims and/or of his own worldview’s claims or he personally dislikes or personally disagrees with Christianity; not because it is irrational or internally incoherent.

Hey, it could be a little from column A and a little from column B, let's be honest.

 NOPE.

 

HisWillness wrote:

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

But those are all different questions, so it would be irrelevant. Does any epistemology "clash" with an ethics? That's convoluted and confusing. What the Bible says is that for a certain period of time, the laws of physics were mutable at the whim of someone claiming to be the son of God. That's inconsistent with the truly consistent laws of physics.

Conflicts can arise. Take for example you have a professor who has an atomistic (metaphysical claim) worldview that logically is atheistic and who holds to a behaviorist view of man (another logical conclusion of atomistic atheism) who claims that all human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable, if we knew all those factors. Ultimately and in principle, the professor argues, human free will is an illusion. All of us think and do what we have been conditioned to think and do, given the variable factors of our environment. Imagine further that, when it comes time for you to take the final exam in his course, you cheat on the examination and are caught at it by the professor. He is indignant and insists upon imposing a strict penalty (say, flunking the course). If he does so, he exposes an open conflict within his views of human nature, does he not? By punishing you, he assumes that you were free to choose how to approach taking the test: you could study hard and prepare to answer the questions on your own, or you could more efficiently “ride” upon the effort put into the test by the student from whose paper you copied. If you could not help doing what you did-given your previous conditioning and the variables of your environment-it would be senseless so punish you for doing what you predictably did. Yet this is precisely what the professor had taught you in class about human nature in the first place.

 

HisWillingness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Now I know that making the claim that all other worldviews are internal incoherent doesn’t make it so, that is why I’m interested in knowing where you’re coming from with your criticisms against Christianity.

My objection is to supernaturalism in general. It's irrelevant to me that you represent a Christian view, or a Mithraic view, or whatever.

I will respond to this with questions. Do you believe matter is eternal? If not, did matter spontaneously generate?

 

HisWillingness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation?

Of course! You're in a forum, where we're all participating in rational discourse and argumentation! It's baffling that you would ask the question when you're actually participating in the process.

In my other posts, when I accuse Atheists of dodging my questions. This is an example of an answer that does just that. I apologize if this is not intentional on your part, but I have to ask when will atheists begin to understand? The argument against atheists isn’t that atheists aren’t moral or that they’re not rational, or that they’re not scientific, but that their worldviews can’t account for morals, logic, or science and/or are internally incoherent. I read about atheists answering similar theist challenges by saying something like, Atheist can live their lives perfectly well without needing to believe in Christianity so that makes atheism true. I write in some of my posts that there’s a difference between humans making moral judgments, doing science, or being rational versus people’s ability to account for their actions. If you simply take your actions for granted and use that as evidence that your atheist worldview is valid, that’s not proving anything. It needs to be pointed out that many of you make this argument whether intentional or not; conscience of it or not.

 

 

HisWillingness wrote:

As for morality, I've answered twice that in the absence of an absolute morality, a society can still come up with an ethical system. So that even though the Old Testament recommends slavery, modern man can decide to ignore that in favour of freedom.

The OT doesn’t recommend or promote slavery. Slavery existed and exists today in some form or another because of man’s naturally immoral disposition. Have you read about the Year of Jubilee? Why don’t you share that with our audience. The existence of slavery has always been an “object lesson” for God’s people. Human slavery is symbolic of spiritual slavery; slavery to sin (the strong inclination/disposition to commit sin) and its ultimate consequence; eternal condemnation.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:31-36)

 

HisWillingness wrote:

As for the Hitler question, of course it's abhorrent that he would round up people to kill them. That's a stupid question. There's no need for an absolute rule book to find that terrible.

Tell me, is morality subjective and relativistic? Within a group of people, society, or nation? Your statement suggests that it’s universal, that people all around the world are obligated to feel indignant about it and anyone who disagrees with you (or others who hold to your standard of ethics) are “wrong” (is that wrong in a subjective sense)? How is morality determined/derived so that it reaches across other peoples and societies and imposed on them? Why are we obligated to comply with any standard we disagree with? (I speak as a fool; a non-Christian). Hitler and many around him didn’t agree. Why was he and the German people obligated to comply with the “rest” of the world? Are we just speaking about opinions? Is morality reduced to opinions or majority rule? (note: these aren’t different questions, but so that you don’t avoid answering the question or give an answer that is not asked, I’m presenting it in as many different ways as I can think of so you understand the question).

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Skips the self

*Skips the self contradictory biblical crap that only a fool could believe in*

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If any one has a problem with Christianity, it’s not because it’s not logical or internally incoherent. It’s personally disliked. The atheist criticizes Christianity because he’s ignorant of its philosophical claims and/or of his own worldview’s claims or he personally dislikes or personally disagrees with Christianity; not because it is irrational or internally incoherent.

Hey, it could be a little from column A and a little from column B, let's be honest.

 NOPE.

YEP.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

 

 

 

Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

But those are all different questions, so it would be irrelevant. Does any epistemology "clash" with an ethics? That's convoluted and confusing. What the Bible says is that for a certain period of time, the laws of physics were mutable at the whim of someone claiming to be the son of God. That's inconsistent with the truly consistent laws of physics.

Conflicts can arise. Take for example you have a professor who has an atomistic (metaphysical claim) worldview that logically is atheistic and who holds to a behaviorist view of man (another logical conclusion of atomistic atheism) who claims that all human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable, if we knew all those factors. Ultimately and in principle, the professor argues, human free will is an illusion. All of us think and do what we have been conditioned to think and do, given the variable factors of our environment. Imagine further that, when it comes time for you to take the final exam in his course, you cheat on the examination and are caught at it by the professor. He is indignant and insists upon imposing a strict penalty (say, flunking the course). If he does so, he exposes an open conflict within his views of human nature, does he not?

Nope.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
By punishing you, he assumes that you were free to choose how to approach taking the test: you could study hard and prepare to answer the questions on your own, or you could more efficiently “ride” upon the effort put into the test by the student from whose paper you copied. If you could not help doing what you did-given your previous conditioning and the variables of your environment-it would be senseless so punish you for doing what you predictably did. Yet this is precisely what the professor had taught you in class about human nature in the first place.

You're missing the whole point. The punishment ITSELF is conditioning, to make the student a better student. Everything in life is conditioning. The professor would have to be omniscient to have such a standard apply to him. God is supposedly omniscient, so the standard would apply to god. Not to a professor.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

HisWillingness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Now I know that making the claim that all other worldviews are internal incoherent doesn’t make it so, that is why I’m interested in knowing where you’re coming from with your criticisms against Christianity.

My objection is to supernaturalism in general. It's irrelevant to me that you represent a Christian view, or a Mithraic view, or whatever.

I will respond to this with questions. Do you believe matter is eternal? If not, did matter spontaneously generate?

I don't much like speaking for others, but in this case I can say with a fair amount of confidence that he simply doesn't know, and will admit as much.

Why do you have to know anyway? What is it about life that makes it not worth living unless this question is asked? I don't want to know why you want to know (most people would take the knowledge if offered to them: curiosity is a human condition), I want to know why you need to know in order for your existence to have meaning. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

HisWillingness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Does your worldview allow for rational discourse or argumentation?

Of course! You're in a forum, where we're all participating in rational discourse and argumentation! It's baffling that you would ask the question when you're actually participating in the process.

In my other posts, when I accuse Atheists of dodging my questions. This is an example of an answer that does just that.

Hardly. This answers your question perfectly.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 I apologize if this is not intentional on your part, but I have to ask when will atheists begin to understand?

Maybe when you start making yourself clear.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 The argument against atheists isn’t that atheists aren’t moral or that they’re not rational, or that they’re not scientific

It would take me less than 5 seconds to prove that your side does in fact argue these things.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
but that their worldviews can’t account for morals, logic, or science and/or are internally incoherent.

Which is ridiculous. First of all, we don't have a world view. I don't know what it will take to get that through your thick skull, but I'll keep hammering away until it does.

Secondly, logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence. Only a liar will tell you why they exist, because we simply don't know why the universe exists. Or if there is a why for the universe to exist in the first place.

And finally, morals have been accounted for via evolutionary pressures, which has been explained to you and others ad absurdum.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 I read about atheists answering similar theist challenges by saying something like, Atheist can live their lives perfectly well without needing to believe in Christianity so that makes atheism true.

That's a pretty ridiculous argument. It is only effective against someone who insists that one can only be moral through religion, which is an equally ridiculous argument. You find yourself amongst a much more educated atheism at this site.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

I write in some of my posts that there’s a difference between humans making moral judgments, doing science, or being rational versus people’s ability to account for their actions. If you simply take your actions for granted and use that as evidence that your atheist worldview is valid, that’s not proving anything. It needs to be pointed out that many of you make this argument whether intentional or not; conscience of it or not.

I have yet to meet an atheist who believes there is no god because he is moral, or works in science, or is rational. These are not reasons to disbelieve in god. They can lead to reasons to disbelieve in god, but they are not reasons in and of themselves.

*Skips more biblical crap*

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 

HisWillingness wrote:

As for the Hitler question, of course it's abhorrent that he would round up people to kill them. That's a stupid question. There's no need for an absolute rule book to find that terrible.

Tell me, is morality subjective and relativistic?

Yes.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 Within a group of people, society, or nation?

Yes.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  Your statement suggests that it’s universal, that people all around the world are obligated to feel indignant about it and anyone who disagrees with you (or others who hold to your standard of ethics) are “wrong” (is that wrong in a subjective sense)?

Yes, it is subjective.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  How is morality determined/derived so that it reaches across other peoples and societies and imposed on them?

It isn't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  Why are we obligated to comply with any standard we disagree with?

We aren't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  (I speak as a fool; a non-Christian). Hitler and many around him didn’t agree. Why was he and the German people obligated to comply with the “rest” of the world?

They weren't. However, at the same time, they tried to force upon the world their own moral judgements. We all know how that turned out.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  Are we just speaking about opinions?

I would hesitate to quantify morality as an opinion, even though it closely resembles one. You can't just change your mind on your morality as easily as you can change an opinion.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  Is morality reduced to opinions or majority rule?

You phrase the question as if morality had ever been more than a personal position. It isn't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
  (note: these aren’t different questions, but so that you don’t avoid answering the question or give an answer that is not asked, I’m presenting it in as many different ways as I can think of so you understand the question).

If this doesn't answer your questions, you'll have to do better in phrasing them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #102 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

One opponent at a time please

I was pretty busy this weekend, so I didn't respond after my last post. If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

________________________________________________________

Next time I will not reply to you VASTET, My request was to converse with one of you at a time. I replied to HisWillness and am waiting for his response, but your answer needs to be answer less you think you've actually answered or even defeated anything I wrote or HisWillness borrows anything from you and makes himself appear foolish. I'm starting to imagine you as a big retarded kid who has poor interpretive and reading comprehension skills.

To everyone who wants to know what he replied to, please read post #101 to put my writing in perspective.

First of all the challenge made through this thread is that all non-Christian world views are either illogical, inconsistent, internally incoherent or anything else.

HisWillness sought to prove that the scripture passages he provided contradicted themselves, which I showed otherwise.

Vastet, when your chance comes, you can try to prove that what befalls all non-Christian worldviews affects the Christian worldview also and fail trying.

So unless you can prove that the Christian worldview cannot account for human experience or the existence of the universe, or its parts are inconsistent, incompatible with one another, or they're internally incoherent, let's change the YEP back to NOPE.

On punishing the student bit, the point the Professor is making is that there's no free will. One cannot chose to do this or that. If the Professor is conditioning the student, he's not even in control of himself if he wants to be consistent with his view. He and the students are simply products of their physical makeup to the extreme. It would be like telling a tree to CHOOSE to grow or whither and die. Are you saying that you don't make choices? If this is true, the student is not at fault anymore than Hitler is for committing mass genocide.

As for God, He's omniscient. He also controls the course of history and therefore He's also ultimately in control of all human action, He can choose to prevent a tragedy or see it through (Do you think you can exploit this piece of information - God himself in Scripture reveals this about himself and I find comfort and relief in knowing this - nothing is by "chance" and there is purpose and direction to everything that happens as opposed to some atheists having to "fabricate" purpose because of their worldviews).

Matter however is what it is. Apply that to humans and all you have is "all human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable,...human free will is an illusion" Again the funny thing to point out after further investigation is that the professor is not excluded from this claim, his behavior also is out of his control.

With God however, He hasn't disclosed how he grants us free will, yet has control over everything, only that man is made in his image, placing us so high so as to give us the title of adopted children (believers),. He gives us moral choices in life; the ultimate moral decision being whether to follow Him and make Him the starting point and foundation of all our experience and prediction OR pretend to be autonomous and think we can use our God-given intellect and ability to rationalize and reason as our starting point. (Unbelief is immoral)

The latter, theoretically speaking leads to people doing what is right in their own eyes and judging themselves by themselves.

ATHEIST MISS THE POINT!

As for your question regarding why someone has to know to find meaning, etc., this wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out inconsistencies and logical contradictions in your theorizing and claims. The point being everyone has to give an account for what they believe, taking for granted that your position is true and criticizing others using standards that only you agree with and have not proven to be true is not very scientific and rational. That's why philosophers in the past tried but failed to give an account for the way they believed the universe to be. Their worldviews also in some sense dictated how they lived their lives. Socrates criticized the supposed intellects for taking for granted what they "knew" to be true and he was ultimately killed for it.

Vastet wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
but that their worldviews can’t account for morals, logic, or science and/or are internally incoherent.

Which is ridiculous. First of all, we don't have a world view. I don't know what it will take to get that through your thick skull, but I'll keep hammering away until it does.

Secondly, logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence. Only a liar will tell you why they exist, because we simply don't know why the universe exists. Or if there is a why for the universe to exist in the first place.

And finally, morals have been accounted for via evolutionary pressures, which has been explained to you and others ad absurdum.

First of all, you need to read my other posts and the context in which I phrase worldviews of atheists. After Gauche corrected my error explaining to me that there is not one all inclusive Atheist worldview, but many worldviews that are atheistic. So when I write atheistic worldview, it means a worldview that is atheistic.

In a sense, you're correct to say that logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence (namely our existence only). This only makes sense in a Biblical worldview. We're created in the image of God, a God whose mind is perfectly logical and coherent (in whom there is no deceit) and reside in a created universe that is uniform because of our creator's sovereign control of it and are given the command to do science (to theologically phrase it, subdue it and have dominion over it). But take humans out of the picture, do the laws of logic exists? Maybe, but they would be meaningless. If we are brought back in the picture what are the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic just something that happens in the brain of man by chance? Or is it a social convention (as even some renown atheists claim - Gordon Stein)?

Also, morality coming about as a result of evolutionary pressures is a theory of yours (it might be true or false for argument sake), but the claim I've making is that morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless. I've given you so many examples of the logical consequences and conclusions of moral relativism. Below is another one.

According to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.

 

Please do not reply, if you do I will not respond. You're get your chance to face me one on one.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
First of all, Nonsense, just

First of all, Nonsense, just call me Will. "HisWillingness" is funny as a typo, but "HisWillness" is actually a self-deprecating joke.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The two Gospels are not speaking of the same account.

Okay.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Will wrote:
Hey, it could be a little from column A and a little from column B, let's be honest.

 NOPE.

I'm sorry, did you just eliminate a possibility as impossible? That's odd ...

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Conflicts can arise. Take for example you have a professor who has an atomistic (metaphysical claim) worldview that logically is atheistic and who holds to a behaviorist view of man

You don't know that I won't respond to a Gedankenversuch, so let's just let this one go. I'm not going to argue on the basis of something you made up. The reason for that is pragmatic, and not bad manners: you can make up a universe where anything happens. I agree with that, and I will not argue about your imagined universe. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I will respond to this with questions. Do you believe matter is eternal? If not, did matter spontaneously generate?

No, and no. Actually, for the latter, I think "I don't know" is more appropriate to my level of humility on the matter, but you asked for a belief.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In my other posts, when I accuse Atheists of dodging my questions. This is an example of an answer that does just that. I apologize if this is not intentional on your part, but I have to ask when will atheists begin to understand?

Have you tried asking better questions? You asked if my worldview accepts rational discourse. The answer is yes, you're doing it with me right now. Is that not a valid answer?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The argument against atheists isn’t that atheists aren’t moral or that they’re not rational, or that they’re not scientific, but that their worldviews can’t account for morals, logic, or science and/or are internally incoherent. I read about atheists answering similar theist challenges by saying something like, Atheist can live their lives perfectly well without needing to believe in Christianity so that makes atheism true.

Whoa! Hold your horses. Nothing about anyone living a pleasant life implies truth about anything. Just because I believe there are no gods and have a pleasant life doesn't mean that I'm right because my life is pleasant. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I write in some of my posts that there’s a difference between humans making moral judgments, doing science, or being rational versus people’s ability to account for their actions.

You've lost me. How, in your opinion, should I account for my actions?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If you simply take your actions for granted and use that as evidence that your atheist worldview is valid, that’s not proving anything. It needs to be pointed out that many of you make this argument whether intentional or not; conscience of it or not.

I quite honestly don't know what you're saying. I've read it a couple of times, and you'll have to rephrase it or something. I don't use my actions to validate my atheism. That's oddly disjointed. I'm not sure how I'd make that argument unconsciously.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The OT doesn’t recommend or promote slavery.

Okay. So Leviticus 25:45-46 we can just ignore?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Have you read about the Year of Jubilee? Why don’t you share that with our audience.

Why don't you? I don't know anything about it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Tell me, is morality subjective and relativistic? Within a group of people, society, or nation? Your statement suggests that it’s universal, that people all around the world are obligated to feel indignant about it and anyone who disagrees with you (or others who hold to your standard of ethics) are “wrong” (is that wrong in a subjective sense)?

No, I was saying that each cultural group has its own set of values that they agree on. That's pretty obvious. Some individuals will have differing opinions with that of the majority. I think that's still pretty obvious. So in that sense, it's relative, and it's also a group exercise. It's also highly dynamic, and mutable.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How is morality determined/derived so that it reaches across other peoples and societies and imposed on them?

Haha--that's kind of a funny question. Do you mean how is a culture forced down the throats of others? Ask a missionary.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Why are we obligated to comply with any standard we disagree with? (I speak as a fool; a non-Christian).

We aren't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Hitler and many around him didn’t agree. Why was he and the German people obligated to comply with the “rest” of the world?

The rest of the world disagreed with force.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are we just speaking about opinions? Is morality reduced to opinions or majority rule? (note: these aren’t different questions, but so that you don’t avoid answering the question or give an answer that is not asked, I’m presenting it in as many different ways as I can think of so you understand the question).

Largely majority rule for legal issues, and personally to opinion.

Attempted condescension doesn't help. I'm describing what is. You, too, could take an anthropology class and learn this stuff. It's not new.

Try asking better questions.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:One

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

One opponent at a time please
 No. 
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Next time I will not reply to you VASTET,

That won't stop me from responding to you repeatedly. It will merely give my arguments infinite power over your own. Which they already have to anyone with an education, but sadly people in your position are lacking one. Fortunately, even people in your position are capable of seeing how inability to respond proves your points are invalid.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
My request was to converse with one of you at a time. I replied to HisWillness and am waiting for his response, but your answer needs to be answer less you think you've actually answered or even defeated anything I wrote or HisWillness borrows anything from you and makes himself appear foolish. I'm starting to imagine you as a big retarded kid who has poor interpretive and reading comprehension skills.

You just described yourself perfectly. A retarded kid who has poor interpretive and reading comprehension skills. Although you missed adding the poorly educated part.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Vastet, when your chance comes, you can try to prove that what befalls all non-Christian worldviews affects the Christian worldview also and fail trying.

What the hell does this even mean? You have so little sense that you can't even make sense of your nonsense. Are you suggesting a dichotomy between christianity and everything else? If so, let me direct you to the False Dichotomy Fallacy. Christianity and everything else are not the only options. There's the jews, the moslems, the wiccans, the scientologists, the Norse, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the sun.....

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

So unless you can prove that the Christian worldview cannot account for human experience or the existence of the universe, or its parts are inconsistent, incompatible with one another, or they're internally incoherent, let's change the YEP back to NOPE.

The bible itself (thanks to its position as the cornerstone of the entire religion) proves irrevocably that the entire christian religion, and all of its denominations, is full of inconsistancies, logical fallacies, emotional badgering, and blatant lies. I need put no effort into the process myself. So the NOPE turns back into YEP. Permanently.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

On punishing the student bit, the point the Professor is making is that there's no free will. One cannot chose to do this or that. If the Professor is conditioning the student, he's not even in control of himself if he wants to be consistent with his view. He and the students are simply products of their physical makeup to the extreme. It would be like telling a tree to CHOOSE to grow or whither and die. Are you saying that you don't make choices? If this is true, the student is not at fault anymore than Hitler is for committing mass genocide.

I never said the student is at fault. The student is being a student, and the professor is conditioning him to be a better one. The professor himself was conditioned to provide this conditioning as part of his job description. You just don't get it. You can make choices. That doesn't mean you have free will. When was the last time you could choose to fly without technological assistance, and it worked?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As for God, He's omniscient. He also controls the course of history and therefore He's also ultimately in control of all human action, He can choose to prevent a tragedy or see it through (Do you think you can exploit this piece of information - God himself in Scripture reveals this about himself and I find comfort and relief in knowing this - nothing is by "chance" and there is purpose and direction to everything that happens as opposed to some atheists having to "fabricate" purpose because of their worldviews).

That just makes god evil (by my moral code) beyond belief, and anyone who would follow him a lapdog of said evil. If god does exist, and is omniscient and omnipotent, then I could never follow his evil ways.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Matter however is what it is. Apply that to humans and all you have is "all human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable,...human free will is an illusion" Again the funny thing to point out after further investigation is that the professor is not excluded from this claim, his behavior also is out of his control.

So what?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

With God however, He hasn't disclosed how he grants us free will, yet has control over everything, only that man is made in his image, placing us so high so as to give us the title of adopted children (believers),. He gives us moral choices in life; the ultimate moral decision being whether to follow Him and make Him the starting point and foundation of all our experience and prediction OR pretend to be autonomous and think we can use our God-given intellect and ability to rationalize and reason as our starting point. (Unbelief is immoral)

That's a lie. Supposing your god exists, your god has never granted the human species the free will to choose to follow him or not. He has only granted the option to believe or disbelieve with a lack of evidence to support either position. I do not have a choice in this matter. I have never been a theist. The only way I could ever believe in a god is if he or she or it came down and introduced itself to me, and then provided an adequate demonstration of its powers (this could have been circumvented by your god using a fraction of its omnisciency to create an ever lasting proof of its existence [like, say, writing the bible in English centuries before English existed, and leaving a copy of it on the moon for us to find when we got there decades ago], but alas it never did that). And then it'd get one hell of an interrogation as to why it made this mess in the first place. After all that had been said and done, I would have the free will to choose whether or not to believe in and follow it. As things stand, I do not.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The latter, theoretically speaking leads to people doing what is right in their own eyes and judging themselves by themselves.

ATHEIST MISS THE POINT!

You don't even know what the point looks like, let alone where it is.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As for your question regarding why someone has to know to find meaning, etc., this wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out inconsistencies and logical contradictions in your theorizing and claims.

Something you failed to accomplish in spectacular fashion.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The point being everyone has to give an account for what they believe, taking for granted that your position is true and criticizing others using standards that only you agree with and have not proven to be true is not very scientific and rational.

So how about you stop making up strawmen and show me where we've done this. And try to stay in context. I know it's spectacularly tempting for you theists to pull shit out of context or remake entire arguments to desperately save face, but you aren't going to convince any of us to switch sides by doing so.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 That's why philosophers in the past tried but failed to give an account for the way they believed the universe to be. Their worldviews also in some sense dictated how they lived their lives. Socrates criticized the supposed intellects for taking for granted what they "knew" to be true and he was ultimately killed for it.

And none of us claims to know everything about everything, or why anything, or whatever the fuck. You're making up an argument that doesn't apply to anyone here.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

First of all, you need to read my other posts and the context in which I phrase worldviews of atheists.

And you need to read mine showing you how wrong you were.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 After Gauche corrected my error explaining to me that there is not one all inclusive Atheist worldview, but many worldviews that are atheistic. So when I write atheistic worldview, it means a worldview that is atheistic.

And there isn't one. Not that I'm aware of at least.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

In a sense, you're correct to say that logic and science are irrevocably tied to the nature of existence (namely our existence only). This only makes sense in a Biblical worldview. We're created in the image of God, a God whose mind is perfectly logical and coherent (in whom there is no deceit) and reside in a created universe that is uniform because of our creator's sovereign control of it and are given the command to do science (to theologically phrase it, subdue it and have dominion over it). But take humans out of the picture, do the laws of logic exists? Maybe, but they would be meaningless. If we are brought back in the picture what are the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic just something that happens in the brain of man by chance? Or is it a social convention (as even some renown atheists claim - Gordon Stein)?

This assumes humanity is the only species in existence to have a capability to use logic. Even if we're the only species on Earth to be able to, and I don't know that we are (neither do you), I doubt very much a god would create such an expansive universe to sow seeds on one tiny rock that doesn't even compare to a pebble of sand at a beach in ratio.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Also, morality coming about as a result of evolutionary pressures is a theory of yours (it might be true or false for argument sake), but the claim I've making is that morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless.

How?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I've given you so many examples of the logical consequences and conclusions of moral relativism. Below is another one.

Aha, I think I'm finally beginning to penetrate where you are trying to come from. You assume morality must be logical. Why? The basis for most or all morals is emotional response. And emotional response is hardly logical. It can be, but it isn't necessarily.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

According to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.

If the German people didn't have a problem with it, who are you to say it was wrong?

Of course, they did have a problem with it, so they say it was wrong, so saying Hitler was wrong is using the morality of his victims. In his own mind, he was probably doing good. But who wants to use the morality of someone who was clinically insane in an argument? I certainly wouldn't.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Please do not reply, if you do I will not respond. You're get your chance to face me one on one.

You don't have to reply if you don't want to, you've never had to. But if I'm on the net and I see something I disagree with, I'm going to say so. I don't censor myself for anyone except under very special circumstances that involve the safety of myself and those I care about.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #104 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

 

One opponent at a time please

I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, we think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

____________________________________________________________

 

Will wrote:

I'm sorry, did you just eliminate a possibility as impossible? That's odd ...

Will, maybe I should have had you clarify what is in column A and what's in column B before answering. But so that this doesn't have to come up again. The reason you dislike Christianity will not be because it's irrational or internally incoherent, because Christianity is logical and coherent. Unless you dislike certain truths.

 

Will wrote:

You don't know that I won't respond to a Gedankenversuch, so let's just let this one go. I'm not going to argue on the basis of something you made up. The reason for that is pragmatic, and not bad manners: you can make up a universe where anything happens. I agree with that, and I will not argue about your imagined universe.

Let me clarify the argument further if you still don't understand it. The truth is the truth. I'm asking you whether your worldview can account for your actions. Whether can make sense of human experience. Now I know there are materialist atheists out there who make such claims regarding human behavior as in my example. What I'm pointing out is if such a person makes a claim, he's denying free will; man's ability to choose. Yet at the same time his view of morality is such that he believes man has the ability to chose to do right or wrong. That's a blatant contradiction.

I'm not making up a universe, I proving the truthfulness of Christianity because of the impossibility of the contrary. Believe contrary to Christianity and you are reduced to foolishness. You can construct any worldview to believe in, but you will run into logical inconsistencies along the way if you deny the truth claims of Christianity. The more I get you to expose more about what you believe the universe to be, the more I can point out these inconsistencies and contradictions.

Atheists who've come across this argumentation and understand it are very hesitant to expose themselves because of the inconsistencies of their claims.

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I will respond to this with questions. Do you believe matter is eternal? If not, did matter spontaneously generate?

No, and no. Actually, for the latter, I think "I don't know" is more appropriate to my level of humility on the matter, but you asked for a belief.

And this proves my point when I write

there’s a difference between humans making moral judgments, doing science, or being rational versus people’s ability to account for their actions. If you simply take your actions for granted and use that as evidence that your atheist worldview is valid, that’s not proving anything. It needs to be pointed out that many of you make this argument whether intentional or not; conscience of it or not.

It's not scientific and not rational to say I don't know the answers that would make my worldview intelligible but nevertheless, I'm going to formulate my questions according to my worldview claims and if you can't answer them, then you're wrong.

Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method. Many Atheists ask that because many hold to a materialistic view of the universe, but as I've pointed out they can't make sense of human experience with this type of belief in the universe. Morality is subjective at best, I can't imagine what logic is in this theoretical outlook, man can't possibly have free will/thought if he's composed of matter that rigidly obeys the "laws" of chemistry and physics. How can someone who doesn't have his own "house" in order demand anything from someone else under his own terms?

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In my other posts, when I accuse Atheists of dodging my questions. This is an example of an answer that does just that. I apologize if this is not intentional on your part, but I have to ask when will atheists begin to understand?

Have you tried asking better questions? You asked if my worldview accepts rational discourse. The answer is yes, you're doing it with me right now. Is that not a valid answer?

I think I've answered this plenty enough, but here goes again. I'm not asking whether you "Can". That's not the argument. I can't remember when I made the claim that atheists can't engage in rational discourse, do science, or make moral judgment. You can and you do. The argument is that your worldview cannot account for the things you do. That in itself should prove that your network of claims on the universe are false. Within the Christian worldview, free will is possible, uniformity in nature can be known to exist for science to make sense, morality can make sense because it can be absolute, etc.

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The argument against atheists isn’t that atheists aren’t moral or that they’re not rational, or that they’re not scientific, but that their worldviews can’t account for morals, logic, or science and/or are internally incoherent. I read about atheists answering similar theist challenges by saying something like, Atheist can live their lives perfectly well without needing to believe in Christianity so that makes atheism true.

Whoa! Hold your horses. Nothing about anyone living a pleasant life implies truth about anything. Just because I believe there are no gods and have a pleasant life doesn't mean that I'm right because my life is pleasant. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?

Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The OT doesn’t recommend or promote slavery.

Okay. So Leviticus 25:45-46 we can just ignore?

So in Leviticus 25, The LORD permitted slavery of not only foreigners, mainly through defeated nations, but fellow Israelites as well.

Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?

But as I mentioned before "The existence of slavery has always been an “object lesson” for God’s people. Human slavery is symbolic of spiritual slavery; slavery to sin (the strong inclination/disposition to commit sin) and its ultimate consequence; eternal condemnation.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:31-36)

Also in Deuteronomy 15 it speaks about the year of release (every seven years), At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. Deut 15:1-6)

You know that this refers to slaves/servants also because of Exodus 21, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. (Ex. 21:2-4)

Now this is not only to teach His people of financial freedom but to point out a difference between the people of God and those who are outside of His grace. For in Deut. 4:6-8, "See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?"

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Have you read about the Year of Jubilee? Why don’t you share that with our audience.

Why don't you? I don't know anything about it.

Correction, I meant the year of release, please read previous section.

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Tell me, is morality subjective and relativistic? Within a group of people, society, or nation? Your statement suggests that it’s universal, that people all around the world are obligated to feel indignant about it and anyone who disagrees with you (or others who hold to your standard of ethics) are “wrong” (is that wrong in a subjective sense)?

No, I was saying that each cultural group has its own set of values that they agree on. That's pretty obvious. Some individuals will have differing opinions with that of the majority. I think that's still pretty obvious. So in that sense, it's relative, and it's also a group exercise. It's also highly dynamic, and mutable.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How is morality determined/derived so that it reaches across other peoples and societies and imposed on them?

Haha--that's kind of a funny question. Do you mean how is a culture forced down the throats of others? Ask a missionary.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Why are we obligated to comply with any standard we disagree with? (I speak as a fool; a non-Christian).

We aren't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Hitler and many around him didn’t agree. Why was he and the German people obligated to comply with the “rest” of the world?

The rest of the world disagreed with force.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are we just speaking about opinions? Is morality reduced to opinions or majority rule? (note: these aren’t different questions, but so that you don’t avoid answering the question or give an answer that is not asked, I’m presenting it in as many different ways as I can think of so you understand the question).

Largely majority rule for legal issues, and personally to opinion.

Attempted condescension doesn't help. I'm describing what is. You, too, could take an anthropology class and learn this stuff. It's not new.

Try asking better questions.

I asked all the right questions. Now that I have your answers, I will tell you how meaningless moral relativism is.

Morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless because of its logical consequences and conclusions, because according to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REGARDING THE DIFFICULTY DIFFERENTIATING ME FROM MY OPPONENT

I tried differentiating my writing from Will's by not italicizing my responses and that's how it appeared as I wrote it, but after submitting it, it all appeared italicized.

However the format I use is always:

 

Will wrote:

quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote

My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response, My response.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Will, maybe I should have had you clarify what is in column A and what's in column B before answering. But so that this doesn't have to come up again

We can drop it. I don't "dislike Christianity", I dislike supernaturalism. Gods and what-not.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Let me clarify the argument further if you still don't understand it. The truth is the truth. I'm asking you whether your worldview can account for your actions. Whether can make sense of human experience. Now I know there are materialist atheists out there who make such claims regarding human behavior as in my example. What I'm pointing out is if such a person makes a claim, he's denying free will; man's ability to choose. Yet at the same time his view of morality is such that he believes man has the ability to chose to do right or wrong. That's a blatant contradiction.

Could you please slow down? I haven't made any of the arguments you're countering at this point. None. You're arguing with yourself.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Believe contrary to Christianity and you are reduced to foolishness. You can construct any worldview to believe in, but you will run into logical inconsistencies along the way if you deny the truth claims of Christianity. The more I get you to expose more about what you believe the universe to be, the more I can point out these inconsistencies and contradictions.

Man, I'm going to love this conversation, I can just tell. Christianity is now a homogeneous belief? But surely, like all the rest of the Christians, you believe that there are people who profess to be Christians, but do not follow the true faith.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Atheists who've come across this argumentation and understand it are very hesitant to expose themselves because of the inconsistencies of their claims.

I'll be frank, I have no idea what you're talking about any more. Did you want to discuss something with me, or with hypothetical atheists that you may or may not have made up?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It's not scientific and not rational to say I don't know the answers that would make my worldview intelligible but nevertheless, I'm going to formulate my questions according to my worldview claims and if you can't answer them, then you're wrong.

No, you just misunderstand scientific epistemology. Until you know something, you don't know it. What you keep calling my "worldview" can have quite a lot of honest ignorance in it. I won't argue about those areas of ignorance, because I'm ignorant of them. I feel as though I'm stating the obvious, but the statements you're making are so incredibly off-base with regards to my beliefs that there's no reason to defend them. After all, they're not my beliefs!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method.

Haha -- but that would be nonsense. I would never ask anyone to do that. I might ask if the hypothesis of God is falsifiable, because that's a specific question. Do you know what I mean by "falsifiable"? (Hint: check out Karl Popper.)

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How can someone who doesn't have his own "house" in order demand anything from someone else under his own terms?

I don't even know what this means.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The argument is that your worldview cannot account for the things you do. That in itself should prove that your network of claims on the universe are false. Within the Christian worldview, free will is possible, uniformity in nature can be known to exist for science to make sense, morality can make sense because it can be absolute, etc.

You really are reading the exact same book as Paisley (and caposkia and truden?). Once again, you've made arguments for me, and you're shooting them down without my having raised them. Could you please, please tell me the book that these arguments are from? It would probably save time if you just told me instead of all four of you typing them out. It's obvious at this point, so don't pretend like you've come up with these yourself. If it were two people, maybe. Four? All using EXACTLY the same arguments, with EXACTLY the same wording? You might as well give me the name of the book.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?

Cut the crap? You're regurgitating someone else's arguments! How's that for "cut the crap"? Don't give me someone else's material and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I'm being slippery.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?

First of all, I don't know what "rigid" matter is. If you just mean simply matter, then from a physicalist point of view, our brains, which give us an emergent property we call "mind", also tend to give us feelings of undue importance. B.F. Skinner's work on how we deceive ourselves should be helpful to you in understanding that. See also optical illusions, and any modern work on consciousness. Consider the possibiltiy that we believe in free will because it makes us feel better. I'm not asking you to believe it, just consider the possibility.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?

I don't, no. But I'm from a culture that values freedom. In cultures that don't value freedom, they might want to (and do) operate legal slavery in their countries. I don't agree with that, but it would be legal in countries that do those things. That's a matter of cultural values. I also disagree with people getting their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. But I don't get that objection from a book. I just find it barbaric. Where did I learn that it was barbaric? Probably other members of my culture.

[some biblical passages]

I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I asked all the right questions. Now that I have your answers, I will tell you how meaningless moral relativism is.

Haha -- okay.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless because of its logical consequences and conclusions, because according to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.

You haven't actually demonstrated that genocide was perfectly moral to the German people. Why would there have been a resistance movement in Germany if it were acceptable to the German people? Individuals have a moral sense, and sometimes groups can have a moral sense. You're mixing up what we're addressing by confusing the two, and reaching a conclusion.

I think you have me confused with a simpleton. Am I honestly to believe that your version of morality requires you to consult a book before you can make a moral decision? I find that hard to believe for an adult.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #108 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

One opponent at a time please

I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like to begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

________________________________________________________

 

 

Will, before I properly reply to your post. I need you to clarify a few things.

 

 

(1) Regarding,

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method.

Haha -- but that would be nonsense. I would never ask anyone to do that. I might ask if the hypothesis of God is falsifiable, because that's a specific question. Do you know what I mean by "falsifiable"? (Hint: check out Karl Popper.)

Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable? I know that falsificationists use this method to promote the “authority” of natural science and empirical methods in the attempt to criticize the meaningfulness of religious language. Is there anything else I should know about it before answering the question if you want me to answer it?

 

 

(2) regarding,

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?

Cut the crap? You're regurgitating someone else's arguments! How's that for "cut the crap"? Don't give me someone else's material and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I'm being slippery.

Are you implying that arguments that have been used and that do not originate from me are not accessible to me?

 

 

(3) regarding,

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?

First of all, I don't know what "rigid" matter is. If you just mean simply matter, then from a physicalist point of view, our brains, which give us an emergent property we call "mind", also tend to give us feelings of undue importance. B.F. Skinner's work on how we deceive ourselves should be helpful to you in understanding that. See also optical illusions, and any modern work on consciousness. Consider the possibiltiy that we believe in free will because it makes us feel better. I'm not asking you to believe it, just consider the possibility.

Explain to me Skinner’s theory and tell me about optical illusions and modern theories on consciousness.

 

(4) regarding,

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?

I don't, no. But I'm from a culture that values freedom. In cultures that don't value freedom, they might want to (and do) operate legal slavery in their countries. I don't agree with that, but it would be legal in countries that do those things. That's a matter of cultural values. I also disagree with people getting their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. But I don't get that objection from a book. I just find it barbaric. Where did I learn that it was barbaric? Probably other members of my culture.

[some biblical passages]

I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.

Are you suggesting somewhere in my writing that I made the claim (directly or indirectly) that logic and Christian theism are unrelated?


 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Do

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable?

Yes.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are you implying that arguments that have been used and that do not originate from me are not accessible to me?

No, I'm saying you don't cite your sources unless you're quoting the Bible.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Explain to me Skinner’s theory and tell me about optical illusions and modern theories on consciousness.

What am I, your private professor?

B. F. Skinner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner

optical illusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Will wrote:
I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.

Are you suggesting somewhere in my writing that I made the claim (directly or indirectly) that logic and Christian theism are unrelated?

No, I did. Logic of a kind is certainly used in Christian theology, but I thought you were going to actively use logic.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #108/110 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

One opponent at a time please

I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like to begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

________________________________________________________

 

 

Will wrote in #56:

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Does its metaphysical (the nature of reality) claims clash with its claims of knowledge (how we know what we know) or with its claims of morality (how we should live our lives)? Are any of the parts internally contradictory?

But those are all different questions, so it would be irrelevant. Does any epistemology "clash" with an ethics? That's convoluted and confusing. What the Bible says is that for a certain period of time, the laws of physics were mutable at the whim of someone claiming to be the son of God. That's inconsistent with the truly consistent laws of physics.

Will wrote in #104

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Conflicts can arise. Take for example you have a professor who has an atomistic (metaphysical claim) worldview that logically is atheistic and who holds to a behaviorist view of man

You don't know that I won't respond to a Gedankenversuch, so let's just let this one go. I'm not going to argue on the basis of something you made up. The reason for that is pragmatic, and not bad manners: you can make up a universe where anything happens. I agree with that, and I will not argue about your imagined universe. 

Will wrote in #108

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Let me clarify the argument further if you still don't understand it. The truth is the truth. I'm asking you whether your worldview can account for your actions. Whether can make sense of human experience. Now I know there are materialist atheists out there who make such claims regarding human behavior as in my example. What I'm pointing out is if such a person makes a claim, he's denying free will; man's ability to choose. Yet at the same time his view of morality is such that he believes man has the ability to chose to do right or wrong. That's a blatant contradiction.

Could you please slow down? I haven't made any of the arguments you're countering at this point. None. You're arguing with yourself.

Will, you need to go back and read our exchanges. You stated the above in #56. I was simply showing (in #101) how out of the three questions, conflicts can arise between them in a person’s worldview. You replied with what’s in #104. I countered with what I wrote in #106 to further clarify, to which you’re now upset over. The man in my example had a metaphysical claim clash with an ethical claim.

 

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Believe contrary to Christianity and you are reduced to foolishness. You can construct any worldview to believe in, but you will run into logical inconsistencies along the way if you deny the truth claims of Christianity. The more I get you to expose more about what you believe the universe to be, the more I can point out these inconsistencies and contradictions.

Man, I'm going to love this conversation, I can just tell. Christianity is now a homogeneous belief? But surely, like all the rest of the Christians, you believe that there are people who profess to be Christians, but do not follow the true faith.

Understand the argument Will, I’m arguing that the Biblical Christian worldview is the only logical and internally coherent worldview that can make sense of the universe and man’s experience. In the Christian worldview, moral absolutes can exists (it makes sense to call another person’s actions within any society or nation good/evil or right/wrong), man can have free will and be rational (being created in the Creators image), know things about himself/others and the world around him (through God’s natural and supernatural revelation), find uniformity in nature to conduct science (through God’s constant governing of his creation – this accounts for the existence of natural laws), and miracles can happen since God created the world, governs it, imposes on it it’s limitations.

Now I’ve explained it in the simplest terms. I’m waiting for you Will (as a materialist atheist) to tell me how in a supernatural-less universe, you can have free will, choice, logic, science, morality when you all have to work with is matter that “rigidly” obeys immutable laws.

As for homogeneous belief, I never claimed that professing to be Christian equates to truthfully being one. I mean I can claim to be a Neo-Nazi, but my actions would betray my profession. But even the existence of false believers and apostates exist and make sense in the Biblical Christian worldview. Man is by nature (after the fall) corrupted and at enmity with God. He has a natural disposition to disobey his commands and to try to be autonomous, refusing to acknowledge that in God, we live and breathe and have our being (Acts 17:28). Since man has corrupted the design and purpose of creation and himself, it’s only natural in this light that he would corrupt the truth.

People can behave contrary to the truth and contradict themselves; however the Biblical Christian worldview is consistent and impervious to logical contradiction because the Christian God is the precondition for our existence and experience (yours and mine).

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Atheists who've come across this argumentation and understand it are very hesitant to expose themselves because of the inconsistencies of their claims.

I'll be frank, I have no idea what you're talking about any more. Did you want to discuss something with me, or with hypothetical atheists that you may or may not have made up?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It's not scientific and not rational to say I don't know the answers that would make my worldview intelligible but nevertheless, I'm going to formulate my questions according to my worldview claims and if you can't answer them, then you're wrong.

No, you just misunderstand scientific epistemology. Until you know something, you don't know it. What you keep calling my "worldview" can have quite a lot of honest ignorance in it. I won't argue about those areas of ignorance, because I'm ignorant of them. I feel as though I'm stating the obvious, but the statements you're making are so incredibly off-base with regards to my beliefs that there's no reason to defend them. After all, they're not my beliefs!

Tell me your beliefs then.

 

 

Will wrote in #108:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Example would be asking to prove the existence of God using the scientific method.

Haha -- but that would be nonsense. I would never ask anyone to do that. I might ask if the hypothesis of God is falsifiable, because that's a specific question. Do you know what I mean by "falsifiable"? (Hint: check out Karl Popper.)

I wrote in #109

Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable? I know that falsificationists use this method to promote the “authority” of natural science and empirical methods in the attempt to criticize the meaningfulness of religious language. Is there anything else I should know about it before answering the question if you want me to answer it?

Will wrote in #110:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Do you want me to answer whether the Hypothesis of God is falsifiable?

Yes.

Here’s my answer: Since for anything to be falsifiable, its truth or falseness would need to be determined via empirical methods. And since God is not physical and cannot be discovered via empirical methods, the hypothesis of God cannot be falsified.

 

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

How can someone who doesn't have his own "house" in order demand anything from someone else under his own terms?

I don't even know what this means.

Someone whose worldview can’t make sense of human existence and experience isn’t in a position to rightly judge another person’s worldview, whether the worldview is right or wrong.

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The argument is that your worldview cannot account for the things you do. That in itself should prove that your network of claims on the universe are false. Within the Christian worldview, free will is possible, uniformity in nature can be known to exist for science to make sense, morality can make sense because it can be absolute, etc.

You really are reading the exact same book as Paisley (and caposkia and truden?). Once again, you've made arguments for me, and you're shooting them down without my having raised them. Could you please, please tell me the book that these arguments are from? It would probably save time if you just told me instead of all four of you typing them out. It's obvious at this point, so don't pretend like you've come up with these yourself. If it were two people, maybe. Four? All using EXACTLY the same arguments, with EXACTLY the same wording? You might as well give me the name of the book.

I don’t know who these authors are you speak of. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God; proving the impossibility to the contrary. If you believe contrary to the Christian faith, you’re left without a workable worldview by which to make sense of the world and your experience. Reject the Christian worldview and you’re reduced to philosophical foolishness.


 

 

Will wrote in #108:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I share that belief with you, so lets cut the crap and start answering the questions. Can you're claims on the universe, that lead you to conclude that there is no God, account for rational discourse or morality that doesn't allow Hitler to be morally right in committing genocide, and the such?

Cut the crap? You're regurgitating someone else's arguments! How's that for "cut the crap"? Don't give me someone else's material and then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I'm being slippery.

I wrote in #109:

Are you implying that arguments that have been used and that do not originate from me are not accessible to me?

Will wrote in #110:

No, I'm saying you don't cite your sources unless you're quoting the Bible.

Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Gordon Clark, etc.

 

 

 

Will wrote in #108:

 AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Remember you don't believe in supernaturalism, so answer it from a materialistic point of view. How can "rigid" matter result in free will or choice?

First of all, I don't know what "rigid" matter is. If you just mean simply matter, then from a physicalist point of view, our brains, which give us an emergent property we call "mind", also tend to give us feelings of undue importance. B.F. Skinner's work on how we deceive ourselves should be helpful to you in understanding that. See also optical illusions, and any modern work on consciousness. Consider the possibiltiy that we believe in free will because it makes us feel better. I'm not asking you to believe it, just consider the possibility.

I wrote in #109:

Explain to me Skinner’s theory and tell me about optical illusions and modern theories on consciousness.

Will wrote in #110:

What am I, your private professor?

B. F. Skinner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner

optical illusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

 

What I meant from rigid matter is matter that rigidly obeys the immutable laws you’ve spoken about before. I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought. Man in light of this has nothing more than a brain and just as weeds grow. So the “mind” of man goes wherever it goes by laws of physics and chemistry. He wouldn’t in theory be able to consider two points in an argument and CHOOSE one over the other. Apply this to morality and man can’t be responsible for anything he does. It would be like calling a tree evil for growing along side a house and having one of its branches break in a window.

When you can provide an explanation from a physicalist point of view of how matter can “choose” not to obey those immutable laws, then I might move over to your camp.

Hebrews 11:1-3 - Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

(The natural presupposes the supernatural). Christian faith is being sure and certain because of the impossibility to the contrary.


 

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Granting you this, my question to you now is, is slavery universally wrong? If so, explain how, through moral relativism. I mean if it's not universal, why bring up slavery in the first place? Do believe it's perfectly fine for individual nations to make slavery lawful?

I don't, no. But I'm from a culture that values freedom. In cultures that don't value freedom, they might want to (and do) operate legal slavery in their countries. I don't agree with that, but it would be legal in countries that do those things. That's a matter of cultural values. I also disagree with people getting their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. But I don't get that objection from a book. I just find it barbaric. Where did I learn that it was barbaric? Probably other members of my culture.

[some biblical passages]

I'm not so much moved by Biblical passages, when your assertion was that logic was going to win the day for you.

I think you’ve said enough for me to be satisfied regarding the implications of moral relativism on slavery. But I would’ve thought by now that you understand my position on logic. Again, a claim of Christians is that God’s existence must be true in order for logic to exist. He says in His word, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18


 

 

Will wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I asked all the right questions. Now that I have your answers, I will tell you how meaningless moral relativism is.

Haha -- okay.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Morality of this sort (that is relative and subjective) is meaningless because of its logical consequences and conclusions, because according to you (at least the implication is there) the only mistake Hitler did was try to impose his standard on the rest of the world. So if he didn't do that, it would've been perfectly fine for him to commit genocide on his own people; making genocide perfectly moral to the German people.

You haven't actually demonstrated that genocide was perfectly moral to the German people. Why would there have been a resistance movement in Germany if it were acceptable to the German people? Individuals have a moral sense, and sometimes groups can have a moral sense. You're mixing up what we're addressing by confusing the two, and reaching a conclusion.

I think you have me confused with a simpleton. Am I honestly to believe that your version of morality requires you to consult a book before you can make a moral decision? I find that hard to believe for an adult.

First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters. Your refusal to bow the knee to Christ and reverence Him, in whom are all wisdom and knowledge deposited. You’ve abandon the “fountain of living water, to hew for yourselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

 And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, but know:

 The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:18-32)

 I hope you can see that when you write that individuals have a moral sense, you’re no longer speaking of morality as merely science or convention. You’re speaking about them as if they have a universal value about them. I hope you’ve read the long passage above.

 Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period? In a universe that’s consigned to convention, might makes right. Hitler had the power and so for a season, he got to set the rules. Anyone with power can impose their influence on others until he’s overthrown. That’s the only logical outcome. People do what is right in their own eyes and they judge themselves by themselves. There’s no obligation to advance the human race, no obligation to make as many people happy, no obligation to care for other people but yourself if this is an atheist universe.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Anyone with power can impose their influence on others until he’s overthrown. That’s the only logical outcome. People do what is right in their own eyes and they judge themselves by themselves. There’s no obligation to advance the human race, no obligation to make as many people happy, no obligation to care for other people but yourself if this is an atheist universe.

Scary. 

Oh, also, http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Anyone with power can impose their influence on others until he’s overthrown. That’s the only logical outcome.

That is the only logical 'moral' lesson that can be derived from the Garden of Eden story - absolute obedience to power.

Quote:

People do what is right in their own eyes and they judge themselves by themselves.

Very close to the Golden Rule. 

Quote:

There’s no obligation to advance the human race, no obligation to make as many people happy

Where is that required in the Bible?

Quote:

no obligation to care for other people but yourself if this is an atheist universe.

Unless you want some friends, and would like to give other people a reason to care for you....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

Quote:
What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period?

Alright. Here's a brain buster for ya. What obligation does an individual have to comply with God's standard?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #112/113/114 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

One opponent at a time please

I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like to begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

__________________________________________________________

 

Don't worry Bob and Butter, you'll get your chance. When Will decides to let one of you take his place. I'll response to your comments.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hi, Nonsense. Do you think

Hi, Nonsense. Do you think you could use the quote function? Underlining makes everything you're writing almost illegible. All you have to do is replace the < with [ and > with ] in the following example:

<quote=AtheismIsNonsense>Some stuff you say</quote>

Okay, here we go.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The man in my example had a metaphysical claim clash with an ethical claim.

I will not address hypothetical situations.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Understand the argument Will, I’m arguing that the Biblical Christian worldview is the only logical and internally coherent worldview that can make sense of the universe and man’s experience.

That seems itself contradictory, if only because it discounts the Jewish faith, which represents a good half of the biblical material. Or do you mean to say that Jews just don't have the complete picture, not that their world view is completely wrong?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now I’ve explained it in the simplest terms. I’m waiting for you Will (as a materialist atheist) to tell me how in a supernatural-less universe, you can have free will, choice, logic, science, morality when you all have to work with is matter that “rigidly” obeys immutable laws.

You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
People can behave contrary to the truth and contradict themselves; however the Biblical Christian worldview is consistent and impervious to logical contradiction because the Christian God is the precondition for our existence and experience (yours and mine).

Wow, that's great. I invented shoes.

(You're giving me no reason to believe that the Christian God is the precondition for anything; you might want to start there.)

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Tell me your beliefs then.

I believe that the world is discoverable, and that the idea of "supernature" is an invention to make people feel powerful.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Here’s my answer: Since for anything to be falsifiable, its truth or falseness would need to be determined via empirical methods. And since God is not physical and cannot be discovered via empirical methods, the hypothesis of God cannot be falsified.

Right. That's my point. If something can't be shown to be false, it can't be shown to be true, either.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God; proving the impossibility to the contrary. If you believe contrary to the Christian faith, you’re left without a workable worldview by which to make sense of the world and your experience. Reject the Christian worldview and you’re reduced to philosophical foolishness.

Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Gordon Clark, etc.

Oh. This really is like telling you I invented shoes. Let me get this straight: logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view? (I'm using todangst's wording of Greg Bahnsen's argument.) Are you aware of how silly that is? For a primer, try here:

Todangst on TAG

If you're not interested in the full treatment above, I'll summarize: You're making an unsupported assertion that relies on incoherent terms, and violates the concepts of contingency and necessity as well as basic ontology.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.

Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
When you can provide an explanation from a physicalist point of view of how matter can “choose” not to obey those immutable laws, then I might move over to your camp.

But matter can't choose to disobey those laws. Where did you read me saying that?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Christian faith is being sure and certain because of the impossibility to the contrary.

False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think you’ve said enough for me to be satisfied regarding the implications of moral relativism on slavery. But I would’ve thought by now that you understand my position on logic. Again, a claim of Christians is that God’s existence must be true in order for logic to exist. He says in His word, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18

Because someone said "come now, let us reason together", that means first that God exists, and then, that the same God invented logic? I think it's safe to say that you read into things too much.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters.

Show me how sin exists, and isn't just another invented concept.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, but

Nice try sliding that one through. If individuals have a moral sense, that IS moral relativism.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period?

I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In a universe that’s consigned to convention, might makes right. Hitler had the power and so for a season, he got to set the rules. Anyone with power can impose their influence on others until he’s overthrown. That’s the only logical outcome. People do what is right in their own eyes and they judge themselves by themselves. There’s no obligation to advance the human race, no obligation to make as many people happy, no obligation to care for other people but yourself if this is an atheist universe.

And history shows that to be true time and time again. We're arguing about what is correct, not what is sad, or what should or should not be.

One tiny bit of misinformation at the end, though. We clearly (human beings) have feelings of solidarity, which you miss completely in that description. We love and play and hope and want to help each other out. We do. It doesn't matter what books we've read, or what some silly man in an official looking robe tells us, these things are innate.

You can't steal my feelings of hope with the crushing terror of Christianity, because they're built in.

 

 

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #116 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

________________________________________________________________________

I need clarification of a few things before I respond to your post. If I ask you to explain some concept you throw out there, please explain and not point me to some piece of writing that is atheistically biased, otherwise I’ll go and invent shoes.

 

 

 

HisWillness wrote:
You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.

Are you saying that free will doesn’t exist and people for an example can not look at two options and choose one over the other? If this is an oversimplification on my part, please explain.

 

HisWillness wrote:

If you're not interested in the full treatment above, I'll summarize: You're making an unsupported assertion that relies on incoherent terms, and violates the concepts of contingency and necessity as well as basic ontology.

What is the concept of contingency? What is the concept of Necessity? What is basic ontology? Give me simplified definition of their meaning and tell me if they are undeniable truths that we need to comply with. And if one doesn’t comply with them, what are the implications for noncompliance?

 

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.

Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know

Explain them to me please. Also, does matter operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws? Does energy operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws?

HisWillness wrote:
False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.

Are these the only two options we have for the Christian God’s existence? How do know this?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters.

Show me how sin exists, and isn't just another invented concept.

In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, but

Nice try sliding that one through. If individuals have a moral sense, that IS moral relativism.

From the context of my writing, it should’ve been easy to comprehend what I meant by writing that individuals have a moral sense, to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention. Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period?

I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.

I didn’t look at it as you did, so please explain what was wrong with making references to issues of political power?

 

HisWillness wrote:
One tiny bit of misinformation at the end, though. We clearly (human beings) have feelings of solidarity, which you miss completely in that description. We love and play and hope and want to help each other out. We do. It doesn't matter what books we've read, or what some silly man in an official looking robe tells us, these things are innate.

How does matter and energy combined in some way and obedient to natural laws have feelings, love, play, hope, and desire?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #116 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.   _________________________________________   One more thing I need to ask Will.   

HisWillness wrote:
I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.
    Is coercion wrong?   

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.

Are you saying that free will doesn’t exist and people for an example can not look at two options and choose one over the other? If this is an oversimplification on my part, please explain.

No, what I'm saying is that when people make choices, they're not proving that free will exists in a rigorously philosophical sense. Here's an overview that should help you see what I mean by that:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
What is the concept of contingency? What is the concept of Necessity? What is basic ontology? Give me simplified definition of their meaning and tell me if they are undeniable truths that we need to comply with. And if one doesn’t comply with them, what are the implications for noncompliance?

Noncompliance just infers incoherence of the argument. It's best to read todangst's article, because the definitions are all there in a clear context. If you'd rather I rephrase them, that's no problem, but I'm quoting todangst because he hit the nail on the head with that article, and it seems unnecessary for me to try to simplify it any more.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.

Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know

Explain them to me please. Also, does matter operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws? Does energy operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws?

I don't think it's fair to ask me to give you a course in physics. I'm not trying to be curt when I say that, but if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about the nature of matter, it would require that you do a bit of research. Matter and energy being equal is known popularly as "E=mc2" but I can't really proceed without that being a given. Also, the laws of physics are present as features of nature, which consists of matter/energy, so it's not like laws "govern" matter/energy, they are intertwined.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.

Are these the only two options we have for the Christian God’s existence? How do know this?

No, that's what "false dichotomy" means. I was rephrasing your argument to show you that it was a false dichotomy.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?

No. But that doesn't address sin as an invented concept, which I assert it is.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention.

But that's demonstrably false. Culture and convention have everything to do with morality. Just look at the laws of two culturally separate countries, like Saudi Arabia and Denmark. Completely different moral systems, owing to culture and convention.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?

My argument is that if individuals have a moral sense, then moral relativism is true. If each individual and culture can form moral stances separate from one another (demonstrably true) then moral relativism is clearly the case in reality.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I didn’t look at it as you did, so please explain what was wrong with making references to issues of political power?

Political power in some groups (like the Nazis or the genocidal mobs in Rwanda) are good examples of temporary insanity.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How does matter and energy combined in some way and obedient to natural laws have feelings, love, play, hope, and desire?

We don't know, exactly. I mean, there are good descriptions about what's happening in the brain, etc., but we don't know exactly how.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #116/119 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

____________________________________

 

 

 

 

Please answer the questions so I can reply properly to your #116 Post.

 

 

 

 

HisWillness wrote:
You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.

Are you saying that free will doesn’t exist and people for an example can not look at two options and choose one over the other? If this is an oversimplification on my part, please explain.

HisWillness wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that when people make choices, they're not proving that free will exists in a rigorously philosophical sense. Here's an overview that should help you see what I mean by that:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Can you please answer the question. If you can’t explain your position in this forum and resort to having me read through a lot of writing which you might fault me for not understanding it properly if I comment on it, please don’t bother bringing it up in our discussion. This brings up another question I would like to ask, is this Plato’s explanation of free will? If so, are you a Platonist?

You don’t have to get fancy with words and phrases. You’re not being graded on how learned or cultured you are in our discussion, but whether or not your position as an atheist is logical and consistent. Please answer the question even in the simplest way.

HisWillness wrote:

If you're not interested in the full treatment above, I'll summarize: You're making an unsupported assertion that relies on incoherent terms, and violates the concepts of contingency and necessity as well as basic ontology.

What is the concept of contingency? What is the concept of Necessity? What is basic ontology? Give me simplified definition of their meaning and tell me if they are undeniable truths that we need to comply with. And if one doesn’t comply with them, what are the implications for noncompliance?

HisWillness wrote:
Noncompliance just infers incoherence of the argument. It's best to read todangst's article, because the definitions are all there in a clear context. If you'd rather I rephrase them, that's no problem, but I'm quoting todangst because he hit the nail on the head with that article, and it seems unnecessary for me to try to simplify it any more.

You haven’t answered the question. If my argument is incoherent because it violates the concepts of all that above, I want to know in what way, what they are, and whether or not they’re even anything I ought to comply with. Again if you can’t explain it, don’t bring it up. Please answer the questions.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.

Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know

Explain them to me please. Also, does matter operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws? Does energy operate in a uniform manner determined by natural laws?

HisWillness wrote:
I don't think it's fair to ask me to give you a course in physics. I'm not trying to be curt when I say that, but if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about the nature of matter, it would require that you do a bit of research. Matter and energy being equal is known popularly as "E=mc2" but I can't really proceed without that being a given. Also, the laws of physics are present as features of nature, which consists of matter/energy, so it's not like laws "govern" matter/energy, they are intertwined.

I didn’t ask you give me a course in physics, I mean are you implying that no one can understand physics in the least unless he takes a course in it? Now I think I understand what you’re saying about natural laws and matter/energy being intertwined, that they don’t exist individually in a vacuum, but does matter conform always to the laws of physics? Does energy conform always to the laws of physics? Do they every go “rogue” and take on some random property?

HisWillness wrote:
False dichotomy: "Either God exists and everything is orderly, or God doesn't, and everything is pure chaos". You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.

Are these the only two options we have for the Christian God’s existence? How do know this?

HisWillness wrote:
No, that's what "false dichotomy" means. I was rephrasing your argument to show you that it was a false dichotomy.

How's this rephrasing even close to my argument?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters.

Show me how sin exists, and isn't just another invented concept.

In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?

HisWillness wrote:
No. But that doesn't address sin as an invented concept, which I assert it is.

Can you back up your assertion with reasons why you believe it’s an invented concept?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, but

Nice try sliding that one through. If individuals have a moral sense, that IS moral relativism.

From the context of my writing, it should’ve been easy to comprehend what I meant by writing that individuals have a moral sense, to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention. Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?

HisWillness wrote:
But that's demonstrably false. Culture and convention have everything to do with morality. Just look at the laws of two culturally separate countries, like Saudi Arabia and Denmark. Completely different moral systems, owing to culture and convention.

My argument is that if individuals have a moral sense, then moral relativism is true. If each individual and culture can form moral stances separate from one another (demonstrably true) then moral relativism is clearly the case in reality.

What I’m speaking about are rape, murder, lying, stealing, and other acts of cruelty (granted the exceptions). Not many individuals would say from any culture, time, or place that these sorts of actions are acceptable by convention. And those who commit them on a normal basis would not like them to be the law of the land.

As for your second statement, I never said that moral relativism is not practiced in the real world, because it is and the majority of the world doesn’t believe in the Christian God; however this doesn’t mean that moral relativism is what morality is. In fact I argue that in this matter the truth of the Christian God shines forth the most, in that people may claim that morality is nothing but convention and culture, but they don’t treat it that way, they don’t behave that way in regards to morality. People behave as if morality is universal and absolute. The large majority of the people of this world would not agree with you that rape, murder, lying, stealing, and other acts of cruelty are ever justified in any time, culture, or place, by individuals or group.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period?

I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.

I didn’t look at it as you did, so please explain what was wrong with making references to issues of political power?

HisWillness wrote:
Political power in some groups (like the Nazis or the genocidal mobs in Rwanda) are good examples of temporary insanity.

Is it wrong to use political power to achieve your desires? 

HisWillness wrote:
One tiny bit of misinformation at the end, though. We clearly (human beings) have feelings of solidarity, which you miss completely in that description. We love and play and hope and want to help each other out. We do. It doesn't matter what books we've read, or what some silly man in an official looking robe tells us, these things are innate.

How does matter and energy combined in some way and obedient to natural laws have feelings, love, play, hope, and desire?

HisWillness wrote:
We don't know, exactly. I mean, there are good descriptions about what's happening in the brain, etc., but we don't know exactly how.

It makes perfect sense to you that biological matter plus electrical impulses plus energy, all governed by natural laws (immutable laws), can result in feelings, love, hope, and desire?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Can

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you please answer the question. If you can’t explain your position in this forum and resort to having me read through a lot of writing which you might fault me for not understanding it properly if I comment on it, please don’t bother bringing it up in our discussion. This brings up another question I would like to ask, is this Plato’s explanation of free will? If so, are you a Platonist?

No, I'm pretty far from a Platonist.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You don’t have to get fancy with words and phrases. You’re not being graded on how learned or cultured you are in our discussion, but whether or not your position as an atheist is logical and consistent. Please answer the question even in the simplest way.

The main problem is that you've asked a loaded question with a loaded phrase ("free will&quotEye-wink. I can't answer simply, because of the philosophical history of that phrase, and the different meanings it entails. Suffice it to say that "free will" is illusory.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
 If my argument is incoherent because it violates the concepts of all that above, I want to know in what way, what they are, and whether or not they’re even anything I ought to comply with. Again if you can’t explain it, don’t bring it up. Please answer the questions.

Okay, let's go step-by-step, then: the transcendent argument in simplest terms is poor because it's circular: it says that God is necessary because without God, nothing can be true. That's just an unsupported assertion. There is no reason suggested at all to believe that without God, nothing can be true.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I didn’t ask you give me a course in physics, I mean are you implying that no one can understand physics in the least unless he takes a course in it?

No, that's not what I was saying. Your questions, however, are the kind that could be dealt with in a first year physics course.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
but does matter conform always to the laws of physics? Does energy conform always to the laws of physics? Do they every go “rogue” and take on some random property?

I think what you're asking is are the laws of physics consistent. In answer, I'd say we only have about 250 years of solid data to confirm that.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How's this rephrasing even close to my argument?

If you don't feel that you've introduced a false dichotomy with the transcendent argument for god, I'll drop it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
No. But that doesn't address sin as an invented concept, which I assert it is.

Can you back up your assertion with reasons why you believe it’s an invented concept?

It's the silliness of it. Are you telling me that an omnipotent, omniscient creature will be surprised or disappointed? That's not consistent. How could you possibly "offend" someone who knows exactly what you're going to do before you do it for your whole life? That would be omniscience. Omnipotence would, by definition, be the absence of disappointment. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
What I’m speaking about are rape, murder, lying, stealing, and other acts of cruelty (granted the exceptions). Not many individuals would say from any culture, time, or place that these sorts of actions are acceptable by convention. And those who commit them on a normal basis would not like them to be the law of the land.

The fact that we all have some common themes reflects our common humanity, not a universal rule book.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
People behave as if morality is universal and absolute. The large majority of the people of this world would not agree with you that rape, murder, lying, stealing, and other acts of cruelty are ever justified in any time, culture, or place, by individuals or group.

Where did I say these things were justified? Anyway, are you just going to discount the differences between cultural moralities, and cling to the few truly deplorable acts we commit, but still denounce? There's a lot more going on there than just deciding a set of rules for things we find repugnant. 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Is it wrong to use political power to achieve your desires?

There isn't enough information in your question for me to answer it. Do you mean "always wrong"? "... to achieve your desires, even if they are bad"? The number of things you have in mind, here, is impossible to guess.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It makes perfect sense to you that biological matter plus electrical impulses plus energy, all governed by natural laws (immutable laws), can result in feelings, love, hope, and desire?

Are you suggesting that there's anything other than matter and energy to base these things on?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Nudging

Nudging in...

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

but does matter conform always to the laws of physics? Does energy conform always to the laws of physics? Do they every go “rogue” and take on some random property?

As far as we know, the same laws always apply.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
It makes perfect sense to you that biological matter plus electrical impulses plus energy, all governed by natural laws (immutable laws), can result in feelings, love, hope, and desire?

Does it make perfect sense to me? No. It doesn't.

Intuitively, I can't comprehend how these raw human ideas can arise from complex chemical and biological systems, but as neuroscience advances, these kinds of concepts are increasingly being explained in scientific terms. I do not understand neuroscience, I do not know of any plausible, alternative explanations, and I can put forth no protest against them except incredulity.    

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Response to todangst Work & One Opponent At A Time Please.

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

 

THIS IS ADDRESSING ALL MATERIALIST/PHYSICALIST ATHEISTS WHO THINK TODANGST IS THEIR SAVIOR FROM THE TAGers

 

 

 

todangst wrote:
The problems with TAG involve errors in ontology and epistemology so basic and so numerous that my attempt to write a refutation is stymied by the puzzle of which refutation to choose to use first. Let's begin here:

TAG is a Naked Assertion

TAG is an assertion based on a presumed dilemma. It does not define its terms nor does it give us an explanation of just how TAG accomplishes the goal of eradicating the dilemma. It simply assert that belief in god is required for the world to make sense. How so? What does this belief accomplish? How does it work? No answer comes from the TAGer.

"Archer says, "Without a good and holy God in heaven above, however, there is no solution to be found in freethinking or any other kind of thinking." Again no proof or justification is provided. Just another assertion that is supposed to be sufficient unto itself. Too bad I didn't think of that approach! Instead of devoting so much time and effort to reading and research, I could have just forgotten about all my studies, thrown away my notes, discarded my citations, and told it like it is. That certainly would have been easier.'' - Dennis McKinsey from Bible Errancy (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss160.htm)

I can only conclude that todangst or Dennis McKinsey have never ever engaged in dialog with an apologists who uses this argument or has purposefully left out the proof or justification he’s provided. Anyone should be able to see what’s quoted by todangst is the claim of the apologist, not his arguments. For anyone of you to suggest that I’ve made assertions and have not backed them up was either asleep while reading my posts or is blatantly ignorant of what I write.

I’ve demonstrated countless times how atheism leads to foolishness with respect to rationality and morality. I’ve shown inconsistencies and contradictions within a typical physicalist worldview of an atheist (which many of you are) speaking about the absurdity of arriving at logic, rationality, morality (as if it meant anything), love, hope, etc when all you have to work with are molecules in motion; matter/energy in whatever configuration obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. Like weeds grow, so the mind of man does what it does by the laws of physics. In addition, it is blind superstition to assume that inorganic matter by some mechanical reconfiguration can give rise to organic matter.

You can’t account for the origin of the physical universe. You plead ignorance to so many questions responding with I don’t know as if that’s justification for believing the rest of what you believe. And the ridiculous answer I’ve gotten from you on free will and human choice; that there isn’t any, it’s illusory is so laughable. If that were true, what would be the point of arguing about anything at all? You wouldn't be in control of anything you do, if human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable, providing we know all those factors, all of us think and do what we have conditioned to think and do, given the variable factors of our environment, human free will is an illusion (and you’re consistent with your answer in regards to that) but regardless of whether you’re the conditioner or the one being conditioned, you have no control over your actions.

Morality is relative to the atheist, but yet no matter how many examples I give you, you’ve complained about politics being a misguiding factor or coercion is disliked, etc, but all the while affirming that no individual or group is obligated to conform to any standard even the standard that objects to political force or coercion. I don’t see how you put the two together. You say people are social and desire to be happy and loved and have friends, and help each other out, but not all people do and all not in the same way. And even granting you this truth, is any individual or group obligated to conform their standards in regards to happiness, love, friendship, charity, etc and the answer should be again no and not arbitrarily deem these people insane because they disagree with you (isn’t that what relativism leads to – the idea of whatever floats your boat). If morality is relative, nothing is ever wrong and nothing is ever “bad”; wrong is a relative term and bad is a relative term. It’s all relative! Haven’t you figured it out yet? And the sad part is, I granted you free choice in talking about morality in this paragraph, which your physicalist worldview (in theory) cannot lead to and which you deny exist. Apply illusory free will/choice to moral relativism and you’re even deeper in the crapper.

The Christian worldview begins with the God who is all powerful and all knowing who created all things outside of himself (nothing is excluded) and sustains his creation. To exist therefore is to be divine or created. There aren’t any ultimate forces out there. The natural laws that we see existing in the temporal realm are a result of God's providential governing of his creation (which is logical considering he created all things in our universe). Again, because he created all things, it’s logical that he determined the basic classes and natures of those existent things; gives the distinguishing unity or common natures to things; categorizing things by placing His interpretation on them; He makes things to differ from each other; assigning all things their definite characters. The decree by which God providentially ordains historical event is eternal, effectual, unconditional, unchangeable, and comprehensive. Therefore considering all the above, it logically follows that he sets the limits of possible reality.

It logically follows that his knowledge is primary and whatever we might know is a reflection/receptive reconstruction of his knowledge. As humans made in his image, we are the creaturely representation of the divine. We must think his thoughts after him. Therefore Scripture (His revelation) has absolute authority for us and is the final criterion of truth. God is personal, infinitely perfect, a pure spirit, triune in his nature, unique in his nature and works. Being made in his image we too are rational, intelligent, and consciously aware.

How do we know these things, He reveals them to us.

If you ask how non-believers know things without actively presupposing the God of the Bible (given the Christians claim that God’s revealed truth is absolutely required as the tacit foundation of understanding and knowledge), the answer is that the unbeliever does have revealed presuppositions, despite his espoused rejection of God’s truth and cannot but have them as a creature made as God’s image and living in God’s created world. No unbeliever is inwardly and sincerely devoid of a knowledge of God. It is not a saving knowledge of God to be sure, but even as condemning knowledge, natural revelation still provides a knowledge of God. And because they know God (even though they know Him in curse and reprobation) they are able to attain a limited understanding of the world. The unbeliever is actually double-minded. At base all men know God as His creatures, but as sinners all men refuse to acknowledge their Creator and live by His revelation. He can attain knowledge despite himself. In principle his unbelief would preclude understanding of anything, for one must believe in order to understand. However, in practice the unbeliever is restrained from a consistent, self-destructive following of his unbelieving profession. If the unbeliever were a total idiot he would be free from guilt. But the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that the unbeliever’s rebellion is willful and knowledgeable; he sins against his better knowledge and is thus “without excuse” (vv. 20-21).

Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2) and thereby reflects the mind and character of God (Rom. 1:20). Man was created as the image of God (Gen.1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:Cool. God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom 1:21)-the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9).

 

todangst wrote:
TAG is a Naked Assertion that relies on Incoherent Terms

TAG claims that one must presuppose 'god' in order to come to certain conclusions, but this claim is proven nonsensical when one considers that TAG is incoherent: it relies on incoherent terms. Terms such as "immaterial' and "transcendent' and "god' are purely negative terms without any ontological status.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term

TAG is a Naked Assertion that Relies on Incoherent terms, and violates the Concepts of Contingency and Necessity.

TAG offers up a confusion: While 'god' cannot be defined in positive terms, secondary traits assigned to 'god' such as 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' can be examined independently. And it follows from the definitions of these secondary traits that anything created and sustained by an 'omnipotent creator' would exist contingently, as omnipotence obviates necessity by definition. Yet tautologies are necessarily true. How can a tautology be contingently true and necessarily true, at the same time?

TAG is a Naked Assertion that Relies on Incoherent terms, and violates the Concepts of Contingency and Necessity as well as Basic Ontology

My critique of physicalist/materialist atheism above should convince demonstrate to you that it’s not a naked assertion.

As for religious terms being incoherent, whatever conventional standard he came up with to deem it incoherent, I disagree with. In addition, I challenge him (you all) to first explain how logic and rational thought can even exist in a materialistic universe, maybe afterwards, we’re talk some more on the subject.

Confusion? How could he know? Has he spoken to someone who has infinite knowledge to know that a divine supernatural being who creates and sustains other existing things cannot coexist. Again he's using some conventional standard that’s Biblically hostile and deriving an answer from an epistemological view (the materialist view which states that  nothing can be known outside what we experience in the physical world) that cannot possibly answer the question he's provided an answer to.

So in conclusion, his conclusion of that which is beyond the physical world is arrived by conveniently conventional standards derived “magically” from an epistemological position that cannot know anything beyond the physical world.

todangst wrote:
Let's first consider the problem of a 'supernatural being' being as the fountain of natural laws.
Lets

todangst wrote:
We've already discussed the ontological dilemma with making a reference to anything beyond nature - anything defined solely in negative terms.
Crap

todangst wrote:
Next, we know that nothing natural can point back to its own antithesis, the supernatural, as nothing with ontological status can point towards something without any ontological status.
Double Crap

todangst wrote:
In addition, we would expect that any universe created by, contingent upon, and sustained by a 'supernatural' 'force' would be magical, not lawful. Otherwise, if this 'god' 'worked' lawfully, causally, this 'god', this 'god' would then enter the causal chain, and be a natural entity. And this would undermine the entire supposed point of requiring this 'necessary' being as the solution to the Kalam-esque problem of creation. Any 'god' that is part of the causal chain could not create ex nihilo.

How could todangst know that it would be magical and not lawful? How could he know that God would be a natural entity once He enters the “causal chain”? Also is todangst assuming that the laws of physics are ultimate? Again how can one’s knowledge that cannot extend beyond the physical realm (at best), know what the limits of reality are (now remember this is HIS claimed epistemological limit)? Since he hasn’t proven this and can’t ever possibly, given his self limiting epistemology, his argument and any further argument that rests on it is irrelevant.

todangst wrote:
So to return to the original point, any universe created by a supernatural 'being' would be a universe created by fiat, where every parameter of existence would exist by fiat alone... it wouldn't follow predictable, basic physical laws. It would be a world of magic. Does this represent our universe?

No.

I agree with todangst that our universe doesn’t resemble a world of magic. Thank God, we live in His universe.

Now you have to admit when I demand from you atheists to explain how inorganic matter/energy/&whatever else physical things out there subject to immutable laws give rise to inorganic matter and ultimately rationality, feelings of solidarity, or what have you, you can logically conclude that it’s impossible when you tell me that the laws are immutable and that matter has never defied those natural laws. After all, that’s why you’re materialists or physicalists; denying the supernatural. Freedom of thought/choice is assumed when one even engages in rational discourse; otherwise it makes no sense to argue. So when the atheist claims that there’s no human freedom (being consistent with his materialistic outlook), but insists that rationality exists, he’s contradicting himself.

todangst wrote:
On the other hand, if logic, reason, and order are universals that 'god' has to 'follow' if god were limited in some way, we leave theism altogether and enter pantheism. We'd have Spinoza and Einstein's god. The god of Christian theology would be out of a job.

Their idea of God is equally as ridiculous as your atheism. The proof is written above.

todangst wrote:
Clever readers will recognize this answer to the transcendental argument as a permutation on Socrates' Euthyphro dilemma, indicating that the solution to this problem predated Christianity itself.

I’m wise enough to recognize todangst foolishness because I presuppose the truth of God, but too simple to know what todangst means. Is he saying that Socrates originally came up with the answer he’s provided? 

todangst wrote:
a whole lot of irrelevant things and/or is misrepresenting the Biblical Christian worldview.

If you or todangst want to ask me a question or put me on the horns of a dilemma, As a Christian who presupposes the truthfulness of Gods’ revelation I welcome all challenges.

todangst wrote:
* A clever reader might say: "aha, but falsification itself appears to be an assumption!" Even if this is so, think this point through: are you trying to argue that a naturalist ought to reject falsification if falsification is falsified?

First of all, one needs to recognize the motive behind the falsification theory. It’s targeted against religion in general, but more specifically against the Christian faith.

 

Secondly, falsification itself is not falsifiable. A skilled logician or philosopher can point out that falsification itself is self refuting. If falsification were true it would not only discredit the worldview of Christian faith, it would end up discrediting the meaningfulness of all language, including the language of science and discourse of even the falsificationist’s own convictions. If it’s anything that falsification has disclosed, it is the religious prejudices and inconsistencies of Christian critics.

 

I see a lot of this type of arguing coming from materialist/physicalist atheists; conveniently adopting religiously hostile standards (inventing them), even going beyond the scope of their own professed epistemological view (that to know anything beyond temporal experience is impossible), conveniently violating it (as I’ve pointed out above), to combat religion, more specifically Christianity.

 

Here’s a reason (more likely and most probable) why Christianity is so disliked.

 

Because the issues brought up by the Christian God are indeed more than academic, being a matter of life and death-eternal life and death (Christ said, “and this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send” (John 17:3), the unbeliever will try to stand on the claim that such a God cannot be known on reason that nothing transcending the physical (nothing “metaphysical&rdquoEye-wink can be known, so that the issue of eternal destiny be not raised. Accordingly, men may think and do as they please, without distracting questions about their nature and destiny. Men will as it were, build a roof over their heads in hopes of keeping out any distressing revelation from a transcendent God. The anti-metaphysical perspective of the modern age functions as just such a protective ideological roof for the unbeliever. The Fact is one cannot avoid metaphysical commitments. The very denial of the possibility of knowledge transcending experience is in itself a metaphysical judgment. Thus the question is not whether one should have metaphysical beliefs, but it comes down to the question of which kind of metaphysics one should affirm.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #116/119/121 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

_______________________________________________

 

 

 

 

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The man in my example had a metaphysical claim clash with an ethical claim.

I will not address hypothetical situations.

The main problem is that you've asked a loaded question with a loaded phrase ("free will&quotEye-wink. I can't answer simply, because of the philosophical history of that phrase, and the different meanings it entails. Suffice it to say that "free will" is illusory.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now I’ve explained it in the simplest terms. I’m waiting for you Will (as a materialist atheist) to tell me how in a supernatural-less universe, you can have free will, choice, logic, science, morality when you all have to work with is matter that “rigidly” obeys immutable laws.

You can't have strictly free will (and thus choice), science is a process, and so is morality. All this happens within immutable laws.

I didn’t think you would want to, considering how ridiculous the man in the example is. But the funny thing is, you probably know people who make claims like that regarding human behavior. He’s only being consistent with his anti-supernatural view. Matter and energy subject to immutable laws equals no human choice, no free will. Isn’t that you’re conclusion also?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Understand the argument Will, I’m arguing that the Biblical Christian worldview is the only logical and internally coherent worldview that can make sense of the universe and man’s experience.

That seems itself contradictory, if only because it discounts the Jewish faith, which represents a good half of the biblical material. Or do you mean to say that Jews just don't have the complete picture, not that their world view is completely wrong?

They would have as much as the OT contains. But if you know anything about where Jews and Christians depart from each other, you would know that the OT promised a savior, which God sent in the form of Jesus Christ. They rejected Him and to this day (if they still practice Judaism) are still awaiting their savior. To be saved and counted as God’s people, one cannot reject the culmination of His promises, His Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. And of course you know that all the first Christians were Jews and to this day, God is fulfilling his promise to the Jews by converting them still.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
People can behave contrary to the truth and contradict themselves; however the Biblical Christian worldview is consistent and impervious to logical contradiction because the Christian God is the precondition for our existence and experience (yours and mine).

Wow, that's great. I invented shoes.

(You're giving me no reason to believe that the Christian God is the precondition for anything; you might want to start there.)

I’m pretty sure that I began by discrediting atheism and presenting some of the Christian presuppositions that can account for rationality and morality (non contradictory claims). But please read my response to todangst in the previous post.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Tell me your beliefs then.

I believe that the world is discoverable, and that the idea of "supernature" is an invention to make people feel powerful.

You want to back up that assertion or is your hypothesis also your conclusion with nothing in between?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Here’s my answer: Since for anything to be falsifiable, its truth or falseness would need to be determined via empirical methods. And since God is not physical and cannot be discovered via empirical methods, the hypothesis of God cannot be falsified.

Right. That's my point. If something can't be shown to be false, it can't be shown to be true, either.

Please read my response to todangst.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God; proving the impossibility to the contrary. If you believe contrary to the Christian faith, you’re left without a workable worldview by which to make sense of the world and your experience. Reject the Christian worldview and you’re reduced to philosophical foolishness.

Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Gordon Clark, etc.

Oh. This really is like telling you I invented shoes. Let me get this straight: logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view? (I'm using todangst's wording of Greg Bahnsen's argument.) Are you aware of how silly that is? For a primer, try here:

Todangst on TAG

If you're not interested in the full treatment above, I'll summarize: You're making an unsupported assertion that relies on incoherent terms, and violates the concepts of contingency and necessity as well as basic ontology.

You should read my response to todangst and Will, you should know when I’m providing reasons for my claims and when I’m merely making my claims. I’m telling you first what argument I’m employing. Next I’m telling you what it does. I had started providing reasons earlier on, which you conveniently glossed over. But I’m provide lots in my response to todangst's piece.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think it’s an intellectual crime to claim that matter controlled by immutable laws can generate free thought.

Okay, but I never said that. The matter and the laws are one thing. Matter and energy are one thing, in the same sense. If you don't understand matter and energy, maybe you should learn first before making assertions about it like you know.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
When you can provide an explanation from a physicalist point of view of how matter can “choose” not to obey those immutable laws, then I might move over to your camp.

But matter can't choose to disobey those laws. Where did you read me saying that?

Will you should know what I meant when I wrote the above; that matter and energy behave uniformly.

As for the second part, I didn’t imply you wrote it. I was saying if one could prove that matter doesn’t behave uniformly, then I could believe that inorganic matter could give rise organic matter or that matter with energy could produce rational thinking. Be sure to read my response to todangst.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Christian faith is being sure and certain because of the impossibility to the contrary.

You're also "sure" about something you don't actually know, so congratulations on that epistemological mess.

But I do know. I hope I didn’t give the impression I view it merely as a theory or that it’s only highly probable. But to prove it’s true I’ll prove that any other view is a philosophical mess and I hope I’ve started to show you that atheism cannot stand up the demands of logic and coherency.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I think you’ve said enough for me to be satisfied regarding the implications of moral relativism on slavery. But I would’ve thought by now that you understand my position on logic. Again, a claim of Christians is that God’s existence must be true in order for logic to exist. He says in His word, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18

Because someone said "come now, let us reason together", that means first that God exists, and then, that the same God invented logic? I think it's safe to say that you read into things too much.

Because your response seemed to suggest that logic and the bible were mutually exclusive, I wanted to show you that in the Bible itself, you see God appealing to our reason. I’m merely stating that Christians reason and use logic and that the transcendental argument argues for the existence of logic only under certain metaphysical conditions.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all I may use derogatory words and call this person retarded or that person something unpleasant, but you’re an intelligent person as are all atheists, but its sin that is affecting your judgment on these matters.

Show me how sin exists, and isn't just another invented concept.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In your worldview, is morality an invented concept?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
No. But that doesn't address sin as an invented concept, which I assert it is.

Can you back up your assertion with reasons why you believe it’s an invented concept?

It's the silliness of it. Are you telling me that an omnipotent, omniscient creature will be surprised or disappointed? That's not consistent. How could you possibly "offend" someone who knows exactly what you're going to do before you do it for your whole life? That would be omniscience. Omnipotence would, by definition, be the absence of disappointment.

Because Silly, we aren’t divine, we’re creaturely, He “speaks” divine, but we can’t. He can transcend time but we can’t. He doesn’t need to learn but we do. So he takes on human characteristics to properly communicate to us and in doing so he assumes human traits and behaviors like the ability to be surprised or disappointed. It’s called anthropomorphism.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And you’re right, individuals have a moral sense, one which moral relativism cannot account for, but

Nice try sliding that one through. If individuals have a moral sense, that IS moral relativism.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
From the context of my writing, it should’ve been easy to comprehend what I meant by writing that individuals have a moral sense, to suggest by observation morality has a transcendental aspect about it, transcending culture and convention. Is your argument, because humans behave morally, moral relativism is true?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Now back to your response. Hitler imposed his standard of morality on the German people which not all agreed with, I grant you probably the majority, but the fact remains some of them or many of them rebelled against it. If I haven’t asked this in the past, I’m asking it now. What obligation does any one individual have to comply with any standard period?

I already answered: none. Individuals often disagree with the morality of the culture or subculture they find themselves in. You're also making reference to issues of political power that you seem to feel can be glossed safely. Being coerced and shot has an effect on people's moral sense.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Is it wrong to use political power to achieve your desires?

There isn't enough information in your question for me to answer it. Do you mean "always wrong"? "... to achieve your desires, even if they are bad"? The number of things you have in mind, here, is impossible to guess.

If morality is relative, the answer(s) are it is never "wrong" and it is never “bad”; wrong is a relative term and bad is a relative term. Haven’t you figured it out yet?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In a universe that’s consigned to convention, might makes right. Hitler had the power and so for a season, he got to set the rules. Anyone with power can impose their influence on others until he’s overthrown. That’s the only logical outcome. People do what is right in their own eyes and they judge themselves by themselves. There’s no obligation to advance the human race, no obligation to make as many people happy, no obligation to care for other people but yourself if this is an atheist universe.

And history shows that to be true time and time again. We're arguing about what is correct, not what is sad, or what should or should not be.

One tiny bit of misinformation at the end, though. We clearly (human beings) have feelings of solidarity, which you miss completely in that description. We love and play and hope and want to help each other out. We do. It doesn't matter what books we've read, or what some silly man in an official looking robe tells us, these things are innate.

More of the same thing, read my response immediately above and to todangst’s alleged refutation of TAG.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I’ve shown inconsistencies and contradictions within a typical physicalist worldview of an atheist (which many of you are) speaking about the absurdity of arriving at logic, rationality, morality (as if it meant anything), love, hope, etc when all you have to work with are molecules in motion; matter/energy in whatever configuration obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry.

In all honestly, I don't see why I have to respond to your assertions about matter, when your understanding of it isn't even rudimentary.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Like weeds grow, so the mind of man does what it does by the laws of physics. In addition, it is blind superstition to assume that inorganic matter by some mechanical reconfiguration can give rise to organic matter.

"Blind superstition" to make a hypothesis, and then work towards falsifying it? You're falling off the edge of the intellectual earth here, pal. The assumption that is taking place is the same one that has guided all scientific discovery: what we can measure is actually there. There's nothing unreasonable about that assumption, judging from its success.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You can’t account for the origin of the physical universe. You plead ignorance to so many questions responding with I don’t know as if that’s justification for believing the rest of what you believe.

But knowing what you know and what you don't know is just a mark of wisdom and humility. If I were to claim that I knew something I clearly didn't, I would be lying.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And the ridiculous answer I’ve gotten from you on free will and human choice; that there isn’t any, it’s illusory is so laughable. If that were true, what would be the point of arguing about anything at all? You wouldn't be in control of anything you do, if human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable, providing we know all those factors, all of us think and do what we have conditioned to think and do, given the variable factors of our environment, human free will is an illusion (and you’re consistent with your answer in regards to that) but regardless of whether you’re the conditioner or the one being conditioned, you have no control over your actions.

This isn't a black-and-white issue. If it were, then we would easily be able to simulate organic behaviour. I wasn't saying that we have no control over our actions, I was saying we have no "free will". You just demonstrated the reason I said that "free will" is a loaded and misleading phrase: it leads to simplistic concepts of human behaviour based on assumptions.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Morality is relative to the atheist, but yet no matter how many examples I give you, you’ve complained about politics being a misguiding factor or coercion is disliked, etc, but all the while affirming that no individual or group is obligated to conform to any standard even the standard that objects to political force or coercion. I don’t see how you put the two together.

But they're part of the same behaviour: you just said the same thing twice. No group IS obligated to conform, because they have the "option" to be jailed or killed. Such people join a resistance movement in order to reclaim some lost political power.

My point is that you'r jumping all over the place in terms of human behaviour instead of just sticking to a single argument, so it makes it very difficult for me to respond to your questions in a reasonable way.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You say people are social and desire to be happy and loved and have friends, and help each other out, but not all people do and all not in the same way.

That is unquestionably true.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If morality is relative, nothing is ever wrong and nothing is ever “bad”; wrong is a relative term and bad is a relative term.

That's correct. It depends on which culture you find yourself attracted to. It's easy enough to demonstrate that this is true: in your case, you believe that ignoring gods is bad, and I think it's harmless. Different cultures, different viewpoints.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The Christian worldview begins with the God who is all powerful and all knowing who created all things outside of himself (nothing is excluded) and sustains his creation.

It's the weakest part of the whole thing. That argument introduces several wacky concepts without defining them. First, you want me to believe that there is a creature that is all-powerful and all-knowing. Then, you want me to believe that you know its name, then that we require this being. After that, all I have to do is believe that you know this somehow.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How do we know these things, He reveals them to us.

Oh, well then. You'll excuse me, if--based on your tendency to throw around unsupported statements--I don't believe that you commune directly with a concept you haven't supported.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2) and thereby reflects the mind and character of God (Rom. 1:20).

Here's the problem: I can grab several other religious texts and give you the same thing back as "Allah" or "Gorgantua" or whatever, and the text will be just as clear in its presentation of the truth. Do we believe in the Judeo-Christian version for any particular reason?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
My critique of physicalist/materialist atheism above should convince demonstrate to you that it’s not a naked assertion.

Let me get this straight: You believe that you've argued for a naked assertion by making a naked assertion?

I'll let the rest of your critique stand, seeing as we need to start from the above.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #125 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

_______________________________________________

 

HisWillness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I’ve shown inconsistencies and contradictions within a typical physicalist worldview of an atheist (which many of you are) speaking about the absurdity of arriving at logic, rationality, morality (as if it meant anything), love, hope, etc when all you have to work with are molecules in motion; matter/energy in whatever configuration obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry.

In all honestly, I don't see why I have to respond to your assertions about matter, when your understanding of it isn't even rudimentary.

I don't need to be a physicist or career scientist to understand your claim that matter and energy behave uniformly and that that’s all there is in the universe. I’m simply following its logical conclusion. Unless you tell me matter and energy do not always behave uniformly, I'll continue with this line of attack, but then if you do, you're have an entirely new problem.

Also, not correcting my understand and simply claiming that I’m ignorant doesn’t prove that Atheism isn’t illogical, contradictory, and internally incoherent.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Like weeds grow, so the mind of man does what it does by the laws of physics. In addition, it is blind superstition to assume that inorganic matter by some mechanical reconfiguration can give rise to organic matter.

"Blind superstition" to make a hypothesis, and then work towards falsifying it? You're falling off the edge of the intellectual earth here, pal. The assumption that is taking place is the same one that has guided all scientific discovery: what we can measure is actually there. There's nothing unreasonable about that assumption, judging from its success.

Are you claiming that people have created a living cell for example from raw inorganic material? I’ve heard of using samples of cells to produce more cells or using living tissue to produce more tissue, but again using only raw inorganic material and creating a living cell? That’s happened?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You can’t account for the origin of the physical universe. You plead ignorance to so many questions responding with I don’t know as if that’s justification for believing the rest of what you believe.

But knowing what you know and what you don't know is just a mark of wisdom and humility. If I were to claim that I knew something I clearly didn't, I would be lying.

First of all, I’m asking you as an atheist from an atheistic point of view (don’t borrow from my worldview’s moral standard which is absolute) is humility and wisdom good things? What relative standard are you using to measure this? Secondly this is one of the points I’ve made all along. Philosophically you’re impoverished, so all the claims of how superior atheism is irrelevant.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And the ridiculous answer I’ve gotten from you on free will and human choice; that there isn’t any, it’s illusory is so laughable. If that were true, what would be the point of arguing about anything at all? You wouldn't be in control of anything you do, if human behavior is determined by antecedent factors (particularly, stimulus-response conditioning) and is predictable, providing we know all those factors, all of us think and do what we have conditioned to think and do, given the variable factors of our environment, human free will is an illusion (and you’re consistent with your answer in regards to that) but regardless of whether you’re the conditioner or the one being conditioned, you have no control over your actions.

This isn't a black-and-white issue. If it were, then we would easily be able to simulate organic behaviour. I wasn't saying that we have no control over our actions, I was saying we have no "free will". You just demonstrated the reason I said that "free will" is a loaded and misleading phrase: it leads to simplistic concepts of human behaviour based on assumptions.

What are you talking about? Psychological pressures to behave a certain way? I’m asking a simple question, can you make choices based on free thought? Should I have Cornflakes today or Cocoa Puffs for breakfast? Should I steal this candy bar or pay for it? Should I cheat on the exam or study hard for it and not cheat? And if you say we can make choices based on free thought, I want to know how in an atheist universe where only matter and energy exist and behave uniformly can produce the ability to have free thought.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Morality is relative to the atheist, but yet no matter how many examples I give you, you’ve complained about politics being a misguiding factor or coercion is disliked, etc, but all the while affirming that no individual or group is obligated to conform to any standard even the standard that objects to political force or coercion. I don’t see how you put the two together.

But they're part of the same behaviour: you just said the same thing twice. No group IS obligated to conform, because they have the "option" to be jailed or killed. Such people join a resistance movement in order to reclaim some lost political power.

My point is that you'r jumping all over the place in terms of human behaviour instead of just sticking to a single argument, so it makes it very difficult for me to respond to your questions in a reasonable way.

Will, you can almost make any decision an ethical or moral decision (directly or indirectly). I don’t think I’m jumping around. You seem to claim that ethics doesn’t touch the realm of politics or maybe even academia. I can abuse political power to get money and woman. I can falsify my lab results for more grant money. But I made the point that you miss the point. If morality is relative, what’s bad, good, wrong, or right is relative. Ultimately nothing really is wrong and nothing is really right. It renders morality meaningless.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You say people are social and desire to be happy and loved and have friends, and help each other out, but not all people do and all not in the same way.

That is unquestionably true.

Too bad you didn’t comment of the rest of my point.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If morality is relative, nothing is ever wrong and nothing is ever “bad”; wrong is a relative term and bad is a relative term.

That's correct. It depends on which culture you find yourself attracted to. It's easy enough to demonstrate that this is true: in your case, you believe that ignoring gods is bad, and I think it's harmless. Different cultures, different viewpoints.

Morality becomes meaningless.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The Christian worldview begins with the God who is all powerful and all knowing who created all things outside of himself (nothing is excluded) and sustains his creation.

It's the weakest part of the whole thing. That argument introduces several wacky concepts without defining them. First, you want me to believe that there is a creature that is all-powerful and all-knowing. Then, you want me to believe that you know its name, then that we require this being. After that, all I have to do is believe that you know this somehow.

First of all, is the Christian God a creature? Was he created? Only two types of categories exist; divine or created. Secondly did you read what I said about knowledge and how we presuppose Him and how even unbelievers who don’t actively presuppose him attain to knowledge? We do so through and because of his revelation (supernatural and/or natural). Christian’s know him (in specifics) because He revealed himself supernaturally. That is the only way you can know that He’s triune, His name, how many days He took to create the universe, etc. Apart from His supernatural revelation, you cannot know those specifics.

Realize that according to the Christian account of creation, God from day one of man’s creation communicated with him supernaturally in addition to the presence of His natural revelation. Revelation is heavily emphasized. It’s consistent with the Christian worldview. If you find inconsistencies between its parts, please disclose it.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
How do we know these things, He reveals them to us.

Oh, well then. You'll excuse me, if--based on your tendency to throw around unsupported statements--I don't believe that you commune directly with a concept you haven't supported.

OMG, you’re being sarcastic. But really, I’ve supported it through TAG, I’ve rendered atheism unintelligible and provided a working worldview that can account for human experience. Now know that, this is not what convinces anyone to be a Christian. That’s God’s job of converting the heart. Explaining the reasonableness of Christianity through this method is for the purpose of showing unbelievers their spiritual poverty (even those who do not believe in spirits).

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2) and thereby reflects the mind and character of God (Rom. 1:20).

Here's the problem: I can grab several other religious texts and give you the same thing back as "Allah" or "Gorgantua" or whatever, and the text will be just as clear in its presentation of the truth. Do we believe in the Judeo-Christian version for any particular reason?

This just shows your blatant ignorance. No other religion’s holy book or teachings even comes close to providing such a comprehensive worldview and even if they did, it’s not the Christian one. They all have different epistemological, metaphysical, and/or ethical views. Christianity, because it is true can make them silly even as it has made atheism silly.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
My critique of physicalist/materialist atheism above should convince demonstrate to you that it’s not a naked assertion.

Let me get this straight: You believe that you've argued for a naked assertion by making a naked assertion?

I'll let the rest of your critique stand, seeing as we need to start from the above.

Are you trying to be smug or smart? No, my assertion/claim is not naked, that’s what my statement means. The criticism arising from the atheist camp is that the assertion is naked; not supported by proof or evidence. But again, I have provided evidence/proof, proving that the theory of atheism is foolish because of all its inconsistencies. I’ve given you a worldview that is represented by the Bible that is internally coherent and makes things such as logic, free thought, rationality possible.

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I don't need to be a physicist or career scientist to understand your claim that matter and energy behave uniformly and that that’s all there is in the universe. I’m simply following its logical conclusion.

Okay. Let's keep along those lines. The laws of the universe are consistent.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
"Blind superstition" to make a hypothesis, and then work towards falsifying it? You're falling off the edge of the intellectual earth here, pal. The assumption that is taking place is the same one that has guided all scientific discovery: what we can measure is actually there. There's nothing unreasonable about that assumption, judging from its success.

Are you claiming that people have created a living cell for example from raw inorganic material? I’ve heard of using samples of cells to produce more cells or using living tissue to produce more tissue, but again using only raw inorganic material and creating a living cell? That’s happened?

No, it hasn't. This is what I mean when I say "jumping around". What are you talking about? Do you have a problem with the concept that what we can measure is actually there? Furthermore, can you accept an honest admission of ignorance as just that, and not a concession that God is in that gap?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all, I’m asking you as an atheist from an atheistic point of view (don’t borrow from my worldview’s moral standard which is absolute) is humility and wisdom good things? What relative standard are you using to measure this?

Humility and wisdom are good things, in my opinion. I'm sure my opinion is based on my culture, but that's my opinion. I value wisdom and humility, yes.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Secondly this is one of the points I’ve made all along. Philosophically you’re impoverished, so all the claims of how superior atheism is irrelevant.

Because I value wisdom and humility?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
This isn't a black-and-white issue. If it were, then we would easily be able to simulate organic behaviour. I wasn't saying that we have no control over our actions, I was saying we have no "free will". You just demonstrated the reason I said that "free will" is a loaded and misleading phrase: it leads to simplistic concepts of human behaviour based on assumptions.

I’m asking a simple question, can you make choices based on free thought?

It's a simple question, but the answer is not simple. In fact, it's a disingenuous question whether you know it or not. The idea that a choice is 100% "free thought" is absurd, if there is even such a thing as free thought! When a person is drugged, or "not themselves" or "in a bad mood" are they exhibiting "free thought"? When they are angry, hungry, sick or suffering from a hormonal imbalance, or food poisoning, do they have free thought? What about someone who really wants a drink or a cigarette? Reducing human behaviour to "Should I have Corn Flakes?" is completely childish, and solves absolutely nothing.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
But they're part of the same behaviour: you just said the same thing twice. No group IS obligated to conform, because they have the "option" to be jailed or killed. Such people join a resistance movement in order to reclaim some lost political power.

My point is that you'r jumping all over the place in terms of human behaviour instead of just sticking to a single argument, so it makes it very difficult for me to respond to your questions in a reasonable way.

Will, you can almost make any decision an ethical or moral decision (directly or indirectly). I don’t think I’m jumping around. You seem to claim that ethics doesn’t touch the realm of politics or maybe even academia. I can abuse political power to get money and woman. I can falsify my lab results for more grant money. But I made the point that you miss the point. If morality is relative, what’s bad, good, wrong, or right is relative. Ultimately nothing really is wrong and nothing is really right. It renders morality meaningless.

Holy crap! I answered your question: "No group IS obligated to conform, because they have the "option" to be jailed or killed. Such people join a resistance movement in order to reclaim some lost political power" Did that not answer your question? When you went into a different tangent, how is that not jumping around?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
That's correct. It depends on which culture you find yourself attracted to. It's easy enough to demonstrate that this is true: in your case, you believe that ignoring gods is bad, and I think it's harmless. Different cultures, different viewpoints.

Morality becomes meaningless.

No, morality becomes a practical process involving wisdom, instead of looking it up in a book.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all, is the Christian God a creature?

Would "thing" be better?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Was he created?

I'm arguing he doesn't exist, so I'd say "no".

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Only two types of categories exist; divine or created.

Oh, you mean the categories you just made up? Great.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Secondly did you read what I said about knowledge and how we presuppose Him and how even unbelievers who don’t actively presuppose him attain to knowledge?

Yeah, and it's still begging the question.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Realize that according to the Christian account of creation, God from day one of man’s creation communicated with him supernaturally in addition to the presence of His natural revelation. Revelation is heavily emphasized. It’s consistent with the Christian worldview. If you find inconsistencies between its parts, please disclose it.

Of course Christian doctrine is consistent with Christian doctrine. Do you not see how circular that is?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I’ve rendered atheism unintelligible

Hold on. How is "there are no gods" unintelligible? You might disagree, but that's intelligible.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
This just shows your blatant ignorance. No other religion’s holy book or teachings even comes close to providing such a comprehensive worldview and even if they did, it’s not the Christian one. They all have different epistemological, metaphysical, and/or ethical views. Christianity, because it is true can make them silly even as it has made atheism silly.

So Christianity is true because Christianity is true. You have to be the best circular arguer I've ever seen.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

I believe that the world is discoverable, and that the idea of "supernature" is an invention to make people feel powerful.

You want to back up that assertion or is your hypothesis also your conclusion with nothing in between?

No, it's a hypothesis. What's more likely, that there's a realm where exactly one omnipotent being exists who toys with us for fun, punishes or rewards us with an eternity that our bodies don't experience, just our minds, and administers this torment diligently

OR

that people are superstitious and like making clubs?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
But I do know. I hope I didn’t give the impression I view it merely as a theory or that it’s only highly probable. But to prove it’s true I’ll prove that any other view is a philosophical mess and I hope I’ve started to show you that atheism cannot stand up the demands of logic and coherency.

What is illogical or incoherent about saying there are no gods? It's not a complicated statement.


AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I’m merely stating that Christians reason and use logic and that the transcendental argument argues for the existence of logic only under certain metaphysical conditions.

It sure does. The metaphysical conditions are when people don't mind you using presupposition. Once that's cleared up, it's smooth sailing!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you back up your assertion with reasons why you believe it’s an invented concept?

Again: what's more likely, that an invisible all-powerful creature needs an entire population to grovel for eternity

OR

people like making rules and having them obeyed?

What better way to have the rules obeyed than by telling people that the rules were made by something ultra-powerful?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Because Silly, we aren’t divine, we’re creaturely, He “speaks” divine, but we can’t. He can transcend time but we can’t. He doesn’t need to learn but we do. So he takes on human characteristics to properly communicate to us and in doing so he assumes human traits and behaviors like the ability to be surprised or disappointed. It’s called anthropomorphism.

So you're saying God doesn't do these things? God isn't disappointed, he just pretends for our sake? To scare us?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If morality is relative, the answer(s) are it is never "wrong" and it is never “bad”; wrong is a relative term and bad is a relative term. Haven’t you figured it out yet?

You have a black-and-white system of morality that you have to look up in a book. How am I the bad guy here?

Are you telling me that you can't make a moral decision without consulting the Bible? That's nonsensical.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If a

If a creator-of-the-universe, all powerful, sentient entity, actually existed and was intervening in our world in any way, it would make any attempt by us mere mortals to gain certain knowledge about anything beyond the knowledge that It exists totally futile. It could change the rules at any instant.

We would have no way of knowing independently whether it had positive or negative intensions toward us, or whether any communications from it where actually 'truth' or not. It might wish us well, but tell us things which were not true, because the 'truth' would cause us to do react in ways which were ultimately bad for us, or vice versa

Any obedience to commandments of such an entity would not represent 'moral' behavior, just blind and/or submissive obedience to power, ie the governing principle would be 'might makes right'.

The only sort of morality which makes sense is one based on our own judgement as to what causes us pleasure and pain, extended to encompass our community and based on the strong desire of most people to enjoy positive interactions with friends and family. This is essentially based on variations on the Golden Rule, extended to allow for the differences in individual preferences, and the need to constrain the actions of disturbed individuals whose particular desires and drives are not compatible with the mainstream of the group. Such a morality is always going to be subject of some dispute, but it least it is based on something observable and real, and meaningful to us.

IOW the moral argument for God has no merit whatsoever. 

EDIT: No amount of metaphysical juggling of ill-defined ideas can get round this simple point.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #127/128/129 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

________________________________

 

HisWillness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I don't need to be a physicist or career scientist to understand your claim that matter and energy behave uniformly and that that’s all there is in the universe. I’m simply following its logical conclusion.

Okay. Let's keep along those lines. The laws of the universe are consistent.

The laws of the universe are consistent + only matter and energy exist = two of your presuppositions

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Like weeds grow, so the mind of man does what it does by the laws of physics. In addition, it is blind superstition to assume that inorganic matter by some mechanical reconfiguration can give rise to organic matter.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
"Blind superstition" to make a hypothesis, and then work towards falsifying it? You're falling off the edge of the intellectual earth here, pal. The assumption that is taking place is the same one that has guided all scientific discovery: what we can measure is actually there. There's nothing unreasonable about that assumption, judging from its success.

Are you claiming that people have created a living cell for example from raw inorganic material? I’ve heard of using samples of cells to produce more cells or using living tissue to produce more tissue, but again using only raw inorganic material and creating a living cell? That’s happened?

No, it hasn't. This is what I mean when I say "jumping around". What are you talking about? Do you have a problem with the concept that what we can measure is actually there? Furthermore, can you accept an honest admission of ignorance as just that, and not a concession that God is in that gap?

Maybe I don’t understand your question, just so you know you were responding to my quote listed above. In it I called the idea of taking inorganic matter and by some mechanical reconfiguration making organic matter out of it blind superstition. I’m not saying that nature is not uniform. It is. Otherwise science would be meaningless. I’m criticizing the belief that all there is in the universe is physical (matter and energy and nothing else). Take these two assumptions together and you have some pretty messed up theories that cannot add up to what we experience in this universe. You would have to add some “magic” into the formula to make it work (but remember you disallow the supernatural – not magic btw, I was only poking fun), so I’m simply leading to a logical conclusion given the parameters you’re provided. The laws of the universe are consistent + only matter and energy exist = no free thought (science, logic, rationality, morality, and concepts like love, compassion, honor, and justice can’t possibly have any meaning. It would all be projection at best).

Your ignorance is inexcusable, when you accuse Christians of being superstitious, IGNORANT of casual factors leading to the invention of a super natural being to explain the unknown. It’s as God in his word has said that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We can clone cells, travel into outer space, make super computers, make computer tech smaller and smaller that can compute billions if not trillions of instructions per second and you conclude that impersonal matter + energy combined can produce all that?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all, I’m asking you as an atheist from an atheistic point of view (don’t borrow from my worldview’s moral standard which is absolute) is humility and wisdom good things? What relative standard are you using to measure this?

Humility and wisdom are good things, in my opinion. I'm sure my opinion is based on my culture, but that's my opinion. I value wisdom and humility, yes.

If you speak of the value of things like humility and wisdom and ascribe it to opinion, it’s no more meaningful than a projection. That is what believing in atheism ultimately leads you to, an existence of meaninglessness.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Secondly this is one of the points I’ve made all along. Philosophically you’re impoverished, so all the claims of how superior atheism is irrelevant.

Because I value wisdom and humility?

No because your worldview cannot account for the meaningfulness of such concepts.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
This isn't a black-and-white issue. If it were, then we would easily be able to simulate organic behaviour. I wasn't saying that we have no control over our actions, I was saying we have no "free will". You just demonstrated the reason I said that "free will" is a loaded and misleading phrase: it leads to simplistic concepts of human behaviour based on assumptions.

I’m asking a simple question, can you make choices based on free thought?

It's a simple question, but the answer is not simple. In fact, it's a disingenuous question whether you know it or not. The idea that a choice is 100% "free thought" is absurd, if there is even such a thing as free thought! When a person is drugged, or "not themselves" or "in a bad mood" are they exhibiting "free thought"? When they are angry, hungry, sick or suffering from a hormonal imbalance, or food poisoning, do they have free thought? What about someone who really wants a drink or a cigarette? Reducing human behaviour to "Should I have Corn Flakes?" is completely childish, and solves absolutely nothing.

Yes, I can’t be held responsible for beating a man to a bloody pulp because I was in a bad mood, i.e. I lacked free thought. You can substitute “in a bad mood” with “suffering from a hormonal imbalance”, “suffering from food poisoning”. I lacked any free thought when I robbed a man at gun point for his money to satisfy my drug addiction; therefore I can't be held responsible.

Yes, I’m glad you’ve made it clear.

The problem is worse, because as I’ve asked above, how does impersonal matter + energy combined produce anything meaningful period?

Face it you have no idea what you’re talking about.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
But they're part of the same behaviour: you just said the same thing twice. No group IS obligated to conform, because they have the "option" to be jailed or killed. Such people join a resistance movement in order to reclaim some lost political power.

My point is that you'r jumping all over the place in terms of human behaviour instead of just sticking to a single argument, so it makes it very difficult for me to respond to your questions in a reasonable way.

Will, you can almost make any decision an ethical or moral decision (directly or indirectly). I don’t think I’m jumping around. You seem to claim that ethics doesn’t touch the realm of politics or maybe even academia. I can abuse political power to get money and woman. I can falsify my lab results for more grant money. But I made the point that you miss the point. If morality is relative, what’s bad, good, wrong, or right is relative. Ultimately nothing really is wrong and nothing is really right. It renders morality meaningless.

Holy crap! I answered your question: "No group IS obligated to conform, because they have the "option" to be jailed or killed. Such people join a resistance movement in order to reclaim some lost political power" Did that not answer your question? When you went into a different tangent, how is that not jumping around?

And you further demonstrate to everyone viewing our discussion that although you won’t admit it, you’ve rendered morality completely meaningless, congratulations, I knew your atheism could accomplish that.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
That's correct. It depends on which culture you find yourself attracted to. It's easy enough to demonstrate that this is true: in your case, you believe that ignoring gods is bad, and I think it's harmless. Different cultures, different viewpoints.

Morality becomes meaningless.

No, morality becomes a practical process involving wisdom, instead of looking it up in a book.”

In atheism, impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws = wisdom as a projection (at best); i.e. is meaningless. It makes no sense to judge anything wrong or right. It’s so funny how you repeatedly miss the point.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
First of all, is the Christian God a creature?

Would "thing" be better?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Was he created?

I'm arguing he doesn't exist, so I'd say "no".

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Only two types of categories exist; divine or created.

Oh, you mean the categories you just made up? Great.

Yes Will, deny the only rational explanation for the universe, for logic and discourse, morality, science, and meaning and instead cling to your made up belief of impersonal matter + immutable laws = the invention of super computers. (Yes Will, very plausible)

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Secondly did you read what I said about knowledge and how we presuppose Him and how even unbelievers who don’t actively presuppose him attain to knowledge?

Yeah, and it's still begging the question.

I wish you would tell me what that is, I repeatedly demonstrate to you how foolish unbelieving thought is, but all you given me is your claim that it’s projection or an invented concept and not backed it up with any proof. What’s worse is you can’t account for rational thought, argumentation, science.

Impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws = not our universe

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Realize that according to the Christian account of creation, God from day one of man’s creation communicated with him supernaturally in addition to the presence of His natural revelation. Revelation is heavily emphasized. It’s consistent with the Christian worldview. If you find inconsistencies between its parts, please disclose it.

Of course Christian doctrine is consistent with Christian doctrine. Do you not see how circular that is?

Will, when are you going to learn how to argue or even to understand someone’s argument? One objection to the possibility of knowing a God like the God revealed in scripture is that one wouldn’t be able to know anything about him. Now if the Bible didn’t mention anything about God revealing himself to men in certain ways and gave no account to when such occasion ever occurred, you could argue the point. To which I would have to honestly agree. But the Bible does explain and gives too many examples of God communicating to man. Now the only thing you could fall back to as always is it doesn’t make sense and not have any reason to think so expect it violates your presuppositions. I’m speaking about the internal coherency of the Christian worldview. My presuppositions don’t conflict with each other. Your presuppositions step all over each other. Impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws ≠ rationality, morality, intelligence, organic matter

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I’ve rendered atheism unintelligible

Hold on. How is "there are no gods" unintelligible? You might disagree, but that's intelligible.

If you’ve read the arguments I’ve provided you would know. I’ll summarize with a simple equational error (is equational even a word?)

Impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws = human intelligence???

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
This just shows your blatant ignorance. No other religion’s holy book or teachings even comes close to providing such a comprehensive worldview and even if they did, it’s not the Christian one. They all have different epistemological, metaphysical, and/or ethical views. Christianity, because it is true can make them silly even as it has made atheism silly.

So Christianity is true because Christianity is true. You have to be the best circular arguer I've ever seen.

Christianity is true because any unbelieving worldview will fail to meet the demands of logic and coherency, while Christianity meets them with flying colors. You continue to gloss over my arguments and I can't do anything about that, but again I’ll summarize with a simple equational error

Impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws = human intelligence???

____________________________________

 

REPLY TO POST #128

 

HisWillness wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

I believe that the world is discoverable, and that the idea of "supernature" is an invention to make people feel powerful.

You want to back up that assertion or is your hypothesis also your conclusion with nothing in between?

No, it's a hypothesis. What's more likely, that there's a realm where exactly one omnipotent being exists who toys with us for fun, punishes or rewards us with an eternity that our bodies don't experience, just our minds, and administers this torment diligently

OR

that people are superstitious and like making clubs?

Is it moral to torture someone for disobedience in an atheistic universe where morality is relative and matter and energy that behaves uniformly is all there is and results in illusory free thought?

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
But I do know. I hope I didn’t give the impression I view it merely as a theory or that it’s only highly probable. But to prove it’s true I’ll prove that any other view is a philosophical mess and I hope I’ve started to show you that atheism cannot stand up the demands of logic and coherency.

What is illogical or incoherent about saying there are no gods? It's not a complicated statement.

Do you read anything I write or just conveniently “gloss” over it? It’s illogical and incoherent in that you conclude there’s no free thought and morality is relative, yet you appeal to reason and rationality which require free thought to be meaningful and fault people for making up their own morality when it upsets YOU. You are so inconsistent.

Now there are more things, but I think this is a good start.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I’m merely stating that Christians reason and use logic and that the transcendental argument argues for the existence of logic only under certain metaphysical conditions.

It sure does. The metaphysical conditions are when people don't mind you using presupposition. Once that's cleared up, it's smooth sailing!

I really think you don’t read anything I write. You know that’s the very thing I accuse todangst of doing when he makes the claim that TAG is a naked assertion, blah, blah, blah. I’ve given you many proofs why atheism is foolish while you’ve provided nothing against Christianity. If you have, its against the use of presuppositions which you yourself also use when criticizing Christianity. The only difference is your own presupposition can be easily turned against your worldview, rendering it senseless. I’ve asked you to do the same if you can against Christianity (use Christian presuppositions against it’s worldview to see if it holds up to the demands of logic and coherency).

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Can you back up your assertion with reasons why you believe it’s an invented concept?

Again: what's more likely, that an invisible all-powerful creature needs an entire population to grovel for eternity

OR

people like making rules and having them obeyed?

What better way to have the rules obeyed than by telling people that the rules were made by something ultra-powerful?

I choose a universe like ours that can exist because of an all-powerful creator who created it and sustains it and makes it uniform and allows logic, rationality, science, morals, love, joy, happiness, etc to be meaningful.

Your two examples can't exist. The first one being a created thing creating other created things. I think the Greeks and Romans held to a religion like that. The second one being "magical" (yet the denial of "magic" is presupposed); intelligence appearing out of impersonal matter and energy that rigidly obey immutable laws. Illusory free will and choice is assumed, that can invent transistors and advanced computer technology and make the iPhone G3.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Because Silly, we aren’t divine, we’re creaturely, He “speaks” divine, but we can’t. He can transcend time but we can’t. He doesn’t need to learn but we do. So he takes on human characteristics to properly communicate to us and in doing so he assumes human traits and behaviors like the ability to be surprised or disappointed. It’s called anthropomorphism.

So you're saying God doesn't do these things? God isn't disappointed, he just pretends for our sake? To scare us?

No He comes down to our level to give us chances to repent. So that in the end when he sends people to hell, He’s justified according to our level of understanding. I want every atheist who owns a dog or cat, when they bite or scratch them to do absolutely nothing about it (no discipline what so ever all the time). I don’t think they could do that. Now the difference between God and man is so much more than man and dog/cat. I think He has more than the right and prerogative to warn us and punish us.

HisWillness wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If morality is relative, the answer(s) are it is never "wrong" and it is never “bad”; wrong is a relative term and bad is a relative term. Haven’t you figured it out yet?

You have a black-and-white system of morality that you have to look up in a book. How am I the bad guy here?

When your mom, sister, wife, or daughter are raped and/or murdered by someone who thinks the rape and murder of people are not wrong and he gets away with it. I guess calling him immoral would have lost its meaning in a moral subjective universe.

HisWillness wrote:
Are you telling me that you can't make a moral decision without consulting the Bible? That's nonsensical.

I could, but if it’s whatever I want it to be, morality has lost its meaning. Is it nonsensical to have real meaning or projected meaning? Matter and energy (only) = illusory free thought = illusory morality.

______________________________________________________________________

I FEEL AS IF I NEED TO GIVE BOB A RESPONSE

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

If a creator-of-the-universe, all powerful, sentient entity, actually existed and was intervening in our world in any way, it would make any attempt by us mere mortals to gain certain knowledge about anything beyond the knowledge that It exists totally futile. It could change the rules at any instant.

We would have no way of knowing independently whether it had positive or negative intensions toward us, or whether any communications from it where actually 'truth' or not. It might wish us well, but tell us things which were not true, because the 'truth' would cause us to do react in ways which were ultimately bad for us, or vice versa

Bob, your writing always “appears” very intelligent, but you like all other atheist make the same mistakes in arguing your point. First of all your claim suggests you know that which is beyond the physical realm and you shouldn't, given YOUR epistemological position that nothing outside the physical world can be known. You contradict yourself and so that alone should disqualify your claim in the first place if we’re gauging the coherency of our worldviews.

Secondary you presuppose for MY worldview that humans are autonomous beings, but I don’t claim that as being part of my worldview. The Bible doesn’t claim that. You should read more on Christian metaphysics in my response to todangst’s piece. Now if the Bible did claim that humans and the universe operate independently of God and that God did exist in the way the Bible describes him, then you would have a good point. Try to show inconsistency within the Christian metaphysics, given the parameters provided.

I’ve on the other hand have shown how silly it to arrive at free thought, rational thought, living things, meaningfulness of concepts like love, honor, goodness, when all you have to work with are impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws + time (molecules in motion). I haven’t even thrown in other presuppositions you hold to like randomness and chance. And through all that you can somehow arrive at human intelligence that can invent micro processors that perform millions of instructions per second if not more or make artificial hearts that can take the place of real hearts. Bob, faith cannot be any more blind than that.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Any obedience to commandments of such an entity would not represent 'moral' behavior, just blind and/or submissive obedience to power, ie the governing principle would be 'might makes right'.

The only sort of morality which makes sense is one based on our own judgement as to what causes us pleasure and pain, extended to encompass our community and based on the strong desire of most people to enjoy positive interactions with friends and family. This is essentially based on variations on the Golden Rule, extended to allow for the differences in individual preferences, and the need to constrain the actions of disturbed individuals whose particular desires and drives are not compatible with the mainstream of the group. Such a morality is always going to be subject of some dispute, but it least it is based on something observable and real, and meaningful to us.

No Bob, for morality to make sense (to be meaningful) in the first place, morals would have to be absolute. It’s in the atheistic physicalist/materialist worldviews that morality is relative at best and ‘might would make right’ is the logical outcome.

What you're claiming would be similar to saying that the laws of logic are not universal but standards or conventions adopted by people, which BTW some prominent atheists have said in the near past (I don’t know if they claim that in the present). Now if this were true, it would be meaningless to even reason and debate, because if it’s reduced standard or convention (if it’s relative), you could adopt some standard that your arguments measure up to, and I could use arguments that measure up to my standards of logic and that would be that. No need to argue, because on your convention you’ve won and on my convention I’ve won.

Morality that is not absolute is meaningless.

BobSpence1 wrote:
IOW the moral argument for God has no merit whatsoever.

EDIT: No amount of metaphysical juggling of ill-defined ideas can get round this simple point.

You’ve yet to make morality meaningful (despite your claim of the contrary) within your materialist/physicalist worldview and I know I’ve provided adequate proof of that, and in addition (maybe not here but in my response to todangst piece) I’ve provided you a worldview in which we can have absolute morality, rationality, and everything else that human’s experience in the universe. You may not like it and may not agree with it, but not because it’s illogical or incoherent, but because it defies your personal presuppositions.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I FEEL AS IF I NEED TO GIVE BOB A RESPONSE

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

If a creator-of-the-universe, all powerful, sentient entity, actually existed and was intervening in our world in any way, it would make any attempt by us mere mortals to gain certain knowledge about anything beyond the knowledge that It exists totally futile. It could change the rules at any instant.

We would have no way of knowing independently whether it had positive or negative intensions toward us, or whether any communications from it where actually 'truth' or not. It might wish us well, but tell us things which were not true, because the 'truth' would cause us to do react in ways which were ultimately bad for us, or vice versa

Bob, your writing always “appears” very intelligent, but you like all other atheist make the same mistakes in arguing your point. First of all your claim suggests you know that which is beyond the physical realm and you shouldn't, given YOUR epistemological position that nothing outside the physical world can be known. You contradict yourself and so that alone should disqualify your claim in the first place if we’re gauging the coherency of our worldviews.

No, I am claiming that even you cannot know with any certainty, even if your postulated God exists, what its attributes or motives are, simply because of it being defined as so far beyond us in nature and power. If you don't define God as 'all-powerful', then OK.

Quote:

Secondary you presuppose for MY worldview that humans are autonomous beings, but I don’t claim that as being part of my worldview. The Bible doesn’t claim that. You should read more on Christian metaphysics in my response to todangst’s piece. Now if the Bible did claim that humans and the universe operate independently of God and that God did exist in the way the Bible describes him, then you would have a good point. Try to show inconsistency within the Christian metaphysics, given the parameters provided.

If humans are not autonomous beings, then 'free will' would make even less sense than in the conventional Xian world-view. But OK, it seems you do not go along with that.

Quote:

I’ve on the other hand have shown how silly it to arrive at free thought, rational thought, living things, meaningfulness of concepts like love, honor, goodness, when all you have to work with are impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws + time (molecules in motion). I haven’t even thrown in other presuppositions you hold to like randomness and chance. And through all that you can somehow arrive at human intelligence that can invent micro processors that perform millions of instructions per second if not more or make artificial hearts that can take the place of real hearts. Bob, faith cannot be any more blind than that.

OK, here is where you simply demonstrate your ignorance on such matters, based on the typically mistaken intuitions and naive presuppositions of people who have not really studied such things. You have not shown that they are 'silly', just that you cannot understand them.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Any obedience to commandments of such an entity would not represent 'moral' behavior, just blind and/or submissive obedience to power, ie the governing principle would be 'might makes right'.

The only sort of morality which makes sense is one based on our own judgement as to what causes us pleasure and pain, extended to encompass our community and based on the strong desire of most people to enjoy positive interactions with friends and family. This is essentially based on variations on the Golden Rule, extended to allow for the differences in individual preferences, and the need to constrain the actions of disturbed individuals whose particular desires and drives are not compatible with the mainstream of the group. Such a morality is always going to be subject of some dispute, but it least it is based on something observable and real, and meaningful to us.

No Bob, for morality to make sense (to be meaningful) in the first place, morals would have to be absolute. It’s in the atheistic physicalist/materialist worldviews that morality is relative at best and ‘might would make right’ is the logical outcome.

'Might makes right' is the only logical conclusion to be derived from the Garden of Eden story , but I don't know if you take that parable seriously. It can and has been held by non-believer authoritarians like Stalin, of course, but my grounds for morality do provide an opposing argument based on evidence as to the relative sense of well-being and other positive attributes of more open societies. 

If in fact it could be positively demonstrated that the people under a particular authoritarian regime were actually overwhelmingly satisfied with their situation, and were genuinely aware of the alternatives, then it would in fact be wrong to insist that they were mistaken.

No, morality is inherently a subjective topic, and just because you require an 'absolute' morality to feel comfortable with moral concepts, does not make that requirement universal. I can assure that I and many others find that that does 'make sense', to us, without such a presupposition, and that is all we need to argue. You do not have access to our inner thoughts on this, so you simply have no grounds to contradict our statements, any more than I would try to contradict your assertion about what makes sense to you. You have a different opinion, a different judgement, but that's all it amounts to.

The assertion in your sig that "The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true" is another breathtakingly presumptive and ignorant assertion, which proves your ignorance to those of us who do hold atheist views, who know our own minds with far more certainty that you possibly can.

Quote:

What you're claiming would be similar to saying that the laws of logic are not universal but standards or conventions adopted by people, which BTW some prominent atheists have said in the near past (I don’t know if they claim that in the present). Now if this were true, it would be meaningless to even reason and debate, because if it’s reduced standard or convention (if it’s relative), you could adopt some standard that your arguments measure up to, and I could use arguments that measure up to my standards of logic and that would be that. No need to argue, because on your convention you’ve won and on my convention I’ve won.

Unlike the laws of logic, morality does not require an absolute standard for us to meaningful discuss it, unless we have presupposed to the contrary. The terms I used to describe an approach to morality make sense to anyone not adopting such a presupposition. It is a different interpretation of the 'meaning' of morality from yours, to an extent, but ultimately a more meaningful and justifiable version to human society.

Quote:

Morality that is not absolute is meaningless.

To you.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
IOW the moral argument for God has no merit whatsoever.

EDIT: No amount of metaphysical juggling of ill-defined ideas can get round this simple point.

You’ve yet to make morality meaningful (despite your claim of the contrary) within your materialist/physicalist worldview and I know I’ve provided adequate proof of that, and in addition (maybe not here but in my response to todangst piece) I’ve provided you a worldview in which we can have absolute morality, rationality, and everything else that human’s experience in the universe. You may not like it and may not agree with it, but not because it’s illogical or incoherent, but because it defies your personal presuppositions.

I apparently cannot make it more meaningful to you, because of your presuppositions and the particular constraints they put on your reasoning. I suspect I have thought about and read articles , books etc, relevant to this topic for at least as long and probably longer than you have, so you will have to present much more substantive arguments to come close to troubling my world-view. I make a point of starting from minimal presuppositions, and a preparedness to adjust what 'presuppositions', better described as working assumptions, that I do need on which to base logical arguments to make sense of both the external world and that of the mind.

Your bit about the 'silliness' of attempting to explain higher level attributes when everything is ultimately composed of 'impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws + time" shows up your core problem, I suspect.

It may be way too late to persuade you of the errors and misconceptions in this assumption, but it should be the subject of yet another thread to adequately debate, I guess, if you want to take it up. Once you 'get it', as I have, that 'argument' just provokes a face-palm and a groan of 'not this crap again'....

From my perspective you just appear so trapped by your presuppositions and ignorance on matters outside theology and metaphysics, that I find it a little sad, since you are obviously intelligent. See I can be condescending too... 

You no doubt see me as hypocritical in not bothering to go into detail to understand Christian doctrine, etc. but, based on my life experience, which included evaluation of what disciplines seemed more conducive to making sense of the wider reality, and of the ideas and behavior of my fellow inhabitants of this globe, I would no more be inclined to bother looking into such things than I would want to study the writings of believers in a Flat Earth, or Homeopathy, or any other truly 'silly' ideas.

You have gone in a different direction, obviously. The difficulty in breaching this divide to meaningfully debate our core disagreements is not a trivial task, although you do appear to be a more considered thinker than the majority of 'non-Atheists' we encounter.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The laws of the universe are consistent + only matter and energy exist = two of your presuppositions

Oh COME ON. Things for which someone has 250 years of evidence aren't "presuppositions".

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If you speak of the value of things like humility and wisdom and ascribe it to opinion, it’s no more meaningful than a projection. That is what believing in atheism ultimately leads you to, an existence of meaninglessness.

That statement doesn't even make any sense.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
No because your worldview cannot account for the meaningfulness of such concepts.

My worldview can't value wisdom and humility and ascribe meaning to it? You must be joking.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Yes, I can’t be held responsible for beating a man to a bloody pulp because I was in a bad mood, i.e. I lacked free thought. You can substitute “in a bad mood” with “suffering from a hormonal imbalance”, “suffering from food poisoning”. I lacked any free thought when I robbed a man at gun point for his money to satisfy my drug addiction; therefore I can't be held responsible.

As long as you're engaging in these ridiculous histrionics, and ignoring what I say completely, I don't know if we can continue.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Face it you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah, I guess that's right. No idea at all. Okay, I'm leaving you in Bob's capable hands, because you're one of the least reasonable people I've ever encountered.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And you further demonstrate to everyone viewing our discussion that although you won’t admit it, you’ve rendered morality completely meaningless, congratulations, I knew your atheism could accomplish that.

Yes. They'll have to judge whether or not I was correct in calling your argument "circular", and ask themselves if that philosophy course they took contained any of the obvious fallacies you've injected into almost every statement you've made.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In atheism, impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws = wisdom as a projection (at best); i.e. is meaningless. It makes no sense to judge anything wrong or right. It’s so funny how you repeatedly miss the point.

It's funny how you have to consult a book before making a moral decision.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
Yeah, and it's still begging the question.

I wish you would tell me what that is, I repeatedly demonstrate to you how foolish unbelieving thought is, but all you given me is your claim that it’s projection or an invented concept and not backed it up with any proof. What’s worse is you can’t account for rational thought, argumentation, science.

Look it up.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Christianity is true because any unbelieving worldview will fail to meet the demands of logic and coherency, while Christianity meets them with flying colors.

Yeah. You're right because I'm wrong. Wow.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Impersonal matter and energy + immutable laws = human intelligence???

Yup, that's what I'm saying.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Is it moral to torture someone for disobedience in an atheistic universe where morality is relative and matter and energy that behaves uniformly is all there is and results in illusory free thought?

That's not even related, so I give up.

Have fun, Bob.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The laws of the universe are consistent + only matter and energy exist = two of your presuppositions

I do not think most people would hold that that these are "proven," only that they have been shown beyond a reasonable doubt and "proven" for all practical purposes. In short, it's simply a matter of induction. Every morning, we observe the sun to rise. Based on this pattern, we conclude that tomorrow morning, the sun will rise. Would you say that this is a presupposition? Similarly, we've always observed the laws of the universe to be constant and that matter and energy are all that exist. Do you have evidence against this? 

Edit: AtheismIsNonsense: You repeatedly claim that concepts such as wisdom, intelligence, love, etc. cannot arise in a universe without God. However, if you cannot demonstrate why this is the case, and you have not studied arguments from the other side, then you're simply making an argument from incredulity.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


NoMoreBull
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-04-26
User is offlineOffline
 First - atheism is not a

 

First - atheism is not a worldview. Second - Atheism is just a bunch of people that do not understand science. Third – Reality is not what you think it is. Just study quantum mechanics if you don’t believe me. Good luck and watch out for that rabbit hole!!

 


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreBull wrote:Second -

NoMoreBull wrote:
Second - Atheism is just a bunch of people that do not understand science.

What? Care to explain that one?

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:NoMoreBull

Topher wrote:

NoMoreBull wrote:
Second - Atheism is just a bunch of people that do not understand science.

What? Care to explain that one?

Especially given the fact that a much greater proportion of the people at the highest levels in science are atheist than in the general population.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 OR butterbattle

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

____________________________________________________

 

Who wants to go next? I'll respond to your posts after I get an answer from one of you.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:If

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

____________________________________________________

 

Who wants to go next? I'll respond to your posts after I get an answer from one of you.

I'll take up the offer!

I have a few questions for you so we can get off on the right foot.

Can you please tell me which form of Christinity is the completely logical and coherent version? Are you referring to Cathoholics, Baptists, Protestants, Lutherans?

Now that you've answered the on true form of Christianity, if it's so logical and coherent, why are religious scholars still debating the true meanings of the words in the Bible?

What makes Christianity a more valid faith than say Buddhism?

I notice that you've made some references to Hitler as a shining example of the evils of Atheism (admittedly I haven't read them all so this may have already been pointed out to you but...) - did you know he was a devout Catholic?

I'll look forward to our reply Smiling

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #138 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

 

____________________________________________________

 

Kirby, I’m surprised. I was almost certain that Bob or butter would want to continue the discussion. Hopefully you will represent them well.

 

 

wkirby wrote:
Can you please tell me which form of Christinity is the completely logical and coherent version? Are you referring to Cathoholics, Baptists, Protestants, Lutherans?

First of all, when it comes to Christianity there’s only 3 main groups: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism. All originated from the one catholic and apostolic church and unfortunately all claim that title to the exclusion of the rest; however any church that recognizes and believes the major creeds (in the traditional sense) is counted orthodox or catholic and therefore Christian. I’m protestant but more specifically of the reformed faith. Though I disagree with some of the teachings of the other major groups and even some within my own, I can for the most part call them my brothers and sisters in Christ. Liberal Christians who deny the supernatural and pretty much everything in the text of the Bible as truth should not be counted.

wkirby wrote:
Now that you've answered the on true form of Christianity, if it's so logical and coherent, why are religious scholars still debating the true meanings of the words in the Bible?

I find it funny that you ask the first question and before you even receive an answer, you drop this one on me and not only that but you use the phrase “religious scholars” very loosely. I would’ve hoped depending on my first answer, it would determine whether or not to ask the second or even phrase it a little differently.

If you’re asking about why we disagree about certain positions (which account for the many denominations within say Protestantism), my answer is because although believers believe the contents of the Bible to be inspired and infallible, man is not in. We do not, as much as we may claim to, follow Christ as we ought in our scholarship of the His written word. I believe however the reform faith adequately (if not perfectly) understands the scriptures. I will be arguing from this position.

wkirby wrote:
What makes Christianity a more valid faith than say Buddhism?

If you understand the form of argumentation I’m using to prove the truthfulness of Christianity, then you would know that any belief system can be tested for inconsistencies and the lack of coherency. I’ve been demonstating in my many posts how the materialist view of the universe makes such things as rationality, morality, science either meaningless or impossible. Any worldview that isn’t the worldview presented in the Scriptures cannot make sense of either logic, science, or/and morality. They cannot justify or provide the conditions for one or more of them to exist.

Now looking at Buddhism, it is arbitrary in its claims on morality and human behavior because it itself eliminates any appeal to religious authority (There’s no transcendent authority and worse yet, according to Buddha himself, he has no authority). It must be experienced to be believed. If any Buddhist goes contrary to this and teaches others to appeal to this guru or that guru without experience a truth himself, he would have contradicted Buddha. In short, this undermines religious authority. Just like moral relativism, where nothing is ever wrong (to claim that something is always wrong or right is to undermine moral relativism), so religious authority and therefore Buddhist morality and Buddha himself are undermined.

Buddhism denies the existence of god(s) yet according to Buddhist tradition, Buddha emerged enlightened after his encounter with Mara, a Hindu Goddess.

It claims that man doesn’t have a soul, yet warns about karma being passed on. Since there is not a soul, the karma is passed to someone else (Now this is not me making an inference to what’s said, but if you press the Buddhist, he will tell you this also). Now if this is true, why should I care about collecting bad karma? If anything, it would lead me to eat, drink, and be merry because tomorrow, somebody else is going to pay the price.

If you want to know something about the Christian worldview, read it within my response to todangst’s piece on TAG (Post #123).

Now I asked the atheist in my posts how in a materialist universe, you can start with IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY (NOTHING ELSE) subject to immutable laws and result in rationality and ethics, especially when I hear from some of you that free will and choice is illusory and from others that memory is physical (the implications are scary)?

HisWillness wrote:
…Suffice it to say that "free will" is illusory.

Sapient (asking a question) wrote:
18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS 1.) Spirits are not physical entities. 2.) Brains are physical entities. 3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory.. 4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely. 5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory. [Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?

In light of the above, I’m afraid to ask if the laws of logic are physical and contained in the brain?

In short, I don’t know if the following equation works:

Impersonal matter & energy + immutable laws = illusory free will (choice) = rationality (debate requires the ability to consider points in an argument and choose one over the other, but how can this be possible when the brain matter & energy present always obeys immutable laws?) = transistors, super computers, and the iPhone G3???

wkirby wrote:
I notice that you've made some references to Hitler as a shining example of the evils of Atheism (admittedly I haven't read them all so this may have already been pointed out to you but...) - did you know he was a devout Catholic?

Kirby, I hope you don’t think this makes for a valid argument? I mean I can claim to be a Neo Nazi, but I think my behavior would betray my word. Now we know that Hitler got his idea for eliminating or sterilizing the undesirables and promoting his master race because of Darwinian evolution. Natural selection (behind the concept of “Survival of the fittest&rdquoEye-wink in the animal kingdom happens gradually and “naturally”, but Hitler, being a man (men have rational ability) thought to speed it up.

Besides it matters little to me whether He paid his tithes to the Roman Catholic Church or not, it doesn’t disprove Christianity, it only proves he wasn’t saved. I leave you with this

Matthew 7:13-23 (KJV) wrote:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I did want to continue

Yes, I did want to continue the discussion with you, but wkirby appears to have taken the offer. I'll patiently wait for him to give up in disgust. At that point, I would appreciate it if you responded to post #51.

Here...

butterbattle wrote:
1) What is internally inconsistent about not believing in any Gods?

2) In philosophical discourse, the theist is making the positive claim and thus, holds the burden of proof. If the existence of God cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then the default position is agnostic atheism. Can you prove that your God exists?

3) Since you have made the offer, I'll attempt to find inconsistencies in your worldview. However, to get a better feel of what you believe, I'll first pose some questions.

What denomination are you? Baptist? Lutheran? Protestant? Catholic? Pentecostal? Non-denominational?

Are you a theistic evolutionist or a Creationist? Do you accept the Big Bang theory? How old do you believe the Earth to be? The universe? In general, do you support the scientific method and acknowledge its contributions to humanity? 

Is your God multiple omni, i.e., omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent?   

Do you have a literal interpretation of Genesis? Do you hold a literal interpretation of the rest of the Bible, including, but not limited to, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Job, and Revelations? In general, do you think that the Bible is perfect or that it is inspired by God, but contains errors because it is written by men? 

Do you believe in the mainstream Christian version of hell, as in, fire and brimstone eternal torture?

Do you think faith is necessary or required to believe in God? If not, prove that God exists,. If so, what is its role and/or what purpose does it serve?

It looks like you've already answered the question concerning your denomination, so you can skip that. Upon scanning your previous post, once you're available, I want to discuss Hitler's beliefs as well.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
For the sake of not

For the sake of not producing a stupidly long reply every time, I'll be shortening the reponses with a ... I hope that's OK with you.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Kirby, I’m surprised. I was almost certain that Bob or butter would want to continue the discussion. Hopefully you will represent them well.

I have no intention of representing them, they are perfectly capable of representing themselves and if they choose to, I'm sure they will.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

First of all, when it comes to Christianity there’s only 3 main groups: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism...

Thank you. We now have a starting point.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I find it funny that you ask the first question and before you even receive an answer...

The first question only served to establish more specifically what direction you're coming from. That you are a Christian was never in doubt, what particular form of Christianity you subscribe to I was unsure of. At any rate, I didn't feel the answer to the first question had any real bearing on the phrasing of the second. I agree the phrase religious scholars was used loosely, I should have used the term 'Christian scholars'.

You go on to reference inspired and infallible, I think that you agree mankind is fallible. Do you believe Jesus to be the only infallible human to have lived, that he is indeed "the way, the truth and the light"?

I am not familiar with "the reform faith", could you please elaborate on this for me?

In reference to the scripture, do you agree that the Bible was created at some point in the 4th century AD by combining the Old Testament and the New Testament and that the New Testament is a combination of different accounts from the disciples, primarily of the life and times of Jesus?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If you understand the form of argumentation I’m using to prove the truthfulness of Christianity...

 

I'll need you to elaborate on

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Any worldview that isn’t the worldview presented in the Scriptures cannot make sense of either logic, science, or/and morality. They cannot justify or provide the conditions for one or more of them to exist.

because I don't think it's either fair or justified to make such a claim. The Scriptures cannot possibly contain every piece of information in the universe. Does the scripture state that my heart beats and if it stops I will die? Does the scripture say that the Earth is not flat? These are both worldviews and I think examples that are quite justified.

Hopefully this further explanation of this will help you provide proof the truthfulness of Christianity.

Your points on Buddhism demonstrate that you do not understand this religion or nuances such as karma. I'd appreciate it if we were honest with each other and concede when we don't have enough knowledge to adequately answer a question. The reason I am asking all of these questions is because I don't have the answers.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Kirby, I hope you don’t think this makes for a valid argument? I mean I can claim to be a Neo Nazi...

Goodness, I was not making this reference for any kind of valid argument! I noticed that you used Hitler as a reference point for the morality of Atheists and I thought it prudent to point out that he always claimed to be a devout Catholic.

I think we can all agree that regardless of his true beliefs, (of which we will probably never know) he was truly evil and I find it repugnant that he is used as a yardstick for the morals of Atheists. He is no more a guide for the morals of Atheists than he is for the morals of Catholics, Germans or people with silly mustaches!

 

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #141 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

butterbattle wrote:
I'll patiently wait for him to give up in disgust. At that point, I would appreciate it if you responded to post #51.

Duly Noted Butter.

wkirby wrote:
Do you believe Jesus to be the only infallible human to have lived, that he is indeed "the way, the truth and the light"?

The scriptures teach us that Jesus is God who became a man to redeem man from his sins and the penalty of sin. He’s infallible because He is God. The Christian God is “triune”. He is one, yet He is three persons. You can read the 3 major creeds of the Christian religion. The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Creed of Chalcedon. They are short and as you read them in the order listed (the order they were historically produced) they explain in more detail (yet in short concise statements) about the “Trinity”. The creeds were produced during the first few hundred years of history to combat against heresies regarding the nature of God as revealed in scripture.

wkirby wrote:
I am not familiar with "the reform faith", could you please elaborate on this for me?

The reformed faith is the practice of Christianity best systematized by John Calvin who was a Protestant reformer. The reformation was given that name because of the corruption of the faith by the Roman Catholic practice that eventually developed out of the original once “unified” church and it’s need for reform. One of the emphasized points of the reformation was that the Scriptures be the only rule or standard for faith and practice. Although all protestant denominations hold to this, in practice, the reformed faith upholds this more, especially in its scholarship.

wkirby wrote:
]In reference to the scripture, do you agree that the Bible was created at some point in the 4th century AD by combining the Old Testament and the New Testament and that the New Testament is a combination of different accounts from the disciples, primarily of the life and times of Jesus?

You should know Kirby that unofficially, the books that we know as the New Testament were considered scripture even from the time immediately following the Apostolic period (the time of the Apostles). One can read the writings of the “Church fathers” and see the texts quoted throughout. I’m not sure of the exact date of when it was canonized, but they were eventually.

As for the Gospels (4 of them), they are written from 4 separate authors, each from a different perspective, with a different focus, and with a different audience in mind and they do focus on the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The remainder of the New Testament is comprised of a historic narrative (Acts), an apocalyptic book (Revelation), and epistles (letters) written by the apostles and other key figures of the Apostolic period.

wkirby wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If you understand the form of argumentation I’m using to prove the truthfulness of Christianity...
I'll need you to elaborate on

It’s the transcendental argument for the existence of God (opponents call it TAG for short). What we do is prove the truthfulness of the Christian faith by proving any other system of truth to be impossible including religions and other atheistic worldviews (worldviews that are atheistic). We show how these other worldviews cannot give an account for or justify any one or more or all of the following areas of human experience, logic, science, and ethics. We look at a worldviews metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical claims and point out inconsistencies and contradictions between or within (internally). We provide the Christian worldview as derived from the scriptures and show how it can justify the use of logic, science, and morality and show the consistency and coherency of its parts.

wkirby wrote:
because I don't think it's either fair or justified to make such a claim. The Scriptures cannot possibly contain every piece of information in the universe. Does the scripture state that my heart beats and if it stops I will die? Does the scripture say that the Earth is not flat? These are both worldviews and I think examples that are quite justified. Hopefully this further explanation of this will help you provide proof the truthfulness of Christianity.

Maybe you don’t understand what I mean by worldview. Worldviews are comprised of presuppositions that cannot be proven through simple isolated eyeball observations. Examples of presuppositions are, the universe is only comprised of physical things (materialist worldview), an omnipotent Triune being created and sustains all there is in the universe including ourselves (Christian worldview), or all is Maya or illusion (there are no true distinctions in the universe) as is postulated by Hindus. They form the basis of how we ultimately interpret our experiences, how we interpret evidence, what evidences we accept, etc. Worldviews are what classic philosophy was all about. Philosophers tried to answer the questions regarding the nature of reality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives. All past philosophies individually were subject to criticism for their inconsistent views and contradictory natures. The history of philosophy has been in a sense evidence of the existence of the Christian God, because only the Christians claims of reality (metaphysics), epistemology (how we know what we know), and ethics (how we should live our lives) are consistent and can justify the use of the laws of logic, science, and morality.

The Bible is not an exhaustive book of knowledge. It’s never been claimed to be. It provides the foundation for knowledge though, a point of reference in how to rightly interpret the world.

At least know that the scriptures are revelation (supernatural revelation) and even further still redemptive revelation. It is redemptive, because that’s its main purpose for existing. If man never rebelled against God’s authority, God would’ve continued to communicate with man not only through the natural order (natural revelation), but supernaturally as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden. Because man is fallen and rejects God’s authority, man tries to understand himself and his place in existence from the standpoint of himself, so morality is whatever is right in his own eyes, when he tries to give an explanation for the origin of the universe for example, he excludes God from the picture and concludes that matter beget matter (or something like that). The Bible tells us who we are and how we ought to behave and about our creator and our relationship to him and how we are to be saved. Again it provides the foundational knowledge. Everything else should be consistent with it.

With the other worldviews, it’s easy to point out the inconsistencies between the claims and what the adherents actually do.

wkirby wrote:
Your points on Buddhism demonstrate that you do not understand this religion or nuances such as karma. I'd appreciate it if we were honest with each other and concede when we don't have enough knowledge to adequately answer a question. The reason I am asking all of these questions is because I don't have the answers.

You must know more than I’ve provided if you’re can tell me that I don’t understand it or its nuances, so please correct me in any misrepresentation. If there’s anything that is not true, point it out to me. If I’ve taken anything out of context, correct me. But my claim is no matter how you present this worldview or your own, I will be able to point out inconsistencies in the whole of that religion or worldview.

Lets be fair-minded about our own positions, it’s an intellectual crime to assume your position to be true and not provide any evidence for believing what you believe and demanding from others their explanation and shooting it down if it doesn’t meet with your own personal criteria. I say this because most materialist atheists that I’ve encountered are like that. They take for granted their atheism to be true and judge everything else by their atheistic criteria and say because some religion is postulating a position that cannot be judged by their worldview’s methods, the burden of proof is squarely on him. That’s a load of crap. I’ve been calling out all the atheists in this thread to prove to me why their position is even true and so far, they’ve haven’t provided any evidence for the validity of their position. On the contrary all they’ve done is make their position even more foolish.

How in a materialist universe, can you start with IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY (NOTHING ELSE) subject to immutable laws and result in rationality and ethics, especially when I hear from some of you that free will and choice is illusory and from others that memory is physical (the implications are scary)?

Also, in light of the above, are the laws of logic physical and contained in the brain?

wkirby wrote:
I think we can all agree that regardless of his true beliefs, (of which we will probably never know) he was truly evil and I find it repugnant that he is used as a yardstick for the morals of Atheists. He is no more a guide for the morals of Atheists than he is for the morals of Catholics, Germans or people with silly mustaches!

The point of writing that was to show that in a universe where Darwinian evolution is true, might makes right. This is its logical conclusion. In a material universe where man is the sum of the physical matter and energy subject to immutable laws, one’s morality is simply a description of what he does, nothing more.

Hitler might have been a theist, but he certainly didn’t worship the God of Christianity. He believed in Darwinian evolution and that was the basis for his practice of eugenics. It should be pointed out that the majority if not all material atheists today are evolutionists. They are not being true to their position in light of the above. This is proof of God’s Existence. (I’ll explain in my next post).

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:The

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The scriptures teach us that Jesus is God who became a man to redeem man from his sins and the penalty of sin. He’s infallible because He is God...

Now that we've established that he is infallible because he is God we can reasonably assume that all of mankind is fallible. If that is the case, how can we be certain that the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life were true and accurate? We must at least be open to the idea that the men who provided the written accounts that make up the Bible might just have made a mistake, indeed almost certainly made at least one mistake. How can you be certain that the mistake(s) made in the recollection weren't crucial to Jesus' message?

The Council of Chalcedon is The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention. It was a council of men convened to decide (or interpret) what the true doctrine was.

Since we've already established that men are fallible, you have no choice to concede that it is at least possible that the council got the doctrine wrong.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The reformed faith is the practice of Christianity best systematized by John Calvin who was a Protestant reformer...

By what measure do you classify John Calvin's version of the reformed faith as "best systematized"? Is that because he appropriated the events recounted in the Bible to exclude any inconsistencies or contradictions? If he did indeed systematize Christianity, by necessity he would have had to exclude elements he considered to be irrelevant or contradictory. How can you prove to me that he got it right?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You should know Kirby that unofficially, the books that we know as the New Testament were considered scripture even from the time immediately following the Apostolic period (the time of the Apostles).

I am not disputing this and that is not what I asked. I asked if you agree that they were put together in the form of the Bible some time in the 4th century AD.

But since you went on to describe some of the components, do you agree with the commonly held view that the component parts of the Bible were written in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It’s the transcendental argument for the existence of God (opponents call it TAG for short). What we do is prove the truthfulness of the Christian faith by proving any other system of truth to be impossible ...

I have to fundamentally disagree with your methodology here. You cannot prove something is truthful by proving another system is not. I don't care if that's one faith over another (including Atheism over any known religion), the existence of God or that South Park is the best cartoon because The Simpsons isn't.

I will agree however that you can disprove another theory and thereby make it irrelevant which in turn strengthens your position by attrition and making your idea more likely to be true. I hope this distinction is clear enough. Interestingly,  this is very similar to the Theory of Evolution.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Maybe you don’t understand what I mean by worldview. Worldviews are comprised of presuppositions that cannot be proven..

Thank you for the definition. In it you refer to how all past philosophies are inconsistent and contradictory. I'm guessing you exclude Jesus' philosophies since he is God. I don't claim to be an expert in on the Bible however I presume you are familiar with the following passages:

Mark 11:15-16: "And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple."

Luke 18:18-27 And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he had heard these things, he became very sad; for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And they who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?" But He said, "The things impossible with men are possible with God."

Interestingly, in Luke 18:18-27 Jesus himself says he is NOT God. Doesn't that qualify as a contradiction of your deification of him?

In these two passages, Jesus makes quite a point of denouncing capitalism and personal wealth. As a philosophy, this is known as Communism (before you get excited, I did not say Marxism). If you believe that only Jesus (being God, despite saying himself that he is not) has philosophy right, I can only presume you and your church are Communists. Correct?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You must know more than I’ve provided if you’re can tell me that I don’t understand it or its nuances, so please correct me in any misrepresentation...

I have no interest in promoting Buddhism or their beliefs. You have asked for a correction however, so I will try to superficially correct your false assertions.

Karma is the belief that your actions are directly responsible for what you will experience in the future. You reap what you sow, so to speak. Interpretations of 'good karma' and 'bad karma' stem from the probability that if you do good things, sooner or later good things will happen to you and vice versa. It is much more subtle than this and forms the foundations of the belief that all things are connected. It operates on the premise that the universe is the continuous chain reaction of cause and effect.

You also made the point that Buddhists don't believe in a soul. This is completely false. Buddhist believe in reincarnation. They believe that the soul is perpetually reborn and continues from one life to another. They do not believe in a heaven or hell but they most certainly believe in a soul.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Lets be fair-minded about our own positions, it’s an intellectual crime to assume your position to be true and not provide any evidence for believing what you believe and demanding from others their explanation and shooting it down if it doesn’t meet with your own personal criteria...

I hear what you're saying and I'm being fair-minded. There is no need for a pre-emptive strike. I don't care what you believe, you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe. I have no intention of trying to sway you away from your beliefs. In fact, the intellectual crime of which you speak is EXACTLY the methodology you said you were going to use to prove you are correct!

Your post however makes certain claims as to the falsehood of Atheism as a worldview and you have repeated claimed that your beliefs are the only ones that can be true and verified. I am offering you the opportunity to prove to me that your belief is far more rational, correct and true than the idea that there is no God.

To be honest, so far you're not doing a very good job at it. After only 2 posts I have already pointed out contradictions and inconsistencies with your beliefs - something you we quite adament is not possible.

In answer to your question, basic Biology results in rationality and ethics. We see this not only in humans but in various animals on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, all primates, even Meerkats, for example have been proven to be self-aware and live in complex social enviroments. They have rationality and ethics (that in some cases are identical to human behaviour) but as far as we can tell, no particular religious beliefs. I'm fairly sure it's safe to say none of them subscribe to John Calvin's interpretation.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
are the laws of logic physical and contained in the brain?

Yes.  'the laws of logic' are a consquence of humankind trying to understand themselves and their place in the universe. You could argue however that it is entirely logical for a beaver to build a dam and that is in no way a reflection of their theological system.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The point of writing that was to show that in a universe where Darwinian evolution is true, might makes right... This is its logical conclusion. In a material universe where man is the sum of the physical matter and energy subject to immutable laws, one’s morality is simply a description of what he does, nothing more.

As far as I know, Hitler wasn't a particularly big proponent of Darwin. He was however a big believer in genetics and the power of manupilating them. This was the basis for his practice of eugenics, not the Theory of Evolution. Please let me know if you do not undertand the difference.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #143 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

wkirby wrote:
must at least be open to the idea that the men who provided the written accounts that make up the Bible might just have made a mistake, indeed almost certainly made at least one mistake. How can you be certain that the mistake(s) made in the recollection weren't crucial to Jesus' message?

 

It could be possible if we were speaking of some other worldview but not the Christian worldview. You must not forget that according to scripture, God is the creator and sustainer of all there is. Nothing is out of His providential care (consider that the hairs of your head are counted and not one sparrow dies unless our heavenly father wills it or decrees it). He speaks of the future and brings them to pass; He directs the course of history and this logically follows given the above. Are we to assume that His word is less important than sparrows? Because history is ultimately in His control, the scriptures can be anything He wants them to be, including infallible whether or not through the instrumentality of human hands. Also the scriptures are said to be inspired, “God-breathed” and Jesus even told His disciples that the Holy Spirit, when He comes to dwell with them will bring things to their memory, i.e. supernatural aid.

wkirby wrote:
The Council of Chalcedon is The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention. It was a council of men convened to decide (or interpret) what the true doctrine was. Since we've already established that men are fallible, you have no choice to concede that it is at least possible that the council got the doctrine wrong.

You said it yourself Kirby, it was to assert the orthodox catholic doctrine against heresy. The rule of faith was already established for the heresy to be recognized. Of course the council of men convened to decide or interpret what the true doctrine was because that’s what Christians do in such situations; reason and debate. The Bible is a rational verbal authority to the Christian and as such, disputes are resolved by appealing to its texts. And once again God’s providential care is all around us so that the most crucial of doctrines are safe from human error.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The reformed faith is the practice of Christianity best systematized by John Calvin who was a Protestant reformer...

wkirby wrote:
By what measure do you classify John Calvin's version of the reformed faith as "best systematized"? Is that because he appropriated the events recounted in the Bible to exclude any inconsistencies or contradictions? If he did indeed systematize Christianity, by necessity he would have had to exclude elements he considered to be irrelevant or contradictory. How can you prove to me that he got it right?

Kirby, don’t misunderstand what I mean by systematized. It means organizing the contents of scripture systematically for teaching purposes. We get systematic theology from this process. It’s a method of teaching Bible doctrine. We gather all the parts that speak about God directly and from it we get our theology, we gather all the parts that speak about man directly and from it we get our anthropology, and etc.

We don’t believe John Calvin blindly. Every individual Christian is responsible and accountable to God for what he believes and how he treats His word. Reformed Christians happen to agree with Calvin’s understanding of Scripture the best.

John Calvin provided the Christian people with His “Institutes of the Christian Religion” and his many writings including his commentaries on many of the books of the Bible.

wkirby wrote:
I am not disputing this and that is not what I asked. I asked if you agree that they were put together in the form of the Bible some time in the 4th century AD.

But since you went on to describe some of the components, do you agree with the commonly held view that the component parts of the Bible were written in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew?

I would say about 4th century AD for the New Testament. The Old testament was already canonized by the Jews and Jesus himself affirmed this whenever He accused the Jews for having the Scriptures but not believing them.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Both have been translated into other languages.

wkirby wrote:
I have to fundamentally disagree with your methodology here. You cannot prove something is truthful by proving another system is not. I don't care if that's one faith over another (including Atheism over any known religion), the existence of God or that South Park is the best cartoon because The Simpsons isn't.

Kirby, the Apostle Peter charged us to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us a REASON for the hope that is in us. (If I correctly do the job, I will be proving the irrationality of all other worldviews (anything anyone brings up as a challenge) and the rationality of the Christian worldview. Note that the claim is that the Christian worldview is the ONLY rational and non self-contradictory system out there. This is the claim. That’s why God can say in His word, there is NO EXCUSE for rejecting Him. The Apostle Paul asked rhetorically, where’s the wise, where’s the scribe, where’s the disputer of this age, has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Don’t worry I’m not going to not prove how Christianity is logical and internally coherent.

But I thought you’d like to know that I’m slowly answering all the questions Sapient posted for theists to answer (the majority if not all of them addressed to Christians – hmm, I wonder why that’s so?). It’s a slow process, but I’ve already skimmed through many of them and they’re all easy questions although many of them require a lot of writing (so many assumptions made on the part of atheists that must first be rendered irrelevant).

wkirby wrote:
I will agree however that you can disprove another theory and thereby make it irrelevant which in turn strengthens your position by attrition and making your idea more likely to be true. I hope this distinction is clear enough. Interestingly,this is very similar to the Theory of Evolution.

That’s good to hear. Unfortunately for you, the theory of evolution is wide open for negative criticism.

wkirby wrote:
Thank you for the definition. In it you refer to how all past philosophies are inconsistent and contradictory. I'm guessing you exclude Jesus' philosophies since he is God. I don't claim to be an expert in on the Bible however I presume you are familiar with the following passages:

Mark 11:15-16: "And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple."

I don’t understand your objection or criticism of this passage. Are you saying that it was wrong for Jesus to do what he did? How is it that you leave out the rest of the verse and some from John which sheds more light on why Jesus was indignant toward them? “"Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me." (John 2:16-17).

wkirby wrote:
Luke 18:18-27 And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth." And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when he had heard these things, he became very sad; for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And they who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?" But He said, "The things impossible with men are possible with God."

Interestingly, in Luke 18:18-27 Jesus himself says he is NOT God. Doesn't that qualify as a contradiction of your deification of him?

First of all, Jesus doesn’t say he is not God. That’s your hostile interpretation of the text. What’s funny is that you think the author Luke starts out his narrative claiming that he is the son of God, makes the implications throughout the text from Jesus’ works and the people’s reactions to support the claim, only later in this passage to deny it, but then later to reaffirm His deity? Jesus was calling the man out for not acknowledging Him for nothing more than a rabbi and possibly at best a prophet. And because He refers to the father as God doesn’t suggest He is not God. Remember He is one person of the “Trinity”, He has put on flesh and has become a real man; therefore as a man, the father is God to Him also.

Know that throughout the preaching of the Gospel in the both the narratives and the epistles, Jesus is simultaneously called God and the Father is referred to as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, because both are true. As being divine, He’s God, as a man, the Father is His God. This is the mystery of the Incarnation.

wkirby wrote:
In these two passages, Jesus makes quite a point of denouncing capitalism and personal wealth. As a philosophy, this is known as Communism (before you get excited, I did not say Marxism). If you believe that only Jesus (being God, despite saying himself that he is not) has philosophy right, I can only presume you and your church are Communists. Correct?

That’s what’s so funny about non believers interpreting scripture; they purposely isolate a passage, ignore the surrounding text and even the rest of the book and come up with these superficial interpretations. He wasn’t denouncing capitalism and personal wealth. One must be willing to denounce wealth if God requires it. Why is it hard for a wealthy man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Because, when men have wealth and health, what reason would he feel to need God and religion? Jesus tells His disciples, that they must be willing to leave everything for Him; their love for Him must be greater than their love for wealth, family, or self.

Before Constantine became emperor of Rome, throughout history, and even today, Christians have been and are threatened by the immorality of the world and its governments; threatened to denounce their allegiance to their God or else risk either losing their wealth, family, and/or life. That’s why there have been martyrs throughout history due to this kind of persecution.

Therefore not correct.

wkirby wrote:
I have no interest in promoting Buddhism or their beliefs. You have asked for a correction however, so I will try to superficially correct your false assertions.

Karma is the belief that your actions are directly responsible for what you will experience in the future. You reap what you sow, so to speak. Interpretations of 'good karma' and 'bad karma' stem from the probability that if you do good things, sooner or later good things will happen to you and vice versa. It is much more subtle than this and forms the foundations of the belief that all things are connected. It operates on the premise that the universe is the continuous chain reaction of cause and effect.

Thanks for the correction. My question for a Buddhist then would be how does he know what he's claiming? Through empirical observation or inference or something else? Eventually he'll reveal enough to hang himself.

wkirby wrote:
You also made the point that Buddhists don't believe in a soul. This is completely false. Buddhist believe in reincarnation. They believe that the soul is perpetually reborn and continues from one life to another. They do not believe in a heaven or hell but they most certainly believe in a soul.

Gautama Siddhārtha didn’t. Wasn’t he the “founder” of Buddhism.

some fundamentalist Buddhist wrote:
From a metaphysical standpoint, these Noble Truths make up and derive from a single fundamental Truth (in Sanskrit, Dharma, and in Pali, Dhamma). The Buddhist Dharma is based on the idea that everything in the universe is causally linked. All things are composite things, that is, they are composed of several elements. Because all things are composite, they are all transitory, for the elements come together and then fall apart. It is this transience that causes human beings to sorrow and to suffer. We live in a body, which is a composite thing, but that body decays, sickens, and eventually dies, though we wish it to do otherwise. Since everything is transient, that means that there can be no eternal soul either in the self or in the universe. This, then, is the eternal truth of the world: everything is transitory, sorrowful, and soulless–the three-fold character of the world…This is the philosophy that Buddha left the world. In the years following his death, the teachings began to slowly develop into various sects. Buddhism became so fragmented that barely one hundred years after the death of Siddhartha, a council of Buddhists was called to straighten out the differences. The earliest forms of Buddhism, which are now only practiced by a small minority, are called Theravada, or "The Teachings of the Elders."

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/buddha.html

wkirby wrote:
I hear what you're saying and I'm being fair-minded. There is no need for a pre-emptive strike. I don't care what you believe, you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe. I have no intention of trying to sway you away from your beliefs. In fact, the intellectual crime of which you speak is EXACTLY the methodology you said you were going to use to prove you are correct!

Every objection you through at me I will answer. Before this post you haven’t asked me to give a response to any apparent contradiction in scripture or Christianity as you have now in this post. I just hope you will not dodge any questions I ask you.

wkirby wrote:
Your post however makes certain claims as to the falsehood of Atheism as a worldview and you have repeated claimed that your beliefs are the only ones that can be true and verified. I am offering you the opportunity to prove to me that your belief is far more rational, correct and true than the idea that there is no God.

To be honest, so far you're not doing a very good job at it. After only 2 posts I have already pointed out contradictions and inconsistencies with your beliefs - something you we quite adament is not possible.

There are no contradictions, not even apparent ones. I don’t have to misinterpret what you write or what other atheists write to find fault with your position. Notice that I ask you repeatedly if this or that is your position so that there’s no ambiguity as to what you mean.

wkirby wrote:
In answer to your question, basic Biology results in rationality and ethics. We see this not only in humans but in various animals on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, all primates, even Meerkats, for example have been proven to be self-aware and live in complex social enviroments. They have rationality and ethics (that in some cases are identical to human behaviour) but as far as we can tell, no particular religious beliefs. I'm fairly sure it's safe to say none of them subscribe to John Calvin's interpretation.

If you’ve read my previous posts, I have accused atheists of using this line of argumentation that you’re using now to prove your point. It goes like this:

We see rationality and ethics in humans, we observe some semblance of it in the animal kingdom; therefore atheism is true.

How would you like it if I as a Christian answered in the following way?

We see rationality and ethics in humans, we observe some semblance of it in the animal kingdom; therefore the Christian God is true.

I don’t know if you know this but Christians practice science and invent things and even function as Doctors also. Luke in the New Testament was a physician. Did you know that? I as a Christian go to a physician when I’m ill and want a proper diagnosis and treatment. The difference is I have justification, you don’t. All you have are molecules in motion. You’ll have to provide a much better response than that Kirby.

You still haven’t answered how IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY + IMMUTABLE LAWS = The ability to argue (which requires choice – not illusory choice) and ultimately can result in the invention of the transistor, super computers, and the iPhone G3.

(note: emphasis on impersonal matter & energy and immutable laws)

wkirby wrote:
Yes.  'the laws of logic' are a consquence of humankind trying to understand themselves and their place in the universe. You could argue however that it is entirely logical for a beaver to build a dam and that is in no way a reflection of their theological system.

I don’t know where you’re going with the beaver question, but are you affirming that the laws of logic are physical entities in the brain of man?

wkirby wrote:
As far as I know, Hitler wasn't a particularly big proponent of Darwin. He was however a big believer in genetics and the power of manupilating them. This was the basis for his practice of eugenics, not the Theory of Evolution. Please let me know if you do not undertand the difference.

In his book Zweites Buch, Hitler used many evolutionish language in his writing that can’t be ignored, often comparing human struggle with that in the animal world, etc. Why he never mentioned the name of Darwin in his writing is beyond me. Perhaps because he was British and Hitler didn’t want to give any credit to a Brit. The point is the idea of “might makes right” (the absence of obligatory authority) and moral relativism are both logical conclusions of Darwinian evolution.

Now the fact that many evolutionists don’t take evolution to its logical conclusion doesn’t disprove the point. I claimed in my last post that man’s restraint in this situation for example is evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Man believes all sorts of things like the Hindu who claims that all is illusion or “maya” and that there aren’t true distinctions between good or evil. I would expect such a man to die of hunger for example because his hunger is illusion. He should on his presupposition know that he’s not really hungry and choose not to eat the illusory food in front of him.

The following is from my response to todangst piece against the TAGers. Essentially what I’m saying is that God restrains man from logically living out his false and self-destructive beliefs. (note: it’s part of the Christian’s theory of knowledge; his epistemology)

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If you ask how non-believers know things without actively presupposing the God of the Bible (given the Christians claim that God’s revealed truth is absolutely required as the tacit foundation of understanding and knowledge), the answer is that the unbeliever does have revealed presuppositions, despite his espoused rejection of God’s truth and cannot but have them as a creature made as God’s image and living in God’s created world. No unbeliever is inwardly and sincerely devoid of a knowledge of God. It is not a saving knowledge of God to be sure, but even as condemning knowledge, natural revelation still provides a knowledge of God. And because they know God (even though they know Him in curse and reprobation) they are able to attain a limited understanding of the world. The unbeliever is actually double-minded. At base all men know God as His creatures, but as sinners all men refuse to acknowledge their Creator and live by His revelation. He can attain knowledge despite himself. In principle his unbelief would preclude understanding of anything, for one must believe in order to understand. However, in practice the unbeliever is restrained from a consistent, self-destructive following of his unbelieving profession. If the unbeliever were a total idiot he would be free from guilt. But the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that the unbeliever’s rebellion is willful and knowledgeable; he sins against his better knowledge and is thus “without excuse” (vv. 20-21).

Central to the position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of natural revelation. The world was created by the word of God (Gen. 1:3 John 1:3, Col. 1:16; Heb 1:2) and thereby reflects the mind and character of God (Rom. 1:20). Man was created as the image of God (Gen.1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom 1:21)-the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9).

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You should know Kirby that unofficially, the books that we know as the New Testament were considered scripture even from the time immediately following the Apostolic period (the time of the Apostles). One can read the writings of the “Church fathers” and see the texts quoted throughout. I’m not sure of the exact date of when it was canonized, but they were eventually.

I would just like to point out that this is a "DUH"-statement. Those people called the "Church fathers" are called "Church fathers" because they agree with what later would become the dominant theology. They quote texts which later generations of christians will come to consider as scripture (orthodox scripture, ofc). Thus, their writings were preserved. The writings of people the orthodox considered heretical were either destroyed or simply just not preserved/copied. Like the writings of Marcion or various gnostics. If the versions of christianity those people preached had won (gained more converts), you would consider them "Church fathers" and the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp and the like would have been lost instead.

Ok, carry on.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
LOL! Nice thread.

LOL! Nice thread.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO #144 & REPEAT One opponent at a time please

If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

____________________________________________________

I feel I need to respond to this fella.

KSMB wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You should know Kirby that unofficially, the books that we know as the New Testament were considered scripture even from the time immediately following the Apostolic period (the time of the Apostles). One can read the writings of the “Church fathers” and see the texts quoted throughout. I’m not sure of the exact date of when it was canonized, but they were eventually.

I would just like to point out that this is a "DUH"-statement. Those people called the "Church fathers" are called "Church fathers" because they agree with what later would become the dominant theology. They quote texts which later generations of christians will come to consider as scripture (orthodox scripture, ofc). Thus, their writings were preserved. The writings of people the orthodox considered heretical were either destroyed or simply just not preserved/copied. Like the writings of Marcion or various gnostics. If the versions of christianity those people preached had won (gained more converts), you would consider them "Church fathers" and the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp and the like would have been lost instead.

Ok, carry on.

KSMB, understand what I wrote (what you quoted of mine) was not about the preservation of early Christian writings, but about the canonization of the books of the New Testament. In light of that, Are you suggesting that the Gnostics quoted the books of the New Testament? If anything they denied the books that would later be officially the New Testament Canon. Instead they claimed secret revelation from God only they new that no one else new about. Marcion certainly did quote scripture, but only the text he arbitrarily deemed inspired; that agreed with his theology after removing all of the Old Testament and mutilated all but a few Pauline epistles. Yes, very credible and believable people they were.

Also did you just slip in your opinion about early Christians destroying the "heretical writings" and try to pass this as truth. Just so you know some of the heretical writings were quoted when they were refuted in the Church Father writings.

Also why would you want to preserve/copy what you recognize as heretical writings anyhow?

The point made was that although the canonization of New Testament occurred around 4th Century B.C. The "Church Fathers" who had direct connection with apostolic churches quoted the text of the books that would later officially become the New Testament; quoting them as inspired. Hence the unofficial recognition of the books of the New Testament as early as the apostolic period. Polycarp, you mentioned, new the Apostle John and was taught by him.

Read carefully next time before answering. You're doing your people a disservice.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:It

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It could be possible if we were speaking of some other worldview but not the Christian worldview...

and

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You said it yourself Kirby, it was to assert the orthodox catholic doctrine against heresy...

...God’s providential care is all around us so that the most crucial of doctrines are safe from human error.

I call shinanigans! You've just gone and changed the rules. You told me that the only infallible human was Jesus and all men are fallible. Now you are telling me that some men are infallible because God speaks through them. In particular those men that determine what we should believe about God. According to these rules, God is also guiding my hand and mine does not promote the same beliefs. How can you or any falible human determine who has God speak through them and who does not?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Kirby, don’t misunderstand what I mean by systematized. It means organizing the contents of scripture systematically for teaching purposes...

In order to do this, he MUST have used personal judgement. At this point there is the potential for a mistake or God was speaking through him? If there is the potential for a mistake, you cannot say that his teachings are beyond doubt, if it's the latter by what authority do you choose not to believe him blindly?

Either way, you have admitted your beliefs are not the absolute truth.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I would say about 4th century AD for the New Testament....

I'm not a liguist but I know that rarely can one language translate directly to another. Often one language doesn't have a word to describe something from another language so an approximation has to be made. The translations must also have been carried out by man and therefore yet another point where the true word of God can be distorted or manipulated, therefore leading the potential for the true meaning to be lost.

I do not read or understand Hebrew or Greek. I do understand a little Japanese though. In Japanese the word "desu" can mean "it is", "they are" or "I am" depending on the context. In fact, because Japanese cannot be translated directly to English, sometimes it can mean any of these simultaneously.

If a similar situation occurs between Hebrew, Greek and English, the only way to truly understand Jesus' messages or those of the various disciples and prophets is to recite and teach them in the language they were written. Any other method by necessity is a distortion. Lawyers and psychologists spend their days interpreting and reinterpreting a language they have learned since birth, imagine what they'd do across languages!

Reminds me of a joke: 2 shrinks walk past each other in a park, the second one nods to the first, smiles and says "Good Morning". As they walk away, the first one thinks, "I wonder what he meant by that..."

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Kirby, the Apostle Peter charged us to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us a REASON for the hope ...the Christian worldview is the ONLY rational and non self-contradictory system out there... Don’t worry I’m not going to not prove how Christianity is logical and internally coherent.

Whoa hang on! This is exactly what you said you were going to do! Do I have to call shinanigans again?!

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
But I thought you’d like to know that I’m slowly answering all the questions Sapient posted for theists to answer

That's fine, I presume you are telling me this so I can a) read them and b) know that there may be a delay in you replying to this post. OK with me on both counts.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

That’s good to hear. Unfortunately for you, the theory of evolution is wide open for negative criticism.

As well it should be, most of legitimate criticisms from scientists. If scientists didn't question we couldn't have this conversation at all for lack of internet, computers, electricity or even the discovery of what was formerly called "The New World".

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I don’t understand your objection or criticism of this passage.

No objection or criticism from me, as far as I'm concerned he was right on the money (no pun intended!) with this. I use this passage only to highlight the disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and the decision by mankind to ignore them. People of faith tend to follow some teachings to the letter and ignore others thereby either presuming they know better than Jesus or being hypocrites. Which category do you fall into?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

First of all, Jesus doesn’t say he is not God...

I do not think Luke claims him to be anything but 'teacher' I refer to specifically the word of Jesus - "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." there is no way to interpret this as anything other than Jesus denying he is God - unless of course you are construing Jesus' quote to mean he is the one presuming Luke is calling him God. That doesn't make sense because you go on to say Jesus is calling him out for not calling him God. Jesus did NOT deify himself, man did long after he was nailed to the cross.

There is of course one other explanation - you're calling Jesus a liar.

wkirby wrote:
In these two passages, Jesus makes quite a point of denouncing capitalism and personal wealth. As a philosophy, this is known as Communism (before you get excited, I did not say Marxism). If you believe that only Jesus (being God, despite saying himself that he is not) has philosophy right, I can only presume you and your church are Communists. Correct?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
That’s what’s so funny about non believers interpreting scripture...

The New Testament is litter with Jesus' apparent distaste of material possessions. To deny that is self serving and ignores Jesus' teaching.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Every objection you through at me I will answer. Before this post you haven’t asked me to give a response to any apparent contradiction in scripture or Christianity as you have now in this post. I just hope you will not dodge any questions I ask you.

I have every intention of answering any of your questions to the best of my ability. I should point out though that I do not know all of the answers. If you perceive that I am dodging an answer I'd appreciate it if you call me out for it. I will pay you the same courtesy.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
There are no contradictions, not even apparent ones...

I beg to differ. I have pointed out that there are a number of points between the events recalled in the Bible to the present day where things could have been misinterpreted. A very large game of Chinese whispers if you like. The fact that you choose to ignore that (or as with our resonse above change the rules) doesn't mean the contradictions aren't there. And don't try to change the subject by deflecting onto my position.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If you’ve read my previous posts, I have accused atheists of using this line of argumentation that you’re using now to prove your point....

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your point of "IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY (NOTHING ELSE) subject to immutable laws and result in rationality and ethics". I thought you were trying to make a connection between a lack of faith and a system of rationality and ethics. From your previous posts you seem to be working under the assumption that Atheists have no ethic or morals - and if they do they are questionable. I used this example to point out that rationality and ethics do not require a God.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 All you have are molecules in motion...

Careful, that's something an Atheist would say...

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
You still haven’t answered how IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY + IMMUTABLE LAWS = The ability to argue (which requires choice – not illusory choice) and ultimately can result in the invention of the transistor, super computers, and the iPhone G3.

 I am going to rephrase the wording a little just to make sure we're talking about the same thing because I'm want to sure exactly what your equation is:

IMPERSONAL MATTER & ENERGY (life) + IMMUTABLE LAWS (laws that cannot change) = The ability to argue and ultimately can result...

If that interpretation of the question is correct it is one that should be posed to you, as a Christian. You are the one governed by a set of immutable rules written thousands of years ago then interpreted and put together in the Bible about 1600 years ago. However since you've asked me to answer it from an Atheist perspective,  clearly the answer is - it's not possible.

I will say it again so you know that wasn't a mistake - it's not possible.

In order for me to answer this more sensibly, I have to presume that you agree that humans, like some other species on the planet have the ability to learn. Since we have the ability to learn and (again presuming) you are referring to "life" as humans, the laws that we live by are NOT immutable. As a species we have learned from the mistakes and success' of our peers over millions of years. Even if you will not concede the point that as a species we have been evolving for millions of years, a few thousand years is a very long time for us to evaluate and re-evaluate what we think we know.

Therefore any conclusion you wish to derive from the answer is irrelevant. To that end, I'd appreciate it if you could ask me to explain what your supposition is rather than use a nonsensical question to draw a conclusion about Atheism from.

Atheism isn't a set of immutable laws. Science isn't a set of immutable laws. Life isn't a set of immutable laws and whether you'd like to admit it or not, neither is religious doctrine.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I don’t know where you’re going with the beaver question, but are you affirming that the laws of logic are physical entities in the brain of man?

Beaver question (hey who doesn't like beaver!) is a result of me misinterpreting your line of questioning, again I thought you were trying to pull out that old chestnut of no God, no logic, no morals. Sorry about that. And no I am not affirming that at all. I don't agree that there are 'laws of logic' although I do agree there is logic. No I don't agree that logic is a physical entity but I do agree that logic is a thought process produced by the brain. And I most certainly don't agree that man is the only brain capable of logic thought.

So I am affirming that logic is derived from the brain of any animal that has the capacity to think. One species logic may differ from anothers, indeed my logic clearly differs from yours (we are both human correct?) and we are the same species.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

In his book Zweites Buch, Hitler used many evolutionish language in his writing that can’t be ignored, often comparing human struggle with that in the animal world, etc. Why he never mentioned the name of Darwin in his writing is beyond me...

Why Hitler didn't reference Darwin is anybody's guess, you can presume whatever you like but the fact remains he didn't. Please drop the ridiculous premise that Hitler agreed with evolution therefore evolution is evil. Something like 97% of scientist agree with evolution (of all theological or non-theological ideals) so it is absurd to equate moral relativism with Hitler and evolution.

Even if you wanted to argue that his interest in genetics was evil that has no bearing on those geneticists around the world using stem cell research to rid the human race of such horrors as spinabifida, cancer or paralysis.

Pol Pot, as far as we know, didn't have any particular views on evolution (regardless of the conclusion that is sometimes drawn between Pot and Mao), should we conclude that people who are not proponents of evolution are just as evil as he is, not to mention agrarianist?

You need to concede this point. Hitler was evil. The End.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
If you ask how non-believers know things without actively presupposing the God of the Bible...

This whole argument is based on the foundation "all men know God". For me, I dare say any Atheist, this is false. You also assert that you must believe to understand. I disagree with this as well.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

understand

transitive verb1 a: to grasp the meaning of <understand Russian>
b
: to grasp the reasonableness of <his behavior is hard to understand>
c: to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of <understand finance>
d
: to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of <understands children> 2: to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty <we understand that he is returning from abroad> 3: to interpret in one of a number of possible ways4: to supply in thought as though expressed <to be married is commonly understood after the word engaged> intransitive verb1  1: to have understanding: have the power of comprehension 2: to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something 3: to believe or infer something to be the case4: to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something No mention of requiring belief here.

Without these two points, that whole argument falls apart.

I should also point out that this argument also requires you to accept that an 'unbeliever' must have a belief system of some kind. As the bottom of my post says, I don't believe in Atheism. I don't even accept that it is possible to 'believe in Atheism' because I can't see how Atheism is something to believe in! Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God(s) or religious system

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


Faithbuster
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Dude, it's been a month. 

Dude, it's been a month.  What's been accomplished here?  Have you gained any agreement with anyone here yet? 

I can appreciate your persistence in coming here to the lion's den trying to prove your point, but when I read your posts all it does is make me very, very glad to be able to wake up in the morning a free-thinking man. 

If you get a chance sometime, read some writings of a deceased friend of mine and tell me what you think.

http://claytonschwartz.blogspot.com/2008/11/final-words-upon-suicide-reflection-on.html

I would highly recommend this to anyone else here too, Clayton Schwartz had one of the most honest and unflinching views of reality of anyone I've known. 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Faithbuster wrote:Dude, it's

Faithbuster wrote:

Dude, it's been a month.  What's been accomplished here?  Have you gained any agreement with anyone here yet? 

I can appreciate your persistence in coming here to the lion's den trying to prove your point, but when I read your posts all it does is make me very, very glad to be able to wake up in the morning a free-thinking man. 

If you get a chance sometime, read some writings of a deceased friend of mine and tell me what you think.

http://claytonschwartz.blogspot.com/2008/11/final-words-upon-suicide-reflection-on.html

I would highly recommend this to anyone else here too, Clayton Schwartz had one of the most honest and unflinching views of reality of anyone I've known. 

 

 

I'm halfway through reading it. Powerful stuff. Thank you for the link.