Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Interlude

I haven't done one of these in a while. I swore to myself that I would stop arguing with crazy people. This is a response to three comments by concernedengineer in my last post. I’ve been working on it for the past three days in what time I could spare. It was just too much effort to hide it in the comments section, so here it is. Concernedengineer: I give you the last word. Rebut away without further commentary from me. May the comment section give you whatever you deseve. Please do not take personal offense at my insinuation that you are crazy. We are all crazy. It only varies in type and degree.

Concernedengineer:

First, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I find them objectionable.

“You must feel pretty good and pretty wise. Apparently, you have risen above the psychological trickery that is apparently belief in the divine. So few of us have risen to such heights. But you are confident that you have a grip on reality, and that it is inconceivable that you might be deceived yourself.”

Oh must I? This might have been a legitimate pot-shot at my self-esteem, excepting for a few things you should know before trying again.
As the former victim of a class-A manipulator, I recognize the tactic.
Your credibility with me is zero.
Nothing is inconceivable. Everything else is conceivable, no matter how absurd or fictitious.

“Why do you presuppose that what you can not sense empirically does not exist?”

I do no such thing.

“You have not proven that the supernatural does not exist, so is it not a possibility that it does?”

The burden of proof does not lie with me. I am not required to prove a negative. That said, I will say that things have happened to me that I cannot explain. I believe that there are causes for these occurrences. I believe that anything that affects the physical environment is ipso-facto measurable. (This includes hallucinatory neural activity in my brain.) I do not believe that mankind has reached the end of knowledge of all possible states or measuring devices. There are things that transcend our present understanding; they are natural by virtue of their existence in the universe. I reject the concept of “super-natural” as I reject the actual existence of comic book super-heroes. I calculate the odds of being mistaken about this to be approaching the logical limit of zero.

The “reality check” comment was not mine, however:

“Do you not see the problem with this? You would have to do away with all postulates!”

I do not see how you draw that conclusion. A postulate or a theorem is formulated on the basis of what a person thinks might be true. They then set about proving it. They do not, as a rule, attempt to prove it by baldly and incessantly asserting the belief, or worse yet, belief in the unproven assertions of someone else, or even worse, by asserting or creating dire consequences for not believing their assertions without proof.

“So, do away with geometry, because Euclid's postulates are not proven.”

How much repeatability do you need? That’s the problem with living in a cartoon universe; the four billionth time someone gets hit on the head with an anvil, maybe their head will pop back into shape. It’s a miracle!

“This is scary, because people like you vote and contend for positions of political power and authority.”

We have the same problem with people like you, or perhaps people a little more like George W. Bush, who do all of the above and believe in the concepts of Armageddon and “holy war”. I don’t know you well enough yet to know if you’re scary.

One more on this and then I’ll move on. This wasn’t my idea, remember.

“The advancement of your contradictory philosophical worldview would be an epistemological hegemony.”

The author was talking about one day here. How does that compare to thousands of years of shameless and ruthless competition between every bearded mystic bullshit artist to ever point a finger and scream “blasphemer!” or “Heathen!” or “Sinner!” or “Infidel!” or any other local equivalent to ostracize those that do not play their particular flavor of the grovel game?

“I do believe that we are imitators by nature - also that imitation is the highest form of flattery. So, we should be very careful who we imitate.”

Imitation is a form of learning. If the conclusions drawn from the research I’ve cited is accurate, then it is an even more effective form of learning than was previously suspected. It is so effective in fact, that it takes place in an automatic fashion independent of willful action or mimicry. All that is required is attention. If this was all that the human animal was in terms of learning, there would be no creativity. Once one rejects the idea of divine inspiration, then the source of all art, technology, literature, and bullshit becomes exactly what it appears to be, the human mind. The apparent fact that most of these minds have been willfully tampered with does not change the source, merely the attribution.

“I dare say some people are atheists because they have imitated other confident and intelligent atheists. They are attracted to the independence of rejecting faith in God, see other people do it, and then step out in disbelief.”

This is an oversimplification. It is nice to see you acknowledge that there are intelligent and confident atheists. It is true that there is an independence that results from the rejecting of the idea that certain aspects of our “fate” and intellect are external to ourselves, and require fealty-by-proxy to priest-class handlers. You leave out the intellectual assessment that takes place in the decision process. To borrow a phrase, religion is weighed in the balance and found so very wanting as to appear hollow. On the other side of the fence, how many people “step out” in belief because of the feelings of freedom derived from not having to think for yourself?

“Once choosing their worldview, they then rationalize that worldview. Their empirical senses deceive them because their minds have become biased. "Statistics lie, and liars use statistics." It is way too easy for your presuppositions to govern your research. "Facts" become nebulous things. People become deceived and entrenched in their deception. Finally, they think they know everything, but they really don't know which way is up. But they have deceived themselves to the point of confidence.”

I suspect you know that I could make the same argument about religion and faith by simply replacing “empirical senses” with “emotions” and “research” with “belief”. Good statistics do not lie, although liars can attempt to draw the conclusions they desire. If there is a college near you, I highly recommend a statistics course. It’s a lot of work, but you will learn about sample sizes and degrees of confidence, and biased sampling, and the whole numeric valuation process will make a lot more sense. Facts are never nebulous. The idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old is total bullshit. That’s a fact. The whole reason my site is called “confusion of ideas” is that opinions and degrees of confidence in facts differ widely. You are correct in your assertion that people become entrenched in their deception. We happen to disagree as to the population of the deceived. You are told that there is an invisible anti-god that is crapping all over “creation” and deceiving everyone. Note the plug for creation neatly tucked into that ideation. I prefer to believe that the sophomoric hucksters that profit from expounding this belief are the deceivers. To me, they are the obvious choice. I absolutely do not know everything, and anyone who has been off this planet can tell you that “up” is relative to one’s own orientation. As to deceiving one’s self to the point of confidence, I think it is more like accepting a large, but less-than 100% probability as a sufficient degree of confidence. Faith, on the other hand and by definition, requires you to accept zero proof as a sufficient degree of confidence.

“We are utterly dependent on divine revelation to get a grip on epistemology.”

Oh really? Then tell me: how do you know that there are not space aliens with brain-wave radio equipment feeding you those “divine revelations?” How do you know?

“How can we elect someone into high office when the Bible says that such a person is a fool, incapable of wisdom, incapable of understanding justice, and incapable of establishing justice? It is not personal. It is simply that we believe the promises of God.”

What would the “bible” say? Don’t you really mean what the profiteering priest-class with soft, pudgy hands says to protect this grand scam? These assertions are far from proved, merely asserted. Justice is a moral concept; the alleged Jehovamagod does not act in a moral fashion. How can one possibly derive from the other? Justice is a social concept based on fairness and equality. It requires no God. Does the idea that eating oatmeal is healthier than eating sausage require a god to tell me so? Mankind defines justice, mankind makes laws. The two are not the same. Putting the god stamp on a law might have worked for the primitives, but it’s just silly now. That’s why we have secular law. To your bible quotes, I say, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” “Big Brother is watching you.” "Simon says." Simon (or Simeon), in this case is the great invisible alpha-monkey in the sky. So say His Faithful Servants, the priest-monkeys. Bah, humbug.

“That's not to say that I support Bush. I think that Bush has duped many in the Christian community. (I also think that many in the Christian community are not Christian).”

Nebulous definition is the foundation of deniability.

“But the point remains that many of us believe the Founding Fathers got it right when they implied in the Declaration of Independence that governing authorities ought to value and respect ‘the laws of nature and nature's God.’”

That’s a point I can agree with completely. Many of you do believe that. If that was your only point, you took a roundabout way to state it. I have dear friends whose faith and religious affiliation are such an important part of their lives that I would not dream of attempting to argue with them. They also do not attempt to evangelize me. They do not attempt to impose their beliefs on others either, as far as I can tell, nor do they judge and condemn on the basis of differing beliefs. They tell me about their activities in the church community, and I say, “That’s nice.”

PS: Drunken tune: I just caught your comment. Thanks! Don’t change a thing on your web site unless you have changed your mind. Political Correctness is the first step toward shame.

38 Comments:

At 9:28 PM, Anonymous SH said...

I seem to come across this "atheism is based on faith and everything is based on faith" argument a lot. Epistemological skepticism is the game theologians like to play because it gives them the impression that they found a philosophical justification for their blind faith and at the same time that they are pulling out the foundation from under the empiricism. The question one must ask, however, is this. If absolutely all positions are based on faith and therefore cannot be shown to be true, if empirical evidence and logic cannot be used to distinguish real from imagined, then by what means does a theologian suppose to arrive at the conclusion that blind faith in a god is superior to any other position? Moreover, how an epistemological skeptic can have a rational discussion with anyone when there is absolutely no basis for anything he has to say? Talking about philosophical dead-end... :-)

 
At 5:32 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

"If absolutely all positions are based on faith and therefore cannot be shown to be true, if empirical evidence and logic cannot be used to distinguish real from imagined, then by what means does a theologian suppose to arrive at the conclusion that blind faith in a god is superior to any other position?"

Yes, you can substitute anything you want for my space aliens with brain wave technology. At that point, no answer is any more right than any other. You might as well settle it by who insists the loudest. Hint: guns are noisy.

 
At 2:01 PM, Blogger Kristine said...

Well, all I can say is, CE has some anger management issues, for sure. He visited my blog, called me "friend," said that God made me compassionate, blah, blah, and then started attacking me and Janiebelle unmercilessly. If he really thinks I have a depraved mind and Janiebelle is going to hell, what's the rush by trying to assassinate our characters, too?

I never called him names. I parried his arguments and he launched into the same old abuse. So kudos to you for standing up for yourself.

The "cartoon universe" link is great.

 
At 9:29 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

Kristine,

I attacked your unbelief, not your personhood. I ask the readers to go visit Kristine's blog and pay careful attention to what I have actually said and the context in which I said it.

Love the sinner; hate the sin. We can and should respect one another - because we are all people. But in the realm of ideas, only good ideas are worthy of respect. So, I can and do show contempt for depraved ideas, but I seek to honor and respect the person while I do so.

And Kristine, you did suggest and imply that I am an idiot. You might not have called me names directly, but you definately implied that all who believe in intelligent design are IDiots.

So, be a little more careful and honest before you say, "I never called him names."

And I have to also notice that while you accuse me of "attacking you unmercilessly," that you say nothing of Janiebelle's unmerciful, relentless, and vicious attacks on me. Perhaps that's because she is cuter. Or perhaps that's because only people who believe in God should be held to account. Whenever anyone attacks anyone as viciously as Janiebelle attacked me, I defend the person being attacked - regardless of whether or not I agree with them. That's more than I can say of you.

I do not appreciate you spreading slander about me. If you have a problem with me, then I would appreciate it if you address me directly - keeping in mind that I am also a person.

Have a wonderful day.

 
At 11:13 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

sh,

You make an interesting point about the dead-end we continually return to after pealing everything else away. But that's not where the discussion ends; that's where it really begins. Then, it becomes a contest of authority. And the Holy Spirit has declared with power that Jesus is the Son of God.

Since most people haven't been trained in inductive and deductive reasoning, I spend a lot of time in these debates correcting fallacies and showing people the difference between validity and truth, etc. After everything is peeled away, you have your presuppositions, and I have mind. All too often, Christians, in an effort to keep the discussion going, surrender their presuppositions and accept their opponents' presuppositions. They do this because the secularists, by and large, have more resolve than Christians. Most secularists insist that you buy into their presuppositions, while they refuse to buy into my presuppositions. They say, "If you want to convince me of anything, you can't start with an article of faith, because I don't buy it." All too many Christians then give in and start with some secular presupposition in an effort to convince the secularist of a biblical principle. But in so doing, they have shot themselves in the foot. If people refuse to presuppose that God is real and has spoken, then no secular argument will convince them otherwise. For they have suppressed the revelation of God. Instead of seeking common ground, Christians ought to point out that the reason why people don't agree with Christian presuppositions is due to the truth that many have suppressed the truth of God and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie - and thus have become deceived. By not believing this, people illustrate my point exactly. For in refusing to believe and submit to this doctrine, they demonstrate that thought patterns of one who does not believe the Word of God.

Let me say to you that if you want to convince me of anything, then you will have to abandon all of your secular presuppositions. Oh, that Christians would be just as adamament about non-believers abandoning secularism as non-believers are adament about believers abandoning faith!

But this much we can agree on (or we should agree on): Deductive reasoning has nothing to say about presuppositions. We proceed from presuppositions to conclusions via valid deductive reasoning. But those who say that deductive reasoning and faith are mutually exclusive are very ignorant people.

 
At 12:16 PM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

" If there is a college near you, I highly recommend a statistics course. It’s a lot of work, but you will learn about sample sizes and degrees of confidence, and biased sampling, and the whole numeric valuation process will make a lot more sense."

As my handle suggests, as a degreed engineer, I took plenty of math courses - including a course in statistics for scientists and engineers. Got an A. Good class. I enjoyed it.

Look, I am not against empirical evidence. God gave us our senses; we should use them. I'm a fan of science. What I am saying is that when we start talking about spiritual things and morality, science and math don't have much to say to us. At that point, we enter the world of presuppositions and attitudes and beliefs and psychology and theology. All of these influence how people view the world. Very little of this can really be understood via the scientific method. And too often, people are much too undisciplined - especially when we start talking about evolution and psychology/psychiatry. Supposedly responsible scientists cross the boundaries of science into the realm of philosophy all the time, and then cross back, and go back and forth. But they never admit what they are doing. The whole time, they are claiming to be handling a question "scientifically." Meanwhile, the general public (most of whom don't know much about science or statistics or formal logic) presume that the "scientists" are trustworthy, reliable, and responsible.

Father Jonathon makes my point very well. Check it out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217061,00.html. Try to not allow the fact that he believes in God cause you to prejudge his argument.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger Kristine said...

Yes, come visit my blog, everyone (just realize that comments are now being moderated):

Where does someone even begin to respond to such a slanderous, hate-filled, inaccurate, sweeping generalization? You are an evil person, and you will be subject to the wrath of God if you do not repent and humbly come to Yeshua by faith.

I am not wishing wrath upon you. I am warning you that it is coming.


Never called anyone names, huh? Didn't you tell me that I had a "depraved mind"?

Kristine, Now is the chance to prove that you are not a hypocrite. You assert, "no one has the right to claim that his/her opinion is indeed fact." So, do you stand by what you say, or are you just an angry partisan? If you stand by what you say, then how about a little rebuke for your pal, Janiebelle? Or else, the logical conclusion is that you are an inconsistent partisan.
Or does Janiebelle get a free pass for being "cute?"

...That's why Janiebelle can spout her obnoxious, mean-spirited, irresponsible rhetoric without getting rebuked by any except people like myself, but the father of a Columbine victim gets attacked viciously for standing up for some ideas that are actually good.

And you wonder why the Democrats aren't in control in Washington.... As long as you refuse to call the likes of Janiebelle to account, then the American people who stand for decency will vote against you every time. By not confronting evil, you embrace evil.

But hey... as long as the evil is disguised in a cute body, then its all good.


That's real cute. That's real out of bounds. That's totally banned. I hope you're proud of yourself, CE. Even evil atheist girls cry.

Goodbye, and I mean it.

 
At 6:14 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

Wow. I turn my back for one minute and look what happens! :-)

So much to write so little time.

CE:

Unlike Drunkentune I do not think you are a moron. He can probably support that opinion though, so I would not tempt him. As Kristine has pointed out, some of your arguments are either below the belt, or they denote a bitter and persecuted mindset. The "victim mentality" that religion fosters is one of my pet peeves. More on this later. As I say, I don't consider you to be a moron. There are a great number of people who have been taught to think as you do, and who accept that programming and the invisible spooky world that goes with it. If you come across ill-mannered, I'm willing to chalk it up to no one's having taught you any different(ly). As anyone can tell you, I have my moments too. By the way, it's libel, not slander. The defense for either accusation is to prove that the accused party writes or speaks the truth.

Kristine:

I hope you won't refrain from joining in if you see certain parties have commented here. I once read a book titled, "Winning Through Intimidation", and I hate the tactic when I even think I might be seeing it.

 
At 8:01 PM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

breakerslion,

You're much more mannered than I am. The conversation became a bit heated, and I'm usually ready at a minute's notice to join the fray. Thanks so much for letting me vent on your site. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how everything's going.

If you've got any complaints, send me an email to drunkentune[at]gmail[dot]com. Thanks!

 
At 8:55 PM, Blogger Kristine said...

Doo-dee-doo, here I am backing up CE's comments, hmmm, I was really remiss in keeping him on-topic and yes, there was some name-calling back and forth (I told everyone that I was not babysitting them), and where was that one comment that started it all...ah! Here! "You are an evil heretic." Said to JanieBelle. I reacted humorously at the time. 'Cause apparently I'm a pushover.

I hope you won't refrain from joining in if you see certain parties have commented here. Thank you. No one stops me from commenting at a blog but I have at this point no interest in addressing CE's glossolalia about Revelation or whatever. I have no interest in whether he's a moron or not. I'm interested in your other commenters who have something intelligent to contribute.

It was JanieBelle who facetiously said (is everyone aware that JanieBelle is really a guy?) "I'm cuter, I win." She said nothing about a cute body. CE added that particular interpretation, and if he is indeed aware of JanieBelle's real identity (child's play if you visit her blog: "I'm totally fictional"), then that must have been directed at me. Either way, fingerpainting (panting?) outside the lines.

But thank you, yes, I will be commenting here as long as I am welcome. And, unlike somebody else, I will not ask anyone to defend me from off-color remarks. I can bounce back very quickly.

 
At 5:58 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"Never called anyone names, huh? Didn't you tell me that I had a 'depraved mind'?"

First of all, I don't think that I claimed that I didn't call anyone names. Second of all, you did claim that you never called me names, when in point of fact, you certainly implied that I am an idiot. Thirdly, when I say that you have a depraved mind, I am not saying that to insult you, but to rebuke you in the hope that you would recognize your own depravity, confess it, and then be set free by the truth. Without Christ, we are all totally depraved, and I am no better than you or anyone else.

In truth, I have generally thought fairly highly of you. Generally, you have been very decent. Janiebelle and Dan are a bit out of control, and I have been much more harsh with them than I have been with you. (In fact, at least one of the comments that Kristine quotes was directed at Dan, not Kristine). But even in being harsh with them, I have written truth. Yes, I called Janiebelle an evil heretic directly (and in so doing, I implied that you also are an evil heretic).

A heretic is someone who chooses to go against God and/or to not believe what God has spoken and/or to not submit to God's rule. And sin is rebellion against God. Everything that is not of faith is sin. Sin is evil. So, again, I encourage everyone to look at the context in which I called Janiebelle a heretic. Janiebelle had just asserted that the unborn fetus is not a human person. Furthermore he/she said that his opinion was better than mine because of his cuteness. Denying the personhood of the unborn is evil heresy. Those who promote evil heresy are evil heretics. And in truth, its not really about you and Janiebelle; it is about the lives and the rights of the unborn people.

What would you think and say of a person who denied that blacks or Jews or women were not people? What would you say about them? You might not use the word heresy - being atheists and all - but I bet your words wouldn't be very flattering to such people.

So, yes, all who deny the personhood of the unborn are evil heretics. And if that hurts your feelings, get over it. Sucking out the brains of babies two minutes before birth is murder. It makes me angry, and it should make you angry too.

Again, please people, don't just go on the few little paragraphs here and there that Kristine has cut and paste. Go and see the context in which I said it. I can quote the Bible and say, "There is no God." But if I said that the Bible teaches that there is no God, I would be teaching error. It says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Context people, context.

And I do hope and pray that you, Kristine, would have a nice day today. Peace to you.

By the way, I have no idea if Kristine is going to keep all the previous discussions on her blog in tact or not. If she doesn't, then she could very easily cut and copy and paste and make me look really bad. I hope she doesn't do that. But the possibility exists, so I ask all of you to consider that possibility before you judge me.

 
At 6:05 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

Kristine,

The "cuter" comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the fictional Janiebelle. But the bigger point is that, at the end of the day, all anyone without God has is their own opinions. So, with some humorous sarcasm, I played off of Janiebelle's comment. Why is your opinion or anyone else's opinion better than the next guy's? At the bottom line, you all don't really have an answer to that. In the abortion debate, the opinion that says, "draw the personhood line at birth" is completely arbitrary. People who assert that opinion are doing so arbitrarily. They might as well say, "I'm cuter; I win."

So, the comment was directed primarily at Janiebelle, but it applies to anyone who thinks that their opinion should be valued when their opinion is merely their opinion.

But when the God of glory reveals truth, He has His own glory to back Himself up. He essentially says, "I'm glorious; I win." And He does, cause He is.

 
At 6:38 AM, Blogger MarcoConley said...

But the bigger point is that, at the end of the day, all anyone without God has is their own opinions.

He has His own glory to back Himself up. He essentially says, "I'm glorious; I win." And He does, cause He is.

See-- this is one of many reasons why I'll never be a Christian. Ultimately it all comes back to "Because I believe God says so."

And that little line will outweigh any other evidence you can find. If science disagrees, science is wrong, no matter how much evidence it has. If rational morality disagrees, rational morality loses, no matter how much evidence it has.

We shouldn't be doing what God tells us to do. We should be doing what is right. And if God happens to want us to be doing the right thing, then that's good.

If you lived in a universe which was created by an entity that ordered you to murder, would you do it?

For most religious types, we already know the answer, because they believe God does want them to kill certain folks, and they act on it all the time. From the Abraham to the Taliban to Iran to Waco to Abortion Clinic bombers-- we see that many people will commit murder if they believe their God tells them to.

Religion is so dangerous because people will put obedience above morality. Being obedient to God is more important than being good. This is one of the reasons I call ancient judaism a very "primitive" religion-- and certain strains of modern christianity are no better.

On the other hand, here's a quote from Buddha that I stumbled across recently:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it-- even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Now that's the kind of thing a Deity would actually say, if you ask me.

 
At 6:51 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

Marco,

It is a moot point because God is good. You object to God defining goodness. I see your concern. You say essentially, "Would you follow an evil God?" This is a completely hypothetical situation that in point of truth is not the case. God is good. That He is the ultimate authority on epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics does not take away from his goodness.

No doubt, you object to the OT judgments. But you are seeing from the perspective of a depraved human being. God is holy and just. He punishes sin - and that violently. This is justice.

So, play all the philosophical games you want about doing God's will or doing what is right. But at the end of the day, doing God's will is right, and doing what is right is doing God's will.

You are the one who defends abortion. So, you have nothing to say about morality. All who deny the personhood of people are not qualified to lecture others about morality. But you presume to lecture God.

 
At 6:59 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it-- even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

In other words, "Be your own God." The problem with this is that there are some pretty sick and crazy people in the world. The exaltation of self is a dangerous and sinful thing. Left to our "own reason and [our] own common sense," we can and we have screwed a lot up.

Should Hitler have judged every philosophy against his own reason and common sense? Or should have he recognized the universal absolute moral code and turned from his own perceptions of reality, truth, and justice?

Or look at ancient Rome. They cheered as gladiators were forced to fight one another to the death. Should they compare every philosophy with their own "reason and common sense?" Or should they have been persuaded to reject their own ideas and embrace better ideas?

To a little child, if his ball accidentally goes in the street, his own limited reason and common sense might be to go into the street to recover the ball. He needs guidance and wisdom from someone who knows more than himself. But if he is to receive that wisdom, then he will have to trust in the wisdom that he doesn't fully understand or comprehend.

So it is with us. We see just a glimpse of the big picture. And we are making decisions that can and will harm us. But there is a God who sees the big picture. He has wisdom. He can and does reveal that wisdom to us. But in order for us to reap the benefits of this wisdom, we are going to have to trust that His ideas are better than our own.

 
At 7:44 AM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

concernedengineer,

You are still a moron.

God is good. That He is the ultimate authority on epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics does not take away from his goodness.

You cannot grasp a problem inherent in Christianity for thousands of years.

“Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do gods command it because it is right?” Plato’s Euthyphro

We keep telling you Christians that this is a problem, but you stick by your guns. "God is good." Meaningless! If we think God's commands are good because he commands them, there are only his commands, and are not good or evil. There must be a standard above your god to proclaim that they are indeed good commands.

Restrict your notions to logic, please. If he was to exist, he could only be god, since an all-powerful, omniscient, and all-good god has characteristics that are mutually exclusive. There would be no standard above God for us to measure if anything it did was good. He can only be all-powerful and all-knowing, and I would not pray to such a being even if it were to exist, concernedengineer.

No doubt, you object to the OT judgments. But you are seeing from the perspective of a depraved human being. God is holy and just. He punishes sin - and that violently. This is justice.

No. It is insane. If you actually believed that the OT was the word of your god, you would be tracking us down right now, waiting to kill us all.

So, play all the philosophical games you want about doing God's will or doing what is right. But at the end of the day, doing God's will is right, and doing what is right is doing God's will.

At the end of the day, doing Allah’s will is right, and doing what is right is doing Allah’s will. Death to the infidel!

A heretic is someone who chooses to go against God and/or to not believe what God has spoken and/or to not submit to God's rule. And sin is rebellion against God. Everything that is not of faith is sin. Sin is evil.

Oh, concernedengineer! You cad! Stop proselytizing.

“Everything that is not of faith is sin.”

Cute. Very cute. So is science evil? Is logic evil? Cause you’re using technology developed by scientists to communicate to us, while attempting to engage in logic. Give up your computer, give up logic. After all, they’re full of sin.

Dissed and dismissed.

 
At 7:55 AM, Blogger Kristine said...

Who brought up abortion at my blog when it had nothing to do with my post?

By the way, I have no idea if Kristine is going to keep all the previous discussions on her blog in tact or not. If she doesn't, then she could very easily cut and copy and paste and make me look really bad. I hope she doesn't do that. But the possibility exists, so I ask all of you to consider that possibility before you judge me.

Funny. I backed up those comments just in case CE started deleting them to erase the evidence. His little conspiracy never even occurred to me. I could never have thought of it myself. Wow.

I guess we can all see who acribes evil motives to others and who doesn't.

Tah-tah.

 
At 9:12 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

Kristine,

Why would I do that? I stand by my words. By all means, tell everyone about me and my comments. I am all about the proselytization of the gospel, even if the work is being done by atheists.

But if you really want to see my get combative, Kristine's blog is not the place to go. You have to go to Janiebelle's blog. That scene reminds me of the historic conflict between Elijah and Jezebel.

Drunken Tune,
I hope that I do not need to give you a lesson on logic. But deductive reasoning has nothing to say about fundamental presuppositions. When our Founding Fathers said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." they did not even attempt to prove the truths they were asserting. Those truths were axioms. That's where they started.

You can start from a false premise and proceed in a logical fashion, and your argument would be completely valid - as long as the structure of the argument is valid. But it wouldn't be sound, because the initial premise was false.

None of my arguments are invalid. You might think that they are not sound, because you don't buy my presuppositions. But any logician would tell you that my arguments are valid. The presuppositions with which I start - you can only know those if/when they are revealed to you.

So, there is an introduction to logic for free. If you want to learn more, you can check out Janiebelle's blog where I gave her a more complete lesson. I only ask that you use logic for good and not for evil. I actually hesitate to tell all of this to you. Because in teaching you logic, I have empowered you with a weapon, and you can combine that with rhetoric to do good or to do evil. I ask you to use logic and rhetoric for good.

Again, your rhetoric about standards of goodness is interesting from a philosophical perspective, but the point continues to be moot because God is good. This is not moronic; it is truth.

"There must be a standard above your god to proclaim that they are indeed good commands."

Wouldn't the one who made such a proclamation then be the ultimate God?

On the contrary, if God is not real, then there is no such thing as good. Matter and energy has no will, no personality, no judgment, no moral discernment, no authority, no power, and no ability to make a proclamation about goodness and justice. If it did, then matter itself would be god. But it doesn't. Yet, we find that morality is real and absolute. Murder is wrong. That's not just my opinion or your opinion. That is truth. The moral code says so. Of course, I presume that the moral code exists. So, how did the moral code come to be? Or do you think it doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, then what's with all the anger and rage at "injustice?" If it exists, then has it existed from all eternity? Or did it just suddenly come to exist? Does man decide what is right and wrong? Are morals relative?

This is, of course, the debate of the ages. Many a wise and intelligent men throughout history have believed as I do. Are you saying that all of them are morons? Or only me? What, pray tell, is moronic about believing that God is the author of the moral code and that He backs Himself up with His own glory? And, presuming that you don't think of yourself as a moron, why are your opinions on the matter not moronic? And on what authority do you make such a judgment? Your own? I have a feeling that this is going to boil down to, "This is simply how I see it, and I trust my own opinion." After all, we're all right. Just ask us.

 
At 9:18 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"So is science evil? Is logic evil? Cause you’re using technology developed by scientists to communicate to us, while attempting to engage in logic. Give up your computer, give up logic. After all, they’re full of sin."

Science is not evil. Science - pure science - is the pursuit of truth. As such, it is a subset of theology and wonderful to study. Logic, also, is good. In fact, all truth is God's truth. The only way non-Christians can be right about anything is by stealing/borrowing from Christian truth. When a non-Christian accurately teaches physics, they are accurately describing God's creation. Physics is part of God's truth - as is mathematics, logic, history, grammar, language, etc.

Now, all of those things can be used for evil. Mathematics and physics and logic and history can be used for perversion and sin and evil. That happens all the time. We live in a fallen world that is under a curse. But creation was originally good. In Christ, we have redemption. Now the redeemed have a mission to redeem all that was fallen.

There is nothing wrong with technology. It is part of God's creation. Smart people have utilized God's creation in some pretty neat ways. We will be judged by the way we use technology.

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"And, unlike somebody else, I will not ask anyone to defend me from off-color remarks. I can bounce back very quickly."

"But hey... as long as the evil is disguised in a cute body, then its all good."

This comment (the one I made) definatley had some biting sarcasm in it. Kristine, I apologize. I ask for your forgiveness for making this comment.

And while you have not asked for it, I shall seek to defend you and every other person from any and all vicious attacks.

I shall especially seek to defend the unborn from vicious attacks.

 
At 10:04 AM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

Again, your rhetoric about standards of goodness is interesting from a philosophical perspective, but the point continues to be moot because God is good. This is not moronic; it is truth.

"There must be a standard above your god to proclaim that they are indeed good commands."

Wouldn't the one who made such a proclamation then be the ultimate God?


Then you fall into infinite regress. The god above your god is good, but who tells him that he is good? The god above him, and so on, ad infinitum. The problem is fairly easy to see, and so it is point [E] on why you are a moron. Is there an ultimate ultimate god? Or an ultimate ultimate ultimate god? Or a super duper magical bitchass god with sugar on top?


Many a wise and intelligent men throughout history have believed as I do.

Many wise and intelligent men believed that slavery was good, or that torturing infidels was OK, or that lying for the sake of their god was good, or killing other people who didn’t happen to believe what they did was good. They also happened to read the same book as you, and draw similar conclusions from reading it.

Are you saying that all of them are morons?

The ancient Israelites did not know better. You should. We’re not living in the third century, when they believed that lightning was a pox on us and the sun orbited the earth. We’re not even living in the fourteenth century, when they believed diseases were caused by evil spirits. You should know better.

Or only me? What, pray tell, is moronic about believing that God is the author of the moral code and that He backs Himself up with His own glory?

Which god, concernedengeneer? Which one? Why can’t you give one decent argument for the existence of your god and the nonexistence of other gods? Why can’t you give me one! Why can’t any theologian give one? Why is Islam wrong? Please tell me.

And, presuming that you don't think of yourself as a moron, why are your opinions on the matter not moronic?

Because I never relied on logical fallacies or appeals to authority. Those that do so are moronic. I never remained willfully ignorant of the topics we discuss. You have. That is a moronic way to debate.

I have a feeling that this is going to boil down to, "This is simply how I see it, and I trust my own opinion."

Isn’t this what you’ve been saying all this time?

Everything that is not of faith is sin. Sin is evil…

Science is not evil. Science - pure science - is the pursuit of truth. As such, it is a subset of theology and wonderful to study. Logic, also, is good. In fact, all truth is God's truth. The only way non-Christians can be right about anything is by stealing/borrowing from Christian truth. When a non-Christian accurately teaches physics, they are accurately describing God's creation. Physics is part of God's truth - as is mathematics, logic, history, grammar, language, etc.


Nice claim. Got any evidence for it? Furthermore, you’ve contradicted yourself. Everything that is not of faith is sinful. Therefore, things that seek evidence [ie. not faith] are sinful. Things that are sinful cannot be good or correct. What is the “accurate” way to teach physics? God’s way, or science’s way?

Now, all of those things can be used for evil. Mathematics and physics and logic and history can be used for perversion and sin and evil.

Give me one example where physics and mathematics have been justifications for murder. One. That’s all I ask for. This is another example [F] of you being a moron.

 
At 10:22 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

Drunken Tune,

First of all, even if you disagree with my arguments, it is simply unkind to call me a moron. Don't do it.

Physics and mathematics are used not to justify evil, but to accomplish evil. I never suggested that physics and math were used to justify evil. You are making things up.

I have not contradicted myself. Having faith does not mean that I know everything. Therefore, when learning about the physical universe for example, using the scientific method and inductive reasoning is a great way to learn. Having doubts about a scientist's hypothesis is not the same as losing faith in God. You clearly don't understand the nature of faith.

There are bits and pieces of historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence that when combined with inductive reasoning, make the case that believing in Jesus and believing that the Bible is the word of God are reasonable. I don't have time at the moment to go into all of that. I recommend that you read More than a Carpenter, Evidence that Demands a Verdict,, Letters from a Skeptic, and Mere Christianity. All the evidence in the world will take you to the point where stepping out in faith is reasonable. But ultimately, in order to step out in faith, you need divine revelation. God must reveal Himself to you if you are to know Him.

The thing is this, God conceals Himself from you out of mercy, because the chances are, if He showed you His glory this instant, you would be a dead man. I don't know that. But God is so holy and powerful and pure and glorious, that you would not be able to stand within His Presence. So, God often shows us glimpses of His glory - drawing us to Himself - preparing us to see Him in all His glory. I've only got glimpses of God's glory in different moments of my life - and it is wonderful and glorious and terrifying.

Seek, and you shall find.

 
At 11:36 AM, Blogger MarcoConley said...

You object to God defining goodness. I see your concern. You say essentially, "Would you follow an evil God?" This is a completely hypothetical situation that in point of truth is not the case. God is good.

But it's not a moot point. It makes all the difference in the world. Lots of people claim their God wants them to do things that they would otherwise consider to be not good.

If you believe that something is good or bad, then if you think God is telling you to do something wrong-- like fly a plane into a building or murder your son in a pagan death ritual--- then you have a good sporting chance of not doing it.

But, on the other hand, if you don't have any concept of good or evil, only obedience or disobedience, then there's really nothing anyone can say to you.

The thing that's so dangerous about the abrahamic religions is that they are essentially what I woulder amoral. (not immoral). They often don't seem to have much of a sense of a morality-- only obedience and disobedience.

it's not a moot point-- it makes all the difference in the world.

Should Hitler have judged every philosophy against his own reason and common sense?

Yes, yes a thousand times yes! If he _REALLY_ was doing his best, if he REALLY somehow was so mentally ill that he sincerely thought he was doing nothing but good, then he did the best he could do, and I'm sorry he was just insane, but that wouldn't make him a bad person.

(Actually, of course, we have quite a lot of evidence that Hitler wasn't just insane, but that he sort of realized the horror of the holocaust. I seem to recall reading about an interesting record of where he was having a private dinner, and everyone in the room KNEW about the holocaust, and he still denied it.)

But yes-- if everyone followed Buddha's advice, the world would be a much better place. Hitler, even if he was insane, wouldn't even have been able to rise to the leader of his nation.

Humans are mildly hazardous when they think for themselves, but they only get truly dangerous when they think someone else do their thinking for them-- a God, a religious leader, or a political one.

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

“You must feel pretty good and pretty wise. Apparently, you have risen above the psychological trickery that is apparently belief in the divine. So few of us have risen to such heights. But you are confident that you have a grip on reality, and that it is inconceivable that you might be deceived yourself.”

Oh must I? This might have been a legitimate pot-shot at my self-esteem, excepting for a few things you should know before trying again.
As the former victim of a class-A manipulator, I recognize the tactic.
Your credibility with me is zero.
Nothing is inconceivable. Everything else is conceivable, no matter how absurd or fictitious.


I was not trying to take a pot-shot at your self-esteem (or God-given worth as I would call it). I was merely trying to point out to you that thinking and speaking and acting like you know that God doesn't exist or/and that the Bible is not true is unreasonable. You don't know that the Bible is false. You don't know that God is merely a human construct. But you think quite a bit of your own opinion. As it turns out, you are wrong. Of course, I know you want me to prove that you are wrong. As I've said earlier, I can give you various forms of evidence that seem to suggest that the Bible is true, but ultimately, it must be revealed to you.

“Why do you presuppose that what you can not sense empirically does not exist?”

I do no such thing.


That's great! Then, logically, you ought to admit the possibility that there is a God, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He said He was. The probabiility of all three of those ideas being true is at least greater than 0. Do you deny this?

The burden of proof does not lie with me. I am not required to prove a negative. That said, I will say that things have happened to me that I cannot explain. I believe that there are causes for these occurrences. I believe that anything that affects the physical environment is ipso-facto measurable.

It is God's job to reveal Himself to you. But, as I've said to Drunken Tune, in His grace, He has concealed Himself in part for the moment, because if He suddenly showed up in all His glory, chances are that you would be a dead man.

Let me ask you this: If God did reveal Himself to you in a way that was convincing, would you confess your sins, ask Christ into your heart as Savior, and bow to His Lordship? If not, then why should God reveal Himself to you? If after being presented with convincing evidence, one still refuses to follow Him, then the problem is not a lack of evidence, the problem is the heart.

A postulate or a theorem is formulated on the basis of what a person thinks might be true. They then set about proving it. They do not, as a rule, attempt to prove it by baldly and incessantly asserting the belief, or worse yet, belief in the unproven assertions of someone else, or even worse, by asserting or creating dire consequences for not believing their assertions without proof.

First of all, postulates and theorems are not the same thing. Second of all, there is a difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is valid or invalid. Deductive reasoning starts with postulates (which are self-evident truths that are accepted without proof) and proceeds to conclusions. There is no gray area when we are talking about deductive reasoning. Either the argument is valid or invalid.

Inductive reasoning starts with observations and data and then proceeds to generalities. Inductive reasoning is not valid or invalid, but strong or weak. The conclusion of an inductive argument is only probable. Statistics are often used for scientific inductive analysis.

When people say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." they are asserting a postulate. A postulate is a self-evident truth that is not proven. A theorem is an argument that starts with a postulate an ends at a logical conclusion (in the logical/geometry sense of the word theorem).

Through inductive and statistical analysis, we have a great deal of confidence in Euclid's postulates. But as it turns out, the 5 postulates only apply in this particular inertial frame of reference. When we get up to relativisitic speeds, Euclid's Fifth Postulate appears to be false.

But the point is that in the realm of morality and philosophy, there are truths that are real, yet not provable via scientific analysis. How do you prove that human persons have value and should not be murdered? You don't prove it. It is a self-evident truth. Actually, it is a revealed truth. God has put His laws in our hearts. That's why we know that human beings have value and should not be murdered. That's why we know that rape is wrong.

If someone doesn't buy into that belief - that murder is wrong for example - we don't prove that human persons have value. How can you? The value of human persons is a philosophical topic - not a scientific topic. No science can prove or disprove that human persons have value. Yet, we know that we do. Therefore, there are truths that we can know without proof that are possible to know without science.

I believe that anything that affects the physical environment is ipso-facto measurable.

But this is a postulate that has not been proven. You simply accept this idea on faith - as it were. Why is it inconceivable that God exists and that He can affect the Universe? Why is it inconceivable that God exists and that He - being Spirit - cannot be measured scientifically?

Agnosticism makes much more sense than atheism.

 
At 3:06 PM, Blogger Kristine said...

Kristine, I apologize. I ask for your forgiveness for making this comment.

Ah, thank you. You are forgiven, but still banned (for my sanity's sake).

And while you have not asked for it, I shall seek to defend you and every other person from any and all vicious attacks.

No, no, no, just leave it there! Please.

 
At 8:09 PM, Blogger kalanchoe542 said...

CE, Just two things:

1) Intact is one word.

2) The word is spelled "definitely"

Thank you

 
At 5:15 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

Drunkentune: I have no problem, that’s why I threw in the smiley face.

SH, Kristine, marcoconly: Thanks to you for your contributions to this discussion. I’d say more, but there’s work to do.

Kalanchoe542: welcome back. You have been missed.

CE: Gads you’re prolific! You can’t say I didn’t warn you about baiting drunkentune to prove his point. I am going to have to skip like a stone over water through your commentary. There is more I could say, but it would take days to write.

“Let me say to you that if you want to convince me of anything, then you will have to abandon all of your secular presuppositions.”

Oh sure, and lets just check reasoning and the ability to smell bullshit at the door too. Let’s get something straight: presupposition is the art of believing in something like “first cause” without proof. Show me God’s driver’s license, and I will concede that IT exists. Since your God is a one-off, the very act of referring to that particular deity as masculine is either absurd or anthropomorphic. I presuppose only that something that acts upon the physical Universe must have a physical presence to do so. Anything that has a physical presence is measurable.

I will not take the word of some sun–baked, ergot-hazed weirdo that lived thousands of years ago any more than you would take my word that there is a giant living in my house. If you came to see my giant, and I told you, “He’s very shy and he just left”, you would smell bullshit would you not? I look at the lame excuses of religion in the same way. It cuts no ice with me that your grandma and mine swallowed this huge fish story hook, line, and sinker.

“A heretic is someone who chooses to go against God and/or to not believe what God has spoken and/or to not submit to God's rule.”

One cannot “go against” that which does not exist.

“Everything that is not of faith is sin.”

And what would the priest class say to protect their scam? “Everything that is not compulsory is forbidden. By new order.” You are either a knowing participant in this age-old control-freak fantasy, or you are evangelizing through your own denial of the possibility that you’ve been had. By the way, that rapturous spiritual feeling is a co-opted part of your brain that normally deals with human sexuality. You have been selectively bred to feel those emotions when mentally masturbated in the proper “pomp and ceremony” way. I too have these feelings, but as the former victim of abuse, I recognize when I am being manipulated.

There is a religious order in Hungary that gives out, woops, I mean SELLS, small medals that allegedly turn to gold. Pass a magnet near one and it is revealed to be ferrous metal. These medals are handed out wrapped in cellophane. It is either iron pyrite (fool’s gold) that has been subjected to polishing to remove oxidation, or electroplated with a material that oxidizes rapidly to a gold color. In short, it’s a scam. Dispensations… scam. In Italy there is an elaborate sealed flask, trotted out once a year. It is supposed to be filled with congealed blood that liquefies during the service. Spectroscopic analysis reveals it to be an iodide compound. It’s a hoax. These are but a few examples of bullshit. Extrapolate: what are the odds that it’s all bullshit, given all of the religions of the world cannot be equally right, but they can all be equally wrong?

“It is a moot point because God is good.”

And was IT good when IT allegedly murdered the firstborn of the Egyptians? Why? Who was the transgressor, the children or the parents? How is this moral? Is your “right to life” argument then merely a “right to birth”?

“It was good that you murdered those children God. Don’t send me to the cornfield.” Monkey shit!

“The problem with this is that there are some pretty sick and crazy people in the world.”

Yes, there are. So we should all act like, and treat each other like we are, all of us, sociopaths?

“On the contrary, if God is not real, then there is no such thing as good.”

This is a typical “all or nothing” argument and has no bearing on reality. Whether you are a moral relativist or a moral absolutist, you can determine the difference between just/unjust, right/wrong, or good (globally beneficial) and evil (destructive) acts. One does not need a god to understand the myriad consequences of an act like dragging a neighbor’s teenaged daughter out of her home and raping her. It is “self evident” to anyone with sufficient brains to not require a set of training wheels like a religious construct.

“How do you prove that human persons have value and should not be murdered?”

Through the very real fact that all mammals (at least) have an instinct for self-preservation and the overwhelming majority of humans are not suicidal. If I agree that you do not want to die any more than I do, what then is the right thing to do? I thank you for the review of postulates and theorems, but I would not have used both words in a sentence if I did not understand that they were not the same thing. You did not however, address the crux of my problem concerning how religion justifies itself.

 
At 5:24 AM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"Oh sure, and lets just check reasoning and the ability to smell bullshit at the door too."

No. Let us be reasonable. One of my huge pet peeves are secularists who claim the logical high ground - as if secularists have no presuppositions themselves. It is particularly bad when the said secularists do not even know the difference between validity and truth, what a syllogism is, or what a Venn Diagram is. I have no idea if that is you, but merely claiming that I am being unreasonable doesn't make me unreasonable. Show me exactly where I have made any invalid arguments.

"I presuppose only that something that acts upon the physical Universe must have a physical presence to do so. Anything that has a physical presence is measurable."

That is exactly your problem. That presupposition isn't based on anything. It is certainly not based on empirical evidence. And far be it from you to claim that this was revealed to you. So, your presupposition is based on nothing but your own opinion. While you should be respected as a person, I have no reason to respect your arbitrary opinion - especially when it contradicts the revelation of God.

"One cannot “go against” that which does not exist.

Right. But God does exist.

Admittedly, there are a great many hoaxes in the world. Unfortunately, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the church. But that doesn't mean that the Gospel is false or that God isn't real and good. People have done all kinds of evil in the Name of Christianity. That's wrong. But the word of God stands forever.

"And was IT good when IT allegedly murdered the firstborn of the Egyptians? Why? Who was the transgressor, the children or the parents? How is this moral?"

HE was good when HE killed (not murdered) the firstborn of the Egyptians. Both the parents and the children were in sin. God was just in His judgment. He is a holy God. All of us are sinners who deserve nothing less than His wrath. He would be completely just to wipe us all out. But in His mercy, He sent His Son to die on the cross for sinners - that those who receive Him would be graciously forgiven and granted life - abundant and eternal. This is not something that is earned. This is not something God owes us. This is a free gift. He didn't have to grant us this offer. He would have been perfectly just to kill us all and condemn us all to hell. That's how bad your sins and my sins are.

By the way, you are not a sinner because you sin. You sin because you are a sinner.

"This is a typical “all or nothing” argument and has no bearing on reality. Whether you are a moral relativist or a moral absolutist, you can determine the difference between just/unjust, right/wrong, or good (globally beneficial) and evil (destructive) acts. One does not need a god to understand the myriad consequences of an act like dragging a neighbor’s teenaged daughter out of her home and raping her. It is “self evident” to anyone with sufficient brains to not require a set of training wheels like a religious construct."

On the practical level, your common sense and the truths that are self-evident seem to be right on. Rape and murder are wrong. It is self-evident. But on the philosophical level, this argument is really shallow. Why are rape and murder wrong? Well, rape and murder are wrong because people have value. How do we know that people have value? After all, there is no scientific evidence that proves that people have value. And the atheist seems pretty adament about demanding scientific evidence before he believes anything. Certainly, you demand scientific evidence before you believe in God. Yet, you don't demand scientific evidence before you buy into the "moral code?"

The reason why you don't, of course, is that it is so obvious and so self-evident that people have value because you have been created in God's image. You can't get away from that. Recognize this truth or not, that is the reason why it is self-evident that rape and murder are wrong.

And God's revelation is not something that man has constructed. It is, in truth, God's revelation. We didn't invent the moral code. We are not above it. We are under it.

I hope and pray that you have a wonderful day today. Peace to you, sir.

 
At 9:36 AM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

That presupposition isn't based on anything.

Neither is your faith in your god. It's a presupposition. Too bad your god doesn't exist.

It is certainly not based on empirical evidence. And far be it from you to claim that this was revealed to you.

Far be it from you to claim that you have received revelation.

So, your presupposition is based on nothing but your own opinion.

Yours is based on fairy tales and magic toadstools. And your god doesn't exist.

While you should be respected as a person, I have no reason to respect your arbitrary opinion

And we should not respect yours. After all, your god doesn't exist.

especially when it contradicts the revelation of God.

Again, you are a moron. If you can presume your god's existance, we atheists can presume that only physical things can act on the physical world.

HE was good when HE killed (not murdered) the firstborn of the Egyptians.

Aren't children exempted from this? Don't they get a free pass into heaven?

And who are you to make a value judgement on an entire culture you know nothing about? You know nothing of your god, other than that he is of the unknown. To know him is to devalue him. His characteristics are unknown to you.

Both the parents and the children were in sin.

You presume so. I presume that they were not because sin does not exist, along with your petty god.

God was just in His judgment. He is a holy God.

You claim so. I claim otherwise because your god is not holy, and does not exist.

All of us are sinners who deserve nothing less than His wrath.

You say that this is true. I say otherwise because your god does not exist.

 
At 12:47 PM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Deny Him all you want. But one day you will stand before Him and be judged. And at that point, you will bow your knee and confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord."

I just hope that judgment day will not be the first time you do that.

Peace to you.

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

Deny Him all you want. But one day you will stand before Him and be judged. And at that point, you will bow your knee and confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord."

One day you will die. You will be buried, and then rot in the ground. Everyone you love who is also a Christian will think that you are in heaven, but you won't be.

You will be dead, and you will stay dead. You will not go to heaven because there is no heaven; neither will you go to hell, because there is no hell. Everyone you love will die, and they will not go to heaven or hell. They will rot in the ground. And you will be forgotten.

Give up your imaginary friend.

Don't be a moron. Respond to what I say with an argument.

Oh, and peace to you.

 
At 2:12 PM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

"Only fools believe in god."

And we don't say things in our hearts. We say things with our mouths.

 
At 2:36 PM, Anonymous ConcernedEngineer said...

"You will be dead, and you will stay dead. You will not go to heaven because there is no heaven; neither will you go to hell, because there is no hell. Everyone you love will die, and they will not go to heaven or hell. They will rot in the ground. And you will be forgotten."

Incorrect. Also, you have no evidence for these claims. Respond to what I say with an argument. Asserting that there is no heaven and no hell does not prove that there is no heaven and no hell. Reality is not limited to what you can observe empirically. You are not omniscient, nor are you omnipresent. So, how in the world are you making claims as if you are? The only way a person who is not omniscient or omnipresent can make such claims is if One who is omniscient and omnipresent has revealed truth to him. The difference between you and me is that you make claims without any evidence to back up your claims (like there is no heaven and no hell). Furthermore, you are limited in your knowledge. I, on the other hand, have had God's truth revealed to me. And I have presented to you several pieces of evidence to support those claims.

Give up your hardened, calloused, unbelieving pessimism. Read that book The Case for Faith. Ask God to reveal Himself to you.

 
At 3:23 PM, Blogger Drunken Tune said...

You are not omniscient, nor are you omnipresent.

I never claimed I was.

I, on the other hand, have had God's truth revealed to me.

Enough said. I can only ask that you seek professional help. If you truly believe that you have spoken to your imaginary friend, you are insane.

What proof have you that you have not been contacted by a demon?

 
At 4:39 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

"HE was good when HE killed (not murdered) the firstborn of the Egyptians. Both the parents and the children were in sin. God was just in His judgment. He is a holy God. All of us are sinners who deserve nothing less than His wrath."

The fact that you, and others in the faith can rationalize that in that manner precludes me from ever joining your club.

(singsong) Yup, god is good so dat was good, and Hitler and the holocaust was HIS will, so that was good too, and if the clergy says so, it must be so ....

Never mind that there is not one shred of archeological evidence or historical writing to support this account. If you believe the bible, you MUST believe it happened. Your god kills children.

"By the way, you are not a sinner because you sin. You sin because you are a sinner."

Ancient, disempowering psychobabble.

"Why are rape and murder wrong? Well, rape and murder are wrong because people have value."

Rape and murder are wrong because of the consequences of the act. Let's stick with rape for a moment. Rape causes psychological carnage in the victim. It is an invasion of personal space without permission. Victims tend to find it deeply degrading. Very few victims would care to repeat the experience, and those that would are considered deeply disturbed. It motivates family members of the victim to exact revenge. This causes further social strife. In dipshit cultures, it "spoils" the woman for marriage, or to put it another way, her father can't sell her at the going rate. None of this requires a god to illuminate.


"How do we know that people have value? After all, there is no scientific evidence that proves that people have value. And the atheist seems pretty adament about demanding scientific evidence before he believes anything. Certainly, you demand scientific evidence before you believe in God. Yet, you don't demand scientific evidence before you buy into the 'moral code?'"

I have value to myself. Most other people I have asked or encountered seem to feel the same way. The basis of justice is equal treatment. If I value myself, I am obliged to value you as well. In point of fact, since I believe this is the only life one has, I must place a higher value on life itself than you do. It is without price, since I can't replace it. I am far less likely to murder you than is a religious zealot. Four out of five fanatics surveyed believe themselves to be more threatening than I am.

"... it is so obvious and so self-evident that people have value because you have been created in God's image."

I believe I was created in the image of a one-in-four combination of the preceding generation, along with a small amount of genetic drift that might or might not (odds are not, but the game is worth trying) be an improvement to the species. The physical evidence tends to support that belief.

 
At 2:51 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

CE:

I promised you the last word on this comment thread so as far as I am concerned, it is yours for the taking. I will let any final rebuttal you have stand unchallenged. If others want to take issue, that's their business and yours.

 
At 2:53 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

Nasty unintentional run-on back there, but I'm not going to fix it.

 
At 1:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape money runescape gold tibia money tibia gold runescape gold runescape accounts tibia gold tibia money runescape money runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia item buy runescape money runescape gold runescape items tibia money tibia gold

 

Post a Comment

<< Home