Let me try one other possibility on you: is it possible that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that he did die, and then rise from the dead?

No.

And how can one deity simultaneously "be" another deity....?!?!?

It is an absurdity.

Is there any law higher then the laws of men?

"higher".....?!?!?

No.

World war II Germany, the laws of men commanded the destruction of not just Jews but many who were deemed "different."

IOW, they perpetated exactly the same barbaric, antihuman acts as Biblegod commanded so many times. "Go forth and slaughter those who do not worship correctly!"

If there is no God then there is no moral right or wrong

There is still "morality".....

..."morality" being whatever various groups of humans decide it will be.

Nothing else.

I'm saying that from an atheists point of view you can not worship God, because He is not in existence.

Hah. You'll have to settle for worshipping a non-existant god.

I can see how it could be that one deity was simulatnaously another deity and yet separate.

Take an omniscient being, who knows everything. Now, take another omniscient being who also knows everything.

Put them in the same universe: they both instantly and totally know everything about each other--each thought, each whatever. So they are in effect one mind or two minds.

I doubt this would be accepted by a Christian theologian, and would probably have gotten me in trouble in the Middle Ages, but it seems reasonable to me that you could have three such beings, each full of merit, sharing an omniscient existence.

It seems obvious that the Jesus story, like the Buddha story or the Trojan War, is a myth. They share the characteristic of narrating fabulous events, are indefinite in historical context, lack independent secular substantiation, and don't "hang together" the way witness accounts would (the reader with "eyes to see" perceives all sorts of awkwardnesses and logical and narrational inconsistencies).

Myths are not frauds; they reflect genuine spiritual impulse, although taking the form of non-historical stories rather than prayer or ritual or treatise, as spiritual impulses are also sometimes expressed. The process by which myths develop has been the subject of considerable study, and most people would be surprised at the speed with which they can evolve.

The earliest genuine Christian writing is found in some of the Epistles of Paul. Paul knows nothing of the Jesus biography found in the Gospels--he makes utterly no reference to them or any of their stories, even when the stories would have augmented his argument beautifully. The unbiased observer cannot help but conclude that Paul knew nothing of these stories, and hence that they developed after his time--so they were not current around 50 CE.

This demands that they be myth. At Paul's dates, "Christian" churches are found all over Asia Minor--prosperous churches. How did this happen so quickly if Luke's dating of the Jesus Ministry is correct?

Paul has "Jesus of Nazareth" as a resurrected being, about to come to Earth to set up a heavenly kingdom. He shares the characteristics of many other Greek mystery cults--the deity lived on the earth in "mythical time," was betrayed and then raised to Heaven.

So one concludes that a non-Jewish "Christianity" existed first, adopting ideas from the LXX (the Greek version of the Old Testament) patterned by Greek mystery thinking. What Paul teaches seems utterly foreign to Judaism (symbolically drinking the savior's blood, for example). It is no wonder the early Christians got such a hostile reaction from the synagogue.

How about you first, Stark? Is it possible you are wrong about it?

Is it possible than an event that is perceived to be "outside of the natural laws" is merely following natural laws that we don't understand?

If so, how to you deduce which events are just following natural laws we don't understand, and which ones come from God?

Okay, sure, then the creation of the universe would be attributed to this "natural law," because it is an event that is perceived to be outside of natural laws since natural laws wouldn't have existed until the universe existed.

Blob, here is where I accepted that I could be wrong and that indeed what I was believing was really the results of an unknown natural law. What I wrote after was, what I considered, the implications of that model of existence.

I'm forever seeing Christians give others a lesson on the pitfalls of certainty and the importance of considering that you may be mistaken. It's rather like getting a lesson in tolerance from a Klansman.
And I urge that consideration because I truly believe that when we die we stand before God, and without Jesus as Lord we face His wrath as because of our sins...the Christian's goal is to save people from disaster.
What is your goal? Obviously you are so certain that you are correct and that the Christian is wrong, that you will spend a lot of time on line attempting to show the Christian where they are mistaken. To what end?

So some of the possibilities for say the resurrection of Christ are; an unknown law, an outright myth, or a misunderstanding of what happened, in this case it would be that all the disciples thought they saw Jesus die, and thought they saw him risen bodily from the grave. Let me try one other possibility on you: is it possible that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that he did die, and then rise from the dead?

Sure it's possible, but it seems the least likely of the possibilities we've mentioned.


How could you trust any understanding as being better, because there may be another natural law that you don't know about that is throwing your understanding off?

True, but hopefully our understanding will be supported by evidence.


Is there any law higher then the laws of men?

Not that I'm aware.


World war II Germany, the laws of men commanded the destruction of not just Jews but many who were deemed "different."

And there were other laws, made by other men who won the war that punished those Germans who committed those atrocities.


Is there a law above that law that made it wrong?

Not until the war was won, and those other laws took precedence.


I've always wondered why more atheists don't take that position.

Because it's a spurious argument.


If there is no God then there is no moral right or wrong, and it is no more wrong for someone to kill an old lady in a park and take her money to buy something to eat, then it would be to kill a chicken and take its flesh for something to eat. Men's laws would only be an inconvenience and something to skirt around. In light of the evolutionary process, preying on the weak would be more moral then protecting the weak.


This argument is only valid if you accept that God has written laws for men to follow. I don't accept that, so I can't address the rest of your question.

The issue of God-given law as our moral foundation has a serious logical problem. Plato (in Socrates' mouth) put the issue in a question, which I paraphrase:

"Does God approve of something because it is right or is it right because God approves of it?"

If you say the first, then right and wrong are above God; if you say the second, then what if God changes His mind?

The issue of God-given law as our moral foundation has a serious logical problem. Plato (in Socrates' mouth) put the issue in a question, which I paraphrase:

Say What LOL. First who cares what Plato thought !!!!!!!!!!!
What a bunch of nonsense. Read THE BIBLE and obey YAHWEH.

That millions of years nonsense is evolution garbage. The earth is about 6 thousand years old and yes man walked with the dinos.

I am the second coming of Jesus, janrich456. Send me 10% of your income, and I will see to it that your soul will be saved come Apocalypse-time. I was chatting with God the other day on my celly, and He said janrich's soul was in serious peril. Don't worry, man, that money will go to repair St. Peter's gate, for when Dio Seijuro drunk-crashed his car into it, so you know it's for a good cause.

Hop to it, man, I got the info that this shit's going down soon, and you don't want to be on the wrong side when it does.

Do you want to explain how they found blood in a dino leg bone.

Do you want to explain how they found blood in a dino leg bone.

After you.

What is this about blood in dino bones man? Your soul is in serious peril here! Let's have that check in the mail, pronto!

Do you want to explain how they found blood in a dino leg bone.

It is not a bone.

It's a fossilized remain of a bone.
In other words, it's a rock.

PS. Your remark about Plato makes me wonder why I even bother to reply to your nonsense.

Honestly people, if people in three parts of the world made up stories of talking grass, the god believers would use it as evidence that Jesus died and was reborn, all for our sins.

Tell me Napster do you believe that given enough time with the evolutionary process, that same grass would eventually talk, invent highly technological machines for communication, ride around in cars, fall in love, and create a system of objective truths?

Tell me Napster do you believe that given enough time with the evolutionary process, that same grass would eventually talk, invent highly technological machines for communication, ride around in cars, fall in love, and create a system of objective truths?
It could happen! What's your point?

Tell me Napster do you believe that given enough time with the evolutionary process, that same grass would eventually talk, invent highly technological machines for communication, ride around in cars, fall in love, and create a system of objective truths?
Is there any evidence that it could not, given an appropriate length of time?

Blob, here is where I accepted that I could be wrong and that indeed what I was believing was really the results of an unknown natural law. What I wrote after was, what I considered, the implications of that model of existence.Excellent. It's very refreshing to speak with a monotheist who sincerely entertains that his faith and beliefs could be utterly mistaken. In fact you are only the second of the many monotheists I have asked to acknowledge you could be wrong. Kudos, I really mean that.

Obviously you are so certain that you are correct and that the Christian is wrong, that you will spend a lot of time on line attempting to show the Christian where they are mistaken.Not at all. Like you I sincerely entertain that I could be most severely mistaken about things from the most trivial to the most profound of my beliefs. In fact I positively embrace and nurture doubt as I consider it essential to the life-long learning process.

As to my goals here, I log on and contribute to this forum to break up my work with a little goofing around conversation with differently minded people.

Tell me Napster do you believe that given enough time with the evolutionary process, that same grass would eventually talk, invent highly technological machines for communication, ride around in cars, fall in love, and create a system of objective truths?
Eventually, they would log on to web forums and tell people that they're going to hell if they don't believe!

I can see how it could be that one deity was simulatnaously another deity and yet separate.

Even after reading your attempt to explain it, I can in no way see how two (or three) beings can at the same time comprise one being. It is a logical absurdity.

Take an omniscient being, who knows everything. Now, take another omniscient being who also knows everything. Put them in the same universe: they both instantly and totally know everything about each other--each thought, each whatever. So they are in effect one mind or two minds.

I'll take the latter; TWO minds. TWO entities. They may 'know' everything that the other knows, but that does not make them "one" entity. A Father cannot be his own Son, a Son cannot be his own Father, and don't even get me started on the whole "Holy Ghost" bit of insanity being included in all of it.

Just because both are supposedly omniscient (accepting here for the sake of argument the insane proposal of the existence of omniscient deities who fret over humans wearing clothes of mixed cloths) does not make them a singular entity.

Eventually, they would log on to web forums and tell people that they're going to hell if they don't believe!heheh. Nice.

Mind you wouldn't that be devolution?...

Botanical Selection!!

Survival of the weediest!

/groan

No.
Okay, one vote for: there is absolutely, positively no way ever that Jesus could be God in the flesh, died on a cross, and rose bodily from the grave.

And how can one deity simultaneously "be" another deity....?!?!?

It is an absurdity.
Are you absolutely, positively, certain that the teaching of the Trinity is that one deity is simultaneously another deity...or are you just going on sheer faith that you are right?

IOW, they perpetated exactly the same barbaric, antihuman acts as Biblegod commanded so many times. "Go forth and slaughter those who do not worship correctly!"
I see you have the last bit in quotes, I'm assuming you are quoting the Bible, but I can't find the reference, would you let me know where I can find it in the Bible? I'd like to take a look at it.

There is still "morality".....

..."morality" being whatever various groups of humans decide it will be.

Nothing else.
So mugging, slaughtering, and stealing money from an old lady is wrong because a group of humans came to a conclusion that it is wrong? If that's the criteria for right and wrong then there really is no right or wrong if you can get away with it. Now anyone can say it's wrong, but let them live in their prison of a man made morality, maybe someday they will be free in their thinking and live like a beast the way chance, some inanimate material, and billions and billions of years accidentally created us to live.

Just a side note; many times that the subject of morality comes up, the response to my questions and comments is that I'm accusing atheists of being immoral...wrong, my dad is an atheist, and he is an extremely moral man. There are other atheists, (the non angry kind) that I would trust with my life. So just a reminder, I'm not attacking the morality of atheists.


Hah. You'll have to settle for worshipping a non-existant god.
Or...I'll settle for worshipping an existent God.

The issue of God-given law as our moral foundation has a serious logical problem. Plato (in Socrates' mouth) put the issue in a question, which I paraphrase:

Say What LOL. First who cares what Plato thought !!!!!!!!!!!
What a bunch of nonsense. Read THE BIBLE and obey YAHWEH.
It is hard for me to avoid irritation at such an ossified attitude. Did you make any effort at all to understand the issue? It seems you would rather not.

You have to appreciate that I cannot help but see your attitude as crude, unadulturated arrogance. You will win no souls for Christ being that way. Even the Apostles employed Greek philosophical ideas (much as they may have misunderstood them) to forward their ideas.

Even after reading your attempt to explain it, I can in no way see how two (or three) beings can at the same time comprise one being. It is a logical absurdity.



I'll take the latter; TWO minds. TWO entities. They may 'know' everything that the other knows, but that does not make them "one" entity. A Father cannot be his own Son, a Son cannot be his own Father, and don't even get me started on the whole "Holy Ghost" bit of insanity being included in all of it.

Just because both are supposedly omniscient (accepting here for the sake of argument the insane proposal of the existence of omniscient deities who fret over humans wearing clothes of mixed cloths) does not make them a singular entity.
Yes, I agree, they are two minds and two entities, but they each instantly and completely know all the thoughts of the other (ignoring the problem of how an omnipotent mind could even have thoughts--since it will know everything it is ever going to think).

But how do you distinguish them? As the Trinitarian formula has it, three entities, but also one--united in thought and purpose. It makes sense to me. For all we know there could be an infinity of such entities, but three makes a nice number.

Originally Posted by janrich456
The issue of God-given law as our moral foundation has a serious logical problem. Plato (in Socrates' mouth) put the issue in a question, which I paraphrase:

Say What LOL. First who cares what Plato thought !!!!!!!!!!!
What a bunch of nonsense. Read THE BIBLE and obey YAHWEH.

It is hard for me to avoid irritation at such an ossified attitude.

Obviously, it is not *ossification of attitude* that is the problem, but abject ignorance.

Did you make any effort at all to understand the issue?

You may as well ask a five year old if he has made any *effort to understand* the issue of global monetary reform.

So some of the possibilities for say the resurrection of Christ are; an unknown law, an outright myth, or a misunderstanding of what happened, in this case it would be that all the disciples thought they saw Jesus die, and thought they saw him risen bodily from the grave. Let me try one other possibility on you: is it possible that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that he did die, and then rise from the dead?

Sure it's possible, but it seems the least likely of the possibilities we've mentioned.
Because...???

How could you trust any understanding as being better, because there may be another natural law that you don't know about that is throwing your understanding off?

True, but hopefully our understanding will be supported by evidence.
That assumes the unknown natural law is not affecting the evidence or your perception of the evidence.

Is there any law higher then the laws of men?

Not that I'm aware.
Do the laws of men matter? If yes; why?

World war II Germany, the laws of men commanded the destruction of not just Jews but many who were deemed "different."

And there were other laws, made by other men who won the war that punished those Germans who committed those atrocities.
And if Germany had won, and they ruled the world, would their destruction of Jews and other "different" people been right or wrong?

Is there a law above that law that made it wrong?

Not until the war was won, and those other laws took precedence.
If our winning the war was the only thing that made Germany's actions wrong, then the United States can go into any country and do what we want as long as we win any resulting war. The down side is if we lose then our actions will be wrong.
I wonder how the Iraq war fits into this? Wrong if we are losing, right if we are winning?

I've always wondered why more atheists don't take that position.

Because it's a spurious argument.
Please, fix the error.

If there is no God then there is no moral right or wrong, and it is no more wrong for someone to kill an old lady in a park and take her money to buy something to eat, then it would be to kill a chicken and take its flesh for something to eat. Men's laws would only be an inconvenience and something to skirt around. In light of the evolutionary process, preying on the weak would be more moral then protecting the weak.

This argument is only valid if you accept that God has written laws for men to follow. I don't accept that, so I can't address the rest of your question.
What argument? That last comment is a logical description of a non-God paradigm.
I just pray that no one lives atheism to its logical conclusion.

That assumes the unknown natural law is not affecting the evidence or your perception of the evidence.


I think you're saying that we shouldn't believe anything, because it could possibly be wrong for some reason as yet unknown...

Tell me Napster do you believe that given enough time with the evolutionary process, that same grass would eventually talk, invent highly technological machines for communication, ride around in cars, fall in love, and create a system of objective truths?

It could happen! What's your point?
Is there any evidence that it could not, given an appropriate length of time?

The fundamentalist believers, in the triune god of chance time and matter, have spoken.

I think the grass is getting to his head.

The fundamentalist believers, in the triune god of chance time and matter, have spoken.
"When you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

As far as evolving grass is concerned, after reading "Guns Germs and Steel," I seriously doubt any plant could develop sentience. The need for it just isn't present, and other, more suited creatures would develop it first, making it impossible for anything else to do so. Modern humans managed to kill off Neanderthals, as well as all of the other large mammals that weren't as suited for sentience as we were. Now, the only way for another species to develop it would be for us to select it ourselves and evolve it artificially.

"When you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Good one...but I'm wrong, how?

Good one...but I'm wrong, how?
You're not wrong. You can't be, you didn't make any statement. You just said some vague ad hominem and thus dismissed our arguments. If that's how you want to debate that's fine...it's not a very good way to debate, and it makes you seem unreasonable, but feel free to make as many ad hominems as you want.

As far as evolving grass is concerned, after reading "Guns Germs and Steel," I seriously doubt any plant could develop sentience. The need for it just isn't present, and other, more suited creatures would develop it first, making it impossible for anything else to do so. Modern humans managed to kill off Neanderthals, as well as all of the other large mammals that weren't as suited for sentience as we were. Now, the only way for another species to develop it would be for us to select it ourselves and evolve it artificially.
What an excellent point you make. Evolution doesn't happen in a vacuum, but in response to existing conditions--both the environment and the already-evolved characteristics of the organism.

You're not wrong. You can't be, you didn't make any statement. You just said some vague ad hominem and thus dismissed our arguments. If that's how you want to debate that's fine...it's not a very good way to debate, and it makes you seem unreasonable, but feel free to make as many ad hominems as you want.
ad hominems? Really? please show me the ad hominems.

Really, don't you have fundamentals truths about what you believe?
Aren't you a believer in evolution?
Isn't your creator chance time and matter?

ad hominems? Really? please show me the ad hominems.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

QED.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

QED.

You haven't answered my questions

You haven't answered my questions
Your questions are red herrings.

Really, don't you have fundamentals truths about what you believe?
Aren't you a believer in evolution?
Isn't your creator chance time and matter?"Your beliefs are just as crappy as mine!"

I'll bite again

Now, if it's what I think you are saying; let me clarify. If there is an unknown natural law that is really the reason for unexplained events, then what is thought to be a miracle is really that "natural law" acting on matter in such a way as to create said event.

Wow, ok you are just writing like that to confuse people. It's not getting your point across very well. Let me translate:

What is thought to be a miracle could just be the result of an unknown natural law.

My point: if that "natural law" works on matter in what we assume to be a miraculous event couldn't that "natural law" be at work in any event that involves matter, i.e. mother killing children?
Sure, why not?

What is the mind, is it merely chemicals at work in the brain?
Yes, it is.

What is morality, what is evil what is good?
What does the answer to this question have to do with proving whatever point you are trying to prove?

If these are simply chemical processes, (matter working on matter), to make us think something is good or evil then couldn't some unknown natural law effect that matter?
Of course. What is your point?

Really, don't you have fundamental truths about what you believe?
Yup, I do.

Aren't you a believer in evolution?
Yup, I am

Isn't your creator chance time and matter?
And if I say yes will you have a point to make?

I'm desperately waiting for you to come to some sort of conclusion here.

Yay for self-hating Christians!

Yay for self-hating Christians!
Yes...Yay for self-ha...wait, I don't get it, who's the self-hating Christian?

You!

"You have faith, you dirty atheist you!"

Why do you hate atheist's faith so much? I think it's because you're ashamed of having it yourself.

ad hominems? Really? please show me the ad hominems.

Your three questions fit the definition nicely.

I can answer them for myself.

Really, don't you have fundamentals truths about what you believe?

I suppose everyone does.

Aren't you a believer in evolution?

I believe that evolution occurred. I believe that's been demonstrated scientifically to such a degree that it's absurd to think it didn't occur. I also believe the same can't be said for Creationism.

Further, I believe evolution would have occured whether I "believed" in it or not. I also believe the same can't be said for Creationism.


Isn't your creator chance time and matter?

No. I prefer the term randomness, to chance. It carries fewer negative connotations, and is more precise. I would also add energy into the cosmic life-generating mix.

"You have faith, you dirty atheist you!"

Why do you hate atheist's faith so much? I think it's because you're ashamed of having it yourself.Exactly. It's very telling that monotheists spend so much effort convincing us all that faith is a good thing, then undermine themselves by slinging it around as an insult.

Faith is a good thing. If we didn't have it, there would be no point in waking up tomorrow morning.

I would suggest the proverbial middle way--have trust that the universe is ultimately good somewhow but don't necessarily belived childhood fairy tales. Believe and have trust, but keep an eye on the wallet.

We all get a lot of practice with this sort of faith when we go to a movie--where we suspend disbelief and accept, for the sake of being entertained, all sorts of outlandish notions.

Do something similar with living. It makes life better if we don't always have our skepticism at full tilt. If, in the end, we all get ground down to nothingness, what difference will it make?

And how can one deity simultaneously "be" another deity....?!?!?

It is an absurdity.


Are you absolutely, positively, certain that the teaching of the Trinity is that one deity is simultaneously another deity...or are you just going on sheer faith that you are right?

I am certain that some (virtually all) of the people i've heard pushing the bizarre notion of "Trinity" were claiming that three dieties are simultaneously one deity.

Quote:
IOW, they perpetated exactly the same barbaric, antihuman acts as Biblegod commanded so many times. "Go forth and slaughter those who do not worship correctly!"


I see you have the last bit in quotes, I'm assuming you are quoting the Bible, but I can't find the reference, would you let me know where I can find it in the Bible? I'd like to take a look at it.

Gosh....for someone who touts religion o much, you seem to know very little of Biblical writing.

If you did, surely you would have blundered across one of the verses saying that.

(Luke 19:27) “But mine enemies, which should not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.”

...or, after people began worshipping a golden calf;

(Exo 32:27-29 NRSV) He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’"


So mugging, slaughtering, and stealing money from an old lady is wrong because a group of humans came to a conclusion that it is wrong?

Yes.

Now anyone can say it's wrong, but let them live in their prison of a man made morality, ......

Many go further, and invent innumerable other notions of what is "moral" and what is not, (based on superstition and on the writings of ignorant nomads from 2000 years ago) to further reinforce the bars of the cell.

maybe someday they will be free in their thinking and live like a beast ......

Man is nothing but another form of animal. An intelligent ape.

You!

"You have faith, you dirty atheist you!"

Why do you hate atheist's faith so much? I think it's because you're ashamed of having it yourself.

Exactly. It's very telling that monotheists spend so much effort convincing us all that faith is a good thing, then undermine themselves by slinging it around as an insult.
I'm trying to understand why, when I suggest atheists have faith, you think that I'm insulting you and contradicting myself.

Let me explain the faith thing: faith is not the object of ridicule, that which the person has faith in is the object of ridicule, it has to be because every person in the world has faith. The person traveling by plane does not know if it will crash or not, they have faith that it won't, sometimes it's a misplaced faith. It's the same for driving a car, you have faith that you won't have an accident. Where the ridicule comes in is when the person has faith in something that another considers ridiculous. I have faith that God exists, I have never personally seen or touched Him physically, but other evidence proves His existence, I believe it, and that takes faith. For the atheist that is a ridiculous notion, and ridicule sometimes follows from that atheist who doesn't have faith in my world view.
Now the atheist says that the statement; "God exists", is an untrue statement, but to prove a universal negation would require infinite knowledge that the atheist does not have, they believe that evolution and other evidence proves He does not exist, they believe it, and that takes faith. Christians believe that is a ridiculous notion and ridicule sometimes follows by the Christian who doesn't have faith in that world view.
Now, for some reason when I say that atheists have faith, you think that I've contradicted myself, because I all of a sudden hate the same faith that I myself hold on to. But the problem isn't in faith, it's in the object or, in the case of the atheist, the lack of object of said faith.
The problem of why you all don't understand plagued me until I got thinking about this:
ad hominems? Really? please show me the ad hominems.
And this:
Your three questions fit the definition nicely. I can answer them for myself
Really, don't you have fundamentals truths about what you believe?
I suppose everyone does.
Aren't you a believer in evolution?
I believe that evolution occurred. I believe that's been demonstrated scientifically to such a degree that it's absurd to think it didn't occur. I also believe the same can't be said for Creationism.
Isn't your creator chance time and matter?
No. I prefer the term randomness, to chance. It carries fewer negative connotations, and is more precise. I would also add energy into the cosmic life-generating mix.
That's it. negative connotations. For so long the Christian believer has been ridiculed by the unbeliever because they hold fundamental truths concerning their faith in God, that now the term fundamental or faith has become the insult itself, when in fact every one has fundamental truths about their world view and everyone has faith.

Does that make sense or am I way off?

"Your beliefs are just as crappy as mine!"
I see it this way:
If there is no God, your beliefs are right, and mine are "crappy."

If there is a God, but he's the god of Islam, or some other religion that holds the existence of a god as true, my belief and yours are "crappy."

If the Christian view of God is the correct view, my beliefs are right and yours are crappy.

Both our views cannot be right so one or both of us are walking around with crappy beliefs.

Now, if that's all settled, I'm back to page 8, Blob has something I want to respond to.

I'm trying to understand why, when I suggest atheists have faith, you think that I'm insulting you and contradicting myself.Good. Keep asking yourself that.

I have faith that God exists, I have never personally seen or touched Him physically, but other evidence proves His existence, I believe it, and that takes faith."Horay for faith! It's a good thing based in evidence!"
Now the atheist says that the statement; "God exists", is an untrue statement, but to prove a universal negation would require infinite knowledge that the atheist does not have, they believe that evolution and other evidence proves He does not exist, they believe it, and that takes faith."Boo for faith! It's a bad thing based in ignorance!"

Don't worry Stark you are not the only Christian to argue faith is a good thing (I see you dusted off the old planes and cars examples to do so) and then reveal your true feelings about it by using it to put down opinions you disagree with. Even high profile Christians do it. Consider Turek's book "I don't have enough faith to be an athiest". That title only works if faith is an insulting word - like "stupidity" for example.

Of course you never hear atheists do the same in reverse; we never take something we admire - reason - and use it to attack theism. You hear theists say "atheists have faith too" but never hear atheists say "theists have reason too". Because we all know deep down, both theist and atheist alike, that reason rules and faith sucks. Sadly for you of course the Good Book says faith is great so you are forever over a barrel having to pretend otherwise.

I see it this way:
If there is no God, your beliefs are right, and mine are "crappy."

If there is a God, but he's the god of Islam, or some other religion that holds the existence of a god as true, my belief and yours are "crappy."

If the Christian view of God is the correct view, my beliefs are right and yours are crappy.

Both our views cannot be right so one or both of us are walking around with crappy beliefs.

Now, if that's all settled, I'm back to page 8, Blob has something I want to respond to.My point with "Your beliefs are just as crappy as mine!" is to highlight the tu quoque fallacy you commit everytime you argue something to the effect of "atheists have faith too!".

Here's my tu quoques counter-argument: Theists' shit smells too!

Not convincing, is it?

And for completeness...

A theist has faith in god like an atheist has faith there is no god like a passenger has faith the plane won't crash is false for the simple reason that if you just ask "are you absolutely certain" you get different answers:

Theist: I am absolutely certain my god exists and have no doubt whatsoever.

Atheist: I think it unlikely there is a god but could be wrong.

Passenger: I am not certain, planes do crash afterall.

Don't worry Stark you are not the only Christian to argue faith is a good thing (I see you dusted off the old planes and cars examples to do so) and then reveal your true feelings about it by using it to put down opinions you disagree with. Even high profile Christians do it. Consider Turek's book "I don't have enough faith to be an athiest". That title only works if faith is an insulting word - like "stupidity" for example.

Of course you never hear atheists do the same in reverse; we never take something we admire - reason - and use it to attack theism. You hear theists say "atheists have faith too" but never hear atheists say "theists have reason too". Because we all know deep down, both theist and atheist alike, that reason rules and faith sucks. Sadly for you of course the Good Book says faith is great so you are forever over a barrel having to pretend otherwise.

Well, if you feel the same about Turek's work, I guess I'm stuck...so I'll accept it that for you the frame of mind called faith is the focus of attention, not the object of that faith or whether it is reasonable to have faith in that object.

Theist: I am absolutely certain my god exists and have no doubt whatsoever.

Atheist: I think it unlikely there is a god but could be wrong.


Freethinker, just a quick question for you; could you be wrong and that in fact there is a God?

Fair dos Stark, we've both said our piece so I guess neither has much to add.

Freethinker, just a quick question for you; could you be wrong and that in fact there is a God?That's a great question. We could start a new thread asking everyone (i) Do you believe in god? and (ii) Could you be wrong?

What do you think?

Fair dos Stark, we've both said our piece so I guess neither has much to add.

That's a great question. We could start a new thread asking everyone (i) Do you believe in god? and (ii) Could you be wrong?

What do you think?
I think your hypothesis about theists would correct in most cases... they'd say "No, I could not be wrong." Well, except me of course. I admit that I could be wrong.

I think your hypothesis about theists would correct in most cases... they'd say "No, I could not be wrong." Well, except me of course. I admit that I could be wrong.As it happens I regularly ask them outright and the answer almost invariably is precisely that.

Of course I'm not saying theists don't change or are stubborn or anything - otherwise there would be no such thing as apostates - but simply that the answer to that one question is almost always a flat assertion of certainty.

Excellent. It's very refreshing to speak with a monotheist who sincerely entertains that his faith and beliefs could be utterly mistaken. In fact you are only the second of the many monotheists I have asked to acknowledge you could be wrong. Kudos, I really mean that.
Of course I could be wrong, matter of fact anything that is dependant on I is in question. I'm pretty sure that I'm in front of my computer writing to you. I'm pretty sure that my lovely bride is reading to my two boys, that I live a happy life. I'm pretty sure that I have a house tucked back into the woods, with a minivan and truck out in the drive way...but I could be wrong.
Maybe, I'm really in some kind of comma, brought on by some inner city drive by shooting, or maybe a collision with a cement truck. It maybe that I'm in the hospital surrounded by monitors and I'm just dreaming the whole thing. Maybe I'll wakeup in a world where logic has been suspended, where something can indeed explode into being from nothing. Maybe this world, that I really exist in, (after I wake up) is devoid of reason, and inanimate objects really do turn into great, emotional, complex, thinking, beings.
Yes, I could be wrong about many things...but reason tells me different.

Not at all. Like you I sincerely entertain that I could be most severely mistaken about things from the most trivial to the most profound of my beliefs. In fact I positively embrace and nurture doubt as I consider it essential to the life-long learning process.
You are at least certain enough, about what you believe, that you spend time telling Christians that they are wrong about what they believe.

As to my goals here, I log on and contribute to this forum to break up my work with a little goofing around conversation with differently minded people.
It's great and beneficial to have you in here, my sister (an unbeliever) loves your stuff.

You are at least certain enough, about what you believe, that you spend time telling Christians that they are wrong about what they believe.

And you are at least certain enough about your beliefs to tell anyone who's not a Christian that they are wrong.

Eventually, they would log on to web forums and tell people that they're going to hell if they don't believe!

Even Napster, the nihilist, believes in knowledge, truth, right, and wrong.

And you are at least certain enough about your beliefs to tell anyone who's not a Christian that they are wrong.
Yes. Do you know why I tell them? Do you know my goal?

Yes. Do you know why I tell them? Do you know my goal?
Well I assume it's because you want to convince people to become Christians.

I think you're saying that we shouldn't believe anything, because it could possibly be wrong for some reason as yet unknown...
Nope, not at all, I'm just taking the "unknown natural law" theory to its logical conclusion.

As far as evolving grass is concerned, after reading "Guns Germs and Steel," I seriously doubt any plant could develop sentience. The need for it just isn't present, and other, more suited creatures would develop it first, making it impossible for anything else to do so. Modern humans managed to kill off Neanderthals, as well as all of the other large mammals that weren't as suited for sentience as we were. Now, the only way for another species to develop it would be for us to select it ourselves and evolve it artificially.
Intelligent design...I agree.

Well I assume it's because you want to convince people to become Christians.

But why? To what end?

But why? To what end?
Why are you asking me??

Your questions are red herrings.
Not at all.

I'll bite again



Wow, ok you are just writing like that to confuse people. It's not getting your point across very well. Let me translate:

What is thought to be a miracle could just be the result of an unknown natural law.
That is the assertion.

What is morality, what is evil what is good?
What does the answer to this question have to do with proving whatever point you are trying to prove?
Just looking to see where it leads

If these are simply chemical processes, (matter working on matter), to make us think something is good or evil then couldn't some unknown natural law effect that matter?
Of course. What is your point?
My point is, if we are but matter, anything goes.

My point is, if we are but matter, anything goes.
Sure, but we are all wired to promote personal survival and survival of the human race. This explains the aversion to murder, especially the murder of loved ones whom most of us instinctively want to protect. A mother who murders her children is viewed as insane or inhuman simply because she obviously does not have the same chemical reaction in her brain to the thought of her offspring dying.

Why are you asking me??
Just wondering what you think.

Freethinker, just a quick question for you; could you be wrong and that in fact there is a God?

Absolutely. I could be wrong.

I could aslo be "wrong" in my thinking that there is no real Santa Claus.

I could aslo be "wrong" in my thinking that there is no actual Tooth Fairy whisking around in the dead of night puttting quarters under the pillows of every child who's lost a tooth.

But until i see the first shred of evidence for same, I will continue to strongly --VERY strongly-- doubt the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

Exactly the same situation applies to all the "gods" mankind has invented. Including Yahweh.

Neither Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy (along with invisible pink unicorns) are up to the level of God, and dismissing theism on that basis is a copout. I don't think God exists either, but I don't think it is necessary to insult the intelligence of those who do.

You are at least certain enough, about what you believe, that you spend time telling Christians that they are wrong about what they believe.Not so. In our recent exchanges I have argued only that many Christians are inconsistent when using the word "faith" - not that Christianity is wrong. Otherwise the only Christian I have substantial interaction with is Inviolable and we have developed a online friendship of trust and mutual respect - go ahead and ask him.

Believe me, I've melllowed a lot since the days of our epic bible debate when I was new to allforums, Stark.

It's great and beneficial to have you in here, my sister (an unbeliever) loves your stuff.Hey thanks, that's nice of you. And hi to Stark's sister!

I am certain that some (virtually all) of the people i've heard pushing the bizarre notion of "Trinity" were claiming that three dieties are simultaneously one deity.
Three deities simultaneously one deity? That's illogical. Only one A cannot be at the same time and in the same relationship three A. The teaching of the Trinity is not that there is only one God, and at the same time there are three Gods, it's in fact, one God, three persons...One what, three who. There are three persons in the God head, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
IOW, they perpetated exactly the same barbaric, antihuman acts as Biblegod commanded so many times. "Go forth and slaughter those who do not worship correctly!"
I see you have the last bit in quotes, I'm assuming you are quoting the Bible, but I can't find the reference, would you let me know where I can find it in the Bible? I'd like to take a look at it.
Gosh....for someone who touts religion o much, you seem to know very little of Biblical writing.
I'm still learning
If you did, surely you would have blundered across one of the verses saying that.
(Luke 19:27) “But mine enemies, which should not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.”
This verse doesn't exactly match your quote of "Go forth and slaughter those who do not worship correctly!"
Now, what is it that is going on in Luke 19:27 that this person is commanding that those who didn't want him to reign should be killed? What's the story and what was Jesus teaching?
...or, after people began worshipping a golden calf;
(Exo 32:27-29 NRSV) He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’"
Another bible verse, but nowhere does it match where you quoted: "Go forth and slaughter those who do not worship correctly." I'm still looking for that quote.
Now, as for Exodus 32:27-29, why did the people start worshipping that golden calf, who were the people, and why did God command them to be killed?
So mugging, slaughtering, and stealing money from an old lady is wrong because a group of humans came to a conclusion that it is wrong?
Yes.
Are you suggesting that harming, killing, and stealing from the old lady wouldn't bother your conscience it would only alarm you that you had broken a law of man? Please explain.
Many go further, and invent innumerable other notions of what is "moral" and what is not, (based on superstition and on the writings of ignorant nomads from 2000 years ago) to further reinforce the bars of the cell.
Interesting that when men feel free to live freely outside those "bars" the weak get hurt the most.
Man is nothing but another form of animal. An intelligent ape.
That's fine to think it and to say it, but just don't treat them as if they were.
I'd say the same to those who say that man is nothing but a meat machine, it's certainly hip to say it, but please don't live it.

But why? To what end?

How about you tell us what your goal is instead?

Of course you never hear atheists do the same in reverse; we never take something we admire - reason - and use it to attack theism. You hear theists say "atheists have faith too" but never hear atheists say "theists have reason too".
Thats right. Because reason is the object, and atheists wouldn't say that theists have reason too because the act of believing in God, to them, is unreasonable.
Faith is a different thing. Faith is not the object, what someone has faith in is the object. If you have faith that a professional airline pilot will fly you safely to your destination, that would be a wise faith. If you have faith that I could fly you safely to your destination, that would be an unwise faith.
I have faith that there is a God, that is a wise faith. The atheist has faith that God doesn't exist, that is an unwise faith. Of course for an atheist this is turned around.
Faith, itself, is not an insult, nor is it, itself, an admirable quality. Faith in X (x can also include the non-existent) is what is an insult or an admirable quality.

My point with "Your beliefs are just as crappy as mine!" is to highlight the tu quoque fallacy you commit everytime you argue something to the effect of "atheists have faith too!".

Here's my tu quoques counter-argument: Theists' shit smells too!

Not convincing, is it?
See above post.

And you are at least certain enough about your beliefs to tell anyone who's not a Christian that they are wrong.
I can imagine you've seen my posts? The answer is yes.

Sure, but we are all wired to promote personal survival and survival of the human race. This explains the aversion to murder, especially the murder of loved ones whom most of us instinctively want to protect. A mother who murders her children is viewed as insane or inhuman simply because she obviously does not have the same chemical reaction in her brain to the thought of her offspring dying.
Wiring? Chemical reaction? If that is all that sets our morality then wouldn't punishment be unfair? I did X or didn't do X because of wiring, I'm not to blame. No need to punish, just exterminate anyone that is harmful to the survival of the human race.

But why? To what end?
How about you tell us what your goal is instead?
Why did you want my goal "instead"? Why didn't you give your goal or your reasoning and then ask for mine?

Having said that let me give you my goals:
1. Hopefully someone will consider and then decide for salvation in Jesus Christ.
2. Observe and test reasons and philosophies against Christianity.
3. Present a defense of the Bible and Christianity to atheists, and see where it, (my defense for the Bible and Christianity) holds up and where it falls apart.

Having said that let me give you my goals:
1. Hopefully someone will consider and then decide for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Your goal, then, is to proselytize (your second and third goals only restated the first, so I omitted them).

Why? Do you imagine you can do a better job of converting people than God himself? Does he really need your help?

The Christian meme has built into it the command to go out and preach. This is one of the reasons it has persisted over the centuries. Keep the adherents preaching so that they will not listen and will instead only become more emotionally committed to the faith.

I don't think this is a road to truth, nor even a road to helping mankind. It is only a road to ego-gratification. It is better to assume one is probably wrong, at least in many things, so that one learns to listen to others with an open mind.

What is an open mind?

The Christian meme does have the call to proselytize, but it does not have any call to either "defend" Christianity or to disprove Athiesm. They are supposed to simply provide an example in their behavior.

Wiring? Chemical reaction? If that is all that sets our morality then wouldn't punishment be unfair? I did X or didn't do X because of wiring, I'm not to blame. No need to punish, just exterminate anyone that is harmful to the survival of the human race.

It is not ALL that sets our morality but it certainly contributes in some instances. That is why a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis is not give the death penalty. There are definitely times when people are not to blame for their acts of barbarism. That is why there are different pleas under the law. Chemical imbalance is a recognized phenomenon.

The Christian meme does have the call to proselytize, but it does not have any call to either "defend" Christianity or to disprove Athiesm.

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong there.

To 'defend' their Christian belief system against any and all critiques is very much a component of the Christian meme.

I have never encountered anyone afflicted by that meme that did not or would not go to great lengths to try to 'defend' the reasons for their belief. (note; the fact that none of them can provide any rational reason for said belief has nothing to do with the fact that they will TRY to concoct some reason for their belief)

To 'defend' their Christian belief system against any and all critiques is very much a component of the Christian meme.

I have never encountered anyone afflicted by that meme that did not or would not go to great lengths to try to 'defend' the reasons for their belief. (note; the fact that none of them can provide any rational reason for said belief has nothing to do with the fact that they will TRY to concoct some reason for their belief)

I think what you are describing is more the reactions of human beings to having their beliefs challenged.

In the far-right conservative Christian sect, they perpetuate rhetoric of a threat to Christianity that purposely evokes the fight or flight response. That is not true in all corners of Christianity however.

In the far-right conservative Christian sect, they perpetuate rhetoric of a threat to Christianity that purposely evokes the fight or flight response.

I respectfully disagree.

There is no real *fight or flight* response invoked when their beliefs are challenged.

The confrontation takes place on the mental plane.

When you set out clear and compelling arguments based on facts, science or objective reality, arguments that strip to the bone their cherished beliefs and expose them for the nonsense that they are, you are in effect threatening their whole Universe and their immortality.

THAT provokes the angry denials and the *defend-at-all-costs* position that they will invariably take.

Their meme absolutely does require that they staunchly defend their supserstitions from all critiques, thus reinforcing ---in THEIR minds at least-- that the notions they hold and the absurdist beliefs they are promulgating are "true".

Your goal, then, is to proselytize (your second and third goals only restated the first, so I omitted them).
I'm very interested, would you please explain how you came to the conclusion that my second and third goals only restated the first?

Why? Do you imagine you can do a better job of converting people than God himself? Does he really need your help?
No, I cannot do a better job of converting people then God Himself, and no God does not "need" my help...but can He use me to advance His gospel? Yes.

The Christian meme has built into it the command to go out and preach. This is one of the reasons it has persisted over the centuries. Keep the adherents preaching so that they will not listen and will instead only become more emotionally committed to the faith.
"Keep the adherents preaching so that they will not listen and will instead only become more emotionally committed to the faith"???? Is that what the centuries of Christian scholarship and thinking was all about, just a trick to keep anyone from thinking about what they believe? Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Pascal, Zacharias, F.F. Bruce, Metzger and others, all men who just preached so they wouldn't think about what they believe?

I don't think this is a road to truth, nor even a road to helping mankind.
What isn't the road, Christianity or telling others about Christ, or debating it online?

It is only a road to ego-gratification.
If you are talking about proselytizing Christianity where does ego-gratification come in?

It is better to assume one is probably wrong, at least in many things, so that one learns to listen to others with an open mind.
So do you assume that you are wrong right now?

What is an open mind?
I don't know? I've noticed that many who say that they are open minded are really merely different minded.

"Keep the adherents preaching so that they will not listen and will instead only become more emotionally committed to the faith"???? Is that what the centuries of Christian scholarship and thinking was all about, just a trick to keep anyone from thinking about what they believe?

Yes.

That states it pretty matter-of-factly.

______________________________

If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, bizarre laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice. It staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Bible and believe that it was written by a wise, just, and loving god. Christians have Biblical scriptures that tell them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god. No wonder this nation is headed over a cliff.....

The Christian meme does have the call to proselytize,
True.
Matthew 28:19-20 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

but it does not have any call to either "defend" Christianity...
What do you make of this verse?
1 Peter 3:15-16 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience,..."

or to disprove Athiesm.
or this verse:
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

...(note; the fact that none of them can provide any rational reason for said belief has nothing to do with the fact that they will TRY to concoct some reason for their belief)
I wonder if former atheist Anthony Flew would have said that?

I wonder if former atheist Anthony Flew would have said that?

Who knows?

While he succumbed to a mild infection with the religious meme, he nontheless maintains that he still stands by his landmark argument for atheism.

When you set out clear and compelling arguments based on facts, science or objective reality, arguments that strip to the bone their cherished beliefs and expose them for the nonsense that they are, you are in effect threatening their whole Universe and their immortality.


I submit to you that only works with literalists who can't accept any flexibility in interpretation of their beliefs, which does not include all Christians.

What do you make of this verse?
1 Peter 3:15-16 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience,..."


I don't see it as a requirment to "defend" their beliefs at every turn. Only to answer respectfully when asked.

"I don't know? I've noticed that many who say that they are open minded are really merely different minded." --Stark

My what a clever way you have of avoiding looking at yourself.

"If you are talking about proselytizing Christianity where does ego-gratification come in?" --Stark

No sit back and think about it a little.

"No, I cannot do a better job of converting people then God Himself, and no God does not "need" my help...but can He use me to advance His gospel?"

Here is your ego shouting so loud you cannot hear anything for the din. You convince yourself God is "using" you.

I know you grew up in an environment where this sort of thing is taken for granted, so you probably cannot see through it, but think intellectually for a moment and see how fundamentally absurd your words are.

Then think spiritually and see how arrogant they are.

"I don't know? I've noticed that many who say that they are open minded are really merely different minded." --Stark

My what a clever way you have of avoiding looking at yourself.
I certainly do hope you explain what you mean. I suggested that when people claim to be open minded I find that they are really just different minded, and from that you decide I'm avoiding looking at myself?
That sounds like a really hip thing to say, but you'll have to explain how you got to your conclusion.

"No, I cannot do a better job of converting people then God Himself, and no God does not "need" my help...but can He use me to advance His gospel?"


I know you grew up in an environment where this sort of thing is taken for granted, so you probably cannot see through it, but think intellectually for a moment and see how fundamentally absurd your words are.

Yeah.

That'll happen. :rolleyes:

The religionist will suddenly look deep within, and have a moment of intellectual clarity where he fully recognizes the fundamental absurdity of the supernaturalist worldview he is promoting and that he is basing his life upon.

_____________________________

If what the (Christian) religionists are telling us is true; if the supernatural worldview that they are promoting is valid, then the Bible would have to be true.

And if the Bible is true, then it is possible for donkeys to speak as humans speak.

If the Bible is true, dead people can climb out of their tombs and stroll around.

If the Bible is true, it is possible to magically transform water into wine, instantaneously.

Jehovah commanded his chosen people: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." If the Bible is true, then all of the thousands and thousands of innocent men, women who were tortured and burned for having been found guilty of being 'witches' were killed for a perfectly good and necessary reason.