November 11, 2010

Man Up!

I keep thinking about the last post and the devastating story of evil. What makes a man want to be so evil? Why would a man harm others with purpose and malice that is unwarranted? Then just last night I read, to no coincidence, something from Bahnsen that brought things back to this same point I was contemplating.

First, in the last post I quoted Patty who said "Also, if more people truly knew and believed in Christ and lived for him, think of how much less evil would be in the world."

She has a great point with that. If men feared God more there would be a lot less evil. Period. I don't mean those that pose as Christians either. Yes, we all know evil exists, but that is only because of weak cowardice people out there that want to honor evil instead of God. It started with Adam. If he only kept the promises he made with God, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Remember in days past when a man would shake another man's hand as a solid gesture, a promise, to each other? You could, literally, buy a car with merely a hand shake. There was an honor among men that wanted to be fair and righteous. What happened in the USA in these few short years? Today you need a team lawyers to just decipher the terms of agreement for a simple software program downloaded or a credit card. What happened?

The Bible explains best what it mean to be a man.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners [act as sinners do], nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish." ~ Psalm 1:6

So what makes a guy take a knife to his wife and kid? A weak man with no honor. A subpar human. God, rightfully, despises this type of guy. A dude that does not say what he means and means what he says. A complete and utter coward. God will deal with this type completely and decisively.
 
Bahnsen puts it this way:

"There are two and only two classes of men. There are those who worship and serve the creature and there are those who worship and serve the creator. There are covenant breakers and there are covenant keepers. In all of man's activity, in their philosophical and scientific enterprises as well as in their worship, men are either covenant keepers or covenant breakers." ~ Greg Bahnsen, VanTil's Apologetics, pg. 66

Like Bahnsen pointed out, there are two camps here. A man that will honor his word and keep the promises he made to God and others. A true man that will strive to honor what is right in the eyes of God, not man or self. A man that loves his neighbor, has respect towards his mother and woman, and honors God. 

The other is not fit to be called a man. The other camp is the guy who will stab his friend in the back. Will certainly overpower the weak. That will go against what is the right thing, for mere selfish gain. That is probably disrespectful to his mother and to woman. That hides behind his lawyers instead of doing the right thing. That will not honor his own promises.

Now, if you considered yourself at one time in your life to be a Christian and now you are not, then you are part of this latter camp of weakness and are clueless of what being a man is really about.

God's Word simply declares that this is God's plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God's will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.

Like Augustine said, credo ut intelligam "I believe in order to understand."

So what is it going to be? Are you going to be a covenant breaker or a covenant keeper?

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." ~ Romans 13:13

Patty's right. Man up!

"If it's right and you don't want to do it—you don't know what right is and you're not a man."  ~ Ayn Rand, Atheist.

bit.ly/Manup

202 comments:

  1. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

    Your god is such a prick, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, when your god ordered the ancient Isrealites to kill men, women and children (even pregnant women) that was NOT evil?


    Bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Darren

    Only a totally depraved god could design a totally depraved human and then blame the human for his inadequate design.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bam!

    Except, Ericka, that our standards of depravity come from God, and we can't judge him by his own standards cuz he makes all standards, and how can we know anything for certainty according to our depraved world view...

    Ooops, I think I just barfed...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan:

         A coward like that is just what it would take to fall on one's knees and worship your god. I mean, I've heard the reasoning given. People turn to Jesus because they think that he will spare their skins. That's all. Only a coward would call that "holy holy holy."
         I say "NO!" A thousand times no. I will not serve such a monstrosity as that. I can be, and am, honerable without your god. I treat people fairly. And I find that the people who don't treat people fairly belive in some god who will "forgive all their transgressions."
         What honor does your god have? Well you once said that your god caused comments on your posts to vanish so that you could call me dishonorable when I called you on deleting comments. Such manipulation of evidence may not be as bad as a man slicing up his wife and children. But it still evil. And, if he does it to frame innocent people he finds inconvenient and has them executed (who knows where he really stops?) he is every bit as evil as a man who would slice up his wife and children. And that is what you are calling people to worship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting post as always & enjoy reading the replies you seem to spark as well. We all have our personal experiences & beliefs, but I do have to challenge you & your readers to check out an event coming up in the spring that I recently was introduced to. March 12, 2011 a simulcast called The Case for Christianity is taking place that will address the very question you have asked. Led by Lee Strobel (former Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune & former atheist) & Mark Mittelberg, all of the most avoided questions Christians don't like to answer or even discuss. Both are authors of extremely intriguing books, I encourage you to check them out as well as the simulcast in March. Definitely worth the time & worthy of the debate! Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whateverman:"Except, Ericka, that our standards of depravity come from God, and we can't judge him by his own standards cuz he makes all standards, and how can we know anything for certainty according to our depraved world view..."

    Sweet - subjective morality! Now we're gettin' somewhere.

    My question to you is: How can you justify your use of logic since your brain has been addled because you were hit on the head by a rock. - That's the Steven Law checkmate. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Correction: Stephen Law - sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sadly, I'm a Poe. I should work on making my impersonation of Dan sound a bit more funny...

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Whateverman

    Better a Poe than a fundie Christian :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry about that. My comment was meant for this thread.

    Dan:

         I wrote a post about you and "man up."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ericka:

         The Stephen Law checkmate is really no different from Presuppositional Baloney. Sadly, he advocates the same nonsense that any cult uses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ericka,

    >>How can you justify your use of logic since your brain has been addled because you were hit on the head by a rock. - That's the Steven Law checkmate. :)

    Its been addressed already. Its certainly no checkmate.

    I said "I took a moment to conclude that the fact that you are, attempting, to engage me in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that you believe that I am a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation. The evidence is within you already, thus I don't have to respond to any of Stephen Law garbage. Also, his whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pvblivs:"The Stephen Law checkmate is really no different from Presuppositional Baloney. Sadly, he advocates the same nonsense that any cult uses."

    I thought that was the point? I see the checkmate as a way to mock the ridiculous Presuppositional shite - it perfectly points out the absurdity of it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Stephen Law checkmate is really no different from Presuppositional Baloney.

    That's the entire point of it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I took a moment to conclude that the fact that you are, attempting, to engage me in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that you believe that I am a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation...

    WOAH! Hold up champ! Are you certain and how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ericka:

         "I thought that was the point? I see the checkmate as a way to mock the ridiculous Presuppositional [deleted] - it perfectly points out the absurdity of it."
         Mockery is a tool of cults. Though he claims to be pointing out absurdity, he is, unfortunately, endorsing the tactic. No, mockery is a tool used predominantly by those who know their stated position is wrong. And they use it to exclusion of almost all else. It always involves a misrepresentation, and is, at best, a sign of frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pvblivs: "Mockery is a tool of cults"

    I respectfully disagree. Mockery is exactly the tool with which Presuppers should be handled.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's “The Emperor’s New Clothes” where the boy points out that the emperor is naked type of mockery.



    No, mockery is a tool used predominantly by those who know their stated position is wrong.

    I don't think this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ericka:

         "I respectfully disagree."
         You dispute my contention that cults use mockery to prevent their followers from listening to criticism?

    Adam:

         Mockery was indeed used the "The Emperor's New Clothes." The "tailors" preemptively mocked those who would expose their fraud by saying that "fools and those unfit" would fail to see the cloth. That's what mockery is. And when you say that mockery is the right way to handle any group of people, that is the role you are taking on. Effective? Yes, that's why the cults use it. But it is better suited to those who think that truth is against them. Remember, the little boy in the story did not announce the emperor naked in order to mock him. He was only astonished. And it was a true statement of fact as he saw it. Mockery is the claim that you think he is unclothed because you are "unfit for your station."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think "Poisoning the Well" is a better description of what you're talking about. And there's no doubt that religious groups use that method. "If you think or hear something that contradicts us then that's THE ENEMY".

    Using presup against presup seems insulting because presup IS insulting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pvblivs wrote the following: Mockery is a tool of cults. Though he claims to be pointing out absurdity, he is, unfortunately, endorsing the tactic.

    Sorry, but this is simply not true, and John Stewart is living proof.

    By holding up a caricature of Christian presupposition, Mr. Law is endorsing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Whateverman:

         There can be no greater endorsement for a tactic than consistent application. Of course, the fact that he would rather argue against a caricature than an authentic representation says something about his confidence. It's a little like the way Ray argues against a caricature of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Pvblivs wrote the following to me: There can be no greater endorsement for a tactic than consistent application.
    I disagree. A greater endorsement would be writing and selling books on the subject.



    Of course, the fact that he would rather argue against a caricature than an authentic representation says something about his confidence.
    OR it says something about the nature and practices of the advocates he criticizes...

    Seriously, is there any doubt in your mind that people like Dan and Sye refuse to discuss the subject honestly? They're not interested in logic or reason - they simply believe what they do, and no argument will be allowed to call their opinions into question.

    People like that deserve to have their arguments mocked. Even better, such mockery (when it's done effectively) can reveal the issues to people who sit on the fence.

    Sorry, Pvblivs. Mockery is not a de facto endorsement, and it only takes a little context to see that Mr. Law's mockery certainly isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Whateverman:

         "Seriously, is there any doubt in your mind that people like Dan and Sye refuse to discuss the subject honestly?"
         In my mind? No doubt at all. That is why I am willing to link to their actual words. My readers can examine as much context as they desire. I don't need to argue against a caricature of Dan and Sye set up to ensure the readers come to the conclusion I want. I argue against Dan and Sye as they are.
         "People like that deserve to have their arguments mocked."
         I want you to picture Ray saying that "evolutionists" deserve to have their arguments mocked. Based on my experience with Ray, it sounds like something he would say and something his followers would believe, although I don't think he has ever actually used those words. And know this, there is no difference between Stephen Law's use of mockery and Ray Comforts. I estimate that you support Law's use only because you agree with his desired conclusion.
         "Even better, such mockery (when it's done effectively) can reveal the issues to people who sit on the fence."
         No, a straight rebuttal would reveal the issues to people. Mockery, especially when it is effective, hides issue by presenting the opposition in a false light and giving the impression that the opposition hold views that they do not. Again, I will use Ray Comfort as an example. When Ray Comfort says that "evolution means that males had to evolve separately from females and they must have been very lucky to find females" it is an effective use of mockery. People on the fence who are unaware that evolution says no such thing may well be inclined to "see the revealed issues," decide that it is patently ridiculous and refuse to listen to any accurate portrayal. And that is what effective mockery does.
         "Sorry, Pvblivs. Mockery is not a de facto endorsement, and it only takes a little context to see that Mr. Law's mockery certainly isn't."
         Oh, but it is. It is a de facto endorsement of the use of mockery (rather than evidence) for the purpose of "winning" an argument. Pay close attention to what I said he endorsed. I didn't say he endorsed the belief in god. I said he endorsed the tactic of using mockery to suppress dissent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. When Ray Comfort says that "evolution means that males had to evolve separately from females and they must have been very lucky to find females" it is an effective use of mockery.

    That's better described as a strawman.

    Hey, let's get back to talking about how much of a bastard YHWH would be if he was real!

    ReplyDelete
  27. So I beat the shit of my girlfriend last night. And it was a pretty good beating, too. It lasted for a long time. Don't get me wrong, I love her and have nothing but love for her, but she deserved it. She simply failed to live up to the standard that I set for my own behaviour, so I was forced to do it. And now that she has been deemed beneath me and my standards, I think I'll continue to beat her regularly, and I don't think there's anything she could ever do to make me stop or to get a second chance. She had her one chance. As for all of you, you should agree with my actions, congratulate me and tell me what a good job I did.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ANTZILLA,

    Keep your faith pure and your pimp hand strong.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ANTZILLA:

         That is a rather effective description of the judgment attributed to the biblical god.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow, the atheist twits are out in numbers ... again. Despising the god the pretend doesn't exist.

    Indeed, the one they describe is one of their own creation, in their own image.

    They will never admit it.

    The most pressing question, given the general tenure of responses, is this:
    Upon what objective moral foundations do you blind and deaf atheists condemn whatever it is you think God has done wrong?

    There is the crux, and we all know the answer - none.

    Atheists, according to themselves, have no ultimate foundations for ethics. There are no objective moral values, there are no moral absolutes and there is no ultimate truth. And they are always sure that is the ultimate truth!

    Thus contempt and condemnation based on any relativist ethic is both anserine and revealing of their own salient lack of reasoning faculties.
    Or worse, an inner choice to refuse all logic and reason.

    The latter is where the truth lies, though there is still this eternal testimony against them, "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'. They are corrupt"

    So it is always a mystery to see atheists using their God given, innate moral sense to condemn God.

    "A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers–including even his power to revolt…It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Btw, Stephen Law has no argument worth mentioning that lends any evidential support to his atheist nihilism.

    Btw, subjective morality intrinsically reduces all condemnation of any act whatsoever to nothing.

    So, whenever we witness an atheist venting its spleen against God, (all while claiming he doesn't exist), and using terms such as evil, nasty, cruel, etc., we know that since they don't really believe the terms have any final meaning, they are merely blowing dark foul smelling smoke.

    The above language is of course deliberately meant to excite the atheists ire, which of course could not exist unless he did indeed believe in objective morals, and felt some Real wrong was being spoken against himself!!

    Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Gary, I don't need objective moral values to have the subjective opinion that you're a pretentious a-hole who is the antithesis to the Christ you claim to follow. :)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ericka

    ..don't need objective moral values to have the subjective opinion that you're a ...

    1. Thank you for those kind words.

    2. Subjective opinions are useless and meaningless in your own world-view. "you are nothing but a pack of neurons"

    3. You know absolutely nothing of either Christ or morals. You do have a serious inferiority complex coupled with a psychotic level of angst and misology.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Gary

    "1. Thank you for those kind words."

    Oh, more condescension? How Christlike. You're welcome.

    "2. Subjective opinions are useless and meaningless in your own world-view. "you are nothing but a pack of neurons"

    Straw-man much?

    "3. You know absolutely nothing of either Christ or morals. You do have a serious inferiority complex coupled with a psychotic level of angst and misology."

    I was a Fundamentalist Christian who accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior for 25 years. Hello No True Scotsman.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Despising the god the[y] pretend doesn't exist.

    I doubt YHWH exists since his qualities are contradictory and things with contradictory qualities don't exist.
    But there are people who do believe in this god. A disgusting god of torture that they declare good. A god that demands love or be tortured. A god that endorses slavery and the subjugation of women. A god that mouths the word 'love' in the same breath as 'hell'.
    Society is rapidly growing too sophisticated for such primitive monsters. It might frighten you but that's what's happening.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Gary,
    We are not angry at God, She/he/it doesn't exsist...
    We are angry at you and your actions attributed to YOUR belief in a God.


    While we're talking morals and evil

    (Evil: is intentionally causing harm or destruction, or deliberately violating
    some moral code) etc.

    "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."
    (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)


    FUCK! the character, God, in you story is an EVIL fucker isn't he.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gary,
    We are not angry at God, She/he/it doesn't exsist...
    We are angry at you and your actions attributed to YOUR belief in a God.


    While we're talking morals and evil

    (Evil: is intentionally causing harm or destruction, or deliberately violating
    some moral code) etc.

    "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)


    FUCK! the character, God, in you story is an EVIL fucker isn't he.

    ReplyDelete
  38. God may not be real but the violence done in his name is.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ericka


    Oh, more condescension?

    Maybe look the word up huh?

    How Christlike. You're welcome.

    Thanks again.

    Straw-man much?

    No, not at all.

    I was a Fundamentalist Christian who accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior for 25 years. Hello No True Scotsman.

    You are a phony like so many other other liars claiming to be ex-Xians.

    Again, you know nothing of Christ or Christ-likeness, let alone logic and reason.

    Flew invented the so-called "no true scotsman" fallacy.
    Flew died a Deist, take the hint.

    ReplyDelete
  40. CrapPusher

    I doubt YHWH exists since his qualities are contradictory and things with contradictory qualities don't exist.


    As if you understood what contradictory things are. Nothing is more self-contradictory than atheism.

    ...A god that demands love or be tortured.

    I see that you are still living in your little imaginary world of imaginary gods in your own image, and still assuming objective morals in every condemnation you utter all while denying their existence.

    bla bla bla ... A god that mouths the word 'love' in the same breath as 'hell'.

    So the judge that says 'love for society' & 'prison' in the same breath is evil huh?

    I've rarely seen an atheist as evil and dumb at the same time as you.

    Society is rapidly growing too sophisticated for such ...

    ROTFLMAO
    That's a good one. How long have you been on acid?

    ReplyDelete
  41. CrapPusher

    Morals are not objective.

    1. Prove it.
    2. All your enraged condemnations demonstrate that don't even believe that yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Questions for Theists...

    Q1)

    If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read in a 'holy' books written by humans, and durning the war 'evil' is committed. Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    Q2)

    If someone was killed to stop them killing someone is that evil?

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Morals are not "mind-independent" so they can't be objective in the philosophical sense.

    ReplyDelete
  44. still assuming objective morals in every condemnation you utter all while denying their existence.

    I'm interested in what you think the word 'objective' means.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gary's a moral relativist. Watch him try to deny it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ANTZILLA

    ...We are angry at you and your actions attributed to YOUR belief in a God.

    My actions? Which ones would that be?

    While we're talking morals and evil
    (Evil: is intentionally causing harm or destruction, or deliberately violating
    some moral code) etc.


    Hmmm...Let me help you out here:

    1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
    2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
    3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
    4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
    5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
    n.
    1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
    2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
    3. An evil force, power, or personification.
    4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


    FUCK! the character, God, in you story is an EVIL fucker isn't he.

    And of course you know there is a real evil and a real good how exactly?

    Ooops. Objective morals don't exist in your lame brained world-view, so where do you get off claiming God or anyone at all, is truly evil?
    Explain.

    You just screwed yerself Anty.

    Proof:
    Atheism has no ultimate foundations for morals.

    Atheism is thus logically obliged to deny the existence of real evil and of real good.
    Indeed it does - "[the universe] has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference." -R. Dawkins, chief high priest of the New Atheist regime of professional nitwits

    Duh. You couldn't figure that simple fact out on your own so the theist has to explain your own position to you?!
    ROTFL!!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.

    Forth from his dark and lonely hiding-place, (Portentous sight!) the owlet Atheism, sailing on obscene wings athwart the noon, drops his blue-fringed lids, and holds them close, and hooting at the glorious sun in Heaven, cries out, Where is it?

    He must pull out his own eyes, and see no creature, before he can say, he sees no God; He must be no man, and quench his reasonable soul, before he can say to himself, there is no God.

    If there is no God, everything is permitted.
    - various authors

    Atheism has logical conclusions and they are:

    * no life after death exists;
    * no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
    * no meaning in life exists; and
    * human free will is nonexistent
    * atheists, as much as all others are mere accidents

    So atheists have no free will and thus, whatever they post on blogs like this is not due to reason and choice -just elctro-chemical reactions in their defuddled brains in response to environmental stimuli.

    So why should anyone care what an atheists chemicals are dictating them to do?

    ReplyDelete
  48. human free will is nonexistent.

    I'm guessing you're not a Calvinist then.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Crap says,
    How are morals objective?

    How are they not?

    Is it objectively wrong to rape and torture small children?
    Or is it just some subjective whim?

    Are you saying theists are objectively wrong? Or is that just your own subjective opinion based on your accidental neurons moving around?

    You lose again crappy

    ReplyDelete
  50. Now, again.

    How are morals objective?

    ReplyDelete
  51. And what definition of the word are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  52. When YHWH orders the murder of children is that morally right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gary,
    "...We are angry at you and your actions attributed to YOUR belief in a God."

    The 'you and 'your' refer to theism and theists in general.

    Congratulations we agree on the meaning of the word 'evil'

    "Atheism has no ultimate foundations for morals".

    "Atheism has logical conclusions and they are:

    * no life after death exists;
    * no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
    * no meaning in life exists; and
    * human free will is nonexistent
    * atheists, as much as all others are mere accidents"

    WTF!!!!
    Atheism def. Don't believe in deities.

    Stop having arguments with yourself, on behalf of atheists
    (I mean your own stereotype/def. of what you think an atheist is).


    "Ooops. Objective morals don't exist in your lame brained world-view, so where do you get off claiming God or anyone at all, is truly evil?"
    Explain.

    In the story about a God who commanded that people/cities be destroyed, IMHO yes this was a evil thing to do.

    However the character God in the story didn't think it was evil nor did the people in the story who carried out his commands.

    So.."Is it objectively wrong to rape and torture small children?"

    I say that is wrong/evil to rape and torture small children, however the people who commit these crimes do not.

    The real question theist need to ask themselves is why MUST there be a single original act/force that declares and is behind all evil.

    Also how/why is everything divided into Good or Bad. How in your lame brained world-view do you account for the 'grey' area that is consistent with the world around us.

    If somthing one person thinks is bad happens however another person thinks it's good, how is that consistant with "objective moral theory"

    ReplyDelete
  54. Too continue
    What if alot of individuals did things they felt was good contributed to somthing that was bad?

    what if alot of good things resulted in somthing bad... and then that bad resulted in a good... but that good resulted in a bad... but then what if from somone elses point of view all the good thing were actully bad and the bad thing good?



    ILMAO ;)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Oh... Who the fuck is Richard Dawkins?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Questions for Theists including GARY...

    Q1)

    If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read in a 'holy' books written by humans, and durning the war 'evil' is committed. Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    Q2)

    If someone was killed to stop them killing someone is that evil?

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    The theist must be hideing until the tough questions go away. hahahah weak as... MAN UP!

    Wait let me guess your answers first...

    A. Q1) the evil group is the one who doesn't agree with you.

    A. Q2)Ummmmm... you a nitwit, Amen

    A. Q3) of course I would kill them God told me to, I don't want to go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gary, honestly - you're not even worth it. I hope you die in your ignorance. Some Christians deserve their masochistic Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  58. CrapPusher

    When YHWH orders the murder of children is that morally right or wrong?

    I take it you're implying that murdering children is objectively wrong?

    If so you're screwing your own world-view.

    If not, then you have no argument at all.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The little, ill reasoning and misinformed atheists are out to make me feel bad it seems.

    ROTFL

    I see through your abuse of logic and your foolish self-contradictory answers easily enough.

    Atheists always use the same lame arguments and the same old debate "techniques".

    Examples:
    You don't like being told the truth about yourself?
    A: Hypocritically tell the theist he is not being Christ-like -and that long before the theist even mentions the bible

    You can't answer a question without revealing how contradictory your position is?

    A: Don't answer the question, change the subject, accuse of whatever...
    A:Tell the theist he is not worth debating and use various other escape and avoid tactics.
    A: Swear, bitch, whine like sucks

    That's the very short list of atheist "debate" if I may abuse the term.

    Now go on, make up an response list of theist techniques, you know you want to!

    Thank you all for proving it once again.
    I may use your examples publicly to show others what you really believe once confronted.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....." Plato

    "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability....." - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

    "Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior." -Vox Day

    A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually results in a belief in anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  61. AntyZilla

    What if alot of individuals did things they felt was good contributed to somthing that was bad?

    Define good. Define bad.

    Good and evil have nothing to do with feelings.

    what if alot of good things resulted in somthing bad... and then that bad resulted in a good... but that good resulted in a bad... but then what if from somone elses point of view all the good thing were actully bad and the bad thing good?

    How old are you? 13? maybe 17?
    Did you get through elementary school? High school?

    Adolescents tend to think themselves smarter than everyone else - all while committing inane drone errors and laughing cause they think they have proven something.

    ILMAO ;)

    ILMAOAY

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ok, now here's the test for you atheists.

    Scenario:
    Place: Germany, 1940
    You're sitting in my office.
    I am an officer of the SS.
    You are a Jew.
    I tell you that because you are a Jew you will be executed at sunrise.

    You protest.

    My response is something like this:

    "There are no absolutes. There are no objective moral values and I disagree with yours.
    My nation says killing Jews and the mentally retarded etc. is morally right and will result in much good for humanity.

    So, now the sun is rising.
    Give me a reason why I should not blow your brains out."

    ReplyDelete
  63. Gary, you forgot to answer this one.

    When YHWH orders the killing of children is that morally right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  64. And you forgot to answer this one as well.

    In philosophy, a thing is objective if it is 'mind-independent', that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject.

    How are morals objective?

    And what definition of the word 'objective' are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  65. "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

    Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gary:

         Your representation is off. The response of an SS officer would be more like:

         The jews were responsible for killing Christ. That was your one and only chance. Now you, your children and your childrens' children for all time are enemies of God. He has commanded that I make no covenant with you and show you no mercy. The only reason He even permits you to have children at all is so that he can continue to enjoy the righteous punishment.

         If good and evil are objective, and I think they are, they are not subject to the whims of any god. Now our capacity to understand good and evil comes through our feelings of pleasure and pain and our ability to empathize with the feelings of others. As near as I can tell, evangelical christians lack this. One could argue that there is an objective concept of "blueness" but that our ability to understand it comes only through our occular sensations.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ericka:

         I do not hope for anyone to die in ignorance. Frustrating as people like Gary are, I would still rather they be redeemed. I'm not holding my breath, mind you. But I do not wish him ill.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Scenario:
    Place: Germany, 1940
    You're sitting in my office.
    I am an officer of the SS.
    You are a Jew.
    I tell you that because you are a Jew you will be executed at sunrise.

    You protest.

    My response is something like this:

    "There are no absolutes. There are no objective moral values and I disagree with yours.
    My nation says killing Jews and the mentally retarded etc. is morally right and will result in much good for humanity.

    So, now the sun is rising.
    Give me a reason why I should not blow your brains out."

    The jew looks at the SS officer, taken aback by what he just said. There is a moment of silence until the jew finally responds: "God will judge you for what you do here". The Nazi laughs: "You still believe in God? After all your people have gone through?" The jew falls silent once again, his doubts boiling to the surface. "A poor attempt, as expected from a jew. Get up."

    The jew is marched outside, where a dozen or so others are already standing in line. He looks at the line of people, containing people from all walks of life. They're told to get on their knees, and the SS officer takes out his gun. He starts from the opposite end of the line. The jew, shivering, keeps his gaze firmly planted to the ground and flinches every couple of seconds when he hears a gunshot and a crumpling sound. In his final moments, the jew turns his thoughts to God. Was the Nazi right? If God existed, why was this happening? What happened to the covenant? He feels the barrel of a gun behind his head, and then, nothing.

    The jew is suddenly surrounded by a bright light. A voice speaks to him:

    "I am God. As a jew, you did not accept my Son, Jesus Christ, as your lord and saviour. Give me a reason not to send you to a lake of fire."

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Pvblivs: "I do not hope for anyone to die in ignorance. Frustrating as people like Gary are, I would still rather they be redeemed. I'm not holding my breath, mind you. But I do not wish him ill."

    To clarify, I do not wish any ill will on Gary. I'm not wishing for his death, just that he maintains his current level of stupidity until his inevitable, natural death. Christians like him are a walking billboard for non-belief.

    ReplyDelete
  70.      I see his maintaining his current level of stupidity as ill. As I said, I would rather he be redeemed. I don't expect it. But I would rather it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Gary,
    Yes I'm 14, and my spelling needs works.
    Are you going to answer any questions? or are you going to continue with the tyrade of petty insults?

    Q1)

    If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read in a 'holy' books written by humans, and durning the war 'evil' is committed. Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    Q2)

    If someone was killed to stop them killing someone is that evil?

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    Man up! Gary anwser the questions.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Crap

    Quotes Hitler.
    Wow.
    -----
    Anty Zilla admits he's a teenager, and thus immature, ignorant and naive.

    Then, forgetting his own inane insults accuses his opponent of insults.

    Hence, why people think atheists are untrustworthy practicers of duplicity, hypocrisy, multiple standards -depending on which one most fits their selfish desires at any given moment- and their ubiquitous diatribe and ragings against God and against all reason.

    Anty you are pathetic.

    Then you add the man up demand.

    Gee, why am I not impressed by all this nonsense.

    Q1) If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read ...?

    You display a very naive and immature view of morals as well as childish ideas on war, evil, holy books etc.

    Ask the same, using atheists instead of theists, based on Darwinian survival or whatever other fairy tale you please. Then give me your answers based on the fact that under atheism, good and evil are human inventions and have no real existence.

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    LOL!
    If you were reading Hitler and heard a voice in your head telling you to kill Jews would you do it?

    Sheesh but your questions are irrelevant.

    Man up! Gary anwser the questions.

    Grow up Anty! Try to figure out why anyone should care about your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pvblivs

    The jews were responsible for killing Christ. ... bla bla..

    If good and evil are objective, and I think they are, they are not subject to the whims of any god.

    Indeed. Yet you fail to understand both what objective implies and what a thinking moral God must be like.
    If there is no God there are no objective morals values either. So you fail to grasp the implications of atheism.

    Now our capacity to understand good and evil comes through our feelings of pleasure and pain and our ability to empathize with the feelings of others.

    Wrong. Way off. Dream on ...

    To reword your anti Xian hubris and hatred. "As near as I can tell, atheists have no basis for any morals at all."

    One could argue that there is an objective concept of "blueness" but that our ability to understand it comes only through our occular sensations.

    Occular sensations?!?!

    You must be Anty's school buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Gary, you are the fucking lowest of the low. Go suck the god cock.

    ReplyDelete
  75. ericka

    ...I'm not wishing for his death, just that he maintains his current level of stupidity until his inevitable, natural death. hristians like him are a walking billboard for non-belief.

    Really?

    Enraged little devils like you are a walking disaster area of what happens to poor souls who were subjected to some religious abuse and, being self-centered from the start and having never known Christ, became utterly bitter.

    You became inflamed in bitterness, betrayed Christ, denied his reality, cursed God and now weep every night in bitter hateful anger at the whole world because God did not give you what you wanted, what you erroneously believed he owed you.

    Someone lied to you, hurt you in some church and you blamed everyone but yourself.

    I've known and seen many like you.

    Once the lies presented to you in your state of depression are fully swallowed, you become enemies of truth and of all righteousness.

    Your little temper tantrums against heaven are pathetic -just like your new found faith in the lies of materialism and the profound blindness you now reap in nihilism.

    Considering that I am no doubt far more informed than you ever will be on these matters I'd say that your own magnificent stupidity in selfish behavior has darkened your mind to the point mental illness.

    People like you fulfill what was written, "For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
    Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame..."


    Poor you huh. It's all God's fault.
    Repent of your extreme selfishness while you may.

    ReplyDelete
  76. ericka

    I might pity you ... if I could

    You just proved everything I said.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Gary,
    Are you going to anwser the questions?

    Q1) If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read in a 'holy' books written by humans, and durning the war 'evil' is committed. Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    Q2)If someone was killed to stop them killing someone is that evil?

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    Come on Gary, it's not too hard for you to give a straight anwser is it?

    ReplyDelete
  78. So...
    Gary Glitter can't even try to answer the questions?

    Just so you don't forget they are:
    - When YHWH orders the killing of children is that morally right or wrong?

    -In philosophy, a thing is objective if it is 'mind-independent', that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject.

    How are morals objective?

    -And what definition of the word 'objective' are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Gary:

         "The jews were responsible for killing Christ. ... bla bla."
         It's not my stance. It is what the hypothetical SS officer, which you brought up, would say. I'm sorry if that bores your little teen-aged mind. But since you gave a depiction of what such an officer would say, I corrected it for you.
         "Indeed. Yet you fail to understand both what objective implies and what a thinking moral [g]od must be like."
         No, I understand what objective implies. Among other things it implies not being subject to the whims of any being. I don't say that there can't be a moral god. But if there is one, it means he is subject to morality, rather than the other way around.
         "To reword your [good sense into something with a passing resemblance at best to what you said.]"
         I corrected it to describe what you actually did. No need to thank me.
         "You must be Anty's school buddy."
         No, you're off by several decades.

         Oh, and for the record, I have no hatred for either you or christianity. It is simply my observation that evangelical christians seem to lack the capacity to perceive morality and thus need some authority to dictate it to them. If you wish to tell me that you can identify good and evil without relying on your god, feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Lol, Gary's back.

    After singularly failing to show the existence of absolutes, let's see if he can account for objectivity from within the inherently subjective Christian worldview...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Trollin trollin trollin...

    Gary: evidence that Dan's world view produces just as much junk as anyone elses.

    ReplyDelete
  82. It would seem that Gary is not along in his complete unwillingness to anwser the following questions:

    Q1) If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read in a 'holy' books written by humans, and durning the war 'evil' is committed. Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    Q2) If someone was killed to stop them killing someone is that evil?

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    I've given these question to many theists from different backrounds and none of them can/do/want to give a straight anwser?

    What is about these very simple questions that theist are so afraid of?

    I'm going to start a list of questions like these that I come across "Questions that theist never want to anwser"

    ReplyDelete
  83. I guess I'll have to pretend to be a theist.

    1) Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    The group whose beliefs are closest to my beliefs is good!

    Q3) If you were praying, and you heard a voice in your head claiming to be your God and it asked you to kill someone would you do it?

    Duh, my God would NEVER do that... anymore. He's grown out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ant,

    Fine, I will bite. I am never afraid of pursuit of truth.

    Q1) Vague. It would be better if you used more specific examples (Christians vs Catholics, Christians vs Satanists) Theists is too generic. Plus, there is only one verifiable Holy Book in the universe, at least one that stands up to any real scrutiny. Go to war based on what is read in the Bible? That would not change the ultimate authority. Absolute authority still stands. (tinyurl.com/absoluteauthority)

    As in the civil war, there was a group on the wrong side of truth. The side that lost was wrong. Imagine that!? I don't believe in coincidences. Which "group" is evil? Both! Going to war does not change a persons, or group, evilness. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Look at Hitler, the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war. Justified.

    Q2) Nope. Justified. Protection of others and military is quite obvious throughout the Bible. "The Bible also uses military terms to describe being strong in the Lord by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20), including the tools of the soldier—helmet, shield, and sword." ~GotQuestions.org

    Q3) If I heard an audible voice telling me to kill someone, I would seek help and possibly admit myself. If an omniscient, omnipotent being (God) reveal things to us, as He does, such that we can be certain of them and instructs me to kill someone, I would question it. It would be the first time I believe, and would not be the Character of God. You cannot bring up Abraham because He did not instruct to kill his child, he said to sacrifice him as a test. He NEVER allowed it to happen. God never has asked anyone to kill anyone, an omniscient, omnipotent does not need me to do such a task. If you are speaking of killing the Canaanites then that was entirely different, because that was capitol punishment. Also justified.

    My turn

    Q1) How do you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid?
    Q2) Does absolute truth exist.
    Q3) Is it possible that God can reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if not, how are you certain of this?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dan,
    Thankyou for your anwsers.

    Q1) How do you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid?

    A) sort of strange question... I'm puzzled on how to anwser.

    I guess... I would have to ask what the any given 'anything' was/is and what it would be valid in relation to. (sorry I don't really understand the question)

    Q2) Does absolute truth exist.

    A) Yes. eg 1+1=2,

    From where I'm sitting looking at the sky, through my eyes, I see that the sky I'm looking at is the colour known as blue.


    Q3) Is it possible that God can reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if not, how are you certain of this?

    A) I don't believe there is a God, showing/not showing us anything...

    ReplyDelete
  86. ANT

    Q2) Does absolute truth exist.

    A) Yes. eg 1+1=2,

    A) I don't believe there is a God, showing/not showing us anything...


    And you still can't see your self-contradiction in this?

    Your questions were insidious & your response to Dan only reveals that you don't understand the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I'm going to start a list of questions like these that I come across "Questions that theist never want to anwser"

    LOL

    So where is your answer to mine?

    Being hypocritical all while being out of tune with the issues doesn't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dan going on from
    Q)2 If someone was killed to stop them killing someone is that evil?

    What is your/bible idea of say,
    A police offer see a man in a bellaclava holding a gun to a womans head...
    He goes in for a closer look, heart pounding...
    He see 3 people murderd on the ground...
    He draws his gun shoots the man in the head before he kills the woman.

    Ok that all good...

    Untill screams are heard, people running everywhere...

    WTF..

    It was a movie set the police officer just killed someone!

    However at the time his morals said he was doing the "right" thing.

    Dan, in your/bibles world view was he evil?

    ReplyDelete
  89. GArY,
    So where is your answer to mine?

    What question?

    ---Q2) Does absolute truth exist.

    A) Yes. eg 1+1=2,

    A) I don't believe there is a God, showing/not showing us anything...

    And you still can't see your self-contradiction in this?----

    Ummmmm no you have to explain please.

    ReplyDelete
  90. 'Does absolute truth exist or not' is a strange question.
    Statements can be true or untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Q2) Does absolute truth exist.

    I've thought more about this question and it's a good one.

    My anwser is still Yes,
    However to be absolute the truth would have to be infinite in its accurate detail.

    e.g.

    1+1=2

    however 1+1= also to 2yo (window)

    so you have to accurate

    1+1=

    doesn't mean anything to someone who can't read english numerals

    you see my point?

    you would first have to establish what 1,+,= is from every infinite perspective to establish what the absolute truth is.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Pvblivs said...

    It is what the hypothetical SS officer, which you brought up, would say.

    Sad. So sad, that you can't even understand plain English.

    Why is the SS officer hypocritical?
    In atheism hypocrisy is not a fault. In atheism there is neither good nor evil, only what is.
    Maybe you should read up on your own claimed position and its logical implications.

    But since you gave a depiction of what such an officer would say, I corrected it for you.

    Who asked you for your opinion on what the officer would say?
    Duh. No one.
    Again, you seem to have a serious problem with basic understanding.

    Your response did not address my scenario at all.
    You merely added your own little twists and evasions so as not to have to answer the question posed.

    Glaringly obvious. Yet you can't "identify" the moral wickedness of your own evil heart in seeking to avoid answering by twisting the whole to your own aims!! Also known as deliberate deception.

    I don't say that there can't be a moral god. But if there is one, it means he is subject to morality, rather than the other way around.

    And?
    Again, you fail to even grasp the issue here.

    No, you're off by several decades.

    Not with regards to IQ I'm not -just my observation considering your childish statements.

    Oh, and for the record, I have no hatred for either you or christianity.

    Indeed? Too bad your discernment of your own heart is so dull.

    ReplyDelete
  93. continued...

    It is simply my observation that evangelical christians seem to lack ... thus need some authority to dictate it to them.

    LOL, do you actually think before writing this inane tripe?

    Your depth of reasoning on this is no better than 14 year old Ant's -possibly worse.

    You should go to school and learn about critical thinking.

    Humans have no ability to create new moral values. Think that over before you attempt another cheap rebuttal.

    "If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."

    Objective morals can ONLY come from authority and can only be eternal and transcendent. That's what the term objective implies!

    Hint: LAW implies authority.
    No authority = no law.
    No moral authority = no moral law.
    No moral law = no right or wrong and no possible guilt for any action whatsoever.

    I suppose I'm talking over your head again but maybe ...

    If you wish to tell me that you can identify good and evil without relying on your god, feel free.

    Yet another statement that contradicts your own feeble views.
    Let me attempt, once again, to help you out on this.

    By what measure do you "identify" good and evil?

    You can't see that your own measure is both beyond yourself and beyond some subjective cultural agreement?

    Every time you appeal to some overarching rule whereby you believe yourself to be "right" you are appealing to some rule of authority.

    You merely deny that God must be that authority. But you cannot escape the intrinsic implication of authority.
    Whatever that authority is, it is necessarily conscious, moral and free willing.

    You've utterly failed to see that no moral values can have any authority whatsoever if they are merely subjective inventions.

    You foolishly state that somehow, your own view can be "right"!!
    No absolutes = no right or wrong on any subject.

    It is impossible to debate anything without appealing to a True Rule that over arches all mere opinion.

    Always amazed at atheist stupidity and self-contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dan:

         "God never has asked anyone to kill anyone, an omniscient, omnipotent does not need me to do such a task. If you are speaking of killing the Canaanites then that was entirely different, because that was capitol punishment. Also justified."
         You just contradicted yourself. Whether or not you think it was justified, according to the story, your god asked his people to kill the existing inhabitants of a region. Certainly, an omnipotent being would not need to rely on people to do the task. Yet, according to the story, he did.

         It's interesting that you say you don't believe in coincidences. For every lottery winner in those drawing games, the numbers are quite a coincidence. Coincidences do happen; they must.

    ReplyDelete
  95. We are all forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. i.e. objective moral values and logical absolutes.

    "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either."

    People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their math wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.

    You all find inside yourselves, something thing that tells you that you ought to "do the right thing".
    Now the measure that judges between two choices, that decides which one is "right", cannot itself be either of them!

    However, under atheism you are nothing but a bag of meat and neurons.

    Why should I care what electrochemical movement is going on in a bag of meat?
    Bags of meat cannot be right or wrong.

    If atheism were true, everything being posted here would be the result of purely irrational processes and nothing of it can be true or false nor freely thought.

    Atheism is thus a vain and highly injurious piece of human idiocy; as has been abundantly demonstrated in the last century alone.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Gary,
    If there was an event that there were no humans had or will ever have any knowledge of is it good or evil?

    Good and bad are indivdual ideas based on there given individual life history?

    Babies aren't born with predisposion on what they think is or the notion of good or bad.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Gary:

         "Sad. So sad, that you can't even understand plain English.
         Why is the SS officer hypocritical?"
         The irony of you claiming me unable to understand English is quite savory. I said "hypothetical," not "hypocritical." There is quite a difference.
         "Who asked you for your opinion on what the officer would say?"
         What makes you think that I cannot volunteer information? And I should point out that no one asked for your "SS officer" scenario to begin with. I would suggest that you not try to pile burdens on me when you are unable to meet them yourself.
         "Not with regards to IQ I'm not -just my observation considering your childish statements."
         I simply consider the source of that statement and decide that it is without merit.
         "Too bad your discernment of your own heart is so dull."
         Well, I know myself; and you do not know me at all. You use the same pat responses (e.g. "full of hate") so common to evangelicals that I am inclined to believe that it is nothing more than a thought-stopper.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Gary, just so you don't forget what questions you are not answering:

    - When YHWH orders the killing of children is that morally right or wrong?

    -In philosophy, a thing is objective if it is 'mind-independent', that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject.

    How are morals objective?

    -And what definition of the word 'objective' are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Dan, I take it from your "evil - but justified" responses, you don't believe in moral absolutes... whatever they are.

    ReplyDelete
  100.      "'It is simply my observation that evangelical christians seem to lack [the capacity to perceive morality] and thus need some authority to dictate it to them. [If you wish to tell me that you can identify good and evil without relying on your god, feel free.]'
         "LOL, do you actually think before writing this inane tripe?" [Omitted words restored.]
         I think quite well. You, apparently agree with that as you felt the need to butcher my statement before you could claim the butchered result was tripe. Why don't you address the issue? Can you perceive morality on your own? If so, then my observation is incorrect, but you admit your god is not necessary. If not, then my observation is correct and your declaration that it is "tripe" is libel. Your choice.
         "Humans have no ability to create new moral values. Think that over before you attempt another cheap rebuttal."
         I didn't say that humans created them. I said humans perceived them. The fact that I cannot create mountains and trees does not mean that I cannot see them of my own accord.
         "Objective morals can ONLY come from authority and can only be eternal and transcendent. That's what the term objective implies!"
         Incorrect. Morals that are subject to an authority are not objective. Something that is objectively true remains true no matter who thinks it false, be that you, me, or your alleged god. That's what the term "objective" implies.
         "By what measure do you 'identify' good and evil?"
         My profile answers that, actually. But the measure is based on the amount of pleasure and pain caused and averted, or expected to be caused and averted for sentient beings.
         "Always amazed at atheist stupidity and self-contradictions."
         First off, I am not an atheist. More importantly, I do not contradict myself here. I contradict your preconceived notions. But you have demonstrated no internal contradiction to my beliefs. You have only shown a contradiction between my beliefs and your preconceived notions.

    ReplyDelete
  101.      "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other."
         Incorrect. One can say that one stone is larger than another without having a standard "large stone" against which you compare both of them.
         "If atheism were true, everything being posted here would be the result of purely irrational processes and nothing of it can be true or false nor freely thought."
         That is a mere assertion. It has not been supported by evidence. And it is not generally agreed to be true. I would suggest that if there is the puppet-master god in which you believe, that would preclude the possibility of anything being freely thought.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Dan +†+ asked...

    Q1) How do you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid?

    The primacy of existence, the law of identity and a theory of concepts.

    Q2) Does absolute truth exist[?]

    I do not know but I suspect that even if it does humans lack the ability to perceive such. Can you please demonstrate that "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and give an example.

    Q3) Is it possible that God can reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if not, how are you certain of this?

    Yes, by granting you omniscience. Barring omniscience on your part can you please demonstrate how you could be certain any revelation was from the God you claim, without resorting to an infinite regress of 'revelations'?

    ReplyDelete
  103. ANTZILLA

    If there was an event that there were no humans had or will ever have any knowledge of is it good or evil?

    Is the event good or evil?
    Your answer to this is your answer to your own question.

    Good and evil do not depend on the existence of humans.

    Good and bad are indivdual ideas based on there given individual life history?

    No. Good and evil are independent of human history and thought.

    Babies aren't born with predisposion on what they think is or the notion of good or bad.

    Yes they are.
    Evidence

    The standard atheist response to this kind of evidence is:
    1) Denial (their response to everything that constitutes evidence for God)
    2) Ad hom the scientists involved
    3) Try to find some other study, sponsored by atheist groups, that of course will say the contrary

    Children tend to believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

    See also Dr. Diane Komp's (pediatric oncologist at Yale,) "Windows to Heaven: How children see life in death".

    ReplyDelete
  104. I think quite well.

    How do you know this?

    You, apparently agree with that as you felt the need to butcher my statement before you could claim the butchered result was tripe.


    Nice try.

    Why don't you address the issue?

    Why don't you? I did, you ignore, misread or deny as always.

    Can you perceive morality on your own?

    Can you? The moral sense comes built in with humans, so yes - all humans can perceive morality "on their own".
    It is your "on your own" that needs definition.
    Can humans learn to walk on their own? Can they learn math, logic etc.? Sure. ALl that is built-in functionality. The moral sense is also built-in and you can't get rid of it, which you could were it merely something learned and imbibed from the environment.

    Your ideas are too vague and you assume too much in your statements without realizing - here we go again - that you could not claim that anything is right or wrong without an external Moral Law the over arches all.

    Incorrect. Morals that are subject to an authority are not objective.

    You once again misunderstand - this is because you lack the basic understanding both philosophically and logically.

    Something that is objectively true remains true no matter who thinks it false, be that you, me, or your alleged god. That's what the term "objective" implies.

    LOL. How you remain so blind to what people write is a study in itself.
    Your statement here is a mere rewording of what I said!
    Where you fail in this is in not seeing how a supreme necessary being is necessary for any morals to exist at all.

    My profile answers that, actually.

    No, actually it doesn't.

    But the measure is based on the amount of pleasure and pain caused and averted, or expected to be caused and averted for sentient beings.

    Once again, you haven't thought this through deeply enough to see you own contradictions.
    Morality has nothing to do with either pain or pleasure.

    First off, I am not an atheist.

    Good, so why do you reason like one? You're clearly in the post-modernist camp with the secular humanists, where all modern atheists are. And that even though you probably donn't even realize it. The whole public education system, since the 1930's has been invaded and taken over by secular humanists whose goal was to indoctrinate students into humanism without them realizing it. You been had.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  105. ...
    More importantly, I do not contradict myself here.

    The fact that you fail to see your contradictions is not evidence that there are none.

    "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other."

    Incorrect. One can say that one stone is larger than another without having a standard "large stone" against which you compare both of them.

    Your confused. Morals are not at all like stones. This is a clear error of equivocation.

    "If atheism were true, everything being posted here would be the result of purely irrational processes and nothing of it can be true or false nor freely thought."

    That is a mere assertion.

    Yeah right. It is not only self-evident but claimed by many atheists themselves.

    Prove the statement wrong, using a purely materialist basis. It cannot be done though many have tried. Not my fault if you fail to grasp this.

    And it is not generally agreed to be true.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine

    So free will does not exist in materialism. It is an illusion just like morals are an illusion if materialism is true.
    You're ignorance of philosophy is leading you astray on your own territory.

    I would suggest that if there is the puppet-master god in which you believe, that would preclude the possibility of anything being freely thought.

    Wrong. God is anything but a puppet master who controls all and banishes freewill.
    Umm, let's see, how can we prove this?

    Oh gee, you're here resisting him with all your might!!
    If God were a puppet master you would be incapable of unbelief and resistance.

    I would have thought that to be all too obvious - and this confirms my previous views on your way of not thinking.

    I rest my case on that one.

    Without a supreme self-existing being with mind and will, nothing can exist.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Without a supreme self-existing being with mind and will, nothing can exist.

    If you say so. Personally, I see this as nothing more than an arrogant way of portraying your faith as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Well, I know myself;

    No not really. If you could see your heart the way God sees it you'd probably die in horror of yourself.
    All the selfish acts, the manipulation, seductions, lies, lusts, cheating, selfish anger, pride, envying, cursing, hatred, rebellion, ...

    As one wrote, "since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
    They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
    Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

    and you do not know me at all.

    I know your views and that suffices for here.

    You use the same pat responses (e.g. "full of hate")

    My but you are confused!

    This is so much the standard rebuttal whenever a theist points out the folly and wickedness of the rebellious sinner -they change "telling the truth", "rebuke of obstinacy" etc., into "full of hate".

    You want to see seething hatred? Go to any of popular atheist forums wherein telling the truth is met with the same kind of bitter and furious ire that people like ericka spit out all the time, and far worse.

    A lame & vain accusation from you.

    You're losing and you know it. Lay down the weapons of your rebellion against God and experience real life and the source of all Truth!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Good and evil do not depend on the existence of humans.
    ...
    Good and evil are independent of human history and thought.


    How do you know and can you prove it?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Gary is falling into his standard -pattern of

    -denial,
    -insult and then
    -bald assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  110. CrapPUsher

    How do you know and can you prove it?

    You should have already noticed the proof.

    Can you prove it wrong?
    Go ahead and try.

    So - Do good and evil really exist?
    Or is it just human imaginations?

    Whichever way you answer you screw the materialist dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  111. You should have already noticed the proof.

    Humour me and link to it.

    Can you prove it wrong?

    That's not how the burden of proof works.

    So - Do good and evil really exist?
    Or is it just human imaginations
    ?

    False dichotomy.

    Whichever way you answer you screw the materialist dogma.

    How?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Gary:

         "This is so much the standard rebuttal whenever a theist points out the folly and wickedness of the rebellious sinner - they change 'telling the truth,' 'rebuke of obstinacy' etc., into 'full of hate.'"
         Your words to me earlier were: "To reword your anti [christian] hubris and hatred...." That is a variation of the standard evangelical reply that the non-christian he wishes to dismiss is "full of hate." I will have to watch for when you accuse non-christians of telling the truth and rebuking obstinacy.
         "'Why don't you address the issue?'
         "Why don't you? I did, you ignore, misread or deny as always."
         You have not encountered me long enough to justify a "like always" claim -- unless you are a sock puppet of someone who has posted here before? At any rate, butchering my statement in order to call it "tripe" is not addressing the issue.
         "Nice try."
         Translation: "I have no response that can counter what you just said, so I will dismiss it with a wave of the hand." (Note to readers: This translation only hold if, as in this case no response beyond "nice try" was attempted.
         "You once again misunderstand - this is because you lack the basic understanding both philosophically and logically."
         That I disagree with what you say does not imply that I failed to understand it.
         "Your statement here is a mere rewording of what I said!"
         Not true. You said that objective morality is dependent on the decree of your god. My statement indicates that any morality that is so dependent is not objective.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Gary is falling into his standard -pattern of

    -denial,
    -insult and then
    -bald assertion
    .

    Nah, it's
    -dismissal,
    -denial,
    -vague insult,
    -bald assertion

    then a comment about he thinks he's won the argument.

    But seriously, this is standard play for presuppers. They don't like to give their opponents any thing they can respond to so non-answers are par for the course. Ever heard of the "line of despair"?

    ReplyDelete
  114.      "Once again, you haven't thought this through deeply enough to see you own contradictions.
    Morality has nothing to do with either pain or pleasure."
         That is not an internal contradiction (my belief contradicting itself.) It only contradicts your assertions.
         "Good, so why do you reason like one [an atheist]?"
         I reason "like an atheist" to about the same extent that I reason "like a christian." I make observations and I draw conclusions based on those observations.
         "[You're] confused. Morals are not at all like stones. This is a clear error of equivocation."
         And yet the analogy I used still holds. I can say that one set of morals is better than another without without reference to some "standard set." As a general principle, comparisons can be made without a reference to some alleged "ultimate instance."
         "Prove the statement wrong, using a purely materialist basis."
         Proof of a statement (or of its falsity) requires, at the very least a recourse to logic, something you seem to wish to deny me. At any rate, your claim boils down to "if atheism is true then no claim is true or false." Well, if atheism is true, then the claim that atheism is true is true, which defeats your statement. I'm sure that you will say that this did not meet your conditions which were, in effect, that you get to ignore any response.
         "So free will does not exist in materialism. It is an illusion just like morals are an illusion if materialism is true.
    You're ignorance of philosophy is leading you astray on your own territory."
         Moving the goalposts much? The discussion beforehand was atheism (the belief that there are no gods.) It is possible for there to be no gods and there still be something beyond the world we see. Whether materialism implies determinism is a separate unresolved issue.

    ReplyDelete
  115.      "Wrong. God is anything but a puppet master who controls all and banishes freewill.
    Umm, let's see, how can we prove this?
         "Oh gee, you're here resisting him with all your might!!
    If God were a puppet master you would be incapable of unbelief and resistance.
         "I would have thought that to be all too obvious - and this confirms my previous views on your way of not thinking.
         "I rest my case on that one."
         Your case is a rather poor one. If I can so much as move a pebble where your god does not want it, he is not omnipotent. However, you are overlooking the fact that, in the "puppet-master" hypothesis, the puppet master assigns some of the puppets roles that lead to hell. According to christian beliefs, I reject your god ultimately because he has decreed that I reject him (so that he can "glorify" himself through my torment.)

    ReplyDelete
  116. Pvb,

    In your profile it says "Pleasure good; pain bad"

    So basically your beliefs directly goes against all of nature itself. Pain is an indicator to the body that something is wrong and should not be continued. So pain is a good thing, a tool to help advancement of knowledge. People would be placing their hands on hot stoves all the time getting infections from all the burns. Pain is a valid indicator of what not to do. If you stick your hand into a grinder pain tells you that was a bad move. Pain teaches good lessons of life. Pain is good.

    Also not all pleasure is good. I am sure it "feels good" to have relations with your sister or mother but that does not mean its good. Stroking the penis of a dog may feel good to it, but I am sure you would agree that its not a good thing. These are mere extremes to point the absurdity of your position. Its sad that a pedophile would agree with your position though.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Pvb,

    "First off, I am not an atheist"..."I would suggest that if there is the puppet-master god in which you believe, that would preclude the possibility of anything being freely thought."

    Nope, no contradiction there. *pshaw

    Who are you trying to convince here? Us or you?

    ReplyDelete
  118. If there's a contradiction, why not share with us what you think it is?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Gary,

    so your evidence of
    "Babies aren't born with predisposion on what they think is or the notion of good or bad."

    is an article in a news paper (top sorce), written by a religious correspondant...

    That has show no evidence at all...



    -----------------------------------
    95% of the standard atheist argument is trying to get theists to give a straight anwser.

    God only proven without doubt exist only in philosophy.

    Philosophy is only a constuct
    human mind constuct

    ReplyDelete
  120. Children tend to believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

    Can we get a absolute truth what the defintion of God is?

    ReplyDelete
  121. It's more like children are good at anthropomorphizing everything.

    "The toaster likes to cook toast."

    ReplyDelete
  122. Dan:

         I am stating facts. I already believe what I say. And, in your apparent attempt to ridicule me, note that I do not rule out the possibility that there is a god -- in the sense of creator of the world we see. I don't think that the petty, vain, spiteful, vindictive, insecure monster that christianity describes exists.
         Furthermore, no there is no contradiction. If I were an atheist, I would be ruling out all possible gods. I do not.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Gary suggests babies are born with concepts and good and bad...

    I wonder why then, my new baby nephew ate his shit.

    ReplyDelete
  124. As always the atheists here avoid the issues, do not answer the questions put to them with anything but denial, assertion, ad homs and avoidance. Not to mention the usual lack of perception of their own self contradictions.

    Thus far the "conversation" is going nowhere. Why am I not surprised.

    Is there not one of one that can give a straight answer?

    Are there moral absolutes or not?
    Are there logical absolutes or not?
    Is is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?


    So what do you do when confronted with the idiocy of atheism?
    You whine like little sucks and cavil and attempt to shift your own burden of proof to your adversary.

    Burden of proof

    See also

    Sorry people but as Sartre noted, "Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist..."

    So where do atheists get off accusing theists, or anyone else, of doing wrong?!

    Atheists are thus guilty of amazing self-contradictions and duplicity of heart.

    ReplyDelete
  125. What's your purpose in posting here, Gary?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anty zilla does exactly as I expected him to do with the evidence that children are born predisposed to believe and understand morals.

    He pretends the research by Dr. Barrett is inadmissible because the article itself reporting on his findings was written by a "religious correspondent".

    Has it come to that low a state?! Zilly thinks that the reporter is the one who determines whether a scientific finding is true or not depending on the reporters own belief and job status!?!

    Dr Justin Barrett is a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind.

    Zilly did not read the article, or he would have noticed that Barrett's work is also based on multiple findings of multiple scientists over several years. Barrett is merely summing them up concisely and commenting on the overall findings of all the other researchers.

    You need to grow up and learn how to think critically on what you read and to do thorough research not just your usual biased version.

    Also, if you had a grain of honesty in you you would have also looked up the research itself instead of merely dismissing it off hand due to your own religious prejudice.

    Worse, you seem to have not even checked out Dr. Diane Komp's work in pediatric oncology.

    I doubt any of you did!
    How disingenuous!

    She, a former skeptic herself, became convinced of God's existence and the truth of Christianity by witnessing miraculous events occur surrounding the death of terminally ill children.

    Like the young 7 year old Anna who died of leukemia:
    "Before she died, she mustered the final energy to sit up in her hospital bed and say: 'The angels-they're so beautiful! Mommy, can you see them? Do you hear their singing? I've never heard such beautiful singing!' Then she laid back on her pillow and died."

    Live with it or die in spiritual poverty wherein when your turn comes to die you will not see angels but demons coming for you -as many other death bed incidents have revealed in many real world reports.

    ReplyDelete
  127. ANTZILLA said...

    Gary suggests babies are born with concepts and good and bad...

    I wonder why then, my new baby nephew ate his shit.


    I can only hope this was meant as a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Gary:

         Correctly pointing out that your questions are dishonest traps is not avoiding the issues. Seriously, "Is is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?" is a blatant example of a loaded question. If you were sincere, you would just ask "Is it true that there are no absolute truths?" But honesty does not serve you because when someone denies the existence of absolutes, you want to claim that he has advanced an absolute. In short, you are trying to invent a contradiction that does not exist within your targets beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "Are there moral absolutes or not?"

    Depends on your definition of morality. If, for example, the goal of morality is defined to be the maximizing of human happiness and welfare as Sam Harris would argue, it is absolutely immoral to stab random people because it does nothing to serve the goal of morality and instead hinders it. To have objective morality, we must have an agreed upon definition of morality.

    But religious people seldom are content with that. You argue morality must be beyond anything made by humans, it must be transcendent. You'd argue that there are these immaterial 'oughts' that exist outside human minds that determine what is right and what it wrong. I would say such things do not exist. How would they? What does it mean to say that moral obligations exist outside the minds of moral agents? And if they do exist, so what? I don't give a damn whether there's a 'moral obligation' floating somewhere in the ether that dictates that, for example, gay marriage is immoral. I literally would not care about this so-called moral absolute. It does nothing to help the happiness of human beings, which is top priority for me. I would judge these moral absolutes for myself, and only obey them if they made sense to me. If God tells me to help others, sure. If God tells me to crash a plane into a scyscraper, I tell him to piss off.

    To put it simply, if moral absolutes exist, that fact alone does not tell me whether I should live by them or not. It 100% depends on the nature of these moral absolutes.

    "Is is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?"

    I don't know how absolute truth differs from regular old truth.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Pvblivs

    Correctly pointing out that your questions are dishonest traps is not avoiding the issues.

    Dishonest traps?

    ROTFLMAO is the only proper response to such a dishonest evaluation of honest and perfectly reasonable questions.

    You're getting desperate.

    Seriously, "Is is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?" is a blatant example of a loaded question.

    Indeed, of course its loaded. So?
    Let the atheist answer it without screwing himself.

    Can't be done, and that in itself is what proves atheism to be a empty world-view with no value at all. Sad you refuse to see that.

    That's exactly why atheists refuse to even attempt and answer. Any answer screws their inane view and that is the whole point!

    If you were sincere,

    So YOU are going to lecture ME and sincerity?!!
    LOL!!!
    Where do you get your objective moral values on "sincerity" from?!
    You undo your own statements every time and I'm frankly tired of trying to open the door of your reason to get you to admit you're wrong.

    Even Voltaire saw more clearly than you! - "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly"
    That is atheism in a nutshell. Your unfounded and "badly reasoned" skepticism isn't far behind.

    "Is it true that there are no absolute truths?"

    Of course you can't see that that is merely a re-wording right?
    Well answer it then? And let the atheists answer it.

    But honesty does not serve you because when someone denies the existence of absolutes, you want to claim that he has advanced an absolute.

    Duh, that's because its a fact!

    Do you even think - here we go again - before writing this self-contradicting stuff?

    In short, you are trying to invent a contradiction that does not exist within your targets beliefs.

    Utterly and very foolishly wrong.

    The contradiction is intrinsic (go look it up) and self-evident and that is - here we go again - the point to be made!!

    You are really getting worse and worse as you attempt to avoid the obvious conclusions - there are indeed absolutes and absolute moral values - and that makes your poorly defined world-view a meaningless piece of ill reasoned junk.

    Now go ahead - accuse me again. None of your mud sticks except to yourself and the foul mouthed and flagrantly dishonest atheists here.

    ReplyDelete
  131. What's your purpose in posting here, Gary? It's a simple question...

    ReplyDelete
  132. h_brummer

    It does nothing to help the happiness of human beings, which is top priority for me.

    Why?

    If there be no ultimate meaning and purpose to existence, the happiness of one tiny little species living on one planet which, on the universal scale, is the size of a mathematically point means what exactly?

    Without God it means absolutely nothing at all.

    I would judge these moral absolutes for myself, and only obey them if they made sense to me.

    You miss the underlying point: according to what measure would you "judge these moral absolutes for yourself"?

    Can't you see that you cannot judge any standard without assuming an overriding one!?! i.e. an objective standard by which all others may be judged.

    If God tells me to help others, sure.

    Yes but upon what moral foundation do you say this?

    If God tells me to crash a plane into a scyscraper, I tell him to piss off.

    I'm sure we'd all agree.

    But again - Why?
    Upon what moral foundation is anything truly right or truly wrong?
    See? You must have an objective moral Law or the whole of morality falls apart.

    To put it simply, if moral absolutes exist, that fact alone does not tell me whether I should live by them or not.

    Again, you're missing the nature of moral absolutes - the very fact of their absoluteness is what means one is under obligation to obey them.

    It 100% depends on the nature of these moral absolutes.

    You have it backwards. I is rather by them that we can determine the nature and judge of the correctness of all other morals presented to us.

    They are the measure.
    If they do not in fact exist then there is no measure at all and nothing is right or wrong.

    Moral law intrinsically implies purpose, meaning, authority and obligation.

    ReplyDelete
  133. (I'm going to recycle this comment from another thread)

    Note the constant use of "absolute." This is one of those terms philosophically naive people love to throw around. It's very, very unclear what it means. Sometimes it is used just for emphasis "Is this a table? Yes. Yes, absolutely!" Sometimes it is used to mean "unqualified", as in "absolutely no exceptions!" But neither of these fit the way it's used here, and I venture to say that it really doesn't mean anything clear at all.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Correct, it's a word that's effectively meaningless in this context. There's no difference between something which is true and something which is zomg absolutely true

    ReplyDelete
  135. ?

    You seem to be asking if it is true that there are truths.

    (You won't define what you mean by "absolute" but you are happy to drop the word as if it means nothing.)

    Some statements are true. Truth is a value of statements, it's not a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  136. it's a word that's effectively meaningless in this context.

    Which is probably why Gary is so hesitant to define it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Crap Usher

    Define absolutes.

    You could have done this yourself of course.
    # expressing finality with no implication of possible change; "an absolute guarantee to respect the nation's authority"
    # something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative; "no mortal being can influence the absolute"
    # not capable of being violated or infringed; "infrangible human rights"

    "The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence."


    So now, are there logical absolutes?
    Is there absolute truth?

    A word game as an evasion tactic won't help you.

    So will you answer the questions now?
    Finally!?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Is there absolute truth?

    He's answered that already.

    ReplyDelete
  139. It only took you about two weeks to define absolutes but you still haven't indicated which of the definitions you are using.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I think it's pretty clear, Adam, that Gary has defined absolutes as "maybe existing, but beyond the abilities of humans to perceive/know".

    If he should ever accuse you (or anyone else) of making absolute statements, refer him back to his own definitions, where it's obvious that humans CAN'T do that

    ReplyDelete
  141. Gary:

         "Indeed, of course its loaded. So?"
         So, loaded questions are dishonest.
         "Can't be done, and that in itself is what proves [the question to be a dishonest trap] with no value at all. Sad you refuse to see that."
         Fixed it for you. A question specifically set up so that any possible answer lead to a particular conclusion is not reasonable. Since your question is clearly set up so that a person who believes that "absolute truth" is a fiction would be seen as endorsing a position contrary to his own no matter how he responded, the question is dishonest.
         "Duh, that's because its a fact!"
         Actually, it's not. Let people answer my "rewording" and say that it is not true that there are absolute truths. You will have no basis on which to claim they have advanced anything as an absolute truth. Again, I am not contradicting myself. I am contradicting your nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  142. One of the definitions Gary gave starts with:
    #something that is conceived or that exists independently...

    I'm sure Gary is not arguing absolutes are just concepts, or is he?

    ReplyDelete
  143. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Gary asked if moral values were absolute then gave a definition of absolute as "not capable of being violated or infringed".

    So are morals values incapable of being violated or infringed (absolute)?

    ReplyDelete
  145. If you atheists had had any guts or honesty you would have put up a definition of absolute yourselves -even though standard dictionary defs, such as I gave- will do.

    And worse, these petty escapist responses would be funny if not serious.

    We all know what we mean by absolutes in the existence of God debate, so stop lying to everyone including your own selves.

    AD's last response is either just a joke or he really can't figure this out at all.

    You atheists are either exceedingly dumb and without insight or deliberately acting so.

    "An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see....."

    Again, "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly..."

    Indeed, Voltaire's "imprudent, misguided and reason badly", are so clearly applicable to atheists and Joe skeptic, in this thread its just unbelievable.

    Atheism is so logically feeble and fragile that none here dare answer even simple questions for fear of having their empty world-view revealed for what it really is = nihilism.

    That fact puts you in a state of psychological insecurity over your own views and lives -which all atheists seek to avoid at all costs to themselves.

    Sad bunch indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Can you see why Gary didn't want to define the words he was using?
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  147. Huge amount of projection on Gary's part!

    Can you see why Gary didn't want to define the words he was using?
    :-)


    Of course but Gary still hasn't stated which definition he is using.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Hi Gary, my atheistic desires have been fulfilled. At last a replacement for Sye Tenbruggencate has arrived.

    Welcome.

    Now, where shall we begin with you ?

    Ok, let's have a look at your worldview shall we ?

    So, how do YOU know that YOUR worldview is correct ?

    Please try and be precise with your use of language.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Hi Gary, I just checked out your two blogs - no commenting allowed ?

    Why is that ?

    Ok, so I'll comment on Dan's blog - you seem to be caught between being a Presuppositionalist (and I like debating with them) and being an Evidentialist (and I like debating with them too).

    So, I've already asked a question of your Presuppositionalist worldview so let me ask a qeuestion of your Evidentialist worldview

    - who interviewed the Shepherds, the Three Wise Men and King Herod to verify their accounts or are we relying on Marian hearsay ?

    I've asked another well qualified Theologian and his best answer was that it did not matter. Which is a bit odd don't you think ? Especially with all of that evidence lying about.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Paul Baird

    Hi Gary, my atheistic desires have been fulfilled. At last a replacement for Sye Tenbruggencate has arrived.

    Paul, your atheistic desires (whatever that means) do not interest me. Nor does your foolish angst against Sye T.

    In most of the cases where atheists claim to "own" him it is purely your own arrogant imagination. I understand why he simply gives up on you.

    None of you appear to even grasp a simple "logical absolutes" argument.
    I don't particularly like Sye's version but it still beats atheism's intrinsic nihilism any day.

    Btw, do you think you have enough blogs to evangelize the world with meaningless atheism yet?
    Is blogging all you ever do?!

    Welcome.
    ???

    Now, where shall we begin with you ?

    Oh oh, I feel a self-styled expert has arrived.

    So which one of the Athies here called you in as the purported "big gun"? Or did you really arrive here on your own?

    Anyone that has as many blogs as you do - most ardently preaching atheism - has a lot of angst and bitterness against religion that need spleen venting.
    God only knows why you're so proliferant at spewing it out all over the web -as though in mattered (under atheism)

    As a disciple of S. Law I guess I can't expect much.

    Ok, let's have a look at your worldview shall we ?

    Let's have a look at yours.
    "I was raised as a C of I then C of E Protestant Christian ....
    I've been a Spiritualist, with my father being a .. medium. ...
    I've also been a Pagan, both Wicca and non-Wicca...
    I'm now an atheist. I've been an angry atheist but nowadays I try to persuade with a reasoned argument ..."


    I feel sorry for you already.

    Must have been tuff, so much confusion and so many distorted ideas all around.
    And a medium father!?!
    Geez, I understand why you reject all that, what a mess!

    Why do you try to persuade anyone of an idea that doesn't matter (atheism)?

    I have a good story for you:
    A woman walks into a medium's room (no, not into a bar ;-) in New York city. She sits down and listens to the predictions, descriptions etc. and then is asked for the money.
    The woman pulls out her NYPD badge and arrests the woman for fraud, or whatever.
    The officer comments, "I've been in a lot of fortune teller's rooms in my time and have been told all kinds of crazy things but none of them has ever told me I was an NYPD officer coming to arrest them".

    So, how do YOU know that YOUR worldview is correct ?

    How do you know that you know anything?
    Under atheism knowledge, reason and logic are mere by-products of non rational processes. Cuts its own throat. You can't test your brain using your brain.

    I noticed that Mike Felker of the Apologetic Front has been debating you - rather nicely in fact.

    I also noticed that you, like so many other misguided athies, step into quantum physics to support your position.
    Bad move.

    "Nothing created everything" is "pretty damn reasonable" -to you?! Amazing.

    You need to acquaint yourself with interpretations of quantum phenomena other than the Copenhagen one - which is rather inherently self-contradictory. I suggest you look up the De Broglie–Bohm theory.

    Then you childishly bring in the ubiquitous atheists inane "invisible magic man" terminology.

    I strongly suggest you go get yourself a copy of Stephen Unhill's book "The Probability of God".

    Many smarter atheists like it.
    Unhill is a Ph.D (field of quantum gravity), University of Manchester.

    In any case I suggest you ask Dan to open a new topic if you want to debate. This one is already so full of atheist escapist tactics and shallow responses its gotten very boring.

    ReplyDelete
  151. And Gary punches his strawman!
    BAM!

    Anyway, what definition of absolute are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  152. And stop claim I never answered your question. I gave you an answer it was:


    Is there an absolute truth?
    Statements can be true. Truth is a value of statements, it's not a thing.
    You'll have to specify which definition of absolute you are using.

    ReplyDelete
  153. And stop[ing] claim I never answered your question.

    Other people have answered it too.

    I have a feeling Gary ignores anything that doesn't fit his template for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  154. LOL, I put the [ing] on the wrong word!.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Oh oh, I feel a self-styled expert has arrived.
    Pot, meet kettle....

    ReplyDelete
  156. Gary, d'you know, for a moment I'd expected something better but it's the same old tired out lines of theistic argument.

    Come over to my blog or let's have a discussion on Premier's Unbelievable forum.

    We have owned Sye.

    There is a pencilled in Skype debate for mid December between Sye and myself. Wanna join in ?

    Invite Mike Felker too (I enjoyed my exchanges with him).

    And after all of the bluster the best you have is to recommend a book about the probability of god ?

    Let me guess the ending - God exists and it's the Protestant Christian God. Weird that. :-)

    So, where do you want to start ?

    I'm happy to debate you here, on my blog or better yet, on Premier.

    Name your venue.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Gary,
    Paul Baird has called you out
    No question dogding, petty insults will be counted as weakness...
    are you going to man up?

    ReplyDelete
  158. We as Free people/thinkers have to remember that in theisms hey-day (and if the majority of them had there way now) they would have us killed...

    ReplyDelete
  159. Gary,
    Why are you so filled with hate towards atheists?

    Why don't you beleive in FSM?

    (I've just had vision from God... it shows me... Gary typing angry insults instead of having a rational debate)

    ReplyDelete
  160. Oh, the blatant hypocrisy of atheists (as well as atheists who lie about being agnostics)! They rail against presuppositional apologetics, and yet, they do it themselves.

    These are their given, assumed "facts": There is nothing but naturalism, nothing but the material, there is no God, there is no supernatural.

    "Now that we've established the rules, prove to me that God exists, here and now. But only with our rules, because we're terrified that you could be right".

    ReplyDelete
  161. You could start by proving the "supernatural" exists.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Look, if theism is right, so me.
    Show me an angel, show me a miracle,
    show me something! don't read me a bible verse show something/anything supernatural.

    I'm an atheist but I don't want to be, I would be awesome to live in a world of angels and demons, fairies and spaghetti monsters, miracles, talking snakes.

    But we don't.... pretty, pretty please prove me wrong.

    I'm a atheist... debunk me please!

    ReplyDelete
  163. You're wrong, superman. Atheism, as displayed by the atheists here, is a conclusion not a presupposition.

    ReplyDelete
  164. WEM, old buddy! SB here with new socks (click me)! Anyway, I am contending that atheism uses presuppostions to make the rules to control debates.

    Did I ever tell you that your icon is kind of, well, creepy? Well, whatever...

    ReplyDelete
  165. OK ,Pilt.Sman

    What are the rules?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Rules are: atheists have to explain everything with naturalist explanations.
    Theists can appeal to supernatural and magic explanations.

    It'll end up like this:
    Example question:
    Why does it rain?
    Atheist:
    Well, the clouds...
    Theist:
    [interrupting]BECAUSE GOD WILLS IT SO. HE USES THIS SUPER POWERS TO MAKE IT RAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  167.      Ah, yes, we remember the lyrics, "Sunshine came softly through my a-window today...." But the question, Stormbringer, is have you changed your ways?

    ReplyDelete
  168. If this disscussion was being held in the middle ages...

    It would finish.
    Atheist: I would disagree
    Theist: "kills atheist" based on what was read in his holy book...

    Very even debate? Theist followed the rules?


    ---Fast forward to now...
    ...
    Theist: there was a group on the wrong side of truth. The side that lost was wrong. Imagine that!? I don't believe in coincidences.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I do not believe there is such a thing as an objective morality, but most humans seem to share a few values most of the time. I keep using the word 'most' because it's obvious to me that not everybody shares these values, or many people only share them when somebody is watching.

    I think you only need one thing to develop a sense of morality like the majority of humans have. That thing is empathy. Empathy is the ability to feel what others feel, to understand their suffering. I personally can empathise with both humans and animals. That's one reason why I'm a supporter of wildlife conservation and animal rights. I still have to get around to confronting my own meat-eating habits, and I recognise there is some hypocrisy on my part.

    If we have the capacity for empathy, then we can use it as a foundation for morality. I wouldn't want something to happen to me because it would cause me suffering. I understand that it causes suffering for others, too. Normally that isn't my problem, but with empathy, it is. It hurts me to see another person or animal suffering, so I decide that the behaviour which caused the suffering is wrong. That's the emotional response.

    Also, from a purely intellectual point of view, I understand that we cannot have a society in which everybody is doing bad things to everybody else.

    Of course, religious people will not find this answer acceptable, even if it's true, because it does not include the supernatural being(s) that they were hoping for. They'll simply change the question to, "Where does your empathy come from?" And if we answer that, they'll change the question again in a never-ending game of bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Well said ME,

    Any problems with that Theists?

    ReplyDelete
  171. PSuperman wrote the following to me: I am contending that atheism uses presuppostions to make the rules to control debates

    This may very well be true. To be completely honest, I have seen atheists and theists do this.

    With that said, however, there's a difference between pointing to what you think is a presupposition, and pointing to the use of that presupposition to control a debate.

    Naturalism is not a presupposition. It is a conclusion.

    ---

    PSuperman also commented: Did I ever tell you that your icon is kind of, well, creepy? His name is Artis, and he's a street performer who's played with Frank Zappa and Soundgarden. The latter band's song Spoonman is named after him.

    Here, he plays with a band I should explain, but I don't have the time. It may not be your cup of tea, but at least you'll get to see Artis in action...

    ReplyDelete
  172. ME,

    How do you account for empathy within your atheistic, survival of the fittest evolutionary, worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  173. It seems as though my enthusiasm for a debate has dissuaded Gary from posting further, which I find a bit disappointing.

    So, a change of tack.

    I'm willing to have a cordial exchange of views with you Gary, and we'll see where it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  174. ME,

    >>Also, from a purely intellectual point of view, I understand that we cannot have a society in which everybody is doing bad things to everybody else.

    How? How do you account for bad things in that same atheistic worldview? Remember saying that things are bad, or good, is presupposing God. How do you account for societies being good for that matter? In an atheistic worldview, wouldn't the way lions live be just as beneficial?

    I just don't understand upon what objective moral foundations do you, as an atheist, condemn anything?

    "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

    ReplyDelete
  175. Wem,

    >>You're wrong, superman. Atheism, as displayed by the atheists here, is a conclusion not a presupposition.

    Wrong. Your atheistic worldview is based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist. Which is viciously circular to boot.

    Then, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging also, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Dan wrote:

    "Remember saying that things are bad, or good, is presupposing God."

    No, it is not. All you, and Sye, have is an assertion, nothing more.

    "I just don't understand upon what objective moral foundations do you, as an atheist, condemn anything?"

    By using relative morality.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Dan wrote:

    "Wrong. Your atheistic worldview is based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist. Which is viciously circular to boot.

    Then, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging also, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God."

    You really are as bad as Gish. It's as though all of the refutations to your lines of argument and to Sye's lines of argument were never posted and we have to start all over again.

    It's argument by attrition.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Exactly, Paul. When Dan wants to feel superior, he loads a few sentences with the usual keywords and then goes back to surfing Justin Bieber pr0n.

    It's pathetic, if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Wem,

    I disagree, I don't consider this porn. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  180. Paul Baird

    Paul, you are impatient, I will use that weakness against you.

    Paul "for a moment I'd expected something better but it's the same old tired out lines of atheistic argument."

    You are already implying victory?!
    Assuming too much too soon. Pride and arrogance. More weakness to be exploited.

    We have owned Sye.

    vide supra

    LOL!
    Who is we?
    And why should I care what you as, "nothing but a pack of neurons", claims?

    Atheists are always haughtily congratulating themselves for winning debates they never even understood. Makes you look so childish.

    You can't even win any argument on anything at all unless you admit of logical absolutes.
    But all while denying them I know you'll still assume them in everything "argument" you post.

    ...all of the bluster the best you have is to recommend a book about the probability of god ?

    Again, you assume too much too soon. That will lead to your downfall.

    Impatient and imprudent statements like yours merely reveal that you are no smarter than the other fundy athies here; that argue by denial, avoidance and never really understanding the issues.

    Very sorry and insidious method, Paul.
    I'm already disappointed.

    Btw, have you read the book in question?

    Of course not, but you're ready to review it right?!

    Let me guess, you're an admirer of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris and a faithful disciple of S. Law - they are your idols.

    Nihilism is where atheism necessarily ends. So, why are you so passionate about an idea that means that nothing really matters?

    Let me guess the ending - God exists and it's the Protestant Christian God.

    Let me guess, there is no god and you are his prophet.

    Debating you would no doubt prove no more effective than debating 14 year old Antzilla.
    At least he has the excuse of being young and naive.

    Nevertheless, if Dan would start a new thread I'd prefer that.

    Dan, what do you say?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Gary, when you use the word 'absolutes', which definition of the word are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Dan asked ME
    1.How do you account for empathy within your atheistic, survival of the fittest evolutionary, worldview?

    Basically, we as individuals have the same experiences as other individuals. Through our relative morals we can associate actions to others how we would individually respond.

    Now are you going to ask where relative morals come from?


    2.How? How do you account for bad things in that same atheistic worldview?

    To answer the question you would have to be specific on any given said action/activity was and from whose perspective.

    3/4 How do you account for societies being good for that matter?
    I would say individuals in my society people are generally good from there point of view. Society wouldn't really work otherwise.



    In an atheistic worldview, wouldn't the way lions live be just as beneficial?

    Beneficial to who?
    Lions seem to be doing ok...
    There are people out there quiet happy living in Polygamy relationships...
    What’s your point?

    ReplyDelete
  183. oh... ME is now NEWBDABLOCK

    you can call me NEWB

    ReplyDelete
  184. Gary,

    >>Nevertheless, if Dan would start a new thread I'd prefer that.

    >>Dan, what do you say?

    Done (lazily as it is)

    ReplyDelete
  185. Gary,
    "Debating you would no doubt prove no more effective than debating 14 year old Antzilla.
    At least he has the excuse of being young and naive."

    If all the debates YOU have with other people are not effective,
    It is because of YOU!

    You don't anwser questions.
    You have debates with and point out character false in your own strawmen.
    All you do is make petty insults.
    Your posts make no point.


    Are/when are you going to actully debate someone.

    You can start by anwsering.

    Gary, when you use the word 'absolutes', which definition of the word are you using?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Ant,

    >>Gary, when you use the word 'absolutes', which definition of the word are you using?

    Maybe this link will help.

    ReplyDelete
  187. ANTZILLA

    If all the debates YOU have with other people are not effective, It is because of YOU!

    I always win in debates with athies and Darwinists.

    Neither usually have the humility or honesty to admit they've been beaten -as with yourself and the other ill reasoning athies here. That iof course changes nothing. :-)

    When you see they cannot answer the "are there logical absolutes" etc. questions, you know they already see that any answer they give refutes atheism and thus have lost.

    You don't anwser questions.

    Wrong, I avoid answering useless, ambiguous, insidious and illogical questions.

    All you do is make petty insults.

    How dare you call my insults petty! lol

    Your posts make no point.

    There is a huge difference in posts that make no point and posts whose point you perpetually fail to grasp.

    Gary, when you use the word 'absolutes', which definition of the word are you using?

    You see yours is again another evasion response.

    Instead of answering the simple "do logical absolutes exist?" and "is it true there are no absolute truths?" questions, athies evade and then demand definitions even though they already know well what is meant by the questions.

    Now however, you're following Crap and the others so you're suddenly demanding a def.?!

    That's hypocrisy on your part kid.

    Proof:
    Above Dan asked,
    "Q2) Does absolute truth exist."

    You answered:
    A) Yes. eg 1+1=2,

    So either you really do know what Dan and I are referring to or you answered without understanding what he meant.

    You answered correctly, so you do know what we mean.

    Don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to see through that bit of duplicity.

    The other athies here are worse though since they too knew very well what absolute means in this context but do nothing but harp over definitions because they have nothing else answer.

    ReplyDelete
  188. I've answered your "absolute truth" question several times before but I guess it wasn't the answer you were looking for because you've ignored it.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Gary
    "You don't anwser questions.

    Wrong, I don't answer stupid or illogical questions."

    No Gary, you don't answer questions that answers contradict your beliefs!

    "I always win in debates with atheist and Darwinists.
    Neither usually have the humility or honesty to admit they've been beaten"

    What joke! We haven't had a debate yet.

    I've never been able to finish a debate with you or other theists you/they always ignore agrument/questions that destroy there's and discontinue debate.

    It's like if we were playing chess and as soon as I made a move, you smash the board and claim we were playing checkers then say you won.

    Dan asked, "Q2) Does absolute truth exist."

    You answered:
    A) Yes. eg 1+1=2,

    ****my answers had more to it than what you cherry picked***

    ***point 1
    1+1=2 without context is not an absolute truth.***

    What I understand as absolute (what is based answers on) seems to be a contraction of what you think as absolute. So the question has to be asked.

    Q1)So what definition are YOU using as absolute?

    Q2)Finish this sentence

    "an example of absolute truth is_________"

    Q3)Gary make your beliefs known. What do you believe?

    1+1=2 therefore, there's a god/s?

    Q4)Please define your idea of your God/s.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Thanks Dan for the link.
    It backs up my point.

    Without context an absolute truth can not be determined.

    NEWB answerd your questions as I would, are you going to respond to him/her? or have you thrown the chess board aswell?

    ReplyDelete
  191. Dan +++
    You claim to have been raised in an atheist family, you continued to be atheist untill 20yo or so.

    My question was


    Q1) If groups of Theists declare war on each other based on what is read in a 'holy' books written by humans, and durning the war 'evil' is committed. Which group of theists is good and which is evil?

    your answer was

    A1) Vague. It would be better if you used more specific examples (Christians vs Catholics, Christians vs Satanists) Theists is too generic. Plus, there is only one verifiable Holy Book in the universe, at least one that stands up to any real scrutiny. Go to war based on what is read in the Bible? That would not change the ultimate authority. Absolute authority still stands.

    Most atheists when asked same question answers somthing like,

    There both wrong, it's wrong to go to war based on holy books of anykind.

    So my questions is.

    When you where an Atheists and I'm assuming you at time like other atheists would have said the same.

    How is it that you changed your morals? Now that you believe in the bible, why has it became acceptable to you, for people to go to war based on a holy book (as long as it is your book)

    ReplyDelete
  192. Ant,

    >>How is it that you changed your morals? Now that you believe in the bible, why has it became acceptable to you, for people to go to war based on a holy book (as long as it is your book)

    I used the example of the civil war about slavery to highlight what is right in the eyes of God and what is worth fighting for. It was completely justified. Now, there might be some atheists out there that say it was not justified, but they would probably will not want to admit to that publicly.

    Also, a great deal has changed since I was born again. I used to think a lot of things were just fine and now I do not. I thought strong drinks were fine, in fact I loved to, literally, gargle tequila. My all time favorite drink was a double Chivas on the rocks. Its been many, many years since I have touched either and I don't miss them at all. I used to love what I called "fornication Fridays" but have turned away from those days long ago and not just because I am married now. I have been changed and I cannot explain it fully. It certainly was not because I wanted to. I loved sins, now I don't.

    Was killing the Canaanites justified? Yes. Completely. We would be hard pressed not to commit capitol punishment on them even in these days. Capitol punishment is justified and I encourage it as a solution against evil. The Canaanites were a very wicked bunch. From what I read they were rampant incestuous, adulterous, child sacrificing people. Not only did they encourage homosexuality, but bestiality! They deserved to die. Sodom and Gomorrah had a justified fate. It was not divine genocide, it was capitol punishment. I cannot see it any other way these days. In the past I would say it was harsh and genocide to justify my own sinfulness.

    This is my newest post.

    ReplyDelete

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