June 8, 2010

Atheists Assume Morality

Atheists MoralityRecently, I just read a good article by Dr. Chad Meister that spoke about atheists quest for objective morality.

In his article Dr. Meister used the example of turning on a light switch. One could know that flipping the switch makes the lights go on and have absolutely no understanding as to why the switch goes on, or justification for how it really does so.

There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)."

Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?

Remember what Ted Bundy said?

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited." --Ted Bundy, cited in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 1999), 31-32.

The question to atheists is simply:

On what moral grounds can you provide a response to Bundy?

If right and wrong are provincial, cultural inventions, as a few of you postulate, then it would always be wrong for someone within that culture to speak out against them. If culture defines right and wrong, then who are you to challenge it? To speak out against something that is culturally acceptable, like slavery, would be morally wrong. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, or even Jesus would have been wrong.

The article didn't mention this but some atheists believe that what is moral is what minimizes suffering of others. So if society determines that molesting children is merely a $20 fine to lessen the 'suffering,' and possible retaliation towards the individual being imprisoned, would it be wrong? Are all societal laws right? Why did our Founding Fathers feel that it would be wrong to have a Democratic society?

At the very least, we are thankful that most atheists agree that moral relativism is doomed. Even Sam Harris recognizes the inherent dangers, and speaks against, moral relativism in his book "The End of Faith" but curiously he doesn't tell us what his moral theory is.

Now, most of the atheists here that I talk to use the morality 'just is' explanation instead of the 'selfish gene' that Richard Dawkins uses, something is good because our genes tell us it is. Morality, on this view, is something most of us believe in, follow, and practice, even though it doesn't exist in reality; its just an illusion foisted on us via evolution so that we don't kill ourselves off as a species. There is no objective right and wrong on these views though.

As we established, being moral and having a reasonable foundation or justification for being moral are two very different issues. Back to the example, we can "function well in society flipping light switches and never even entertaining the idea that electricity is involved in the process of causing the lights to turn on"

If asked what for a justification for the lights going on when the switch is flipped, is the answer simply, "they just do"? This is no answer at all.

The fact is, flow of an electric charge (among other factors) grounds our explanation for the lights going on. This is what give us "an ontological basis for being 'light-switching flippers.' The same applies to morality and God."

One may be able to deny God's existence and still live a moral life,(flipping switches) but there would be no fundamental basis, no objective moral grounding, for such a life. Plus, there would be no answer for Bundy.



Meister puts the atheist's problem concisely:

1. If moral notions such as good and evil exist objectively, then there must be an objective foundation for their existence.
2. Atheism offers no objective basis for the existence of moral notions such as good and evil.
3. Therefore, for the atheist, moral notions such as good and evil must not objectively exist.

"On their worldview, we are merely evolved brutes whose very existence is derived from the naturalistic laws of evolution, including random mutation and survival of the fittest in which the strong survive and the weak die off (and sometimes the strong kill off the weak in their struggle for survival) We are simply byproducts of a "nature red in tooth and claw" to quote Tennyson. Is it any wonder that the atheistic regimes of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Pol Pot-- devoid as they were of any significant Christian influence-- were responsible for the mass murder of over 100 million people in their quest for dominance, more lives destroyed then in all of the religious wars in the history of the human race? These regimes were not discordant with an atheistic basis of morality; they were consistent with it."

Atheists Morality"Christian morality, rooted as it is in transcendent, personal, omni-benevolent God, has truly been good for this world. Heaven help us if an atheistic morality, rooted in evolutionary theory or otherwise, should ever become the guiding moral force on a global scale."

But Meister, keep in mind according to the Bible, global atheistic morality will happen very soon.

We have an explanation as to the why the absoluteness of truth exist. Our Christian worldview does indeed "account" for absolute truth and morality, atheism cannot and does not, so logically atheism is illogical.
 


 


bit.ly/assmorals

181 comments:

  1. One atheist told me that they have an "evolutionary mandate", and something about the good of society. Evolutionary? So, it's based on chance and survival of the fittest? No thanks! Society? *Which* society, since societies are always changing? Again, no thanks! How about something consistent? Isaiah 40.8.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evolutionary basis for morality is easy to understand, actually. Every social species requires adherence to certain rules in order to function harmoniously. Even piranha know not to attack each other. For humans, cooperation and social cohesion are critical to our survival, thus any mutations that occur in the genome that encourage these traits are selected for. Societies may indeed change, but the underlying architecture for moral behavior can be found in ALL societies. THAT is consistent.

      Delete
    2. >>Even piranha know not to attack each other. For humans, cooperation and social cohesion are critical to our survival, thus any mutations that occur in the genome that encourage these traits are selected for.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, HOW are you absolutely certain?

      BTW, can I assert things too?

      Delete
    3. Yes, Dan, you "assert" things all the time. You are "asserting" that morality is based on your religion which is absolutely absurd.

      Delete
    4. You cannot account for what is "good" or "evil" without borrowing from my worldview silly. Without God that is. (t.co/e0Z3YoMjzD )

      Delete
    5. WRONG you cannot account for ANY kind of "good" nor "evil" Christianity promotes moral relativism smart guy

      Delete
    6. OK, you just made a barely asserted claim without backing it up with EVIDENCE. At least I provided a link that accounts for my position and argument. You just assert yours. Ironic that you have done so though. It would be funny, if it were not so sad.

      Delete
    7. Link is private. You provided no evidence for your assertion that one cannot "account for what is "good" or "evil" without borrowing from my worldview silly". The rebuttal for Bundy would not come from any "moral grounds" but rather societal grounds. And, before you say that societal whims fluctuate, yes they do. Anyone saying any different doesn't understand society. Just as is was not "morally" wrong to own slaves during the early American history it is today (again, societies being different, not all societies would agree with this). As a people we base our laws and values on actions that typically would not harm others. Bundy pointing out that, in his mind there is no difference between a human and a pig, only subjective belief, is just that - in his mind. The majority of humanity would feel it is more subjectively wrong rape and murder a person in contrast to killing and eating an animal. That is where we are at now. Could this view change in the future for the positive or the negative? Why yes it can. This is why religious followers try to pigeon hole morality based in books and teachings and scripture. But morality is subjective to the benefit of the society. If a form of morality were to not benefit society it would and should be chucked. But to say that there are objectives moral wrong. If there are objective morals that we can glean from the bible than we should take all instances of morality showcased in the bible as objective - without question. This leads us to see that we no longer allow marrying your half-sister, killing your children for back-talking, wearing two different kinds of material in our clothing, eating the meat and milk together, eating shrimp, stoning women, killing rape victims.....all because morality is subjective and we have outgrown any notion to the contrary.

      Delete
    8. >>If a form of morality were to not benefit society it would and should be chucked.

      So if it "benefited society" by killing back talking children, it would be moral?

      And it's an equivocation fallacy to equate ceremonial laws as moral laws. But you knew that.

      That being said, you STILL have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising these claims that your worldview cannot account for.

      Delete
    9. Evolution & the fact hat humans are social and depend on working together as a society accounts for morality. It would never benefit society to kill back talking children (Something the Bible says to do in Deuteronomy 21) so your answer is a non sequitur.

      Delete
    10. By your comment, it's obvious you believe in truth. What is truth?

      Delete
  2. According to your rationale, several wrongs would be considered right and visa versa. For example, slavery would be considered by many to be right (as many of the southern slave owners interpreted the bible to justify slavery prior to abolition). And, likewise, homosexuality would be considered wrong despite the fact that many Christians support gay rights. Instead, morality is codified in our legal system which in many cases contradicts scripture.

    I believe our morals are defined first in genetics and second by the common law of a secular democracy as intended by our founding fathers. And while there are aberrations or exceptions in both, a free society will mete out the appropriate justice for those that violate the commonly accepted moral code.

    What guides us is not scripture written 14 centuries ago, but what we as a species determine to be in the best for our peaceful coexistence and our continued survival. There is absolutely no place for a sadistic, vindictive god in that equation.

    I'm proud to be a part of a society that has learned that we no longer need to pray to a god, sacrifice lambs or threaten to sacrifice our children to demonstrate our morality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Presupp rubbish.

    How do you even account for objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview?

    It's always amusing to see a moral relativist telling other people there morals are relative...

    Murder is wrong ... unless God does/commands it
    Lying is wrong ... unless God does/command it
    etc... etc...

    Is God good because there's a truly objective standard by which to measure or is he good because he dictates what is good?

    If it's the former then something must exist apart from God which, of course, makes God unnecessary. If it's the latter then your morality is no less subjective than you claim atheist morality to be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What guides us is not scripture written 14 centuries ago, but what we as a species determine to be in the best for our peaceful coexistence and our continued survival. There is absolutely no place for a sadistic, vindictive god in that equation."
    — Jeal83

    "Before the beginning of the 19th century Christianity will have disappeared from the earth." — Voltaire

    ReplyDelete
  5. Questions:

    1. What makes God's moral views more than His subjective opinion?

    2. Where did God get his morality from?

    3. If God didn't get his moral views from anywhere and they just happen to be what are, isn't your morality completely arbitrary?

    4. What if I genuinely disagree with God's moral judgement on some issue?

    5. How can you condemn religiously motivated terrorists, when according to their beliefs, God gives them the objective right to kill other people? I don't see how you could say anything else than "Your God isn't real and that's why killing those people isn't moral". And I doubt they're convinced by that. If their God is the true God, then the terrorists are morally right.

    Basically, if there happened to exist a God that approved of child rape, according to your views, we'd have no basis to condemn child rape. The argument goes from what is right to whose god exists in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "One atheist told me that they have an "evolutionary mandate", and something about the good of society. Evolutionary? So, it's based on chance and survival of the fittest? No thanks! Society? *Which* society, since societies are always changing? Again, no thanks! How about something consistent? Isaiah 40.8."

    I'm an atheist and I don't understand the view of morality from an evolutionary mandate. You could say our basic morality evolved because social individuals had a bigger chance of survival than anti-social ones, but that doesn't tell me that I SHOULD be like that. It's crossing the is/ought gap without any good reason. Evolution is a bad source of morality, mainly because, well, it's a completely amoral process. Sure, for us it was beneficial to develop empathy and such, but for some parasite it was beneficial to develop the ability to lay eggs inside a centipede that would upon hatching pop out from it's side... while the centipede is still alive(Or maybe it was intelligently designed to do that.. hm!).

    "This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."

    -Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene p. 3

    ReplyDelete
  7. Καλημέρα !
    Επισκεφτείτε το νέο Ελληνικό και Ορθόδοξο ιστολόγιο “ΑΘΕΪΑ, η άρνηση της αλήθειας”. Γίνετε μέλη και καταθέστε τις απόψεις σας, η γνώμη σας.
    Please visit the new blog "atheism, denial of truth"
    http://eatheia.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. "atheism, denial of truth"

    Looks nice, but it's Greek to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stormbringer quoting someone else:

    There is absolutely no place for a sadistic, vindictive god in that equation."


    Storm's reply:
    "Before the beginning of the 19th century Christianity will have disappeared from the earth." — Voltaire

    I believe the point that was made was that religion is useless, not that it would soon go extince.

    Oh well: Here's another failed prophecy:

    Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

    Whoops. They're all dead. I'll wait and see if the expected apologetic rationalizations get used to dodge this.

    I will say, though, it is nice for once to see a post by stormy that does not have ladles of insults in it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stormbringer said (and probably lied about because I've never ran into this myself, nor would any biologist including Dawkins, ever go for what this "atheist" says):

    "One atheist told me that they have an "evolutionary mandate", and something about the good of society. Evolutionary? So, it's based on chance and survival of the fittest?

    As Dawkins himself, since you people act like he's the "pope of athiesm" once said, nature would be a lousy thing to base our morality on.

    I hope you're not implying that all atheists think like that "athiest" that Stormbringer made up.

    No thanks! Society? *Which* society, since societies are always changing? Again, no thanks! How about something consistent?

    You have got to be joking, right? A bible-thumper wanting consistent morality from somone else?

    Look to the plank in your own eye first.

    Look at the multitude of differences between the OT and the NT for a lack of consistent morality. Jesus spared people that he/his "father" would have killed in the OT. The OT has your god ordering the deaths of babies and pregnant women, yet you clowns call yourselves "pro-life".

    Consistent morality my ass!

    I wonder how Stormy would like living under xian rule as it was a few hundred years ago...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ορθοδοξος,

    >>Please visit the new blog "atheism, denial of truth"

    Thanks and welcome. Here it is translated to English

    I will address the rest of the comments later, just don't have time at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Reynold,
    The OT has your god ordering the deaths of babies and pregnant women, yet you clowns call yourselves "pro-life".
    Yeah, but theres "good" murder and "bad" murder. Isn't there?

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is only 1 religious moral absolute.

    Do what God tells you.

    That's it.

    Nothing else is an absolute because you can always add 'unless God tells you otherwise'.

    It also allows each christian person to make their own morals up as they go. Which I am sure we can all name religious people who lie with abandon for example.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reynold, you are a fool and a coward. Your trolling is safe behind a keyboard, and you know that if you said such things to people face to face, you would be swallowing your teeth. You are in such a hurry to spew venom, and I have a serous "gotcha": That atheist that you're accusing me of "probably lying" about POSTED IT ON MY WEBLOG! You probably didn't see it during your own trolling, you lying, venomous coward. You probably think that every else is a liar and a fool like you are, so you make rash accusations. Now I have the atheist evolutionist looking like a monkey. Again.

    You are so consumed by hate and rage, and total lack of rational thought, you will probably never leave Mommie's basement. And that is a definite plus for society.

    ReplyDelete
  15. By the way, here is something documenting atheistic contributions to society: http://xrl.in/5kk0

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stormbringer:
    You are in such a hurry to spew venom, and I have a serous "gotcha": That atheist that you're accusing me of "probably lying" about POSTED IT ON MY WEBLOG! You probably didn't see it during your own trolling, you lying, venomous coward.

    You want to talk about:
    Reynold, you are a fool and a coward.?

    Like hell. Unlike you "Stormbringer", I'm using my real name.

    Still want to talk?

    Your trolling is safe behind a keyboard, and you know that if you said such things to people face to face, you would be swallowing your teeth.

    I'd like you to call me a "lying, venomous coward" to my face. Would you have the balls? Do you even have the balls to use your own actual name from behind the safety of a keyboard? Come on, "stormbringer", bring it.


    Stormy, you want to know why I don't believe you, even though that "atheist posted" on your blog?

    You've been caught pretending to post as "atheists" on your own blog before.

    You've been shown to be the "lying, venomous coward", not me.

    Remember how you beaked off once before?
    Maybe I've underestimated you. If you had the guts to tell me things to my face, instead of through hidden and anonymous profiles, I might not act like a Christian. After all, I've been living the reprobate life for fifteen years, and I just might kick your tail all over Pennsylvania.?

    Nice work, anonymous internet tough guy. Unless "Stormbringer" is your birth name?

    Yet that's what you accuse me of?

    Idiot.

    Stormbringer:
    As I have put to atheists before, they have nothing to offer. My parents died (mother of a brain tumor, father of old age, Alzheimer's and dementia), brother had Down Syndrome. They will be made whole, and perfect. We will have a grand reunion.

    Atheists say that we are here today, gone tomorrow. Nothing has lasting consequence, there is no God, no judgment, no eternity. Wow, what a compelling vision for the afterlife.


    How stupid, to base your beliefs on what you want to believe, instead of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  17.      "That atheist that you're accusing me of 'probably lying' about POSTED IT ON MY WEBLOG!" [Emphasis in original]
         This is the same guy that said "I faked a couple of 'responses' from the main trolls...." Even if the posts did appear on his blog (unlikely, since he's usually in "no comments allowed" mode) they might be forgeries that he wrote himself. In fact, since, for practical purposes, he is too yellow-bellied to allow comments from other people, they would almost certainly be such forgeries.
         "You probably think that every else is a liar and a fool like you are, so you make rash accusations."
         This is, perhaps, a fitting analysis of the fact that Stormbringer accuses everyone he identifies as non-christian of cowardly trolling.
         "You are so consumed by hate and rage, and total lack of rational thought, you will probably never leave Mommie's basement. And that is a definite plus for society."
         Personally, I think the speaker should apply that to himself.

    ReplyDelete
  18.      Dan is right on one point. Atheists (like most people -- including myself) assume that morality is real. But nobody can justify morality. It can only be accepted as a premise or as a brute fact.
         This is an important consideration. Dan asks about atheists, "What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?" But he cannot give a satisfactory answer as regards his own moral views. When he attempts to invoke his god as a justifier, he reveals that he believes in a "morality" that is nothing more than the subjective will of a cosmic tyrant. On the assumption of an objective morality, a wrong action would remain wrong, even if his god approved; and a right action would remain right, even if his god disapproved.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Accusations start here, I'll give them back. Listen, Pubicus, I'll write this slowly because you atheist trolls are too stupid to read fast.

    If the puh-TROLL committee of juvenile basement-dwelling atheists had not decided to fill my blog with illogical, profane diatribes, I would not have faked two or three posts to mess with you humorless creatures for a couple of days, then deleted them. Get that? You brought it on yourselves. I'll state it in even simpler terms: If you hadn't been trolling, you would not have been pranked. Duh.

    Also, it seems to me that you accuse things of being faked because of the simple fact that you lot are in denial; you cannot face the truth, you have NOTHING to offer anyone else or the rest of society, and, from the way you conduct yourselves, I have serious doubts that you are anything less than harmful to society as a whole.

    Look up logical fallacies, I do not have time to list all that you lot commit on a regular basis. One thing, though, you lot accuse all Christians of being liars, stupid, foolish, etc. (When an atheist says something, it's incredibly wise, no matter how absurd. Give me a break.) So, you assume that the comment that existed (which, by the way, is from someone I've associated with for about a year, so I knew him already) was made up. Then one of you you accused me of forging "Molly Knits" posts. Agonizingly illogical and stupid. Besides, she can make a fool of herself without my help, just like the rest of you trolls.

    Want to know why I shut down my comments? Because I do not see a need to subject myself, and my intelligent readers, to your nonsense. Did you understand this, or shall I write it again using one- and two-syllable words so you can get it? (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  20. (continuation)

    Sorry, Dan, you'll probably have to delete this sampling of my proofs

    that Internet atheists are illogical, venomous trolls.

    Tell me, no, prove to me, that these are the work of an intelligent,

    enlightened group that is superior to Christians:

    new comment on your post "Areas that Atheists Are Right":

    "Hey there pig fucker. I know you won't let this post through, but I want

    you to read it. Because I want you to know that I'm not gonna let up on

    you.

    "You can run from blog to blog, but every time you post, I'll find you

    and call you out on your hypocritical bullshit.

    "So start running tough guy."

    Posted by ***** to Stormbringer's Thunder at 16 May, 2010 11:12

    _________________

    new comment on your post "Victory":

    "You're gonna be fun. You're either a POE or a major-league ass-wipe that

    is bitter about being alone.

    "I can see that you are one of those super defensive false christian

    types. Great. I never accused you of stating that you did battle on this

    ghost-town blog you silly boy.

    "I was just wondering where you did battle. I see you started post at Ray

    Comfort's swamp. I'll have fun with you there. I don't give a damn if you

    won't bother answering here. That's what Christians do. But you're

    nothing more than a cranky single old punk who is desperate for some

    social interaction.

    "Since your two much of a pussy to give me more than one reply here, I'll

    just copy your bullshit and paste it over at Ray's. We'll have fun. I

    think he actually enjoys seeing you over the top crazies getting slapped

    around over there.

    "So... Are you still saving yourself for your wedding day?"

    Posted by ***** to Stormbringer's Thunder at 14 May, 2010 10:08

    ________

    left a new comment on your post "Areas that Atheists Are Right":

    "I see you're already blocking comments on your posts. That' okay. I'll

    just copy your nonsense and paste it on another site.

    "I guess you've been lurking around WeAreSMRT.com.

    "This is gonna be fun. I'll hand you your false convert ass every day,

    until you can't take it anymore. But don't go blowing anyone up on my

    account. Actually you're like the gay parent on the South Park "High

    School Musical" episode. The one who threatened to slap everyone.

    Hmmmm... Are you a self-loathing gay as well?"

    ***** to Stormbringer's Thunder at 14 May, 2010 11:26

    __________
    ***** has left a new comment on your post "Victory":

    "50 years-old & still whacking your pipi!

    "You dumb fuck.... "

    Posted by ***** to Stormbringer's Thunder at 16 May, 2010 15:11

    _____

    comment on your post "Pouring Fuel on the Fire":

    "With regards to your John Wayne quote, some you've managed to live up

    to, while others you've clearly failed at. If manhood is something you

    strive for, you should probably pay attention to this."

    _____

    Bullhorn Twotails has left a new comment on your post "Congrats to Mr.

    Limbaugh"
    :

    cockroach!

    Publish this comment.
    Reject this comment.
    Moderate comments for this blog.

    Posted by Bullhorn Twotails to Stormbringer's Thunder at 07 June, 2010

    23:34

    __________

    Get that? Intelligent atheists should find another name for themselves

    rather than be considered one of this worthless bunch of juvenile

    delinquent trolls.

    I'm getting tired of being proved right.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have no doubt that all those posts are real.

    You don't wonder why people don't post stuff like that here?

    I'll take a guess....

    It's probably because Dan isn't the ill tempered little repetitive troll that you are.

    All you do is stamp your feet and whine about Atheists don't listen to the evidence you never present, then when you get the attention you crave you just stamp your feet and whine some more.

    There is a reason that people like Dan doesn't need to moderate his blog, but people like you do when the readers and commenters are the same people!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reynold...what? Why should I believe that this is your real name? Naturally, you say that Christians are all liars, so you will not believe that we have experienced how atheists are liars. "Trust me"...HA! Like when atheists go into Christian chat rooms, waste everyone's time for weeks, then reveal that they're atheists. Losers. Or when Frog E-Lad pretended that he had "an honest question", which was proven to be a lie because he wanted to brag about it in "We Are So Friggin' Smart Because We Choose to Disbelieve" group.

    You are using a first name. Last name? Why should I believe either name, and you don't even have a link to an e-mail in your profile.

    I do. But there are no serious, intelligent atheists of you lot that use it. Yeah, you really want intelligent discussion with the issues that I raised on my Weblog, so your gang (a) trolls me there, (b) trolls me here and at Ray's place.

    And I'm supposed to believe that you, in the midst of your personal attack, are honest and noble "using my name"? Given the evidence (and my experiences, even though you lot accuse me of lying about them), I'll say that YOU are a liar.

    Wow, this sure wastes room in Dan's comment section. I hate having "conversations" in comments sections. But I chose to take the bait this time and finish what YOU LOT started.

    I think we see that atheist morality is subjective (see the Moses picture that Dan used), petty, self-serving, inconsistent and more. Your only basis for your morality has nothing to do with logic. Instead, it is, "What feels good for me at the moment". Looks like I have shown that very well, using the examples of atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tubby,

    Dan believes in free speech, that's why he lets hypocritical trolls vent here, profanity and all. I don't allow it. Project your own emotional inadequacies on me all you want, it will not change the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And your whiny little tantrums won't change the truth either.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh, and Tubby? Read my Weblog. I'm repetitive here because I'm responding to the repetitive trolling that I receive here. You and the rest see that you're getting responses to your own nonsense. Wow, you're stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Feel the fruit of the spirit just flow through Stormbringers keyboard.

    Truly this is a righteous man!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stormbringer,
    "Wow, this sure wastes room in Dan's comment section."
    Can't argue with that. Though it was, as usual, YOU who posted reams of angry vitriol.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Flame fest! Nice. Brought my marshmallows.

    Looks like Storm pinned the atheists down. Hey Azriel, shouldn't you be at work? They start it, he gives them a flying bitch slap. Yeah he got excited and wrote wrong.

    Atheists here are subjective. You have cookie cutters and expect Christians all to look the same. And act the same. No emotions allowed even though you piss in their faces. Your morality is subjected. Mr. Bath is saying that Stormbringer got flamed because he deserved it. Standard Internet protocol says to ignore whatever you think deserved it and to act like rational human beings. Atheists aren't doing that.

    Agnostics aren't so nasty and we're honest because we admit we don't know, but you know there isn't any God. Like that position makes sense.

    Storm, buddy, settle down a bit. You gave them what they asked for but they'll keep on coming back for more. Keep those comments shut off.

    ReplyDelete
  29. BathTub said...

    Feel the fruit of the spirit just flow through Stormbringers keyboard.

    Truly this is a righteous man!


    June 10, 2010 3:44 AM
    Oranges said...

    Stormbringer,
    "Wow, this sure wastes room in Dan's comment section."

    Can't argue with that. Though it was, as usual, YOU who posted reams of angry vitriol.

    See? You guys start the problems and then do it again. Christians can't have emotions because they have to act like you think they should.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Agnostics aren't so nasty and we're honest because we admit we don't know, but you know there isn't any God. Like that position makes sense."

    Detecting large quantities of fail in this sector. :P

    I think the atheists who claim to know that there is no god are a minority. Ask any more influential atheist like Dawkins or someone and they'll tell you they don't know that there's no god with absolute certainty. They just think it's very unlikely. So the vast majority of atheists are so called 'agnostic atheists' or 'weak atheists'. To me, agnostic and atheist mean pretty much the same thing in practice.

    You also pretty much complained about atheists overgeneralizing Christians... while overgeneralizing atheists yourself. Please don't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Nicky,

    Stormbringer only ever makes comments which annoy, rile, or offend. It's obviously intentional. Theres a huge drop in civility in any topic he comments on, and he is the cause.

    Topics without Stormbringer insults tend to be argumentative but not unpleasant. It's not about Atheists or Christians. It's about someone trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm almost tempted to fling a little more poo in Stormie's direction to give him some more material.

    But that's yesterday's news (at least to everybody but him...).

    Besides... Little Nicky looks like a lot more fun.

    Looks like Storm pinned the atheists down. Hey Azriel, shouldn't you be at work? They start it, he gives them a flying bitch slap. Yeah he got excited and wrote wrong.

    From your writing, I gather you wouldn't recognize a real "flying bitch slap" if you were being repeatedly raped by it.

    Maybe you picture it as a golden retriever leaping with paws outstretched...

    I am wondering if English is your first language... What do you mean by wrote wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh, so the alleged Doctor Benway wants to take me on? What, you're a grammar Nazi? The comment before you accused Storm of trolling, and then here you are starting with me. Can't disagree with atheists, huh? Never wrong? Never do anything wrong? Is this your morality, shitstain?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Stormbringer:
    I think we see that atheist morality is subjective (see the Moses picture that Dan used), petty, self-serving, inconsistent and more. Your only basis for your morality has nothing to do with logic. Instead, it is, "What feels good for me at the moment". Looks like I have shown that very well, using the examples of atheists.

    You have not shown anything, other than how the "holy spirit" has guided you to be able to come up with a disgusting insult for Pvblivs.

    I'd love to see you have the nerve to call him that name you came up with to his face.


    "Atheists" do not use "what feels good at the moment" as a source of morality. We use a thing called, what for it...Consequences, empathy (would you want things done to you), and what works to keep a civil society together with an (attempted) minimum of restrictions of people's freedoms so they can still be themselves.



    I'll also note that Stormer has as I knew he wouldn't, given his name, instead rambling on.

    Stormer was caught using the names of some of the people at the WRSMRT forums by those same people. That's how they knew what he was up to.


    Now, for Nick:

    Can't disagree with atheists, huh? Never wrong? Never do anything wrong?

    Where did we say that, please?

    Is this your morality, shitstain?

    Wow, Christ would be impressed! So much for that "turn the other cheek" bullshit, eh?

    Never mind that the atheists here aren't near as crude as Stormbringer and "Nick" are in the first place...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Can't delete, sorry for the profanity.

    Now I have to say that I see atheist attacks & profanity before Storm was here & having nothing to do with him. Guess he ain't to blame so he's a straw man.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Renold, Learn to read. I said agnostics and then WE. Quit having hate be your motivation.

    ReplyDelete
  37.      "Accusations start here, I'll give them back. Listen, Pubicus, I'll write this slowly because you atheist trolls are too stupid to read fast."
         Accusations on this thread started with a troll saying that one "atheist" told him that they have an "evolutionary mandate." Incidentally, my screen handle is Pvblivs. Converting it to "Pubicus" is a sure sign that Stormbringer is trolling. There is another point that Stormbringer apparently just can't understand. I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who specificly believes that there is no god. I have not drawn such a conclusion. I believe the christian depiction is fictional; but take no stance on whether some unknown god exists.
         "If the puh-TROLL committee of juvenile basement-dwelling atheists had not decided to fill my blog with illogical, profane diatribes, I would not have faked two or three posts to mess with you humorless creatures for a couple of days, then deleted them."
         I have heard his excuse. It carries no weight. Someone willing to forge comments is someone who is willing to forge comments under any circumstances. I cannot trust that the comments he claims to have incited his actions were not, themselves, forgeries.
         "Also, it seems to me that you accuse things of being faked because of the simple fact that you lot are in denial; you cannot face the truth..."
         Well, personally, I accuse things of being faked because they look implausible on the face of them and the person claiming them is known to have faked things.
         "Want to know why I shut down my comments? Because I do not see a need to subject myself, and my intelligent readers, to your nonsense. Did you understand this, or shall I write it again using one- and two-syllable words so you can get it?"
         I understood his excuse the first time he made it. I just don't think it has any merit. I addressed the notion here. "I have had trolls on my blog, too. But I don't need to block all comments. I will remove inappropriate comments after the fact. (And no, disagreeing with me does not render a comment inappropriate. Blue language does.)"
         "I do [provide an e-mail link.] But there are no serious, intelligent atheists of you lot that use it."
         No, I don't expect that anyone who was serious and intelligent would e-mail Stormbringer. That would be a waste of effort. Responding to his nonsense on a public forum is really only useful as an effort to prevent third parties from being taken in by Stormbringer's outlandish claims.

    ReplyDelete
  38. jeal83,

    >>There is absolutely no place for a sadistic, vindictive god in that equation.

    So there is an absolute right and wrong then?

    ReplyDelete
  39. freddies_dead,

    >>Is God good because there's a truly objective standard by which to measure or is he good because he dictates what is good?

    God is the objective standard, because good is God's nature.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Stormbringer said:

    "One thing, though, you lot accuse all Christians of being liars, stupid, foolish, etc. (When an atheist says something, it's incredibly wise, no matter how absurd. Give me a break.)"


    I've asked you before to stop making generalizations, but above is another example of why you are being singled out for attack by some. What evidence do you have for the above statement? Just because several atheists have labelled you a liar, stupid, foolish, etc (and many more of us agree), this has no bearing on what atheists think about "all Christians". I wouldn't insult any other Christian (including Dan) by comparing him/her to you. I have encountered a few others with a similarly toxic attitude, but the vast majority of Christians (and non-Christians) are friendly, honest, reasonable people. Of course, I expect you will not address this point as it doesn't live up to your cherry-picked view of the world.

    Snark all you like. But you should be aware that your continual use of generalizations is simply highlighting the fact that you cannot seem to use basic logic and reason - the very inabilities you brandish all atheists with. You talk about atheists using logical fallacies. What about a bit of internal reflection? Your arguments stink of confirmation bias.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Brummer,

    >>1. What makes God's moral views more than His subjective opinion?

    Its not His opinion but His nature.

    >>2. Where did God get his morality from?

    The Alpha (Him)

    3. If God didn't get his moral views from anywhere and they just happen to be what are, isn't your morality completely arbitrary?

    We are made in God's image. He created man in His image, thereby establishing personality and self awareness in us. At the very beginning God communicated with man, speaking intelligently to His rational, self-aware creature (Genesis 1:28-29)

    Consequently, self-awareness is not a problem for my, Christian, worldview.

    >>4. What if I genuinely disagree with God's moral judgement [sic] on some issue?

    You would be breaking the 2nd Commandment and creating a god to suite yourself.

    >>5. If their God (religiously motivated terrorists) is the true God, then the terrorists are morally right.

    Then this would be an unjust Universe now wouldn't it? Is the universe, or this world, unjust? How do we recognize something being unjust if there is not a standard in place? For the atheists these might be very hard questions to answer. My worldview spells it out quite clearly. We do have a standard.

    "Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong."

    >>if there happened to exist a God that approved of child rape, according to your views, we'd have no basis to condemn child rape.

    Well, child rape is against God's nature, so we recognize it as wrong. Pedophiles just have a different god.

    >>The argument goes from what is right to whose god exists in the first place.

    If people didn't have a conscience I might agree with you, but I do have one, so their god is not God at all. It is their selfish and wicked heart that they follow. Is that even right? Nope (1st Commandment)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Brummer,

    >>Quoting RD " Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."

    Correction: We Are Born Evil!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Reynold,

    >> Here's another failed prophecy: Luke 9:27 Whoops. They're all dead.

    First how are you certain they're all dead? Evidence? Corps is evidence of death? Not so if our souls lives on right?

    Just like John 2:19 " Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

    You are thinking in the present human terms. Think outside time/space and that statement/verse would be true.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Rhiggs,

    >>But you should be aware that your continual use of generalizations is simply highlighting the fact that you cannot seem to use basic logic and reason

    I agree with that as a general rule for all of us. :7)

    Speaking of which, you should all take the test to see where you stand:

    politicalcompass.org/test

    First take the test and then check out my results. Who would of thunk I was slightly to the right of Gandhi.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I almost forgot,

    Pvb,

    >>When he attempts to invoke his god as a justifier, he reveals that he believes in a "morality" that is nothing more than the subjective will of a cosmic tyrant. On the assumption of an objective morality, a wrong action would remain wrong, even if his god approved; and a right action would remain right, even if his god disapproved.

    The question is what makes the most sense of the questions asked? Look at this case in point posted today.

    "If humans are nothing more than well-organized atoms, why do they have any awareness of an immaterial "soul," let alone a sense of it being invigorated by natural settings? Evolution provides no logical answer, but the creation model does."

    Evolution model cannot explain morals, but the creation model does.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Pvb,

    I also thought you would find this interesting. I think you have said the same things, to some degree, in the past. At least I thought of you when I read it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nicky, you made some good points and I'll be quoting you in my next article. Too bad the clowns here can't understand them, and they bite you as well. *Nobody* can ever be good enough to please them. If you're serious about seeking answers about God and the Bible, I have many links to apologetics at http://xrl.in/5kuv. You can also write to me. Dan, I can't find a link to write to you, so I'm not offering your services to honest seekers, it's not an intentional slight.

    I'll have to check out the Open ID thing in more depth.

    Funny, the experiences that I have had with atheists were discussed by Rev. Matt Slick of CARM by an on-air caller and Matt (several minutes into the broadcast), then an atheist tried to take Matt on regarding atheist morality (finishing up the hour). At least this guy had the guts to call in and try to take Matt on, unlike the cowardly trolls. That MP3 can be heard for free here http://xrl.in/5kpj.

    Also, Matt embarrasses Kelly from the so-called Rational Response Squad here (audio only) http://xrl.in/5kv1.

    Now I'll leave the atheists and those lying about being not atheists PVB to their self-pity. Sheesh, you say I don't live up to my name, and then you whine. So I live up to my name and then you whine.

    Hey, PVB, you had a quick reaction to Part 1 of "Why I Don't Trust Atheists", did you have the guts to read Part 2? How about the ones where I *agreed* with atheists? Nobody's said a peep about those. Hee hee hee.

    Seems to me the ones that atheists hate most of all are the ones who are former atheists and became Christians. HA! Can't stand it when someone sees the light, huh, kids?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan,

    I'm almost a carbon copy...!

    I expected to end up in that quadrant, but I honestly thought you'd be a mirror image and be up the the top right hand side with the Palin's and Bush's of this world.

    Seriously though, I don't understand how you can believe in an ultimate authority and yet end up south of the central line...? Flawed algorithm?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rhiggs,

    Wow, that is results to pause on, huh.

    You have to understand that I took the test based on the belief of Authority of God, not the authority of the state or man. Maybe some of these Hitler/Bush politicians confuses the two.

    Maybe that is where the algorithm is flawed. Add more questions about God's authority and I would be skewing in that direction.

    Most of my answers, as yours I assume, were strongly held.

    Also I found it interesting that some of these questions tied in quite nicely to questions pondered by "The Yes Men". God help them.

    ReplyDelete
  50.      "Evolution model cannot explain morals..."
         Well that's true enough; but fluid dynamics can't explain the behavior of the stock market either. Morality seems to be independent of whether or not evolution is true.
         "I think you have said the same things, to some degree, in the past. At least I thought of you when I read it."
         Yes, on one topic, at least, he holds a position similar to my own.
         "First take the test and then check out my results. Who would of thunk I was slightly to the right of Gandhi."
         I was rather surprised to see your graph on the libertarian (as opposed to authoritarian) side.

    --------------------------

         "...did you have the guts to read Part 2?"
         If Stormbringer had bothered to read my responses, he would know the answer to that question.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I forgot to say one thing about the Yes Men. I noticed that the highly educated (top 1%) people that these Yes Men were speaking in front of, had no espial of satire because evil cannot detect evil. If you are evil yourself, then evil things sound fine, as evidenced by the Yes Men. Something to ponder as you are getting an education for this world. My advice is that you don't leave God at the door as you acquire your education, you just may get a position with the WTO, Halliburton, or Monsantos of the world if you do. Evil cannot see evil, they only see like minded friends.

    For the betterment of the planet, and mankind, become a Christian to detect the real evil of the world. (An educated man with no accountability of/to morals and God.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dan
    Reynold,

    >> Here's another failed prophecy: Luke 9:27 Whoops. They're all dead.


    First how are you certain they're all dead? Evidence? Corps is evidence of death? Not so if our souls lives on right?

    Dan, think. That was about two thousand years ago. Even in your mythology, before the flood, people only lived almost a thousand years.

    And Jesus said that "some" standing there would still be alive. If he was referring to their souls, then he'd have said all of them would still be "alive" after a fashion.

    He never said a thing about their souls, just their lives.

    Just like John 2:19 " Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

    That never happened either, but who cares, since it's irrelevant to the verse I used.

    You are thinking in the present human terms.

    Dan, the only terms I'm thinking of is the context and the time that Jesus was supposed to have said that verse.

    All those people that he was talking to have died, and his kingdom still has not come.


    Think outside time/space and that statement/verse would be true.

    Yeah, if I think like that, then 10 billion years from now when his "kingdom" still hasn't come, that verse would still be true.

    I'm surprised that no one used the excuse that I was expecting.

    More Dan:
    Evolution model cannot explain morals, but the creation model does.

    Then explain why some primates other then humans display things like empathy.

    Did "god" give them souls?

    Or is it possible that developing intelligence and morality for primates is a survival tool?


    Dan said:
    I like you Nicky

    The guy who calls people "shitstains", Dan likes.

    Wonder if Jesus would?


    Yet more:
    God is the objective standard, because good is God's nature.

    Right, the guy who has pregnant women and babies killed in the OT has "good" being his "nature"?

    So then why are any members of any abrahamic religion "pro-life" then? God had no problem with baby-killing when the parents pissed him off.

    Oddly enough, he's not like that in the NT. Odd that his "good nature" isn't very consistent.

    Dan, you've yet to answer freddie's question satisfactorily:

    Is God good because there's a truly objective standard by which to measure or is he good because he dictates what is good?

    If it's the former then something must exist apart from God which, of course, makes God unnecessary. If it's the latter then your morality is no less subjective than you claim atheist morality to be.


    Saying that "goodness" is god's "nature" is just another way of saying that god follows that "truly objective standard".

    Though as I've pointed out, he's not too consistent with that, is he?

    ReplyDelete
  53.      Hmmm... First my comment didn't go through, then it went through twice. (I removed the duplicate.)

         "You have to understand that I took the test based on the belief of Authority of God, not the authority of the state or man. Maybe some of these Hitler/Bush politicians confuses the two."
         Actually, the position of Bush is quite predictable. These are people who believe (or at least pretend to) that "god's will" is knowable and there should be a strong government imposing it. I also note that no one seems to be in the bottom right portion of that graph. My own position is here. That may actually make sense as unchecked corporations become a de facto government unto themselves and defeat the idea of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Reynold,

    >>The guy who calls people "shitstains", Dan likes.

    I like the spunk to take on oppressive atheists/people and also I like the honesty to call themselves Agnostic which means, to me, still searching.

    >>Wonder if Jesus would?

    Indeed He would. So much to Die for his/her sins.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Its not His opinion but His nature. The Alpha (Him) We are made in God's image. He created man in His image, thereby establishing personality and self awareness in us. At the very beginning God communicated with man, speaking intelligently to His rational, self-aware creature (Genesis 1:28-29)"

    Well, my opinions are also a reflection of my "nature", so to say. I don't see how this makes God's morals any more objective. You could say God gives us objective rules to abide by. Those who follow the rules go to heaven, those who don't suffer hell. These rules apply to every single human being regardless of what anyone thinks, so it is objective. But a law doesn't determine what is good. This is a part of a huge problem I have with religion. My problem is that religion says it answers the big questions, but in actuality it does no such thing. Religion claims it has the answer to why there's something rather than nothing, but why does God exist? Religion claims it can give us objective good/evil through divine command, but why is God good? It seems God is simply defined as good, and the discussion ends there. Imo, this is a kind of ball and chain on the feet of humanity's moral progression. Why do we define God as good? How did you come to the conclusion that God is good? If there's nothing to morality other than what a god thinks, then if there was a god that approved of slavery, slavery would be moral. I don't want to give such authority to anything. I am the ultimate judge of what I think is moral. If God approached me and asked to me offer my child as a sacrifice to Him, my response would be "No".

    "You would be breaking the 2nd Commandment and creating a god to suite yourself."

    This would be true assuming the truth of Christianity. If the God of the terrorist was real, it would be you who was creating a god to suite yourself if you denounced the actions of terrorists.

    "Then this would be an unjust Universe now wouldn't it? Is the universe, or this world, unjust? How do we recognize something being unjust if there is not a standard in place?"

    No, it wouldn't be unjust. That is because according to you, just is defined by God. If God thinks terrorism is just, then it is. If there is no God, the universe is indifferent. Your last question is an excellent one. But if we let the standard be decided by a god, whose god should we use? The terrorist's? You can't deny the terrorist's God because you think he is evil, because if the terrorist's God is the real one, He is good. By definition. That is why we shouldn't give our morality over to supreme authorities.

    "We do have a standard."

    So do the terrorists.

    "Well, child rape is against God's nature, so we recognize it as wrong. Pedophiles just have a different god."

    But if it weren't, child rape would be acceptable according to you. If God changed his mind, child rape could become acceptable(You probably find this an impossibility though).

    "If people didn't have a conscience I might agree with you, but I do have one, so their god is not God at all. It is their selfish and wicked heart that they follow. Is that even right? Nope (1st Commandment)"

    Ah, but not everyone's conscience is the same. A terrorist might not even flinch as he guns down innocent people. Just as many christians do not even flinch when they deny gays from marrying, which I find completely immoral! So whose conscience do we follow? The terrorist and the fundamentalist christian are equal in their belief that God gives them the right to commit the actions I find terrible. Whose conscience reflects the will of God? Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Argh, one more thing about this:

    "If people didn't have a conscience I might agree with you, but I do have one, so their god is not God at all. It is their selfish and wicked heart that they follow. Is that even right? Nope (1st Commandment)""

    I noticed it is stunningly similiar to the argument I presented in your blog post on Jesus. I argued that my conscience could not possibly have been given to me by your god, because I find Hell completely immmoral. Similiarly you argue that the god of the terrorist can't possibly be real because it is against your conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    >>The guy who calls people "shitstains", Dan likes.


    I like the spunk to take on oppressive atheists/people and also I like the honesty to call themselves Agnostic which means, to me, still searching.

    You'd have to ask agnostics what they consider the word to mean.

    You may also want to explain what's so dishonest about the atheist point of view (if that's what you just implied)

    You may also explain why then, when I use the kind of language Nicky uses, you give me heck.

    Now, as for "oppressive atheists"? How in hell are we "oppressive"? We're not the ones buggering around with your countries' Constitution, we're not the ones suberting education, etc. Remember: Teachers are supposed to be neutral on whether any god/gods exist or not. They're not supposed to say one way or the other.

    How would you call that oppression?

    Wonder if Jesus would?

    Indeed He would. So much to Die for his/her sins.

    Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said: Would Jesus like the language that "Nick" uses?

    And there's still the problem of course, of how in hell 3 days can possibly be equivalent to an eternity of torment...


    Come to think of it, there's a lot of things in my previous posts here you can address.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Brummer,

    I like you too, you think it through and it gives me pause sometimes. Some of these subject are difficult to answer because I have no clue sometimes. The difference is trusting as we discussed.

    >>I don't want to give such authority to anything. I am the ultimate judge of what I think is moral.

    Not true. Why have laws, and police, if we are able to police ourselves? Why do we have judges? You certainly place your trust in other drivers getting on that road. You trust pilots with your life. You trust, and count on, a Judge to do the right thing for you as you stand in front of him. There is no difference. What is the alternative? You? How many Commandments have you broken today? Are you a good person? (Cue Ray) The point is that I found out I was/am morally bankrupt. IF it weren't for the Law...I thought I was doing fine but, like an alcoholic, I was getting worse and worse (drinking more and more) going down a path of evil. I couldn't help it. I thought I was doing great until I read the Bible the first time and all I could do is drop to my knees to stop from trembling in fear. Unfortunately, that still didn't work! I sure thought that would be enough and things got very bad, very quick, and I surrendered. I couldn't do it alone anymore. Its all His now. I surrendered myself to the mercy of the court. I am a criminal and want to stop running. If 50% of recovery is admitting you have a problem, as an alcoholic, then I had a problem. I couldn't see the destructional path I was heading down doing it my way, Sinatra style. Once you understand that, then recovery begins.

    >>You can't deny the terrorist's God because you think he is evil, because if the terrorist's God is the real one, He is good

    Not at all and you see that. The evidence shows that God, YAHWEH, is the creator and "alla" is the creation. As evidenced by the fruit (followers). How many Christians say "death to Islam" or take flying lessons? How many Christians do meth off a male hookers butt? None! Haggard did, but we all know that He was a False Convert. Drunkards say they don't have a problem either. Have you met a genuine Christian, ever? They are hard to find, but we all know one when we see them and their lives show the fruit of one.

    >>Just as many [C]hristians do not even flinch when they deny gays from marrying, which I find completely immoral!

    Immoral to not allow religious ceremony to someone who is not a follower? Why would they want too? Its up to God and His criteria who will marry or not, certainly not anyone willy nilly or some state.

    I am going to blow your mind here a bit. The State has no right to call ANYONE married. The US has no right to say who can, or who cannot, marry. That is a Biblical term reserved for a union of two according to God and God alone. Think about it. Its not up to the state to marry. Its not their authority to determine a Biblical thing. You want gay unions then erase marriage from the United States vocabulary. I am married under God's terms. Who cares if some state says I am or not? That is where the US went wrong. They stuck their nose into a place where it didn't belong. We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God. There is your separation of Church and State. Push for that legislation, and I will vote with you. ...this should be a post.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dan said:

    "How many Christians do meth off a male hookers butt? None! Haggard did, but we all know that He was a False Convert."

    Did you know this before the fact Dan? Please link to where you said this. It's meaningless to claim he is a False Convert retrospectively...

    How can you claim that anyone is a True Christian when you don't know what they will do in the future to disqualify themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dan,
    First of all, Chad Meister is a failed philosopher. He does not utilize any formal logic and is merely a Sye TinBucket on steroids.
    His schtick only works in presupp fundamentalist company.

    Next, No atheists I know are searching for objective morality, thus the whole exercise is a crudely assembled strawman.

    Empathy is the bedrock of ethics and morality. We observe this and it is now more accurately measured in recent experiments.

    "If right and wrong are cultural inventions, as a few of you postulate, then it would always be wrong for someone within that culture to speak out against them. If culture defines right and wrong, then who are you to challenge it? To speak out against something that is culturally acceptable, like slavery, would be morally wrong. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, or even Jesus would have been wrong."

    Yes, you are correct. King, Ghandi, and Jesus got it wrong, but for valid reasons.

    There are many great articles and research papers on the evolution of morality available on the net- including Google Scolar. I suggest you read them since you are obviously crammed into the box of one stunted and myopic ideology.
    You would not recognize a salient and valid philosophy if it bit your ass, which it has, and you just don't know it yet.

    religion emerged after morality.
    Religion invoked the concept of supernatural powers. This began by including ever watchful ancestors, then gods.
    It is well shown that humans realized that this was an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more coopertion. This seemed to work for them, yet it was flawed and we see the results of this today.

    It has been proven that humans and other social animals have "Mirror Neurons" in parts of the brain. This brain chemistry is more highly developed in humans but takes place in the exact same locations of that organ as other animals.

    Speaking about humans, for now, we are hardwired from birth to empathize. Long ago perdiatric nurses and doctors noticed that when one baby cries in a nursery, many of them start crying.

    Take a child before they can talk and have the mother pretend to cry. The child will touch and comfort her and likely cry too. There is no longer any dispute that we are hard wired to empathy.

    Violence, frustration and dishonesty come from (mostly) environmental conditions that have stunted the person so as not to be able to express their core nature (corporal punishment of children is one of those environmental factors, by the way.) Violence, etc, also comes from biological and hereditary factors.

    Back to the mirror neurons. Hook a person to an MRI/ brain scan. Put another person in the room eating a piece of candy. The person on the scan- the same neurons light up in their brain as the person eating the candy- they are also enjoying it.
    The same thing happens if a spider runs up a persons arm. The same neurons of the observer light up as if the spider is running up her arm. The observer experiences the horror. That is empathy. That is what makes us want to do good.

    So there you have absolute proof that empathy is hard wired in our brains.

    As we watch the draconian ideologies of sin and eternal punishment fade away, it is very possible that the future will evolve to allow us to get back to our core nature rather than the every-man-for-himself mentality that religion- all the thousands of different sects/ cults trying to differentiate themselves from one another, have spwaned.

    /F

    ReplyDelete
  61. Oh, so the alleged Doctor Benway wants to take me on?

    Take you on what/where/why? You make so little sense. And I have to admit, borderline illiterates with large mouths are fun to mess with.

    I won't "take you on," but I will laugh out loud at your struggles and repeated fails at writing a sentence that makes sense to anyone besides yourself.

    What, you're a grammar Nazi?

    Yes, little Nicky... I am a grammar Nazi. And you are ripe for the ovens. I also get a slight kick out of your overt ass-kissing. You've got your head so far up SB's ass you're reprocessing his shit for him. How Christian of you....

    The comment before you accused Storm of trolling, and then here you are starting with me.

    The comment before me was made by Oranges. Do you see how impossible your grammar is. If you want to make yourself heard, instead of just making noise, learn how to write.

    Can't disagree with atheists, huh? Never wrong? Never do anything wrong?

    Nope... I never do anything wrong little Nicky. I'm perfect and proud of it. And you're far too sensitive and/or illiterate to engage in such blatant public ass-kissing.

    Is this your morality, shitstain?

    Speaking of shit stains... Make sure to brush twice with a good whitening toothpaste the minute your face from SB's brown snorkel. Unless you want to advertise your toadying... Nothing says ass kisser like a big, brown, toothy, shit-stained smile.

    As for morality... I think it is far more moral to make fun of a shit-sucker than to be one. That would be you, little Nicky. Hey... You've still got something stuck between your teeth. Looks like a polyp.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Good post Froggie.

    Dan,
    We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God.
    I Love it. You redefine the word "marriage" based on your current and skewed religious understanding. Christianity is not where marriage came from. There have been recorded marriages since Mesopotamia. OF course those first written laws are oddly similar to the commandments despite predating them by thousands of years. Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Renold, Learn to read. I said agnostics and then WE.

    See, Little Nicky Lick? It's not that Reynold (you can't spell even when it's right in front of you...), has a problem reading. It's that you can't right for shit. But you sure can suck it up.

    I really don't care if you are agnostic, Christian or just an ass leech, with a serious turd Jones. To me, you are just a dunce who wants to share with the world.

    Quit having hate be your motivation.

    You sound more like a stupid Christian than a stupid agnostic...

    But then again... "Stupid is as stupid does...."

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sorry... I couldn't resist, because Little Nicky says he won't be coming back...

    I know you hate this Stormie, but being an immoral heathen....

    Glad you could use my stuff here. Hey those atheists at the other place really don't have moral standards.

    Insert head into SB's bottom....

    All it takes is reading there comments to see that they keep changing for whatever feels good and they don't see it or point out the way other atheists screw up.

    Begin reprocessing....

    I might go back once more for what you call a drive by but think I'm done.

    Translation... "I think I'll keep my head buried past the neck in your ass for now. It's comfy and all my needs are taken care of."

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan +†+ said...

    freddies_dead,

    >>Is God good because there's a truly objective standard by which to measure or is he good because he dictates what is good?

    God is the objective standard, because good is God's nature.

    Presupp dodge #95.

    And by what standard do you judge God's nature to be good?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Dan:

         "How many Christians say 'death to Islam' or take flying lessons?"
         How many muslims say "death to christianity"? If the "false convert" is allowed, the answer is "none." But that's its nature. Whenever anyone defends his faith by saying people were "false converts" without providing evidence that they did not believe what they claimed to believe, they show that they don't really believe their own "faith."
         Consider: According to normal christian claims (including yours) all "sin" is effectively equivalent in the eyes of your god. So there is no difference between that response to "honey, do I look fat?" and flying planes into buildings. Christians do not stop "sinning." If your beliefs were as you claim, christians might just as well be flying planes into buildings on a daily basis, or doing drugs off of prostitutes. All "sin" is equal, right? Christians, even you, do things and continue to do things that you think are wrong. If you really held the belief you claim, you would say of Haggard, just as you say of yourself, "not perfect, just forgiven." That you say "false convert" instead, reveals a bit about your true beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Rhiggs,

    >>How can you claim that anyone is a True Christian when you don't know what they will do in the future to disqualify themselves?

    That's easy. No one here is clairvoyant and no one can judge motives or thoughts.

    No one knew that you are a pedophile until you acted on it. Right? jj. How can anyone know something without the fruit of that something revealing itself?

    Everyone thought Tiger was a great family man Until...

    So you are completely bias and wrong and you should recognize it before its too late and you believe in your own lies.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Pedophile...Tiger Woods...My lies?

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pvb,

    You have an excellent point.

    Romans 3:20 says "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

    There is nothing I can do to be a better Christian then another. I am no better then Teddy, as a Christian.

    But there is a distinction here. When a Christian sins, and I do, we feel it. It hurts them and they know they just did wrong and immediately repent and try do do better. They show the fruit of caring about sinning.

    Now Unrepentant sinning is not fruit of a Christian. Frequenting a hooker to buy meth, or having hundreds of mistresses like Tiger, is not being a Christian at all. It is evidence of a False convert.

    God says we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. I am living proof of that. So we can resist sinning and yes, in weak moments, there is a sin occasionally but its not willing or repetitive. Sinning for a season is not Christian. It is a False Convert. I hated to find that out too. I was mad. To face myself and understand that I was never a Christian for those 10 or so years crushed me and frightened me to my core. Then, and only then, I knew I was saved forever. I do not want sin as a part of my life anymore. I treat it like it were poo on me and try to wipe it away quickly. I do not sit and spread it all over and wallow in it. Its disgusting to me. I must wash it away...get it?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Come on Rhiggs. I am merely in a playful mood, that's all. Its Friday after all.

    No one thinks you are a lying pedophile, O:-)






    until that fruit comes to fruition, that is. o/\o >:-)

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dan,
    Playful mood. Good, but you ain't got the balls to resond to my post.

    Here is an article that you don't have to pay for that outlines the basics of the evolution of morality.

    I won't be surprised if you don't read it, much less be able to comment on it.
    At your level of education and understanding, the moment you leave the AIG/ sunday school realm, you seem to go dead in the water.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dan,

    "Come on Rhiggs. I am merely in a playful mood, that's all. Its Friday after all."

    Please excuse my curiosity, but how is Friday any different than any other day for a stay-at-home-dad that has five kids to care for each day (or is it six kids now?)

    ReplyDelete
  73. A playful mood for you involves calling someone a lying pedophile...?

    Funny guy.

    ReplyDelete
  74.      "I do not want sin as a part of my life anymore. I treat it like it were poo on me and try to wipe it away quickly. I do not sit and spread it all over and wallow in it. Its disgusting to me. I must wash it away...get it?"
         Your recent "playful mood" seems to speak against that claim. But looking back I see that you can know a true christian when you see him. I submit that based on your "false convert" idea, you cannot. Before Haggard was caught, he was accepted as a "true christian" on the basis of "you know them when you see them." If there is any merit to that notion, Haggard was a true christian. But after he was caught, you say he was a false convert.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Pvb,

    >>Your recent "playful mood" seems to speak against that claim.

    How so? Oh Christians cannot tease and are robots? Projecting much? Please show where I sinned.

    >>Before Haggard was caught, he was accepted as a "true christian" on the basis of "you know them when you see them." If there is any merit to that notion, Haggard was a true christian. But after he was caught, you say he was a false convert.

    First I never thought of Haggard as a Christian. There was something just quite not right about him when I saw him in an interview, I believe with Richard Dawkins, and I never trusted him fully. Mega churches are certainly not good fruit. I don't remember reading 'wide is the gate to my Kingdom.'

    There are plenty false teachers out there. Next one to watch out for is Joel Osteen. His fruit screams false convert to me. Watch how he dances around a very simple question. He seems clueless. Something is just quite not right about him. My instincts have not really failed me yet about such things, maybe with the exception of examining myself. I missed that one. But in reflection, I knew I was a false convert at the time.

    Maybe I misspoke and should of said, "you know them when you see their fruit."

    Obviously I could not look at the fruit of a Ted Haggard. I was cautious until proven otherwise. The evidence of his fruit certainly validated any suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Froggie,

    Thanks for that link. Where I did not purchase the article I will read the *cough presentation for children in schools.

    Maybe I will do a follow up post about it. If not I will just comment later about it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dan:

         "How so? Oh Christians cannot tease and are robots? Projecting much? Please show where I sinned."
         Certain accusations are so harmful that they should not be made even in jest. Considering the way society treats people suspected of pedophilia and is disinclined to admit that someone, once branded, is innocent, that falls under the category of things not to joke about.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Dan,

    "Maybe I will do a follow up post about it. If not I will just comment later about it."

    Yeah, maybe is right.
    When presented with solid evidences you always clam up or post a new blog.
    You know full well your inane views are going up in the smoke of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Froggie,

    >>When presented with solid evidences you always clam up or post a new blog.


    How about providing some solid evidence first. Here I don't believe you have yet.

    From that link in the case of vampire bats, and the colony of macaques, or rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), show evidence that empirically falsified evolution.

    After millions of years these "learned behaviors" have yet to be eliminated or evolved out of the colonies. If only the good survive why is there still evil(bad)? Why are the weak, malnutritioned evil individuals surviving? They get shunned in their colonies, they get pushed out to die alon and yet there still are bad ones. Why?

    Reason is that morals are not evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Oh and Froggie,

    I just noticed on frame 25B, they are talking about behavioral morals of sharing food of chimps, while they show a picture of cannibalizing chimps. Ewwww

    Bwaahahahahah. Thanks for the laugh. You evolutionists are a strange group.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "After millions of years these "learned behaviors" have yet to be eliminated or evolved out of the colonies. If only the good survive why is there still evil(bad)? Why are the weak, malnutritioned evil individuals surviving? They get shunned in their colonies, they get pushed out to die alon and yet there still are bad ones. Why?"

    Nothing is perfect Danny boy.
    The evidence is that a vast majority are "good."
    Biological, environmental, and genetic pressures will always produce "bad ones."

    "Reason is that morals are not evolved." And why?
    You seem to have conveniently forgotten about mirror neurons and empathy displayed by babies.

    "I just noticed on frame 25B, they are talking about behavioral morals of sharing food of chimps, while they show a picture of cannibalizing chimps. Ewwww"

    This was also very common in early humans. There was no need to waste good protein.

    ReplyDelete
  82. How's this for atheist "morality"? Tagged onto a post where I was describing a good man who died, and a moral, intellectual atheist from St. Albans (not bright enough to upgrade beyond Internet Explorer 7) posted this drek:

    How ya doin' there, big man? Still looking for validation, are you? Trouble is, you sound like an awkward schoolboy whose hormones are getting the better of him!

    Stormbringer, my ass! More like a thin streak of yellow piss soon to be washed away by a light spring shower!

    Regards to you & yours.

    Ps. Stop wanking off to your boyfriend Jebus! Word might get out...Hey, drop me a line when you get a moment. My blog's open to all; even to superannuated idiots like you. Look forward to hearing from you, macho-man...You're such an intimidating kinda guy...Yo!

    Posted by Bullhorn Twotails to Stormbringer's Thunder at 16 June, 2010 14:13

    ********

    Tell me again why I should respect the wisdom of atheists? And why I should believe that you lot have "morality"? I keep getting proof, I'll keep showing it off. So tired of being proven right...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Stormbringer,

    "So tired of being proven right..."

    Actually, no. All you are 'proving' is that you are still cherry-picking and generalizing. The commenter never admits to being an atheist in that particular comment - could be an agnostic or a scientologist for all you know. Not to mention that it could be another 'trap' that you are setting as a 'joke'.

    If the the commenter is an atheist, you are simply retrofitting something to your own biased view (as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring). I'll agree he was rude, and perhaps somewhat immoral, but that doesn't prove anything. I have never been rude or immoral to you, and I am an atheist, so surely I am 'proof' that you are wrong (as are several others here - some have been rude and some haven't). You ignore people like me because it suits your preconceived notions. Classic confirmation bias, which is a fallacy.


    "Tell me again why I should respect the wisdom of atheists?"

    You don't have to. Who tells you that? Please specifically point out who keeps saying these things to you or stop making up 'phantom' statements from 'phantom' atheists.

    As I said before, I wouldn't slander all Christians based on the actions of a few bad eggs. You seem to have no problem doing this to atheists. And then you wonder why some are aggressive towards you. You bring it on yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yeah that's rene/bullhorn, he's a troll, that's what he does, he's the atheist equivalent of you Stormbringer.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Aren't you maggots embarrassed by your own kind? Once atheists dare to leave their parents' basements, I cannot imagine them becoming actual productive members of society. Intellectual cowards, morally bankrupt, and basically useless as people. Who will cry when you die? More than that, who will even notice? Yeah, real benefits to society.

    Bullhorn Twotails said...

    Com'on Stormy! Thought Jebus was your fantasy-boy.

    Ps. Women read your posts, do they? In your dreams, boy, in your dreams.

    Takin' the piss out of prats like you is so much fun! How do people like you get thru the night? Yo!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Stormbringer, you are just as bad as that commenter. Just read back your last post. You said some disgusting things. Shame on both of you.

    By your own cherry-picking logic, I should look at your comments and generalize all Christians as unreasonable, rude, hateful, ignorant assholes. But I won't stoop to your level. Your obvious reluctance to address your own hypocrisy is very telling. I am forced to conclude that you are, indeed, a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Yes, you can feel the love of Jesus flow through every one of Stormbringer's posts. He's a fantastic example of the transformative power of Christianity.

    Why should I care what Rene says? He no more represents me than I represent him.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Bathtub:

         While that does sound like fullcircle's style, Stormbringer couldn't have found that on his own blog. It is set to "no outsiders may post." He only changes that long enough to make a post with a sock-puppet account pretending to be an atheist. Now, it's possible that Stormbringer is revamping a comment that he found elsewhere. But since he doesn't allow anyone other than himself to make comments, he cannot have received an outsider comment on his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Actually Stormbringer turned comments back on. He just moderates them all like Ray does. Except Ray actually allows some through.

    ReplyDelete
  90.      I rechecked it as I post this. Comments are CURRENTLY restricted to "team members only."

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hahahah, really? That's even better. So he wants to give the illusion of allowing comments, but in reality no one can since he has no team members listed. Quite amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  92. OF COURSE I switched them back off, stupid! After that last troll attack, you're going to have to pee in other playgrounds.

    By the way. You keep proving how absurd you are. "Sock puppet atheist"? Hey, here's a thought: Follow his link. He has his own site, you lot should love it because he's just as devoid of rational thought as the rest of you. And he rails at me in one of his articles (sniff, I'm touched by the flattery).

    "Reason", indeed. How can you take yourselves seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  93. I submit to anyone who may read this:

         "OF COURSE I switched them back off, stupid!"
         He claims that a comment was posted to his blog on 16 June. I have inspected the status of his blog both before and after his claim. At no point have I ever seen Stormbringers blog in a condition where someone other than himself could leave a comment (whether subject to review by the administrator or not.) I have no reason to believe that Stormbringer's blog was ever sufficiently open, on that date, for fullcircle to make a post. He doesn't have the guts to look at the perspectives of outsiders.
         "Hey, here's a thought: Follow his link."
         This would surprise Stormbringer; but I have followed fullcircle's link. But I find it nowhere on Stormbringer's blog. Nor do I claim that fullcircle is Stormbringer's sock-puppet. I claim that the screen names that are actually allowed to post to his blog are sock puppets. But fullcircle has not posted to Stormbringer's blog.
         "He has his own site, you lot should love it because he's just as devoid of rational thought as the rest of you."
         Incidentally, I believe that fullcircle is an imposter; and I said so here. Since he responded, and I left his post up, that is a link you can follow. My claim can be checked, unlike "trust me, this atheist posted into an area I have locked up tighter than a bank vault." But if being similarly empty of coherent thought is the criterion, Stormbringer and fullcircle should be great friends.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Pub, you are a fool and a bloody liar. You claim to have Godlike knowledge. My site was open to comments between assaults of brainless trolls. But then, perhaps you were not OCD enough to check the comments links every day.

    "This would surprise Stormbringer; but I have followed fullcircle's link. But I find it nowhere on Stormbringer's blog. Nor do I claim that fullcircle is Stormbringer's sock-puppet. I claim that the screen names that are actually allowed to post to his blog are sock puppets. But fullcircle has not posted to Stormbringer's blog."

    Why should it be there? It's in the comments section, fool. Click on his name, then "My Blogs". Do I have to lead you by your sniveling pointy nose? Agonizing.

    I can't believe someone like you has the ability to think enough to even type; did you dictate to your Mommie? Wow, you're so locked into your hate and preconceptions that you cannot think objectively.

    This entire comment section proves that not only do atheist have situational and subjective morality, but their reasoning skills are missing. Pub, you and Froglegs in Hollandaise Sauce, and the others, are embarrassing to atheists who ARE capable of rational thought.

    And yes, I'm having a great time ridiculing your fascinating stupidity and utter lack of morals.

    ReplyDelete
  95. By the way, why is it so hard to take that I can shut off the comments on MY Weblog? You people troll, I shut you down. Simple. Dan can delete comments from here, as is his right (I understand that he's used that right), moderate or shut them off. You want an open forum playground, set up your own Weblog. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  96.      "Why should it be there? It's in the comments section, fool. Click on his name, then 'My Blogs'. Do I have to lead you by your sniveling pointy nose? Agonizing."
         I submit the following question: Has anyone seen any comment by fullcircle aka Bullhorn in the comment section of any post on Stormbringer's blog? I can find his profile and his blog from the comments he left on my blog. I have already stated this. But on Stormbringer's? Despite his claims here, it is not there.
         "I can't believe someone like you has the ability to think enough to even type; did you dictate to your Mommie?"
         Stormbringer and fullcircle share the same style of argument.
         "By the way, why is it so hard to take that I can shut off the comments on MY Weblog?"
         I simply point out a fact. Anyone can turn off comments on his own blog. It's just a sign of cowardice. Considering how much Stormbringer rails about "atheists" being cowards, I find the irony rather delicious and want to share.

    ReplyDelete
  97. As others have said, I think its best to just ignore Stormbringer. He is clearly delusional. Well, either that or he is just a troll who likes to stir up trouble.

    Even though he says:

    "It's in the comments section, fool. Click on his name, then "My Blogs". "...

    ...I also couldn't find any nasty comments on his blog. They may have been there prior to deletion, but why should I trust the word of someone who has been shown to act dishonestly, and why say its still there when you have deleted it? Did it ever exist?

    Simple. He's trolling for reactions.


    I went to the blog of Bullhorn Twotails (both through a simple Google search of his name, and now also through the 'fullcircle' moniker in the link provided by Pvb). He is a bit weird alright, but out of 5 posts in total, the most recent of which was 21 May, NONE contain any mention of Stormbringer. He talks about "Dale-boy", "Anette", "Terry The Loon" and "Starbuck" in one post, so unless Stormbringer also goes by one of these names, then I don't know what he is talking about when he says:

    "And he rails at me in one of his articles (sniff, I'm touched by the flattery)"

    Again, he's just trolling for reactions.


    All in all, Stormbringer certainly is a strange character.

    He doesn't allow comments on his blog...then apparently he briefly allows comments (at some unknown time) and straight away receives an abusive message...which he deletes and posts over here instead as 'proof' of something that can't be verified by anyone else.

    Wow! Really convincing!

    And then there are his continual claims that we are 'proving' him right! I have pointed out his fallacious reasoning several times, but he just ignores it, so why bother?

    Just ignore him. He's a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Rhiggzy, Baby, for the last time, I'll explain. And I'll type slow because I know you and the rest of this herd can't read fast.

    I get accused of making up the comments by the atheist. So, I show you how to find his site. He's real, he railed against me (better than you clowns did, I'll give him that). Easily proven, but you're so consumed with hate, you're stupidified.

    There's that "reason" again, you lot cannot grasp it.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Along the lines of atheist "morality", a discussion and video about "Moral actions Christians can perform that atheists can’t" http://xrl.in/5nkh

    ReplyDelete
  100. To anyone else reading this:

    I did check the site (so did Pvblivs) and there is nothing there about Stormbringer. Notice how he doesn't link to these alleged comments. Go and check yourself.

    He is just trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Actually, rhiggs, I think that the two of you are arguing on parallel tracks. I don't know who this "bullhorn" is, but I think Stormy was whining about my visit to his exclusive little club.

    Apparently, I unknowingly caught him on one of the rare occasions when he left the door open.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Nameless:

         "Actually, rhiggs, I think that the two of you are arguing on parallel tracks. I don't know who this 'bullhorn' is, but I think Stormy was whining about my visit to his exclusive little club."
         Well, you can consider yourself fortunate for not knowing fullcircle. However on 16 Jun at 12:21pm on this thread, Stormbringer claimed to have gotten a post from him. And he's whining on saying "it's in the comments section, fool. Click on his name, then 'My Blogs.' Do I have to lead you by your sniveling pointy nose?" but it isn't. We've checked.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Nameless,

    Scroll up. The two comments are attributed to Bullhorn Twotails. I don't know who he is either but he certainly didn't leave those comments on his own blog and they're nowhere to be seen on Stormbringer's blog.

    Who knows whats going on? He tells us that he deletes nasty comments, but then tells us to go onto his blog and click on the names (that he's already deleted!!??). As you have seen yourself, Stormbringer is a very strange character...

    ReplyDelete
  104. Yeah. Stormy's a champ. He gets all cranky about the concept of "Arrogant Atheists" (he likes to capitalize it) without seeing the obvious parallel of "arrogant christians."

    You ever read his Why I Cannot Trust Atheists twaddle? Pure projection - he manifests every single one of the attitudes he complains about.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'm not reading the 106 other comments, so hopefully I'm not repeating what other people say so much. Christians...you don't really want morality to be objective; if morals are objective, God cannot be the author of them.

    Haven't you Christians heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma? So is something moral only because God commands it, or does God only command that which is moral?

    If it is the former, then if he pronounced tomorrow that raping children was moral, you would have to believe it was moral to be consistent.

    If it is the latter, and God only commands that which is moral (or if it's "just in his nature to be good, he would never make rape moral), then objective morality supercedes his whims and he therefore cannot be the author of them.

    Now, on to atheism and morality. I base my moral values on what I believe is right and wrong. These judgments come from my genes (evolution) and my social upbringing. There are lots of different reasons for why I have the moral code that I do.

    Killing, stealing, raping, etc are all activities that jeopardize social unity. Humans are a social animal who depend on each other to survive and when we were in the jungle, the groups that had the most social unity thrived. The killing, stealing, raping bunches didn't and therefore didn't pass on their genes.

    Also, our evolved brains allow us to act on our feelings of empathy and reciprocation. I don't want to be killed or stolen from, therefore I don't kill or steal from other people.

    Btw, how can a Christian possibly state that they are locked into some absolute moral code? I mean, you guys have read the Bible right? Explain Deuteronomy 20:10-14 to me..or Numbers 31 (or whichever one that has Moses scolding his soldiers for not killing everyone...except the virgins of course). Or the rules for stoning unruly children, etc.

    Oh, btw, you can't wiggle away with the "that's the old testament, we are under a new covenant" excuse either. Even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that God had these rules for someone at some point in time.

    Anyway, maybe later I'll get into how moral the Christian God really is. Next time: Human Sacrifice revered? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  106. SuperAtheist,

    >>Haven't you Christians heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma?

    Yes, its not a dilemma at all. Its only a dilemma to those that don't understand God, like you and Plato.

    >>So is something moral only because God commands it, or does God only command that which is moral?

    More like God gave us the ability to recognize the nature of God's unchanging character. Lying is wrong, not because God says "because I said so." He could say “Because I am not a liar.”

    >>Explain Deuteronomy 20:10-14 to me.

    I wish I could fully because there are certain thing in the Bible that I am not 100% clear about but maybe, just maybe, that leaving woman and children to fend for themselves in such a hostile environment would be the death of them. Things were not so civil back then, evidenced by some of these stories. Taking them in to care for them was possibly the only humane way of dealing with that situation.

    ReplyDelete
  107.      "Taking them in to care for them was possibly the only humane way of dealing with that situation."
         That only works if you assume human limitations. An all-powerful god would have other methods at his disposal. In short, the Israelis may be excused on the assumption that your god does not exist or was not with them.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Well, Dan, let me ask you the same questions that so enraged Stormy.

    Have you killed a child for mouthing off to their parents? You should. (Lev 20:9) Goes hand-in-hand with the story of the bears killing all those children for making fun of Elisha. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

    For that matter, all of Leviticus 20 is a killer. Literally in some cases: adultery or marrying your mother-in-law or daughter-in-law are apparently capital offenses; weirdly, having sex with your sister just gets you shunned.

    While you’re at Leviticus, though, skip back to 19: note that you are allowed to have sex with another man’s slave, but you have to sacrifice a ram to do it. (Lev 19:20-22).

    In fact, the Bible supports slavery very strongly, from Genesis 9:25-27 onward. It tells you how to beat them (Exo 21:20-27), where to shop for them (Lev 25:44-46), when to have sex with them (fine examples can be found all through Genesis, but especially 16 and 30). Paul even told slaves to obey their owners the same way they obey Christ (Eph 6:5-9).

    Is setting people on fire considered a good thing in your world? What about abortion? In Gen 38:24, there's a pregnant woman convicted of prostitution. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, they still decided to burn her. Why does the fetus have to die for the mother's crimes?

    Of course, abortion is fine if you're at war with somebody. Especially if they aren't the same religion as you.

    "At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women." (2 Kings 15:16)

    "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

    There is, in fact, all manner of murder and rape in the Bible. But it's the good kind of murder and rape, because it's done in the name of the Lord, right? (Jgs 21:10-24, Num 31:7-18, Deut 20:10-14, 2 Sam 12:11-14, and on and on.)

    ReplyDelete
  109. Nameless Cynic,

    Most of that can be answered by this link:

    http://tinyurl.com/cncck

    Let me know if you need things expounded.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Not true. Why have laws, and police, if we are able to police ourselves? Why do we have judges? You certainly place your trust in other drivers getting on that road."

    Yeah, we have laws. We have the police. I mostly agree with the laws of my country, but I'm sure it's easy for anyone to imagine a scenario where the law or the police act wrongly. Would you obey a law you found unjust? This is what I meant. Even though a police officer could, for example, lock me up for criticizing a politician in some country, this doesn't mean I think it's right. Inside my own mind, I am the ultimate judge of what I find moral. That is how it has to be. I would never give my freedom of thought over to some authority, be it the law or God.

    "Not at all and you see that. The evidence shows that God, YAHWEH, is the creator and "alla" is the creation."

    You completely missed the point. Or, actually you kind of demonstrated it for me. Let's forget evidence for/against Christianity and Islam, and have a little thought experiment instead. Imagine you lived in a universe where an evil god reigned. He only created humanity to watch them suffer, gave no chance of salvation, etc etc. If you lived under this god's rule, HOW WOULD YOU CONDEMN HIM? After all, God defines justice. He is the source of objective morality. In this universe, rape and murder were acceptable, because God said they were. In this world, there also lived people who worship this god. They tell you God is perfectly just and that we deserve everything we get. How would you argue against them? After all, if you said murder was wrong, it would only be your subjective opinion against God's perfect justice.

    This is the scenario I feel I'm facing when I talk with Christians like you, except of course not so extreme. I find many of the acts of the Christian God completely repulsive, but I'm told I can't condemn God because he defines justice. Christianity says anyone who doesn't believe will suffer an eternity of torment. If I say this is wrong, I'm told this is just my subjective opinion against God's perfect justice. If you ask me to turn off my own personal sense of justice and give into this authority figure, blindly trusting he knows best, I ask you to fuck off. I know Christianity asks us to humble ourselves, but there is a time to be humble and a time to be principled.

    "Immoral to not allow religious ceremony to someone who is not a follower? Why would they want too? Its up to God and His criteria who will marry or not, certainly not anyone willy nilly or some state."

    Atheists can get married. Muslims can get married. Hindus can get married. Would you want to legislate against the marriage rights of those people too?

    ReplyDelete
  111. h_brummer,

    I am enjoying this conversation, BTW. You ask good questions.

    >> Inside my own mind, I am the ultimate judge of what I find moral.

    Yes, I agree. You do know where that inner voice is from don't you? Even if you cannot identify that voice. That small quiet voice is your God given gift of a conscience.

    >>I would never give my freedom of thought over to some authority, be it the law or God.

    No one is asking you to. Certainly not God, or Christians, anyway. God gave you that freedom of thought. They are the inalienable rights remember.

    >> If you lived under this god's rule, HOW WOULD YOU CONDEMN HIM?

    If we were created in his image and he thought that suffering and evil were indeed good, then that is how my nature would feel it would be.

    Would that be a sustainable universe would be my question. Sometimes the hypothetical gets too far fetched.

    >> In this universe, rape and murder were acceptable, because God said they were.

    OK, this is where you turn towards FAIL. Remember its not what God says is good and bad but what is good is his nature. What is bad is against His nature.

    >>This is the scenario I feel I'm facing when I talk with Christians like you, except of course not so extreme.

    Fine, except the universe doesn't view Rape as good as we all reflect God's good nature. We understand that Evil is wrong. I tell you what though. I will concede to the fact that, in that scenario that you described, if there were a god that viewed rape as good then I would indeed be an Atheist and wear the badge of Hell with a sense of resolve. Unfortunately that is not this universe and you are siding with evil. That is what is so confusing, frustrating, and downright wrong agonizing to me. When it comes to Atheists, Satan wins. I want so much for that to change.

    >>I find many of the acts of the Christian God completely repulsive, but I'm told I can't condemn God because he defines justice.

    I don't think you are describing the same god as we are though. Jesus is described in the Bible as God Himself. I don't find anything Jesus has done as wrong or bad. Now I know there are things that happened in the OT that I cannot fully explain. To deny God's goodness in an Historical Narrative, like the OT, is not giving Him any benefit of doubt. That scenario would be like you walking in on your wife after the house has been robbed and you scream at her for not keeping a tidy home. Things were chaotic back then. Free will is hard to "work around" I would imagine. If the Bible was not true then certain things, that were the truth, would not be there because it is confusing at times. It would have been a lot smoother "story".

    >> I know Christianity asks us to humble ourselves, but there is a time to be humble and a time to be principled.

    I agree. No one is asking you to compromise any core values that you hold. For the simple fact that those values are a reflection of God's nature. Do not stop being good for anyone, especially for your understanding of God. I certainly did not "compromise" any goodness to be a Christian. Although, I had no idea how bad I was until I saw myself in God's (Father) eyes.

    ...to be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  112. Cont,d...

    >>Atheists can get married. Muslims can get married. Hindus can get married. Would you want to legislate against the marriage rights of those people too?

    No just the opposite, that is my point there should be zero legislation on marriage. The State is merely usurping their authority where it does not belong and has no authority over. The "state" has no right as to who can, and who cannot, get married. That is the thrust of many of this countries problems. They try to legislate where they have no authority to. If a gay couple wants to stay together that is fully up to them, and certainly fine with me. If they wish to be called "Married" they have to meet the criteria of God, the Creator, Judge, and Law maker of Marriage. Just call it something else, civil unions are perfectly acceptable. Call it hitched, united, coupled, but marriage (married) is a sacred term for God and His Word. The majority of gay people, and atheists, don't protest that they want to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, (Another sacred term) so why the word marriage? Its just a word. The State, Gays, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus should pick a different term and get out of God's pocket.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Dan:

         "Its just a word. The State, Gays, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus should pick a different term and get out of God's pocket."
         Except that the state was using the term before your religion was, evidenced by the fact that the concept of marriage is not unique to christianity or judaism. Perhaps your religion should be the one to come up with a different term and stop trying to usurp a legal condition.

    ReplyDelete
  114.      "You do know where that inner voice is from don't you? Even if you cannot identify that voice. That small quiet voice is your God given gift of a conscience."
         This is something that has been pointed out before. My conscience tells me that certain actions attributed to your god (e.g. the flood) are evil and to be condemned. There may, indeed, be a god that is the author of conscience. But that is not the author of the bible in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Yes, I agree. You do know where that inner voice is from don't you? Even if you cannot identify that voice. That small quiet voice is your God given gift of a conscience."

    But how can that be when I'm fine with homosexuality and think Hell is an abhorrent concept?

    "No one is asking you to. Certainly not God, or Christians, anyway. God gave you that freedom of thought. They are the inalienable rights remember."

    I am given freedom of thought, but if I don't think the way God thinks, I get punished. Forever. That's like a facist dictator telling me I have complete freedom to disagree with his politics, but if I do, he'll have me shot. This is not freedom.

    "If we were created in his image and he thought that suffering and evil were indeed good, then that is how my nature would feel it would be.

    OK, this is where you turn towards FAIL. Remember its not what God says is good and bad but what is good is his nature. What is bad is against His nature."

    Only one question about all of this nature stuff:

    Why is God's nature the way it is, and not any other way?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Brummer,

    >>Why is God's nature the way it is, and not any other way?

    I am not sure of the question entirely. Is that like asking why are cat's nature, not like dogs?

    Anyway, I will do my best. How could it be otherwise, is an evil universe sustainable? If all of nature was purely take, no give, then would there be this amount of successful harmony?

    ReplyDelete
  117. "I am not sure of the question entirely. Is that like asking why are cat's nature, not like dogs?"

    Mm, not exactly. In your worldview, a cat's nature is given to it by God. A dog has a different nature, also given by God. According to you, God also has his own nature. Presumably, since God was the first thing to ever exist, nothing gave God his nature. There can't be a reason for God's nature to be one way or the other, or can there?

    "Anyway, I will do my best. How could it be otherwise, is an evil universe sustainable? If all of nature was purely take, no give, then would there be this amount of successful harmony?"

    Whether a different god would be able to make a sustainable universe is beside the point.

    Maybe I'll try to put this neatly.

    1. God was the first thing to exist. Before God created anything, there was nothing but God, who exists eternally and is unchanging.

    2. Because God was never caused to come into being, his attributes and nature have no reason to be what they are; they simply are.

    3. If one would suggest that there's a reason God's nature is what it is, it would imply it was caused by something, which is impossible.

    4. God's nature has no reason to be what it is.

    5. This makes morality based on God's nature arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Brummer,

    Well of course I would have a problem with the 180 degree turn of point 3.

    I certainly addressed God's nature in the past, but I think your point is misleading completely.

    Here is why.

    You asked the direct question:

    >>Why is God's nature the way it is, and not any other way?

    Then you state (point 3)

    >>If one would suggest that there's a reason God's nature is what it is, it would imply it was caused by something, which is impossible.

    You inquired for an explanation of why, and then turn around and say if there is an explanation as to why then it is now not possible?

    Wow, just wow.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "You inquired for an explanation of why, and then turn around and say if there is an explanation as to why then it is now not possible?

    Wow, just wow."

    Uh, yeah. It's kind of like some Christians asking what purpose an atheist can have in his or her life. They first ask that question and then go on to make the argument that the life of an atheist can't have any purpose without God.

    What I'm claiming is that logically, there can be no other answer. I don't see how there could be. If you think there's an answer other than "That's just the way it is", I welcome it.

    ReplyDelete
  120. The author doesn't need to know why he has to listen to everything the atheists have to say he just needs to LISTEN.

    ReplyDelete
  121. It is hard not to believe that this group of anonymous "christians" are real. Dan and Stormbringer (especially Stormbringer) as such obvious arseholes (not a term I use very often) that any arguments they make for being more moral because of Christian beliefs is shot full of holes the minute they start typing.

    Like the Bible, reading this stuff is likely to create atheists from any thoughtful fence-sitters who visit the site.

    Well done, boys. /sarcasm>

    ReplyDelete
  122. One of the problems with this kind of question/argument is the logical failure. I see it from Theists all the time - their arguments only work if their all their assumed facts (ie: there is a God and the bible events happened exactly as written) are true.
    QUOTE from OP
    >> 1. If moral notions such as good and evil exist objectively, then there must be an objective foundation for their existence.
    2. Atheism offers no objective basis for the existence of moral notions such as good and evil.
    3. Therefore, for the atheist, moral notions such as good and evil must not objectively exist. <<

    My reply is that 'GOOD' and 'EVIL' do not exist objectively. You cannot have a glass of evil (yum!) just like there is no Devil, no God, no embodiment of one or the other. Evil and Good are terms that human kind has created to categorize actions. They are an important distinction to have, but they are just terms we created.
    The danger of religion, is that it tries to claim that these things do objectively exist, and that the religious teachings are the good ones, when in reality Good and Evil are mostly viewpoints, though most peoples concepts of them overlap greatly.
    Example : To some Christians, the pope promoting the Christian value of not using condoms as birth control is a 'GOOD' thing. To many people, him going to Africa where they have the highest per capita AIDS rate, and a very high, if not the highest, death during labor rate, and starvation where they cannot feed the children they have, and doing this promotion is an example of pure 'EVIL'. Here is an example of something that a (the!) religious leader says is 'good' looking a lot like attempted genocide and most would say its stupid and evil.
    For the rest of your questions, Ted Bundy was a psychopath, which means that amongst other things, his brain is messed up and he does not have empathy. Atheists do have empathy, it is what allows us to feel what others feel, and it is, in my mind, a big part of an individuals morality.
    If I were to think of raping and killing someone, as he mentioned in his quote above, it makes me feel bad. It is something I know is 'EVIL', I dont need the bible to tell me that. Actually, I really worry about people who NEED the bible to give them moral guidance, the average person should just know what is moral.
    Atheists follow the Golden Rule BTW - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - but we dont need the bible to tell us, we do it because it makes sense and is the best way to live with fellow humans on this planet.
    BTW, yes right and wrong are cultural inventions. They are taught to children by parents, and the community. They are reinforced via laws, and people living by example. If they weren't, how else could torture and murder (witch trials, Spanish inquisition, Jihads, suicide bombers, Crusades) be condoned by society? Those examples are all due to religion (a cultural phenomenon which is different around the world) making them ok, until culture shifts and they are relegated back to being wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>My reply is that 'GOOD' and 'EVIL' do not exist objectively.

      O'rly?

      >>You cannot have a glass of evil (yum!) just like there is no Devil, no God, no embodiment of one or the other.

      You cannot have a glass of love, therefore no love exists? Please try again.

      >>Evil and Good are terms that human kind has created to categorize actions.

      Subjectively? So raping babies for fun COULD be moral to someone, according to your definition? Or is raping babies for fun absolutely immoral?

      >>Atheists do have empathy, it is what allows us to feel what others feel, and it is, in my mind, a big part of an individuals morality.

      So you absolutely MUST have empathy to have morality? Hmm, contradicted your point right there. Yes, you have a conscience.

      God burned that morality into your soul. You cannot account for conscience/empathy with pure subjectivity for morals. You cannot account for why empathy is the desired position. For all you know, coldly murdering could be the most moral thing to do. Like lions do for their families. Lying is not wrong because God says so, lying is wrong because God is not a liar. When you lie, you're calling God a liar, and that is blasphemy.

      >>If I were to think of raping and killing someone, as he mentioned in his quote above, it makes me feel bad.

      Subjectively.

      >>It is something I know is 'EVIL'

      Not if morality is subjective.

      >> I dont need the bible to tell me that.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how are you absolutely certain in an atheistic worldview?

      >>Actually, I really worry about people who NEED the bible to give them moral guidance, the average person should just know what is moral.

      Strawman. We need the gift of conscience.

      >>Atheists follow the Golden Rule BTW - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - but we dont need the bible to tell us, we do it because it makes sense and is the best way to live with fellow humans on this planet.

      Bwaahhahaha! THAT is subjectivity? Just wow! Sure you don't need Scripture to KNOW the golden rule in the first place.

      >>BTW, yes right and wrong are cultural inventions.

      Is that right? If so, HOW?

      >> If they weren't, how else could torture and murder (witch trials, Spanish inquisition, Jihads, suicide bombers, Crusades) be condoned by society?

      Oh, I see, witch trials, Spanish inquisition, Jihads, suicide bombers, Crusades, American slavery, Nazism, are all RIGHT and moral? Got it.

      >>Those examples are all due to religion (a cultural phenomenon which is different around the world) making them ok, until culture shifts and they are relegated back to being wrong.

      So is religion wrong, or subjectivity of morals wrong? Oh wait, you blame Buddhist? You're begging the question and putting the cart before the horse.

      If you say morals of humans are merely subjective, then you cannot blame religions for that, unless it is the religion of Secular Humanism/ Atheism. Then, and only then, we would agree.

      Delete
    2. >> You cannot have a glass of love, therefore no love exists? Please try again.

      False argument. Love is an emotion, a feeling. It is not a physical object. Evil and Good are not emotions or feelings, they are categories given to actions. Cant compare love to good.

      >> Subjectively? So raping babies for fun COULD be moral to someone, according to your definition? Or is raping babies for fun absolutely immoral?

      Ted Bundy may feel that way, but the vast vast majority of the world would know its absolutely immoral, and we know Ted Bundy was mentally screwed up. So, if as you say god burns morality into people, whats up with the serial killers? Does god just choose to not give them morals and empathy? Are those examples where he fails, or where hes being a dick? Does he make some people like that so they can go to hell and they can cause death and fear on earth? Doesnt sound very fair, but then again the whole concept doesnt.
      A more logical view is that empathy is something we are born with, and those who are missing it (psychopaths, serial killers typically dont have it) are suffering from mental illness/birth defect of a sort. Its a required thing for our society to survive.
      In theory, someone could feel that doing that is moral, but like I said the rest of the world would disagree. Typically the morals of a society is the average of what people agree with - since 99%+ feel that murder and rape and theft are immoral, its culturally immoral. When a majority of those in power were in favor of slavery, it was moral. Afterwards, when the public opinion shifted it became immoral, and is still considered so today (in western culture, some countries still have slavery).
      According to your definition, slavery, rape of women, murdering those of different beliefs is moral. Rules about how to go about doing those things are in the bible. Here is an example "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
      Biblical rules for rape found at (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT).
      So this is your 'morality'? I reject it.

      >> Not if morality is subjective.

      Thanks for agreeing with me, as my point was it is not objectively defined by a god.

      >> Oh, I see, witch trials, Spanish inquisition, Jihads, suicide bombers, Crusades, American slavery, Nazism, are all RIGHT and moral? Got it.

      My point regarding them was that various religions perpetrated those events, and that according to those religions, it was the moral thing to do. They would declare 'Suffer not a witch to live' or some such, and it was God sanctioned. Would suicide bombers exist without a religion that offers them bonuses in heaven for doing it? There would be a LOT fewer at least! Crusades were Pope supported, so a war over 'holy' places is objectively good and moral? According to you it is. Lots of people died in those wars, I think they were fairly pointless - just another round of 'you are different from me, therefore you must die', just like Jihads.

      Just to restate, those examples are what I, and I think the majority of people today would NOT call moral, however in their times, due to religious influence they were considered moral. That sounds pretty damn subjective to me. If a religions morals can change over time, its not objective.

      Do you feel that executing someone who is non christian is a moral act to do? That their belief or lack thereof makes it your duty to kill them? There is a large history, and passages in the bible, of religion sanctioned violence vs those with different beliefs. Since its in the bible, and people have done it over the year, and if morality is objective and was defined and imprinted by God, then you are saying it is the moral thing to do. Go kill your Muslim neighbors, if morality is objective, the bible says to go do it!

      Delete

    3. >> Sure you don't need Scripture to KNOW the golden rule in the first place.

      Yeah, just because your book says something patently obvious, doesn't mean it wouldnt exist without the book. Mention the golden rule to an person who has never even heard of any sort of religion, and you would likely get the response of 'well duh.' It makes sense, and it doesnt HAVE to be placed in our heads by a god to make it make sense.

      Oh, and morals are different around the world. Its ok and expected to keep your wife effectively locked at home all day in Islamic cultures. It's morally right and proper, may expected, to murder your daughter if she is attacked at raped. According to you, god burned morality into us all - how do you explain the differences between western and islamic culture? Or did god only do that to christians, and a different god burns different morals into islamic people?
      Hmm, sounds like right and wrong ARE cultural, differ throughout the ages and across the world. Sounds more subjective than objective to me.

      Now back to your opening article. in regards to culture deciding what is moral and what is not, that is true and history has proven it.
      >> To speak out against something that is culturally acceptable, like slavery, would be morally wrong.

      Actually, most atheists and scientists and other free thinkers feel that it is their DUTY to speak out against something that they feel is morally wrong. If a person feels that the current laws are unjust, they should work within the system to improve it. Look at gay marriage as an example - many feel it is unjust for it to be illegal. There are protests, groups, marches. Peaceful ways to try and change the system to something that matches their personal moral feelings. How else would our society evolve?
      Religion on the other hand, typically wants to stay stagnant. It doesn't want to change, still wants to follow 2000 year old guidelines.

      Delete
    4. >>False argument. Love is an emotion, a feeling. It is not a physical object. Evil and Good are not emotions or feelings, they are categories given to actions. Cant compare love to good.

      OK I can see that point. But "Good" is a gauge that Atheists cannot account for without God, or viciously circular subjectivity.

      >>Ted Bundy may feel that way, but the vast vast majority of the world would know its absolutely immoral, and we know Ted Bundy was mentally screwed up.

      Appeal to popularity. The vast majority of Nazi Germany felt it was fine to get rid of the Jews. Does that make it right?

      >>So, if as you say god burns morality into people, whats up with the serial killers?

      Like the Atheists, they deny the source of their morality.

      >>Does god just choose to not give them morals and empathy?

      I don't know. I do know God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists,

      >>Does he make some people like that so they can go to hell and they can cause death and fear on earth?

      God gives you the free choice to choose Him, or not. People choose evil.

      >>Doesnt sound very fair, but then again the whole concept doesnt.

      Is it fair that drunk drivers get to murder people? Or is it JUST to throw them in prison when they do? God is a Just God.

      >>When a majority of those in power were in favor of slavery, it was moral.

      No, it wasn't! No matter how many in the US South believed it was, it wasn't and our ancestors fought to the death to fight against it. It was NEVER right, they placed provisions in the constitution to address it at a later date and it almost ended the US as we know it. It was NEVER right. Truth prevailed at a very large death toll.

      [to be cont'd]

      Delete
    5. [cont'd]

      >>Afterwards, when the public opinion shifted it became immoral, and is still considered so today (in western culture, some countries still have slavery).

      That is flatly untrue. You do not understand your history. There was no " opinion shift" and THAT was the entire reason for the civil war. You're being intellectually dishonest.

      >>Rules about how to go about doing those things are in the bible.

      Equivocation fallacy. In Biblical times there was no such a thing as bankruptcy courts. They worked off their debt through slavery. The "rules" were to set moral standards in treatment of the slaves. To make it a righteous and fair exchange or agreement.

      This is why we don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative. We all have rescuing devices.

      >>Would suicide bombers exist without a religion that offers them bonuses in heaven for doing it?

      Yes, absolutely. Remember you believe morality is SUBJECTIVE.

      >>Crusades were Pope supported, so a war over 'holy' places is objectively good and moral?

      So was molesting children, false religions of MEN have a way of doing that. After all, you believe that was moral since you believe molesting children is a subjective morality. YOU agree with the Pope. *pshaw!

      >>If a religions morals can change over time, its not objective.

      Absolute Authority never changes. (bit.ly/AbAuth)

      It is YOUR claim that it does, thus allowing such tragedies and evil.

      >>Go kill your Muslim neighbors, if morality is objective, the bible says to go do it!

      I don't think you understand that the Bible was written as a historical narrative. You assert that it is an instruction manual when you read about what happened. Maybe you're confusing the Qur'an for the Bible, idk.

      >>Look at gay marriage as an example - many feel it is unjust for it to be illegal. There are protests, groups, marches. Peaceful ways to try and change the system to something that matches their personal moral feelings. How else would our society evolve?

      "Marriage is a public institution with public consequences. If it weren't, no one would be clamoring for same sex marriage to be legally sanctioned." ~Indivisible

      Delete
    6. >>OK I can see that point. But "Good" is a gauge that Atheists cannot account for without God, or viciously circular subjectivity.

      It is just a label. You are the one who asserts there is an embodiment of good and a universal objective definition/code for it. People can apply labels to anything, and sometimes its up to other people to remove those labels.

      So reading a lot of what you replied, it appears that you overall state that god creates morality in us, and that anyone who acts contrary to the rules your beliefs support that they have turned from god and morality towards evil.
      If that is the case, there is no opportunity for argument as you leave no room for any, same as someone can just say 'Its magic!' as a response indefinitely.
      I state that since there is no god, he did not create a universal morality code. And that IF there was one, and he did instill this set code, it would be more universal instead of so different over areas and time. Though you will probably state that people just turn from god.

      >>Is it fair that drunk drivers get to murder people? Or is it JUST to throw them in prison when they do? God is a Just God.

      Totally different thing - Drunk driving is a choice that someone makes and an action they do. By the christian 'rules' many people are put in a cannot win situation, doomed to hell before they even start.

      >>So was molesting children, false religions of MEN have a way of doing that. After all, you believe that was moral since you believe molesting children is a subjective morality. YOU agree with the Pope. *pshaw!

      Yes, false religions like all of them.
      Claiming morality is subjective (that there is no universal definition) does not mean I agree with everyone elses definition, I am just saying that each person can have their own, and that cultures create their own as well.
      Unless you are agreeing that the church has participated in some evil stuff? I think we can agree there, and of course the majority of people involved in the church are good people.

      Delete
    7. >>By the christian 'rules' many people are put in a cannot win situation, doomed to hell before they even start.

      doomed to hell before they even sin? Hardly. Born? Hardly. Criminals need punishment for their crimes though, right?

      You appear to agree there.

      >>Yes, false religions like all of them.

      Again, this is called a hasty generalization fallacy. It is illogical.

      >>Claiming morality is subjective (that there is no universal definition) does not mean I agree with everyone elses definition

      But you certainly cannot disagree with others IF merely subjective.

      >>I am just saying that each person can have their own, and that cultures create their own as well.

      THAT worldview leads to baby eating. ~bit.ly/eatbabies

      Wasn't it the Greeks who said "Without law, there can be no freedom"

      Without evil, there could be no good. Evil, is the absence of good. Without objectivity, there could be no morals. Immoral is the absence of morality. How do you get there if morality is merely subjective term? You cannot.

      >>Unless you are agreeing that the church has participated in some evil stuff? I think we can agree there, and of course the majority of people involved in the church are good people.

      Yes, I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity. ~bit.ly/RCChurch

      Delete
    8. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity.

      Looking at that article, you make the traditional circular claim of "If they're not good, they're not True Christians, because True Christians do good things. Therefore, Christians are always good."

      Yet to an outside observer, they have the same "feeling of certainty" that you do. And we could point to many examples of wrongdoing by evangelical Christians -- you (at least I believe you to be one) are just less organized, making it harder to track) have the same problem of "bad fruits". So, how is one to tell?

      Delete
    9. >>"If they're not good, they're not True Christians, because True Christians do good things. Therefore, Christians are always good."

      No, I state if they're not Christian, defined by Christ, they're not Christian as defined. Because sheep know the shepherds voice.

      >> And we could point to many examples of wrongdoing by evangelical Christians -- you (at least I believe you to be one) are just less organized, making it harder to track) have the same problem of "bad fruits".

      Well, I believe you're now confusing justification with sanctification. ~bit.ly/JustandSanct

      Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. But, ultimately yes, you can tell if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.

      Delete
    10. No, I state if they're not Christian, defined by Christ, they're not Christian as defined.

      Then please give a definition of a "true Christian". So we can check against it.

      But, ultimately yes, you can tell if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit.

      So, an atheist cannot do good things, you are claiming? And what if you were presented with an atheist doing good things? (And for that matter, who made the tree good or bad?)

      We don’t even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.

      Just as it is obvious from the people who encourage the murder of doctors, the abuse of LGBTQ folks, etc. that evangelical Christianity is producing bad fruit. Of course, it's not as neatly heirarchical, but that's a different matter.

      You still haven't addressed the fact that you've presented a claim that Christians are good by defining anything non-good as "not truly Christian".

      Indeed; the best people I've known, *as a group*, have been Buddhists. Perhaps they have it right, as they have the best fruits?

      Delete
    11. >>So, an atheist cannot do good things, you are claiming?

      No, that would be an equivocation fallacy. Scripture reveals that a good tree can bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot. God cannot have bad fruit. So a gauge to see if it from God is by its fruit. Good = God.

      >>Just as it is obvious from the people who encourage the murder of doctors

      Fallacious arguments are fallacious.

      >>abuse of LGBTQ folks?

      Marriage is a public institution with public consequences. If anything it is abusing the public to push their agenda.

      >>that evangelical Christianity is producing bad fruit.

      Some are, but you do not get to arbitrarily decided what is good and what is not. Rotting fruit is obvious to the ones not being difficult just to be difficult.

      >>You still haven't addressed the fact that you've presented a claim that Christians are good by defining anything non-good as "not truly Christian".

      Let's rephrase that. Christianity is good because it is the fruit of Christ. There. Any perversion of that is bad fruit as it is not from Christ.

      >>Indeed; the best people I've known, *as a group*, have been Buddhists. Perhaps they have it right, as they have the best fruits?

      Indeed, that is why I mentioned them. Their religion is atheistic, what a shocker you said this. Pavlov's dog would be proud of you. :7)

      Delete
    12. Scripture reveals that a good tree can bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot. God cannot have bad fruit. So a gauge to see if it from God is by its fruit. Good = God.

      So:

      No good can come from a bad thing:
      Being an atheist is a bad thing:
      Therefore, no good fruit can come from an atheist tree.

      Which is what I said you were asserting.

      Fallacious arguments are fallacious.

      You need to say more than "It's fallacious." Be specific.

      Marriage is a public institution with public consequences. If anything it is abusing the public to push their agenda.

      I'm not even talking marriage here -- I'm talking about the assertion of pastors in the pulpit that gay people should be put in concentration camps, for example. Or the people who advocate extreme measures to "drive out the gay".

      Some are, but you do not get to arbitrarily decided what is good and what is not. Rotting fruit is obvious to the ones not being difficult just to be difficult.

      If you believe it's good, defend it. If not, admit it.

      Let's rephrase that. Christianity is good because it is the fruit of Christ. There. Any perversion of that is bad fruit as it is not from Christ.

      The point is, there is no way to tell whether something is Christian or not except by arguing "It produced good fruits, therefore it is Christian." So, for example, Martin Luther is not a Christian, due to his promotion of anti-Semitic violence? The Reformation was non-Christian because of the fruits of war and misery it spread?

      deed, that is why I mentioned them. Their religion is atheistic, what a shocker you said this. Pavlov's dog would be proud of you. :7)

      This is hardly a response to the point: If their fruits are best, why should we not think, by your argument, that they are closer to God than Christans?

      Delete
    13. >>No good can come from a bad thing:
      Being an atheist is a bad thing:
      Therefore, no good fruit can come from an atheist tree.

      How is the second death, Hell, considered "good fruit" from an atheistic tree?

      Delete
    14. Sigh.

      What, in your definition, is the "tree" in this hyperextended metaphor? Because it certainly seems that you would argue that an atheist is a bad tree, no?

      Delete
    15. >> Because it certainly seems that you would argue that an atheist is a bad tree, no?

      Yes, atheistic worldviews are bad trees. Why? Mark 8:36-37

      Delete
    16. Then, by your argument, nothing good can come from atheist worldviews, and from atheists, as I said above.

      I find this, to put it mildly, a depressing worldview, to say the least -- at worst, it is bigoted and disgusted. If I said "Nothing good comes from Christians", you would accuse me of being a bigot; why, then, can you do the same?

      I would not make that claim, BTW, because I know Christians who are good people, and who have done good things. I also know of Christians whose worldviews are actively harmful to the human race, but even there, I would not go so far as to proclaim that nothing good could come of them.

      Delete
    17. BTW: Out of not-entirely-idle curiosity, do you believe that Unitarian Universalists count under the rubric of "good trees" or "bad trees"?

      Delete
    18. If Unitarian Universalists contradicts Biblical principles, and it does, then it is not a good tree. It is a result, bad fruit, of a false religion.

      Delete
    19. Then, since Tim Berners-Lee is a Unitarian, the World Wide Web is a bad fruit. Please close the door behind you on the way out.

      Delete
    20. And are you going to answer my implication that you, sir, are a bigot? Or just leave it there.

      Delete
    21. Are you actually claiming that the Unitarian church's fruit is the web? Really?

      Delete
    22. I'm claiming that a Unitarian is the father of the world wide web. Since Unitarians are part of a bad tree, and good cannot come from bad, then therefore....

      I'm trying to point out the absurdity of your position.

      Delete
    23. >>I'm trying to point out the absurdity of your position.

      That position is absurd ONLY if you view the web as wholly "good", some view that it isn't. Are you absolutely certain that it is good?

      Delete
    24. That position is absurd ONLY if you view the web as wholly "good", some view that it isn't. Are you absolutely certain that it is good?

      I believe it is a positive good -- that more good has come from it than harm. That would seem to make it a good fruit, from someone who you claim is part of a bad tree.

      Your "good tree/bad tree" "good fruits/bad fruits" means of determining "who is a True Christian" is, as you can see, oversimplified and confusing to the point of uselessness, which is part of my point.

      Delete
    25. >>Your "good tree/bad tree" "good fruits/bad fruits" means of determining "who is a True Christian" is, as you can see, oversimplified and confusing to the point of uselessness, which is part of my point.

      I just hope you can understand that I was pointing to your mere subjective OPINION as to what is, or what is not, "good"

      Remember what I pointed out earlier? You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. We say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?

      Another example is you, a believer of naturalism, may claim fornication/adultery is perfectly fine because it spreads the seed of the male to procreate as in sea lions. Understand this is not your position, just an example. We say those are wrong. How do we know who is right? Is it all perspective and opinion?

      Or is truth absolute.


      Delete
  123. Dan
    If you say morals of humans are merely subjective, then you cannot blame religions for that, unless it is the religion of Secular Humanism/ Atheism. Then, and only then, we would agree.
    Xianity is an example of a religion with subjective morals. Ex) if humans kill babies for any other reason other than biblegod tells them to...it's "wrong".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As opposed to what, the atheistic worldview? If humans kill babies for any reason, it is subjectively moral?

      Delete
    2. D.A.N., do you own a straw factory?

      What Reynold is saying is that Christianity's morals are based on a subjective view -- that there is one person who decides what is moral and what is not -- and that since that entity pronounces it moral some of the time (when it says it is) and not moral other times, it is being subjective.

      Delete
    3. >>What Reynold is saying is that Christianity's morals are based on a subjective view

      Hogwash! You are ASSERTING that God is moral "some of the time." Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.

      Also, "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." ~Douglas Wilson

      Your worldview is shooting yourself in the foot.

      Delete
    4. So gods killing of huge groups of people in the past is good (flood for example)? The creation of Hell as a punishment, already knowing which people are going to go there, is good? The rules for going to hell/heaven are incredibly unfair as stated. What, like 20% might get in to heaven, according to christians? Many times it seems to be written that belief is a requirement. So that means that anyone of another religion wont, all the people who have never heard of the bible (there are still areas with native tribes), etc. All the people who lived more than 2000 years ago before jesus, etc.
      Yeah, that sounds like the definition of good alright - lets throw these people who were born on this island and never heard my message into eternal lakes of fire, because they dont believe in me, despite never hearing of me.
      I dont think we agree on what good is.

      Delete
    5. >>So gods killing of huge groups of people in the past is good (flood for example)?

      Yes. You, as a criminal, is trying to judge the Judge. That is blasphemy and the exact same thing as Eve did.

      >>The creation of Hell as a punishment, already knowing which people are going to go there, is good?

      Yes, after all since you will NOT have God's will be done, then God being so good, will have your will be done. Hell's gates will indeed be locked from the inside.

      >>The rules for going to hell/heaven are incredibly unfair as stated.

      With a standard that does not comport with your atheistic and subjective worldview.

      >>What, like 20% might get in to heaven, according to christians?

      Maybe 100%. Every knee will bow, after all.

      >>Many times it seems to be written that belief is a requirement.

      Actually Repentance and trust in Christ. Even the demons believe. James 2:19

      >>So that means that anyone of another religion wont, all the people who have never heard of the bible (there are still areas with native tribes), etc. All the people who lived more than 2000 years ago before [Jesus], etc.

      You're running on the ASSUMPTION that God is unjust. Bad move. Are you certain these people will go to hell? If so, how are you certain?

      >>I dont think we agree on what good is.

      I completely agree because your professing worldview demands it to be subjective. That is just false.

      Delete
  124. Hogwash! You are ASSERTING that God is moral "some of the time." Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible

    You're the one making assertions here, D.A.N. We don't even know if your God entity exists, let alone what its characteristics are. And if it establishes rules, and then requires violations of them, is that not a contradiction? Unless 'Is able to self-contradict' is part of the character you're talking about, in which case, your argument falls through.

    Also, "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter

    The rest of the quote is irrelevant, because your first line is wrong. It's not "time and chance". It's time, natural law, and the possibility of randomness. Omitting natural law there is rather a huge one.

    Your worldview is shooting yourself in the foot.

    My worldview remains consistent; yours is the one that has to go in ever-decreasing circles to handle its own problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>We don't even know if your God entity exists, let alone what its characteristics are.

      Care to provide evidence of that implicitly positive claim? After all an Omniscient, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence Being claims He has. You have extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim?

      >>The rest of the quote is irrelevant, because your first line is wrong. It's not "time and chance". It's time, natural law, and the possibility of randomness. Omitting natural law there is rather a huge one.

      Great then, how do you know if natural laws have not changed if there is a possibility of randomness? How would you know if they have changed? Also, how are there "possibility of randomness" in laws? I don't understand.

      >>My worldview remains consistent

      How? You JUST claimed "possibility of randomness" after all. Once again, your worldview is shooting yourself in the foot.

      Delete
    2. Care to provide evidence of that implicitly positive claim?

      OK. I don't know your God entity exists. Many people claim it does not. Many people claim a different God entity exists. That's evidence that we don't know something, especially using your preferred "You only know if you're 100% certain" definition.

      After all an Omniscient, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence Being claims He has.

      That's begging the question. You are claiming that such a thing exists, and has made that claim.

      You have extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim?

      I'm not the one claiming something far beyond mortal ken, capable of things no human is, supposedly vastly superior in morality to any human, etc. I'm not the one making extra-ordinary claims. I claim things like "Creatures can evolve, as has been demonstrated." "We see evidence of stars being formed." "People can think."

      Great then, how do you know if natural laws have not changed if there is a possibility of randomness?

      Natural law allows for randomness; read up on Heisenberg if you don't get it.

      Also, how are there "possibility of randomness" in laws? I don't understand.

      Obviously not. Welcome to quantum mechanics. Welcome to initial conditions. Natural law, as we understand it now, deals in probabilities below a certain scale.

      How? You JUST claimed "possibility of randomness" after all

      If your worldview allows for randomness, claiming it is possible is hardly inconsistent. Indeed, it's people who don't believe in randomness at all who have to explain the appearance of uncertainty and randomness. My foot, as it were, remains intact. I have natural explanations that can be confirmed and tested. You have the assertion that some superbeing has told you it exists, but can't do any more than that to prove it.

      Delete
    3. >>OK. I don't know your God entity exists.

      Care to provide evidence of that implicitly positive claim?

      After all an Omniscient, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence Being claims He has.

      >>That's begging the question. You are claiming that such a thing exists, and has made that claim.

      He does, and has. How is that begging the question?

      That is like saying that "OK. I don't know your God entity exists." is begging the question because you are claiming that such a thing [you] exists, and has made that claim.

      >>I'm not the one claiming something far beyond mortal ken, capable of things no human is, supposedly vastly superior in morality to any human, etc. I'm not the one making extra-ordinary claims.

      But you actually are. You're claiming God lied when He said He revealed Himself to you, and that you're "without excuse" ~Romans 1:18-23

      So, do you have evidence that an Omniscient, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence Being can lie or not?

      >> Indeed, it's people who don't believe in randomness at all who have to explain the appearance of uncertainty and randomness.

      Appearance of uncertainty? Are you absolutely certain there is no certainty? Does "appearance of randomness" mean randomness?

      >>My foot, as it were, remains intact.

      A tad hasty there.

      Also, how are there "possibility of randomness" in laws?

      >>I have natural explanations that can be confirmed and tested.

      But that is not absolutely true, is it?

      >>You have the assertion that some superbeing has told you it exists, but can't do any more than that to prove it.

      But that is not absolutely true, is it? Now, provide your evidence that God can lie please, and then we all can go home, toes intact.

      Delete
    4. Care to provide evidence of that implicitly positive claim?

      I did. I don't know it. I have the evidence of my own thoughts and mind. It's as valid as your evidence that your God exists, at the very least. Similarly, I can point to many people disagreeing with the existence of your God, which is evidence that they do not "know he exists".

      (And before you argue that this is an argument from popularity, you're the one who cited "knowledge" as requiring 100% certainty; so anything less than 100% certain agreement with the proposed statement counts as evidence against it being "known".)

      He does, and has. How is that begging the question?

      Because his existence is the question. Asserting that he asserts his own existence, through a means that other people can't detect or validate, is useless and circular.

      That is like saying that "OK. I don't know your God entity exists." is begging the question because you are claiming that such a thing [you] exists, and has made that claim.

      I'm here talking. At the very least, there is *something* generating these characters taht are appearing on the screen, and the very statement "I don't know" implies an I. Saying "Some specific unevidenced thing that isn't me exists" is not of the same category.

      You're asserting an object A exists, despite no evidence being presented save your claim that A says A exists. I am asserting that the person making the assertion exists, and that can be verified by checking that there is an assertion. Since we're debating, there's an assertion. ;) We can argue as to what sort fo thing I am, but that there is something there is not in question.

      But you actually are. You're claiming God lied when He said He revealed Himself to you, and that you're "without excuse"

      No; I'm claiming that a text was incorrect when it said an entity had done such a thing. That's not at all beyond mortal ken; books make mistakes all the time.

      So, do you have evidence that an Omniscient, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence Being can lie or not?

      I can easily construct a scenario where one could, and where one could not. And there's still no evidence for such a thing in the first place.

      Appearance of uncertainty? Are you absolutely certain there is no certainty? Does "appearance of randomness" mean randomness?

      I'm not at all absolutely certain there is no certainty. I'm quite content to use the idea of certainty, just not with as much insistence on its absoluteness as you seem to require. I am sufficiently certain that the sun will come up tomorrow. But we've been over this ground -- as always, when you run out of arguments, you dredge up "Are you absolutely certain?"

      (Continued)

      Delete

    5. Also, how are there "possibility of randomness" in laws?

      Because the nature of the physical universe described in them contains randomness below a certain threshold, and random changes below that threshold can affect things on the macro-scale. "Natural laws" are descriptions of how things work. If they have a random component, the laws describe that as well. Welcome to quantum mechanics.

      But that is not absolutely true, is it?

      It's a lot closer to "absolutely true" than an unevidenced assertion.

      Now, provide your evidence that God can lie please, and then we all can go home, toes intact.

      How one is supposed to provide evidence to the capacities of a being of nebulous qualities?

      And, indeed, what is the point of showing your concept of God can lie? My argument is that "people, writing a book about a nonexistent being, can make mistakes". No need for lying at all.

      And, there is no question but that an omnipotent, omniscient being can deceive -- and such a being has every reason to claim omnibenevolence.

      Hypothetical: God is asked "Will I live through this?" God, in its infinite mercy, knows the answer is "no", but knows that the net sum of human happiness will be increased if the questioner is told "yes". So, being omnibenevolent, God says "Yes."

      There; a three-omni being that can lie. A two-omni being certainly can. And a bunch of people writing down stories and myths can certainly make mistakes.

      Delete
    6. >>Asserting that he asserts his own existence, through a means that other people can't detect or validate, is useless and circular.

      Other people can't detect? >>Insert cartoon here<<

      Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. Remember what Bahnsen said:

      "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. 139:8). 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), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

      You know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

      Delete
    7. Other people can't detect? >>Insert cartoon here<<

      That's not evidence for God; there are perfectly material explanations for the same thing.

      Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation.

      See above: If your revelation can be explained by natural means, it's not evidence for God as opposed to not-God.

      Bahnsen's big quote below is meaningless unless you presuppose the validity of the Bible. And if you believe in the validity of the bible already, you don't need the argument.

      You know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence.

      Not at all; not if I can explain myself without reference to God, I'm not denying my existence if I say there's no useful evidence.

      Delete
    8. >>If your revelation can be explained by natural means, it's not evidence for God as opposed to not-God.

      Hardly. So creation of the story "Origin of Species" negates God? Really?

      Does the reverse work too? There are perfect supernatural explanations for material explanations. Does that make it so? Please try again.

      Delete
    9. D.A.N., you want to claim something supernatural. Why should we believe in it when there's a perfectly good natural, material reason?

      Hence, something that can be explained materially is not evidence for something beyond the material.

      Let's put it this way: Say you were to come across tire tracks in the wild. One person says "This is evidence for a wheeled alien, with two wheels on each leg!" Another one points to the car they drove up in, and says "This is argument for a car, which we know exists."

      Unless there's some clear reason (like the presence of different treads than any car has ever possessed) to believe the wheeled-alien hypothesis, the presence of the tracks is not evidence for that hypothesis.

      Delete
    10. >>Why should we believe in it when there's a perfectly good natural, material reason?

      Again my argument is not meant to be convincing because that is not what I am commanded to do.

      >>Say you were to come across tire tracks in the wild.

      Well, the Christian would say the tracks were formed by a designed vehicle.

      An Atheists would claim that the tracts were formed by natural process of nature and just "appear" to be by a created vehicle.

      You decide.

      "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ~Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), p. 1.

      Delete
  125. An Atheists would claim that the tracts were formed by natural process of nature and just "appear" to be by a created vehicle.

    You decide.


    No, DAN, you're misundertanding the metaphor. When you have a perfectly good natural explanation, why is that evidence for something super-natural?

    You didn't address my metaphor, you hijacked it. And, in the metaphor I presented, the atheist would look around, and see the explanation that wasin the world, and take it; while the Christian under this model, would take an explanation that fit in with some ancient text of dubious validity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is " dubious validity" an absolute truth or an asserted subjective opinion?

      Delete
    2. It's an opinion. If it were a fact, it wouldn't contain a word that implies "possiblity". I am dubious of the validity of the Bible as evidence is a fact, however.

      Delete
  126. Hmm. Many misconceptions here but let's stay on track.

    How does an atheist account for morality? The question cannot be asked from our point of few but from the viticms point.

    Do slaves enjoy being slaves?
    Do murder victims enjoy being murdered?
    Did the Jews enjoy the Holocaust?

    This is generally speaking of course since you can find believers and non believers who are an exception.

    That we know of, every organism strives for life.

    Theist have a problem as well. If morality is the essence of your god then morality is subject to its whims.

    The Christian god ordered the total annihilation of the almaleks. Was that moral? Why/why not? How do you prove this?

    Starting with a presupposition is false. If divine morality is just and humans not, how does one know? You have to have morality to make a moral judgement. Believers are at best amoral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morality is from God's character and unchanging nature. Stealing is not wrong because God says so, but because He is not a thief.

      After that point, you're appealing to a moral law, standard, that atheistic worldviews forces you to deny. So, I'd ask you to be more consistent with an atheistic worldview, but much rather you repent of it. :)

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>