# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Sam Harris:  The "Dangers" of Atheism

## VIDEODROME

NOTE: Skip to 4:17 if you don't want to listen to Julia's speech introduction



This relates to comments I made in another thread about how many people are flocking under the banner of Atheism even if many are probably not as hardcore about it.  They just know they find religion weird or annoying, so they join the Atheists kind of like how some people seeking change have to look for a political party that includes their views.  

While Sam Harris frankly finds religion to be absurd, he also suggests here that the whole Atheism platform itself is flawed.  

NOTE 2:   I know we just went though a post with JohnGalt seeking like minded people, then finding his thread piled on dissent and argument.  It's obvious this video is mainly aimed at the Atheists or Skeptics and I figure many Theists will just find this video annoying, though maybe a few will find it interesting.  Anyway, if you're a Theist who watches this video anyway and you have to vent, maybe like the Pagan thread a separate rebuttal thread could be created.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Sam Harris is one of those complete morons who gets roasted in every debate he does.  He's embarrassing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Well that wasn't very nice, S_F. Ad-hominem doesn't serve your objection well. It just doesn't. You know?

I've seen this before and have heard Sam speak on occasion. There is an underlying discussion here beyond the argument he makes with regard to Religion itself. I won't speak to that because, as I said over in the other thread, I don't _not_ believe in "God", per se and so I try to avoid participating in discussion where we start to debate deities alone. The debate between christians and atheists, traditionally, has been to that affect largely. Which is, I suppose, why he mentioned what he did about functioning under the radar. Done that way, the traditional debate is dismantled at it's core. Well...theoretically. Atheism is often labeled as a religion in a way in which the theological terms of controversy aren't challenged outside of the historical/mainstream schematic.

I'd agree with Sam in as far as he goes relative to the actul debate that occurs among atheists and christians/others. It is a schematic that becomes repetitive. Each faction dependent upon the other to kind of keep the terms of controversy under control from a social perspective.

Of course, he is speaking from a scientific perspective as well which he doesn't imply save for a few instances.

I think that videodrome picked up well from where we left that aspect of the discussion in the other thread. Hopefully videodrome's thought there in the latter part of the op isn't forgotten or rejected.


With regard to the unknown itself and how many of us differ I'd like to share a very brief and sincere thought from Ann(ie) Druyan. Of course, it is from a scientist's perspective but I was reminded of it given the context of S_F's thought. 

Annie shares her thought on the unknown at the 3:50 mark but if anyone watches/listens then do please consider listening to the initial speaker (scientist) as well. He approaches the unknown from a perspective relative to his dream(s) and the Bible.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I'd agree with Sam in as far as he goes relative to the actul debate that occurs among atheists and christians/others. It is a schematic that becomes repetitive. Each faction dependent upon the other to kind of keep the terms of controversy under control from a social perspective.


Yeah I just felt it was a thoughtful commentary on how the whole discussion is handled or how to pursue the argument.  Also, candidly presenting a balanced comparison between Christianity and violent fundamentalist Islam has been a wrong stance to hold on to.  Or especially to dismiss out of hand real deeply meaningful experience people have that happen to be tied to religion.

----------


## robert68

Beyond his remarks in the quote you posted by Natural citizen, there's no moral high ground in being anti religion per se, which he suggests there is. He's doesn't recognize individual rights. Also, US state intervention in the Muslim world has much Christian support (as he defines Christian), and he only cites the blow back from that as violent religion. He's somewhat neocon and has been criticized by many atheists for it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Beyond his remarks in the quote you posted by Natural citizen, there's no moral high ground in being anti religion per se, which he suggests there is. He's doesn't recognize individual rights. Also, US state intervention in the Muslim world has much Christian support (as he defines Christian), and he only cites the blow back from that as violent religion. *He's somewhat neocon and has been criticized by many atheists for it.*


What in atheism tells a person that violence or intervention is wrong?

----------


## robert68

> What in atheism tells a person that violence or intervention is wrong?


Reasons have been given many many times in this forum.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Reasons have been given many many times in this forum.


It's wrong for one sack of randomly moving molecules to cause pain to another sack of randomly moving molecules?  Why?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What in atheism tells a person that violence or intervention is wrong?


Maybe it's good to leave behind the platform of Atheism as Sam Harris suggests here.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> It's wrong for one sack of randomly moving molecules to cause pain to another sack of randomly moving molecules? Why?


What makes it right for one sack of randomly moving molecules to offer friendship and peace to another sack of randomly moving molecules?  Why?

----------


## otherone

> It's wrong for one sack of randomly moving molecules to cause pain to another sack of randomly moving molecules?  Why?


Here's a starting point.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

If it doesn't interest you, I can post pics of dootie for you, as I hear you are fond of it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Beyond his remarks in the quote you posted by Natural citizen, there's no moral high ground in being anti religion per se, which he suggests there is. He's doesn't recognize individual rights. Also, US state intervention in the Muslim world has much Christian support (as he defines Christian), and he only cites the blow back from that as violent religion. He's somewhat neocon and has been criticized by many atheists for it.


Sam is likely a one world order kind of of feller. That's just my overall view if I were to pick him apart. That's actually a common characteristic of most like Sam. At least I think so. I was going to mention  my thought on that but just didn't. I was just going to kind of wait and see where discussion went here.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What in atheism tells a person that violence or intervention is wrong?


Are you running with ought/ought not here, S_F?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What makes it right for one sack of randomly moving molecules to offer friendship and peace to another sack of randomly moving molecules?  Why?


It doesn't.

----------


## Terry1

> NOTE: Skip to 4:17 if you don't want to listen to Julia's speech introduction
> 
> 
> 
> This relates to comments I made in another thread about how many people are flocking under the banner of Atheism even if many are probably not as hardcore about it.  They just know they find religion weird or annoying, so they join the Atheists kind of like how some people seeking change have to look for a political party that includes their views.  
> 
> While Sam Harris frankly finds religion to be absurd, he also suggests here that the whole Atheism platform itself is flawed.  
> 
> NOTE 2:   I know we just went though a post with JohnGalt seeking like minded people, then finding his thread piled on dissent and argument.  It's obvious this video is mainly aimed at the Atheists or Skeptics and I figure many Theists will just find this video annoying, though maybe a few will find it interesting.  Anyway, if you're a Theist who watches this video anyway and you have to vent, maybe like the Pagan thread a separate rebuttal thread could be created.


Okay---Lol--I managed to suffer through part of that and pretty much got the gist of what he's actually saying in a windy-self apologetic sort of way.  So in other words this guy's picture is under the word "NOTHING" in the dictionary--I get it.  Because in order to retain a belief in something means that you'll always have an adversary, war, hate, murder and worse--bla-bla-bla.  

Problem is here that I see--someone who believes in nothing at all can never fight for peace and peace can only be obtained in this world through strength and fear.  So if he believes that peace is the goal through believing in nothing because nothing begets peace--he's wrong on both counts if you ask me.

Mankind in this world is never going to subscribe to "nothing" unless they're forced to or murdered for their belief in something else.  Even atheist dictators don't give a hoot about religions or beliefs--they simply want power and to enslave people because they're evil.  So there you are--you still have adversaries and enemies who reject the idea of believing in nothing--because nothing is still a firm belief.  This guy is attempting the impossible to remove himself as far from religion as he can because he simply doesn't understand who God is and why these other religions all exist--so the next best thing is simply give up the struggle trying to figure it all out and live for day because tomorrow may never come for some and they can take a dirt nap returning to the earth as fertilizer for my garden.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okay---Lol--I managed to suffer through part of that and pretty much got the gist of what he's actually saying in a windy-self apologetic sort of way.  So in other words this guy's picture is under the word "NOTHING" in the dictionary--I get it.  Because in order to retain a belief in something means that you'll always have an adversary, war, hate, murder and worse--bla-bla-bla.  
> 
> Problem is here that I see--someone who believes in nothing at all can never fight for peace and peace can only be obtained in this world through strength and fear.  So if he believes that peace is the goal through believing in nothing because nothing begets peace--he's wrong on both counts if you ask me.
> *
> Mankind in this world is never going to subscribe to "nothing" unless they're forced to or murdered for their belief in something else.*  Even atheist dictators don't give a hoot about religions or beliefs--they simply want power and to enslave people because they're evil.  So there you are--you still have adversaries and enemies who reject the idea of believing in nothing--because nothing is still a firm belief.  This guy is attempting the impossible to remove himself as far from religion as he can because he simply doesn't understand who God is and why these other religions all exist--so the next best thing is simply give up the struggle trying to figure it all out and live for day because tomorrow may never come for some and they can take a dirt nap returning to the earth as fertilizer for my garden.


This^^ x a zillion.  That's why writers of fiction give all their characters beliefs, ideals, etc. (sometimes with internal contradictions)  Unless they're purposely trying to create flat, 2-d characters, of course.

----------


## Terry1

> This^^ x a zillion.  That's why writers of fiction give all their characters beliefs, ideals, etc. (sometimes with internal contradictions)  Unless they're purposely trying to create flat, 2-d characters, of course.


Right--I mean this guy is obviously running from something he can't understand, thinking that if he can convince enough people that he's right--he just might believe it himself.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Right--I mean this guy is obviously running from something he can't understand, thinking that if he can convince enough people that he's right--he just might believe it himself.


What is it, specifically, that you profess he is 'obviously' running from, Terry? What is it that he 'obviously' doesn't understand that you _do_?

----------


## Terry1

> What is it, specifically, that you profess he is 'obviously' running from, Terry? What is it that he 'obviously' doesn't understand?


God

----------


## Natural Citizen

> God


Okay. So, then, start a thread telling us everything that you know about God.

From the op...




> Anyway, if you're a Theist who watches this video anyway and you have to vent, maybe like the Pagan thread a separate rebuttal thread could be created.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sam Harris is one of those complete morons who gets roasted in every debate he does.  He's embarrassing.


The New Atheists aren't judged by their ability to win debates.  They're judged by their ability to wade through the sewer and come out smelling like a rose.  Debates for atheists are all about saving as much face as possible.

----------


## Terry1

> Okay. So, then, start a thread telling us everything that you know about God. 
> 
> From the op...


I have enough threads going on currently that should already explain that part.  I see the evidence all around me every day in every single thing that exists that has no beginning or end.  Scientists scratch their little enchilada heads proving more and more that the evidence points straight towards a *Creator*.  Because every single thing that they have researched reveals to them with the technology they have available that nothing ceases to exist--everything just keeps getting smaller and smaller--there is no end and if there's no end--there can be no beginning either.  The only possible conclusion our tiny brains can assimilate in their low and frail state is that some supreme uncreated power is the only possible and plausible explanation for creation itself and is why we were left with these words.

*"Romans 1:20*20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:*

----------


## Theocrat

> It's wrong for one sack of randomly moving molecules to cause pain to another sack of randomly moving molecules?  Why?


Yes, that is the "Achilles' Heel" of any atheist who tries to evoke ethics into any discussion. Atheists can't even account for immaterial realities (such as concepts like morality and logic), coming from their belief that human beings do not contain an immaterial being inside of themselves. Since we're nothing but random conglomerations of subatomic particles (according to Atheism), then what one conglomeration of subatomic particles does to another conglomeration of subatomic particles just is. Period. Atheists have no basis to say that one conglomeration of subatomic particles *ought not do X* to another conglomeration of subatomic particles. Just as rocks fall on organisms and kill them by the forces of nature, so do human beings, and it doesn't make sense to call the rock "evil" for killing an organism any more than calling a human being "evil" for killing another organism. Nature does what it does, after all, by the metaphysics of Atheism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What makes it right for one sack of randomly moving molecules to offer friendship and peace to another sack of randomly moving molecules?  Why?


Uh, that's not exactly an answer.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Right--I mean this guy is obviously running from something he can't understand, thinking that if he can convince enough people that he's right--he just might believe it himself.


Thing is... people like him get shown on TV for their beliefs.  And they're not ridiculing them as some sort of dog and pony show.  When these people get on TV, they are the "experts."  The Christians are only there to be laughed at.

----------


## TheTexan

> What in atheism tells a person that violence or intervention is wrong?


Yes.  If they don't read it from the bible, how else would they know?

All knowledge, in fact, comes from the bible.  Everything from how to take a $#@! to how to manufacture a mars rover, is in the bible.  These things noone would have ever figured out, if God didn't tell them how.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes, that is the "Achilles' Heel" of any atheist who tries to evoke ethics into any discussion.


Are you following up S_F's ought/ought not model with the atheists cannot have morals/ethics model? Because if that's where we're headed here, I'm likely done with the thread. It'll just turn into a repeat of every other thread around here. There is just nothing to be had if this is the case and I'll not participate in further erosion.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes.  If they don't read it from the bible, how else would they know?
> 
> All knowledge, in fact, comes from the bible.  Everything from how to take a $#@! to how to manufacture a mars rover, is in the bible.  These things noone would have ever figured out, if God didn't tell them how.


Sarcasm is not a rational rebuttal of his question, bxm042? Is Sola's inquiry too difficult for you?

----------


## Theocrat

> Are you following up S_F's ought/ought not model with the atheists cannot have morals/ethics model? Because if that's where we're headed here, I'm likely done with the thread.


Not exactly. The point is, though atheists appeal to ethics/morality, their worldview cannot justify ethics/morality, given the naturalistic worldview of Atheism which denies anything supernatural (that which supersedes or goes beyond nature).

----------


## Terry1

Here's an article from Lambert Dolphin's site (which is huge).  Lambert Dolphin is a retired physicist and ex atheist who through his own studies and scientific research was led to believe and know who God is.

http://www.ldolphin.org/olkhov.html

----------


## TheTexan

> Sarcasm is not a rational rebuttal of his question, bxm042? Is Sola's inquiry too difficult for you?


I wasnt being sarcastic

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Not exactly. The point is, though atheists appeal to ethics/morality, their worldview cannot justify ethics/morality, given the naturalistic worldview of Atheism which denies anything supernatural (that which supersedes or goes beyond nature).


I don't believe that morality/personality is the correct way for man to define himself. That said, your point simply doesn't equate for me. And so whenever morality comes up, and it often does in a strategic way, I just choose to move on. And it goes back to the fundamental thing that Sam had mentioned there in the beginning with regard to historical schematic/construct for debate. This is actually one (there were a few reasons actually) of the reasons that I had shared Annie's thought there in the video that I posted previously. I don't care to debate deities. Which is where the model leads. Of course, that is just me.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Are you following up S_F's ought/ought not model with the atheists cannot have morals/ethics model? Because if that's where we're headed here, I'm likely done with the thread. It'll just turn into a repeat of every other thread around here. There is just nothing to be had if this is the case and I'll not participate in further erosion.


Atheists are perfectly capable of being moral.  Sometimes they are more moral than professed Christians.  They still can't base their morality on anything.

----------


## Theocrat

> It'll just turn into a repeat of every other thread around here. There is just nothing to be had if this is the case and I'll not participate in further erosion.


You may be right about that, but the reason that is the case is because it's a recurring problem for atheists to objectively and consistently justify (or make sense of) ethics/morality, in light of Atheism. Atheists will tell us that they can be moral apart from a saving relationship to God, but then they have no absolute basis for what is moral, given that they believe that human beings are just advanced forms of protoplasm. So, we're just "holding their feet to the fire" on the basis of asking how they can know what is "moral" from what is "immoral," if humans are nothing more than microscopic accidents of nature, products of natural selection in the struggle for life.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I wasnt being sarcastic


Forgive me if I find that slightly hard to believe.

----------


## Theocrat

> Atheists are perfectly capable of being moral.  Sometimes they are more moral than professed Christians.  They still can't base their morality on anything.


Well, I don't know how an atheist can be judged as "more moral" than professing Christians, if Atheists are correct about their view of human beings. That gets back to Sola's point, though. If I see an atheist "acting more moral than a professing Christian," then, in a sense, he would be acting like a Christian. He would not be acting like "a moral atheist" because there is no such thing, philosophically speaking.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You may be right about that, but the reason that is the case is because it's a recurring problem for atheists to objectively and consistently justify (or make sense of) ethics/morality, in light of Atheism.


I believe that I'm _asolutely_ correct on it. No may be about it. I'd like for once to hear the religious community objectively acknowledge all of the evil, the death, destruction, harm etc that is done in Gods name while balancing morality into their equation. Arguing over deities, I find, is an easy out. A way to avoid responsibility.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> if humans are nothing more than microscopic accidents of nature, products of natural selection in the struggle for life.


You just may have hit upon a possible non-theistic basis for morality.  I don't bop my neighbor on the head because if I did he might do the same to me.  Our desire for self preservation could be the basis for the Golden Rule.

----------


## PierzStyx

> What in atheism tells a person that violence or intervention is wrong?



Not an atheist but I imagine it goes like this:

1. Natural rights exist, which includes freedom from violence (which immediately eliminates intervention).
2. Natural rights are inalienable.
3. Sentient beings have natural rights.
4. Humans are evolved, sentient beings.
5. Therefore humans have the right to freedom from violence and its corollary intervention.

Really, even though Locke was a Christian you can remove God from his argument and it still works.

----------


## Theocrat

> You just may have hit upon a possible non-theistic basis for morality.  I don't bop my neighbor on the head because if I did he might do the same to me.  Our desire for self preservation could be the basis for the Golden Rule.


Fine. You don't bop your neighbor on his head, but if we can't help the genetic, biological, and electrochemical makeup of our anatomies, then where do you find the justification to say that one person *ought not* bop his neighbor on the head? Maybe the subatomic particles in one person's body causes him to seek his own self-preservation (as his the random synapses of his brain defines that) by bopping his neighbor so that his neighbor's house becomes his one day.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Do theists ever bop their neighbors on the head?

----------


## Terry1

> NOTE: Skip to 4:17 if you don't want to listen to Julia's speech introduction
> 
> 
> 
> This relates to comments I made in another thread about how many people are flocking under the banner of Atheism even if many are probably not as hardcore about it.  They just know they find religion weird or annoying, so they join the Atheists kind of like how some people seeking change have to look for a political party that includes their views.  
> 
> While Sam Harris frankly finds religion to be absurd, he also suggests here that the whole Atheism platform itself is flawed.  
> 
> NOTE 2:   I know we just went though a post with JohnGalt seeking like minded people, then finding his thread piled on dissent and argument.  It's obvious this video is mainly aimed at the Atheists or Skeptics and I figure many Theists will just find this video annoying, though maybe a few will find it interesting.  Anyway, if you're a Theist who watches this video anyway and you have to vent, maybe like the Pagan thread a separate rebuttal thread could be created.



Another glaring error I saw in this video is that Sam Harris here gives very little reference to Buddhism, Taoism, pagan religions or other, but he singles out God, Jesus and the Christians--calling them mythical and false.  What sends up red flags with me is that ole Sam here has a big-big problem with the Christian God, but very little mention of any others.

----------


## lilymc

> Not an atheist but I imagine it goes like this:
> 
> 1. Natural rights exist, which includes freedom from violence (which immediately eliminates intervention).
> 2. Natural rights are inalienable.
> 3. Sentient beings have natural rights.
> 4. Humans are evolved, sentient beings.
> 5. Therefore humans have the right to freedom from violence and its corollary intervention.
> 
> Really, even though Locke was a Christian you can remove God from his argument and it still works.


You completely avoided the question of where natural law comes from.   There's no way around it, in a materialist worldview, where the universe and life is the result of chance, there is no objective basis for morality.

----------


## Theocrat

> Do theists ever bop their neighbors on the head?


It depends, Ronin. If that neighbor was doing a "B&E (breaking and entering)," then, yes, he would get "bopped on the head." But (Christian) theists have a objective basis that makes sense of why that would be a morally correct thing to do in that circumstance. Atheists do not, if the one bopping and the one being bopped are both just biological bags of meat, subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, by the worldview of Atheism.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It depends, Ronin. If that neighbor was doing a "B&E (breaking and entering)," then, yes, he would get "bopped on the head." But (Christian) theists have a objective basis that makes sense of why that would be a morally correct thing to do in that circumstance. Atheists do not, if the one bopping and the one being bopped are both just biological bags of meat, subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, by the worldview of Atheism.



And the COMMANDS of Jesus concerning breaking and entering neighbors were?

----------


## robert68

> It depends, Ronin. If that neighbor was doing a "B&E (breaking and entering)," then, yes, he would get "bopped on the head." But (Christian) theists have a *objective basis* that makes sense of why that would be a morally correct thing to do in that circumstance. Atheists do not, if the one bopping and the one being bopped are both just biological bags of meat, subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, by the worldview of Atheism.


Your "objective basis" is circular and inconsistent.

----------


## Theocrat

> And the COMMANDS of Jesus concerning breaking and entering neighbors were?


I'm not going to get into that discussion because it's just going to lead us down so many rabbit trails. The point is Christian theists can search the Bible to find a case for what to do about neighbors who intend to hurt or rob from another neighbor presumptuously. Atheists have no absolute law nor statute to appeal to when their neighbor does a B&E. It's all just matter in motion, ultimately, if Atheists are right about the universe. So, how can you call any bop "moral," from an atheistic perspective of human beings? A bop is a bop is a bop.

----------


## Theocrat

> Your "objective basis" is circular.


How do you know that, robert? Did the electrochemical processes of your brain make you say that?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This relates to comments I made in another thread...


Looks like this thread has evolved into exactly the phenomenon that we were discussing over there in the other thread. That's certainly interesting, isn't it? I mean, it is simple enough to consider the diversity among agnostics, ignostics and others but at the end of the day they continue to get lumped together with atheists in order for those who _would_ lump them together to run with the same construct/terms of controversy that have historically been the building blocks/driver of the social debate. In that regard, Sam makes perfect sense.

----------


## Terry1

Also and yet another glaring error is that Sam Harris also refers to mankind as "living souls".  That is a religious term for the spirit nature of the physical body--not an atheist term at all--which I find extraordinarily out of the box and strange for a professed atheist to say at all.  He didn't say *people*---he called them "souls".

Go directly to the 5:00 mark right after he says the words "imaginary God".

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm not going to get into that discussion because it's just going to lead us down so many rabbit trails. The point is Christian theists can search the Bible to find a case for what to do about neighbors who intend to hurt or rob from another neighbor presumptuously. Atheists have no absolute law nor statute to appeal to when their neighbor does a B&E. It's all just matter in motion, ultimately, if Atheists are right about the universe. So, how can you call any bop "moral," from an atheistic perspective of human beings? A bop is a bop is a bop.


Who's talking about Christian theists or atheists?  I'm talking about Jesus.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Who's talking about Christian theists or atheists?  I'm talking about Jesus.


Jesus said the 2fold commandment on love was the greatest and the one upon which all other commandments and laws rest.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You just may have hit upon a possible non-theistic basis for morality.  I don't bop my neighbor on the head because if I did he might do the same to me.  Our desire for self preservation could be the basis for the Golden Rule.


No, our desire for self preservation is what causes us to tyrannize and murder our neighbors.   Just look around at the world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not an atheist but I imagine it goes like this:
> 
> 1. Natural rights exist, which includes freedom from violence (which immediately eliminates intervention).
> 2. Natural rights are inalienable.
> 3. Sentient beings have natural rights.
> 4. Humans are evolved, sentient beings.
> 5. Therefore humans have the right to freedom from violence and its corollary intervention.
> 
> Really, even though Locke was a Christian you can remove God from his argument and it still works.


That commits the naturalistic fallacy.  Descriptions about nature cannot yield prescriptions about behavior.   If the premises of your argument contain only descriptions, your conclusions can't contain prescriptions.

----------


## Cabal

> Reasons have been given many many times in this forum.


Atheism isn't a theory of morality, unfortunately SF doesn't seem to have the capacity to wrap his head around this simple fact. Atheism doesn't comment on good or bad, right or wrong. Atheism, very basically, is simply the disbelief in a higher power, supreme being, or god; or if you want to put it another way, the belief in no god. That's it. That's all. Atheism is nothing else beyond that. So, nothing about atheism--or the disbelief in a god--has anything to say about good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral, justice or injustice--it's not a theory or morality, or a theory of justice, or a theory of ethics. These things are entirely separate from atheism. 

That atheists may ascribe to various secular theories of morality does not make those theories a part of atheism. Atheism is one thing, morality is another.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, I don't know how an atheist can be judged as "more moral" than professing Christians, if Atheists are correct about their view of human beings. That gets back to Sola's point, though. If I see an atheist "acting more moral than a professing Christian," then, in a sense, he would be acting like a Christian. He would not be acting like "a moral atheist" because there is no such thing, philosophically speaking.


They're not correct.  I'm just saying some of them are good at works-based morality.  Granted, that's not all there is, but the point is that it's completely possible for them to act morally, but that they have no basis for a belief in objective morality on atheism.  In other words, there's no reason to act morally, even if you happen to have a good sense of moral virtue as an atheist.  After all, these moral codes were written on the hearts of everyone, not just Christians.  It's simply that the atheist worldview becomes reduced to absurdity when they try to explain why morality is right, not just for them, but for everyone.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I believe that I'm _asolutely_ correct on it. No may be about it. I'd like for once to hear the religious community objectively acknowledge all of the evil, the death, destruction, harm etc that is done in Gods name while balancing morality into their equation. Arguing over deities, I find, is an easy out. A way to avoid responsibility.


Can you provide a logical explanation for why the existence of evil in the world is inconsistent with the existence of God?  Or are you just saying you don't like God?  Well, if you don't like Him and He exists, I guess that's tough for you.  

However, I've never heard an atheist provide a cogent argument for why the existence of evil in the world is somehow evidence against God's existence.  On the contrary, it actually is evidence of His existence since the existence of moral absolutes can only come from an absolute source.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You just may have hit upon a possible non-theistic basis for morality.  I don't bop my neighbor on the head because if I did he might do the same to me.  Our desire for self preservation could be the basis for the Golden Rule.


The struggle for life is evident in the animal kingdom, too, but they don't have morality.  When a lion kills a zebra, it kills it, but it doesn't murder it.  Why are we so special?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not an atheist but I imagine it goes like this:
> 
> 1. Natural rights exist, which includes freedom from violence (which immediately eliminates intervention).
> 2. Natural rights are inalienable.
> 3. Sentient beings have natural rights.
> 4. Humans are evolved, sentient beings.
> 5. Therefore humans have the right to freedom from violence and its corollary intervention.
> 
> Really, even though Locke was a Christian you can remove God from his argument and it still works.


The problem is there's no basis for any of those premises.  Why do natural rights exist?  What makes them inalienable?  

Also, even if we granted that they were all of the above, why should we care about them?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Another glaring error I saw in this video is that Sam Harris here gives very little reference to Buddhism, Taoism, pagan religions or other, but he singles out God, Jesus and the Christians--calling them mythical and false.  What sends up red flags with me is that ole Sam here has a big-big problem with the Christian God, but very little mention of any others.


To me, that's just evidence that even atheists know the real God.  They just don't want to admit it.  They know God exists, but they are suppressing the truth and actively fighting against the one God they know exists.

----------


## Terry1



----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Looks like this thread has evolved into exactly the phenomenon that we were discussing over there in the other thread. That's certainly interesting, isn't it? I mean, it is simple enough to consider the diversity among agnostics, ignostics and others but at the end of the day they continue to get lumped together with atheists in order for those who _would_ lump them together to run with the same construct/terms of controversy that have historically been the building blocks/driver of the social debate. In that regard, Sam makes perfect sense.


I never lump them together.  In fact, I think that's what the atheists are trying to do.  I think there is a very important difference between agnostics and atheists that the atheists don't want to recognize because they want to act like a positive disbelief in God is a neutral stance.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Can you provide a logical explanation for why the existence of evil in the world is inconsistent with the existence of God?  Or are you just saying you don't like God?  Well, if you don't like Him and He exists, I guess that's tough for you.  
> 
> However, I've never heard an atheist provide a cogent argument for why the existence of evil in the world is somehow evidence against God's existence.  On the contrary, it actually is evidence of His existence since the existence of moral absolutes can only come from an absolute source.


I don't particularly care to provide an "argument for why the existence of evil in the world is somehow evidence against God's existence". That is what you and others are looking to do. You're looking to argue over deities. And I've never said that "God" doesn't exist. Not once. You're begging questions and soliciting a precribed response.  Which reflecte my thought in post #49. Gosh, some of you are so $#@!ing arrogant with this whole morality term. And certainly selective in choosing terms of controversy in the company of the term. How is it that Christians are of the position to dictate the terms of controversy relevant to morality? Seldom do they accept responsibility given all that is done toward harming man in the name of God. But they're the first ones to assume possession of the terms of controversy that come with morality when discussed in the wild.

Again, you're begging questions in a way that stimulates a prescribed response. Not once have i ever said that there isn't a "God". Not once.

----------


## Cabal

> The struggle for life is evident in the animal kingdom, too, but they don't have morality.  When a lion kills a zebra, it kills it, but it doesn't murder it.  Why are we so special?


Why? I don't know that there is a why. As for how, probably just the random elements of evolution. The what would mostly be the neuroscience, neurobiology, and neurogenomics of humans compared to animals, I suspect.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't particularly care to provide an "argument for why the existence of evil in the world is somehow evidence against God's existence". That is what you and others are looking to do. You're looking to argue over deities. And I've never said that "God" doesn't exist. Not once. You're begging questions and soliciting a precribed response.  Which reflecte my thought in post #49. Gosh, some of you are so $#@!ing arrogant with this whole morality term. And certainly selective in choosing terms of controversy in the company of the term. How is it that Christians are of the position to dictate the terms of controversy relevant to morality? Seldom do they accept responsibility given all that is done toward harming man in the name of God. But they're the first ones to assume possession of the terms of controversy that come with morality when discussed in the wild.
> 
> Again, you're begging questions in a way that stimulates a prescribed response. Not once have i ever said that there isn't a "God". Not once.


Fine.  Then the existence of evil isn't really an argument for anything related to atheism.  You and I agree on that.  

However, I do wonder why you think religious people should take responsibility for crimes committed in the name of religion when atheists don't take responsibility for Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.  These were all crimes committed under the banner of an expressly naturalistic worldview.  Atheism was tantamount in the Communist Manifesto.  Religion was an enemy of "progress" in the atheistic regimes of all the major mass killers of the 20th century.  Religion was an enemy of the humanist agenda of the state, in which might makes right.

Moreover, it's a real problem for atheists to justify moral prescriptions on an atheistic worldview.  What is your basis for saying anything is right or wrong, including the crimes of the religious?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I think that's what the atheists are trying to do.  I think there is a very important difference between agnostics and atheists that the atheists don't want to recognize because they want to act like a positive disbelief in God is a neutral stance.


This I would agree with wholeheartedly.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why? I don't know that there is a why. As for how, probably just the random elements of evolution. The what would mostly be the neuroscience, neurobiology, and neurogenomics of humans compared to animals, I suspect.


You need a why in order to make moral prescriptions.  If there is no reason for these prescriptions, then there's no reason to care about them or follow them.  

Not to mention, I don't find your "how" the least bit convincing.  I ask you how humans are different from any other animals, and your answer is essentially, "Science, bitch!"  I think you're going to have to be a bit more explicit than that.  Otherwise, you're just guessing.

----------


## lilymc

> I believe that I'm _asolutely_ correct on it. No may be about it. I'd like for once to hear the religious community objectively acknowledge all of the evil, the death, destruction, harm etc that is done in Gods name while balancing morality into their equation. Arguing over deities, I find, is an easy out. A way to avoid responsibility.


I too am disgusted by certain churches who did horrible things in the name of God.  I think they have done far more damage than they realize.  When we read the New Testament, we can see that Jesus had the harshest criticism for religious leaders who acted "holy" on the outside but were dirty and rotten on the inside.

So I think you're right to be angry about that.   

However.... as I'm sure you know, God and religion are not the same thing.

The important thing to be said here is that evil actions by "religious" men (or evil in general)  does not disprove an objective moral standard.  If anything, it does just the opposite.

You would not call something wrong or "evil" if right/wrong was subjective.   Something cannot be truly wrong or evil unless there is an objective standard - something to measure everything else against.

(I'm not even sure what your position is on morality, I'm just sayin...)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Fine.  Then the existence of evil isn't really an argument for anything related to atheism.  You and I agree on that.  
> 
> However, I do wonder why you think religious people should take responsibility for crimes committed in the name of religion when atheists don't take responsibility for Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.  These were all crimes committed under the banner of an expressly naturalistic worldview.  Atheism was tantamount in the Communist Manifesto.  Religion was an enemy of "progress" in the atheistic regimes of all the major mass killers of the 20th century.  Religion was an enemy of the humanist agenda of the state, in which might makes right.
> 
> Moreover, it's a real problem for atheists to justify moral prescriptions on an atheistic worldview.  What is your basis for saying anything is right or wrong, including the crimes of the religious?


Pau, respectfully, I'm just not in the mood to talk about morality anymore today. Okay? There is just completely too much bad energy that comes with it. Which is a real shame.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I believe that I'm _absolutely_ correct on it. No may be about it. I'd like for once to hear the religious community objectively acknowledge all of the evil, the death, destruction, harm etc that is done in Gods name while balancing morality into their equation. Arguing over deities, I find, is an easy out. A way to avoid responsibility.


You shouldn't blame the death and destruction on God or religion. The people that cause it are going to do it using whatever they can dream up that will motivate the troops to kill, rape and pillage people he doesn't know and who he has no beef with.

For centuries God and religion worked. That started wearing thin, so we switched to more secular things like "Make the world safe for democracy" and such like.

----------


## Cabal

> Also and yet another glaring error is that Sam Harris also refers to mankind as "living souls".  That is a religious term for the spirit nature of the physical body--not an atheist term at all--which I find extraordinarily out of the box and strange for a professed atheist to say at all.  He didn't say *people*---he called them "souls".
> 
> Go directly to the 5:00 mark right after he says the words "imaginary God".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

"Soul" has a number of different applications, ranging from spiritual to rather simple. Generally, it tends to be used in a spiritual context, but spirituality isn't necessarily religious, even if religion tends to be spiritual. In fact, spirituality is rather vague overall, but it doesn't seem to necessarily require the existence of a god. I don't think that atheism necessarily means one cannot practice or ascribe to some form of spirituality.

In any case, I believe Sam Harris has addressed this particular subject, at least with regard to his own spirituality, before in one of his books, "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion."

----------


## TheTexan

> To me, that's just evidence that even atheists know the real God.  They just don't want to admit it.  They know God exists, but they are suppressing the truth and actively fighting against the one God they know exists.


Well, actually, according to the bible there are many gods.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I too am disgusted by certain churches who did horrible things in the name of God.  I think they have done far more damage than they realize.  When we read the New Testament, we can see that Jesus had the harshest criticism for religious leaders who acted "holy" on the outside but were dirty and rotten on the inside.
> 
> So I think you're right to be angry about that.   
> 
> However.... as I'm sure you know, God and religion are not the same thing.
> 
> The important thing to be said here is that evil actions by "religious" men (or evil in general)  does not disprove an objective moral standard.  If anything, it does just the opposite.
> 
> You would not call something wrong or "evil" if right/wrong was subjective.   Something cannot be truly wrong or evil unless there is an objective moral standard - something to measure everything else against.
> ...


It's tough for me to accept that there exists or should exist a standard for morality, lily. Men define themselves upon morality. And men are certainly diverse. So, then, order itself becomes a wreck as a result. A vision of order among these men is ultimately defined by differing and subjective logic. That spells doom. Of course, that is my view alone. I have to say, though, this illusion that Christians (politically active more so than aveage joes) grant themselves that they and they alone possess ownership of the terms of controversy relative to morality blows my mind. It is arrogant.

----------


## Cabal

> You need a why in order to make moral prescriptions.


I wasn't making a moral prescription, I was answering the question about why humans are special, in comparison to other animals.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, actually, according to the bible there are many gods.


You know, bxm042, your sig line, although seemingly comical, is actually one of the more profound ones that I've seen here on the forum. I 'm serious, now.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> No, our desire for self preservation is what causes us to tyrannize and murder our neighbors.   Just look around at the world.


"For the love of money is the root of all evil..."

----------


## Natural Citizen

> "For the love of money is the root of all evil..."


James, you had a really good post some place that I was going to rep but I forgot to do that. It was the one about being born and reborn. If I find it again, I'll rep it because it reflected my own personal experience and realization of the contradiction of the two as they applied to me.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Uh, that's not exactly an answer.


It was a silly rhetorical question so I gave a half-assed answer.  Besides, this was my topic and I had no interest in where he wants to hijack the discussion.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Atheists are perfectly capable of being moral.  Sometimes they are more moral than professed Christians.  They still can't base their morality on anything.


Great, but what does that have to do with the OP?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You shouldn't blame the death and destruction on God or religion. The people that cause it are going to do it using whatever they can dream up that will motivate the troops to kill, rape and pillage people he doesn't know and who he has no beef with.
> 
> For centuries God and religion worked. That started wearing thin, so we switched to more secular things like "Make the world safe for democracy" and such like.


Yeah, see, I didn't do that, James. I didn't blame death and destruction on God or religion. Not once. Again, it simply reflects my thought on diversity among "moral" men who do what they do in a way that they accept is congruent to their terms of order. Not once did I blame it on God or Religion. And I wouldn't do that. As I've said, I disagree with the idea of debating deities and Religions/scriptures. When we choose to argue those elements we lose track of process. Process being all of the good things in which religions historically have been understood to premise themselves upon and actually share at their cores. To tht end, I think that we likely agree given the latter part of your thought there.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> To me, that's just evidence that even atheists know the real God.  They just don't want to admit it.  They know God exists, but they are suppressing the truth and actively fighting against the one God they know exists.


Sam Harris knows Spiritual Experience exists for many people and that this deserves more respect instead of derision.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Let me ask this question with regard to a theoretical objective moral standard. How do we define or propose _order_ given the theoretical notion that there exists (as yet undefined) an objective moral standard?  Does than make sense?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Let me ask this question with regard to a theoretical objective moral standard. How do we define or propose _order_ given the theoretical notion that there exists (as yet undefined) an objective moral standard?  Does than make sense? Those here who claim to posess the ultimate definition of morality, please tell me what your vision of order would be given that you hold the gavel on morality.


I think PaulConventionWV already has an extensive thread calling out Atheism on the issue of morality.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Another glaring error I saw in this video is that Sam Harris here gives very little reference to Buddhism, Taoism, pagan religions or other, but he singles out God, Jesus and the Christians--calling them mythical and false.  What sends up red flags with me is that ole Sam here has a big-big problem with the Christian God, but very little mention of any others.


Well he did mention the Amish Terry and he candidly said they are not a group to worry about aside from the sad state of education for their kids.  Also when he discusses Contemplatives and Meditiation, I think it's implied he's referring to Eastern belief systems like Buddhism.  

I did think the fair point he was making toward Christianity is that to compare it with Islam in terms of dangerous extremism is wrong and that Christians should be rightly offended by anyone equating the two.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I think PaulConventionWV already has an extensive thread calling out Atheism on the issue of morality.


Man, I already have a big enough headache from this thread. 

I come into the site so happy. You know? The bees are buzzing, the birds are chirping, nice breeze outside. Chimes singing...and then once I'm here I end up in just a bad mood. I mean, _really_. I'm this close to just blocking the religion sub forum from view. This close...

What I may do is just lok for different discussion boards on such things and just visit here for political goings-on.  That may be a better alternative. I don't know. I wonder if it may be more stimulating discussing such things away from a purely conservative/libertarian group. Is possible.

----------


## otherone

> Man, I already have a big enough headache from this thread. 
> 
> I come into the site so happy. You know? The bees are buzzing, the birds are chirping, nice breeze outside. Chimes singing...and then once I''m here I end up in just a bad mood. I mean, _really_. I'm this close to just blocking the religion sub forum from view. This close...


Relax, NC.   Just fine tune your perspective.  Imagine you're having a discussion with a bunch of internet misanthropes with some serious self-esteem issues and you'll feel better.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Man, I already have a big enough headache from this thread. 
> 
> I come into the site so happy. You know? The bees are buzzing, the birds are chirping, nice breeze outside. Chimes singing...and then once I''m here I end up in just a bad mood. I mean, _really_. I'm this close to just blocking the religion sub forum from view. This close...


I'll admit I've been tempted to request a thread lock because so many posts in here are irrelevant to the main topic.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Pau, respectfully, I'm just not in the mood to talk about morality anymore today. Okay? There is just completely too much bad energy that comes with it. Which is a real shame.


Whatever you say, man.  I'm just talking.  Doesn't bother me.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Relax, NC.   Just fine tune your perspective.  Imagine you're having a discussion with a bunch of internet misanthropes with some serious self-esteem issues and you'll feel better.



I don't know, man. As far as misanthropes go, I don't view everyone that way. There are a few people here that I've discussed such things with who have actually impacted the way that I think of things. Which I'd surmise is a good thing in terms of synergy. Maybe I'd do well to just go jump in  lake. Heh. Or a river or something. Try to get back some sanity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, actually, according to the bible there are many gods.


Can you back that up?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I wasn't making a moral prescription, I was answering the question about why humans are special, in comparison to other animals.


No you weren't.  You said there is no "why".  That's where we disagree.  There's always a why.  There's always a reason.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'll admit I've been tempted to request a thread lock because so many posts in here are irrelevant to the main topic.


Yeah, but you really did demonstrate Sam's hypothesis there if you think about it. Right? I mean, it played out like a piano in this very thread. Seriously. Was clever in a way. That's some skullduggery that I'd be proud of myself. Heh.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It was a silly rhetorical question so I gave a half-assed answer.  Besides, this was my topic and I had no interest in where he wants to hijack the discussion.


You didn't give any answer, half- or full-assed.  You posed another question that is just as challenging to your worldview as the first one.  You don't have to answer them, but just so you know, the question you posed is basically the same as the first one and an atheist who wants to defend his worldview has to answer both.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Sam is likely a one world order kind of of feller. That's just my overall view if I were to pick him apart.


He's borderline and I find it interesting that he's gotten on well with Joe Rogan in some discussions or podcasts.  

As for foreign policy, he looks like he revisited his stance about a year ago.  

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...anging-my-mind




> However, last night I watched Scahills Oscar-nominated documentary Dirty Warstwice. The film isnt perfect. Despite the gravity of its subject matter, there is something slight about it, and its narrow focus on Scahill seems strangely self-regarding. At moments, I was left wondering whether important facts were being left out. But my primary experience in watching this film was of having my settled views about U.S. foreign policy suddenly and uncomfortably shifted. As a result, I no longer think about the prospects of our fighting an ongoing war on terror in quite the same way. In particular, I no longer believe that a mostly covert war makes strategic or moral sense. Among the costs of our current approach are a total lack of accountability, abuse of the press, collusion with tyrants and warlords, a failure to enlist allies, and an ongoing commitment to secrecy and deception that is corrosive to our politics and to our standing abroad.
> 
> Any response to terrorism seems likely to kill and injure innocent people, and such collateral damage will always produce some number of future enemies. But Dirty Wars made me think that the consequences of producing such casualties covertly are probably far worse. This may not sound like a Road to Damascus conversion, but it is actually quite significant. My view of specific questions has changedfor instance, I now believe that the assassination of al-Awlaki set a very dangerous precedentand my general sense of our actions abroad has grown conflicted. I do not doubt that we need to spy, maintain state secrets, and sometimes engage in covert operations, but I now believe that the world is paying an unacceptable price for the degree to which we are doing these things. The details of how we have been waging our war on terror are appalling, and Scahills film paints a picture of callousness and ineptitude that shocked me. _Having seen it, I am embarrassed to have been so trusting and complacent with respect to my governments use of force._

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Great, but what does that have to do with the OP?


I honestly don't know.  I'm just going with the flow.  I do know Sam Harris is a famous atheist, though, and this is something atheists have to answer.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sam Harris knows Spiritual Experience exists for many people and that this deserves more respect instead of derision.


What derision? 

It's not enough to acknowledge the existence of spiritual experiences if you think those experiences are just the result of random chemical reactions in the brain.  Spirituality seems pretty pointless under that light.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let me ask this question with regard to a theoretical objective moral standard. How do we define or propose _order_ given the theoretical notion that there exists (as yet undefined) an objective moral standard?  Does than make sense?


I don't understand the question.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think PaulConventionWV already has an extensive thread calling out Atheism on the issue of morality.


That wasn't actually my thread.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Man, I already have a big enough headache from this thread. 
> 
> I come into the site so happy. You know? The bees are buzzing, the birds are chirping, nice breeze outside. Chimes singing...and then once I'm here I end up in just a bad mood. I mean, _really_. I'm this close to just blocking the religion sub forum from view. This close...
> 
> What I may do is just lok for different discussion boards on such things and just visit here for political goings-on.  That may be a better alternative. I don't know. I wonder if it may be more stimulating discussing such things away from a purely conservative/libertarian group. Is possible.


Maybe you should take a break.  Contemplate nature.  Why is it the way it is?  Could random chance really be the cause of all _this?_

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Maybe you should take a break.  Contemplate nature.


That's what I said. Whatsamatter wit you...

I need a rebirth anyhow... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5825224

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That's what I said. Whatsamatter wit you...
> 
> I need a rebirth anyhow... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5825224


You said you were considering it.  I'm just saying maybe you should.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You didn't give any answer, half- or full-assed.  You posed another question that is just as challenging to your worldview as the first one.  You don't have to answer them, but just so you know, the question you posed is basically the same as the first one and an atheist who wants to defend his worldview has to answer both.


This thread was not even about defending Atheism but picking away at it.  Also, the main intended audience was members here who consider themselves Atheists or at least Skeptics.  

In another thread, I mentioned that I think a lot of people are in fact Apatheists(Apathy-ist).  They basically think church and religion is boring or uninteresting or frankly just doesn't make sense.  They'd prefer to be left alone or not wind up sitting next to a preacher on the bus. Unfortunately, religion is a big part of public discourse and it almost forces them to take the stance of Atheism by default.  What happens next is aptly described by Harris as Christians drawing a chalk outline on the ground and the Atheist laying down in it.  They go ahead and invoke Bertrand Russels cosmic teapot, but that doesn't get them anywhere.  Put another way, this is when Unbelievers participate in answering the dumbest questions and I think Sola Fide weak tired rhetorical question was a prime example of this.  So following the theme of the original topic, I chose to not give it a serious reply.  

You might think I should have answered it, but keep in mind this will probably even happen to you.  Someday you'll create a thread and Sola Fide is going to post a similar pointless rhetorical question calling you out.  I'll be interested in seeing how you respond.  I'm not kidding either I can almost guarantee it.  I knew he would be the first person to reply to my thread.  Frankly based on seeing some past exchanges, I'm surprised to see you even taking his side.  He might even give you Poop Rep.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That wasn't actually my thread.


I guess you posted in it so much I almost thought it was yours or you kind of took over it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What derision? 
> 
> It's not enough to acknowledge the existence of spiritual experiences if you think those experiences are just the result of random chemical reactions in the brain.  Spirituality seems pretty pointless under that light.


He feels that many so-called New Atheists consider people moved by spiritual experience to be deluded.  He seems to be taking the stance that this is uncalled for.  

Sam is neuroscience and does look at these experiences with a critical eye, but he is receptive to spiritual experience.  Mostly in terms of things like Meditation, but I think he would also say such states could be triggered by fervent prayer, or even psychedelics.  Mostly though, I think he's saying that if a person claims to have a profound spiritual experience, then New Atheists who respond by calling them deluded are just being total dicks.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He feels that many so-called New Atheists consider people moved by spiritual experience to be deluded.  He seems to be taking the stance that this is uncalled for.  
> 
> Sam is neuroscience and does look at these experiences with a critical eye, but he is receptive to spiritual experience.  Mostly in terms of things like Meditation, but I think he would also say such states could be triggered by fervent prayer, or even psychedelics.  Mostly though, I think he's saying that if a person claims to have a profound spiritual experience, then New Atheists who respond by calling them deluded are just being total dicks.


He might say that, but if he thinks the spiritual experiences are false and are attributable to nature, then he, in fact, agrees that they're deluded.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This thread was not even about defending Atheism but picking away at it.  Also, the main intended audience was members here who consider themselves Atheists or at least Skeptics.


I know.  I was just pointing out that it didn't make sense to respond to that question with a similar question that serves the same purpose as the first one.




> In another thread, I mentioned that I think a lot of people are in fact Apatheists(Apathy-ist).  They basically think church and religion is boring or uninteresting or frankly just doesn't make sense.  They'd prefer to be left alone or not wind up sitting next to a preacher on the bus. Unfortunately, religion is a big part of public discourse and it almost forces them to take the stance of Atheism by default.  What happens next is aptly described by Harris as Christians drawing a chalk outline on the ground and the Atheist laying down in it.  They go ahead and invoke Bertrand Russels cosmic teapot, but that doesn't get them anywhere.  Put another way, this is when Unbelievers participate in answering the dumbest questions and I think Sola Fide weak tired rhetorical question was a prime example of this.  So following the theme of the original topic, I chose to not give it a serious reply.


If apathy-ists are swayed to reject God on the basis of their interactions with other people, then there is no basis for their belief.  If you become an atheist because you are apathetic, then you were an atheist all along since there is no good reason to reject the existence of God on the basis of personal interaction.  What's more, I frankly don't see how one can be apathetic about this question.  The truth or falsity of God's existence has a profound impact on who you are, why you are here and where you are going when you die.  These are questions that everyone grapples with and are incredibly important.  To say it makes no difference whether God exists or not is ridiculous.  It literally makes all the difference in the world.  I really am amazed by some of these labels that try to get away from the atheist label while still rejecting God.  




> You might think I should have answered it, but keep in mind this will probably even happen to you.  Someday you'll create a thread and Sola Fide is going to post a similar pointless rhetorical question calling you out.  I'll be interested in seeing how you respond.  I'm not kidding either I can almost guarantee it.  I knew he would be the first person to reply to my thread.  Frankly based on seeing some past exchanges, I'm surprised to see you even taking his side.  He might even give you Poop Rep.


Wtf is poop rep?  

Anyway, you assume that the question is pointless, but I don't think this one is at all.  You don't have to answer it, but it's certainly not pointless if you're an atheist.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I think Sam has tried psychedelics himself and would argue the even such chemical Induced experiences can be profound.  Ironically, maybe he is part of a push back against the drug war types who deride such things as only self delusion triggered by drugs.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think Sam has tried psychedelics himself and would argue the even such chemical Induced experiences can be profound.  Ironically, maybe he is part of a push back against the drug war types who deride such things as only self delusion triggered by drugs.


They may be profound, but this profundity is meaningless if you believe it's really just the result of chemical reactions in your brain.  Such a person who has profound experiences that have no true meaning whatsoever and do not reflect reality certainly would be deluded.

----------


## VIDEODROME

You and I are applying the idea of what is considered 'meaningful' differently.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I know.  I was just pointing out that it didn't make sense to respond to that question with a similar question that serves the same purpose as the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> If apathy-ists are swayed to reject God on the basis of their interactions with other people, then there is no basis for their belief.  If you become an atheist because you are apathetic, then you were an atheist all along since there is no good reason to reject the existence of God on the basis of personal interaction.  What's more, I frankly don't see how one can be apathetic about this question.  The truth or falsity of God's existence has a profound impact on who you are, why you are here and where you are going when you die.  These are questions that everyone grapples with and are incredibly important.  To say it makes no difference whether God exists or not is ridiculous.  It literally makes all the difference in the world.  I really am amazed by some of these labels that try to get away from the atheist label while still rejecting God.  
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf is poop rep?  
> ...


It seems off topic if I'm posting in a thread based on the idea of picking apart Atheism as a platform to argue.  Besides, if I have to pick a label, I prefer to merely say I'm a Skeptic.  

Also, just hope you don't have to find out about Poop Rep.

----------


## Terry1

I guess I really just don't get the point of atheism at all.  What is their point?  If Sam Harris has no problem with religion/God/Jesus/Christians which he uses as his main focal point instead of Buddha or some other god like Zeus or Aphrodite--why would he even bother pushing *his belief* in nothing as some better alternative?  Obviously--atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than they believe Christians can prove that He does exist.  

So here's my point--if atheists want to believe in nothing at all--how is pushing that belief going to enhance their lives or anyone else's for that matter?  If all they *choose* to believe is that life is nothing more than another plane of existence and meaningless, other than what they can manage to accumulate and enjoy in this life before they take their *forever dirt nap* into nothingness as if they never existed at all, then why aren't they as happy as one would think they should be?

It seems to me that more atheists would be committing suicide or leaping off of cliffs once the quality of their lives are interrupted with disease, suffering and pain--because what would be the point of enduring such torment in light of what they believe?  

The unbelieving-Godless ancient philosophers who could not rationalize existence beyond a chronic illness were at least true to themselves when they simply ended their own existence by leaping from tall cliffs to their deaths.

----------


## otherone

> So here's my point--if atheists want to believe in nothing at all--how is pushing that belief going to enhance their lives or anyone else's for that matter?  If all they *choose* to believe is that life is nothing more than another plane of existence and meaningless, other than what they can manage to accumulate and enjoy in this life before they take their *forever dirt nap* into nothingness as if they never existed at all, then why aren't they as happy as one would think they should be?
> 
> It seems to me that more atheists would be committing suicide or leaping off of cliffs once the quality of their lives are interrupted with disease, suffering and pain--because what would be the point of enduring such torment in light of what they believe?  
> 
> The unbelieving-Godless ancient philosophers who could not rationalize existence beyond a chronic illness were at least true to themselves when they simply ended their own existence by leaping from tall cliffs to their deaths.


I'm reminded of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters




> The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state.


more at link.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It seems off topic if I'm posting in a thread based on the idea of picking apart Atheism as a platform to argue.  Besides, if I have to pick a label, I prefer to merely say I'm a Skeptic.  
> 
> Also, just hope you don't have to find out about Poop Rep.


Fine, but I feel like all of these different labels that atheists jump around on like lily pads in a pond is just a way of avoiding the real issue, which is that you all hold this skepticism toward the existence of God that you don't hold for the non-existence of God.  It's a two way street and you want to have it both ways.  I'm not arguing against "atheism" proper.  I'm arguing against the idea that a "lack of belief" in God is somehow more rational than belief in God.  You either reject God's existence, or you don't.  The only middle ground is a complete ignorance of whether or not God exists that acknowledges the likelihood of each as being equally likely.  Atheists don't like this label either because it takes away their "skepticism" toward God.  You can't be skeptical of God without also being skeptical of atheism unless you somehow have evidence for the non-existence of God.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm reminded of this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
> 
> 
> 
> more at link.


Yes, but what has any of that do with Atheists?  At least those religious leaders believed in something outside of themselves--a greater power--whether it was the earth, mountains, sky or the moon and stars.  None of them ever got beyond believing in anything beyond creation itself or themselves and whatever they thought themselves capable of doing using nothing more than the elements already in existence.  So they built statues and created images to bow down to-worship and give offerings to.

We're talking about a people who subscribe to nothing here and attempting to push that same belief onto the masses for some reason unbeknownst to me.  It's sort of a self-defeating effort IMO.

----------


## otherone

> Yes, but what has any of that do with Atheists?  At least those religious leaders believed in something outside of themselves--a greater power--whether it was the earth, mountains, sky or the moon and stars.  None of them ever got beyond believing in anything beyond creation itself or themselves and whatever they thought themselves capable of doing using nothing more than the elements already in existence.  So they built statues and created images to bow down to-worship and give offerings to.
> 
> We're talking about a people who subscribe to nothing here and attempting to push that same belief onto the masses for some reason unbeknownst to me.  It's sort of a self-defeating effort IMO.


Who believes in nothing?  Do you mean some people _worship_ nothing?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I'm arguing against the idea that a "lack of belief" in God is somehow more rational than belief in God.  You either reject God's existence, or you don't.  The only middle ground is a complete ignorance of whether or not God exists that acknowledges the likelihood of each as being equally likely.  Atheists don't like this label either because it takes away their "skepticism" toward God.  You can't be skeptical of God without also being skeptical of atheism unless you somehow have evidence for the non-existence of God.


Would you be of the same opinion if the issue were the existence of the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, or unicorns?  Is a lack of belief in leprechauns not more rational than belief in their existence?  Is it really equally likely that they exist or that they don't?

----------


## Terry1

> Who believes in nothing?  Do you mean some people _worship_ nothing?


Absolutely!  Sam Harris in the OP being the prime example, not realizing himself that "nothing" is still a firm belief.  He's attempting to remove himself from a part of himself by arguing the point that life has no meaning beyond life itself.  "Live for the day until you die" ect..ect.

----------


## otherone

> Absolutely!  Sam Harris in the OP being the prime example, not realizing himself that "nothing" is still a firm belief.


Are you talking about the supernatural, when saying "nothing"?

----------


## moostraks

> This thread was not even about defending Atheism but picking away at it.  Also, the main intended audience was members here who consider themselves Atheists or at least Skeptics.  
> 
> In another thread, I mentioned that I think a lot of people are in fact Apatheists(Apathy-ist).  They basically think church and religion is boring or uninteresting or frankly just doesn't make sense.  They'd prefer to be left alone or not wind up sitting next to a preacher on the bus. Unfortunately, religion is a big part of public discourse and it almost forces them to take the stance of Atheism by default.  What happens next is aptly described by Harris as Christians drawing a chalk outline on the ground and the Atheist laying down in it.  They go ahead and invoke Bertrand Russels cosmic teapot, but that doesn't get them anywhere.  Put another way, this is when Unbelievers participate in answering the dumbest questions and I think Sola Fide weak tired rhetorical question was a prime example of this.  So following the theme of the original topic, I chose to not give it a serious reply.  
> 
> You might think I should have answered it, but keep in mind this will probably even happen to you.  Someday you'll create a thread and Sola Fide is going to post a similar pointless rhetorical question calling you out.  I'll be interested in seeing how you respond.  I'm not kidding either I can almost guarantee it.  I knew he would be the first person to reply to my thread.  Frankly based on seeing some past exchanges, I'm surprised to see you even taking his side.  He might even give you Poop Rep.


Cool video and very pertinent to some things I have pondered from a different side of the elephant being grasped. I think he is right on about the chalk outline description. Very vivid and very true.

Labels are beneficial when we seek to come to a clip form understanding for initial discussion in weeding out diverse perspectives for a certain purpose but each person is an individual and without listening to what the individual says and short of walking some ways down the path they embrace, even from a perspective of empathy, then you have two people shouting past one another.

Interesting to sit back and watch the diverse personalities and how that plays out here in this small corner of the universe. Not sure how anyone could watch that whole video and come away thinking he was picking on Christians as he made it clear imo it was religions and each viewed from its own merits depending on the discussion as it was intrinsic to the argument he was laying out for the basis of his view towards accepting the chalk outline.

Some folks are just contentious. They need the labels so they can formulate their attack. He might succeed in getting some skeptics not to bite and accept the chalk outline but contentious people will likely invent a new label for the skeptics.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Would you be of the same opinion if the issue were the existence of the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, or unicorns?  Is a lack of belief in leprechauns not more rational than belief in their existence?  Is it really equally likely that they exist or that they don't?


No, but that's because we have positive evidence against their existence.  We have good reasons to reject that belief, whereas there are no good reasons to reject belief in God unless you can come up with some good evidence, either philosophical evidence or otherwise.  All of these things, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are supposed to exist in the natural realm and we don't find them, but that has nothing to do with whether something outside of the natural realm could exist.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> No, but that's because we have positive evidence against their existence.


What's the positive evidence that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist? (I'll grant you the Easter Bunny.) You can't simply say that nobody has ever seen one, because that would violate the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" rule.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What's the positive evidence that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist? (I'll grant you the Easter Bunny.) You can't simply say that nobody has ever seen one, because that would violate the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" rule.


You're the one using absence of evidence (for God) as evidence of absence.  I'm saying, if Santa Claus really existed, we would expect to see his sleigh or we would find him at the North Pole, etc.  Granted, this does not prove Santa Claus's non-existence beyond a doubt, but it is good evidence because we would expect to find evidence of him if he was real.  These things are supposed to exist in the natural realm, so if they really do exist, we should find evidence of them in the natural realm.  You cannot, however, expect to find empirical evidence of the supernatural because the framework of naturalism positively assumes that there is no such thing as the supernatural.  Even if we can't explain something, naturalism, unsurprisingly, assumes naturalism.  There is no good reason, however, to think that naturalism is the only way to know things.  The problem is that you're trying to use a lack of natural evidence for the supernatural as evidence against the supernatural when it's impossible to have natural evidence of the supernatural in the first place because the two are mutually exclusive.

That does not, however, mean there is no evidence of God's existence.  There is good philosophical evidence that the universe had to be created, and this is backed up by science.  Science is useful because it helps us explain our experiences within the framework of naturalism, but it cannot explain the existence of the natural world, so there's no reason to assume the universe had a natural beginning.  It can also bolster the philosophical case for God's existence by showing that there is good reason to think that premises in philosophical arguments for God's existence are probably true by showing us that what we find in the natural world is consistent the premises of these arguments.

----------


## Terry1

What Sam Harris is attempting to do is escape reality by use of his own morality that suggests non-violence through the label of "Atheism-unspoken" as such----"shhhhh--if you don't say it--it doesn't exist and then no one can argue that it's a philosophy or religion within itself--we must be nothing at all in order to succeed with this message"--whatever that may be because "labels are bad"--  So if he uses a label to describe himself and what he believes--it makes it much easier for those who oppose that way of thinking to define it and debate it.  


So Sam Harris is espousing his own morality and BTW--just to be secular and politically correct we'll use Merriam Webster's definition of morality here which is:
: "beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something"

So through Sam's own sense of morality--he's made his own set of rules and guidelines which then constitute his own ideas of what he believes is bad and good about both religion and atheism or as Sam wants to describe it as ---nothing--not a belief--not a philosophy--not a religion--because those are all labels that will incite opposition to their nothingness.   Be nothing and nothing will come of it and no one can attack you for what you believe--because you don't believe anything. 

I think Sam should start his own cult of followers who believe that there is no reason to live beyond suffering in this life and to simply end it when their quality of life leaves them no longer able to be happy and enjoy life to their fullest-- nothing more than a burden on the secular society of taxpayers and caregivers of this world.

----------


## otherone

> There is good philosophical evidence that the universe had to be created, and this is backed up by science.  Science is useful because it helps us explain our experiences within the framework of naturalism, but it cannot explain the existence of the natural world, so


I'm not so sure.  IMO, the only thing that can be known is that the universe (existence/reality) is constantly changing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not so sure.  IMO, the only thing that can be known is that the universe (existence/reality) is constantly changing.


Sure, it's changing, but it's not ceasing to exist.  When you say the only thing that can be known is that the universe is constantly changing, you are assuming that the universe exists for it to change, so you must also believe that it can be known that the universe exists, so that's 2 things that can be known...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You're the one using absence of evidence (for God) as evidence of absence.


I don't believe I've ever asserted this.  I do recall asking why one needs to assume the existence of the supernatural.  You do so to explain the existence of the universe, but that assumption doesn't allow you to conclude anything about the nature of the supernatural.  In particular, it offers nothing to support the notion that the  cause of the universe was some sort of sentience that many people describe as the Judeo-Christian deity.




> These things are supposed to exist in the natural realm, so if they really do exist, we should find evidence of them in the natural realm.


You're suggesting that since we don't have such evidence, they don't exist.  This isn't positive evidence of their nonexistence.




> it's impossible to have natural evidence of the supernatural in the first place because the two are mutually exclusive.


But traditional Judeo-Christian theology teaches that the supernatural interacted with the natural world on numerous occasions.  Why is there no such interaction around today?  Why are there no talking asses (no, not that kind; the kind that Balaam had)?  Why are there no vocalizing burning bushes or people riding chariots of fire into the sky? 

Now one may claim that there are indeed interactions occurring today -- e.g., someone prays to have his cancer healed and shortly thereafter the tumor is gone (we will disregard, of course, the times when the tumor didn't vanish and the patient died).  But how can one know that this is really a miracle with some supernatural cause?  Isn't it also possible that for some unknown medical reason there was a remission?

----------


## otherone

> Sure, it's changing, but it's not ceasing to exist.  When you say the only thing that can be known is that the universe is constantly changing, you are assuming that the universe exists for it to change, so you must also believe that it can be known that the universe exists, so that's 2 things that can be known...


My comment specifically assumes existence.  The use of the term "only" was in opposition to the assumption that existence implies creation.  Creation assumes a pre-state of non-existence, which I can not assume.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Fine, but I feel like all of these different labels that atheists jump around on like lily pads in a pond is just a way of avoiding the real issue, which is that you all hold this skepticism toward the existence of God that you don't hold for the non-existence of God.  It's a two way street and you want to have it both ways.  I'm not arguing against "atheism" proper.  I'm arguing against the idea that a "lack of belief" in God is somehow more rational than belief in God.  You either reject God's existence, or you don't.  The only middle ground is a complete ignorance of whether or not God exists that acknowledges the likelihood of each as being equally likely.  Atheists don't like this label either because it takes away their "skepticism" toward God.  You can't be skeptical of God without also being skeptical of atheism unless you somehow have evidence for the non-existence of God.


This is actually a good example of what Sam Harris was referring to and probably why he thinks this firm stance of Atheism is not working very well.  Skeptics or doubters or people who just want to be left alone by religion are basically pressured into taking a stand on their belief for or against a God.  This is kind of asking me to put on the Atheism hat so you and me could have the same tired old arguments over whether I can prove God doesn't exist or if you can prove Bertrand Russel's space teapot does not exist.  

I suppose JohnGalt could have done this to and demanded I take a stand on Paganism.  Do I accept or deny the existence of Wotan?  Must I assume the label of Apaganist just to take a stand for him to lob arguments at?  No, I'm personally just not into Norse/Germanic Paganism and I don't see why I need to form some Anti-Pagan belief system so we can have a better argument.  

If I'm really considering what Sam is saying, then I definitely should not argue with you based on the stance of Atheism.  Instead, I should just be an inquiring individual who is considering all these claims and stories and see if I think they have any merit.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't believe I've ever asserted this.  I do recall asking why one needs to assume the existence of the supernatural.  You do so to explain the existence of the universe, but that assumption doesn't allow you to conclude anything about the nature of the supernatural.  In particular, it offers nothing to support the notion that the  cause of the universe was some sort of sentience that many people describe as the Judeo-Christian deity.


I'm not assuming the supernatural.  I'm just saying there's no good reason (no *need*, if you like) to assume that nature is all there is.  If you're not using absence of evidence as evidence of absence, then why do you believe there is no God?




> You're suggesting that since we don't have such evidence, they don't exist.  This isn't positive evidence of their nonexistence.


Yes it is.  It isn't _proof_, per se, but it is evidence because we would expect to find such evidence if they were real.  Therefore, they probably don't exist.  This does not apply to the supernatural, though, because you cannot expect to find natural evidence of the supernatural when the framework of naturalism already excludes the possibility of the supernatural being an explanation.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This is actually a good example of what Sam Harris was referring to and probably why he thinks this firm stance of Atheism is not working very well.  Skeptics or doubters or people who just want to be left alone by religion are basically pressured into taking a stand on their belief for or against a God.  This is kind of asking me to put on the Atheism hat so you and me could have the same tired old arguments over whether I can prove God doesn't exist or if you can prove Bertrand Russel's space teapot does not exist.


Excellent assessment of the larger phenomenon, I think. Similar to the Hegelian Dialectic. Well...actually, _exactly_ the Hegelian Dialectic. I find that questions are often designed and introduced in a way as to put the person (agnostics particularly) in a defensive position relative to the antagonist's terms of controversy. It seems to always direct a debate toward the terms of controversy that demands one argue over deities regardless of whether or not the person is actually an atheist. The questions are, in my view, introduced in a way that expects that the person defend his position in terms of atheism alone. Which is disingenuous. Counterintuitive to any kind of peaceful discussion. I almost want to call it looking for a fight when there is none. You know?

Sam actually makes an excellent point for actually running under the radar in a way that one may simply avoid the whole gag with the 50 questions and whatnot. Likely practical in scope.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I'd say, the main danger is that a bunch of militant theists may gang up and kill you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> My comment specifically assumes existence.  The use of the term "only" was in opposition to the assumption that existence implies creation.  Creation assumes a pre-state of non-existence, which I can not assume.


Oh, so you're a believer in an infinitely existing universe, correct?  You believe there can be an infinite number of past events?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is actually a good example of what Sam Harris was referring to and probably why he thinks this firm stance of Atheism is not working very well.  Skeptics or doubters or people who just want to be left alone by religion are basically pressured into taking a stand on their belief for or against a God.  This is kind of asking me to put on the Atheism hat so you and me could have the same tired old arguments over whether I can prove God doesn't exist or if you can prove Bertrand Russel's space teapot does not exist.  
> 
> I suppose JohnGalt could have done this to and demanded I take a stand on Paganism.  Do I accept or deny the existence of Wotan?  Must I assume the label of Apaganist just to take a stand for him to lob arguments at?  No, I'm personally just not into Norse/Germanic Paganism and I don't see why I need to form some Anti-Pagan belief system so we can have a better argument.  
> 
> If I'm really considering what Sam is saying, then I definitely should not argue with you based on the stance of Atheism.  Instead, I should just be an inquiring individual who is considering all these claims and stories and see if I think they have any merit.


The identity of God (Wotan, Allah, Jehovah, etc.) is irrelevant to whether a maximally great Creator of the universe exists.  You deny that such a being exists even though you shroud this in simple apathy toward the question.  However, apathy toward the question doesn't explain why you believe God doesn't exist.  If you were really so apathetic, then there's nobody forcing you into this debate.  Just ignore it.  Why don't we find books like "The Unicorn Delusion" by Richard Dawkins or "Unicorns Are Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens?  The answer is because they're apathetic to these topics and they simply ignore them.  They do, however, willfully take a stance on God when they say that they believe He does not exist.

If you are going to question the claims of God's existence to see if they have any merit, then you should apply the same questions to God's non-existence to see if they have any merit.  If you were intellectually consistent, you would simply say that both options are equally valid and equally plausible and say that you don't care what the answer is.  Hidden under this facade of apathy, however, is the assumption that God does not exist, and that is what I am questioning.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'd say, the main danger is that a bunch of militant theists may gang up and kill you.


Right, because Christians are so radical and dangerous, just like in the movies and on the History Channel.  Atheists would never do such a thing.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If you're not using absence of evidence as evidence of absence, then why do you believe there is no God?


When have I ever made such a claim?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When have I ever made such a claim?


If you don't believe that, then what DO you believe?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> The identity of God (Wotan, Allah, Jehovah, etc.) is irrelevant to whether a maximally great Creator of the universe exists.  You deny that such a being exists even though you shroud this in simple apathy toward the question.  However, apathy toward the question doesn't explain why you believe God doesn't exist.  If you were really so apathetic, then there's nobody forcing you into this debate.  Just ignore it.  Why don't we find books like "The Unicorn Delusion" by Richard Dawkins or "Unicorns Are Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens?  The answer is because they're apathetic to these topics and they simply ignore them.  They do, however, willfully take a stance on God when they say that they believe He does not exist.


A better example might be why there is no Pagan Delusion book.  It's because Pagans are not a big part of public discourse or influencing politics.  We don't see Pagans running for President.  

Since I haven't felt a significant political presence from them or influence on American life, I haven't been put in a position where I have to take a fundamental stand against their views.  I'm not sure if I've even seen them in religious debates on YouTube.  JohnGalt has not thrown down a declaration like this that I must declare whether I'm for or against his Polytheism.  

So, I've been for the most part very apathetic about Paganism because I rarely even think about it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A better example might be why there is no Pagan Delusion book.  It's because Pagans are not a big part of public discourse or influencing politics.  We don't see Pagans running for President.  
> 
> Since I haven't felt a significant political presence from them or influence on American life, I haven't been put in a position where I have to take a fundamental stand against their views.  I'm not sure if I've even seen them in religious debates on YouTube.  JohnGalt has not thrown down a declaration like this that I must declare whether I'm for or against his Polytheism.  
> 
> So, I've been for the most part very apathetic about Paganism because I rarely even think about it.


That's fine, but why don't you treat Christianity the same way?  Why are you in this thread if you give such little thought to the existence of God?  You're not running for president, so there's no reason for you to care (other than the reason that if He does exist, then you might be in trouble).

----------


## Terry1

> A better example might be why there is no Pagan Delusion book.  It's because Pagans are not a big part of public discourse or influencing politics.  We don't see Pagans running for President.  
> 
> Since I haven't felt a significant political presence from them or influence on American life, I haven't been put in a position where I have to take a fundamental stand against their views.  I'm not sure if I've even seen them in religious debates on YouTube.  JohnGalt has not thrown down a declaration like this that I must declare whether I'm for or against his Polytheism.  
> 
> So, I've been for the most part very apathetic about Paganism because I rarely even think about it.


I actually felt bad that JohnGalt saw my religious advice as an affront to his beliefs rather than something to give thoughtful consideration to before he booted me out of his thread because of it.  I mean--I sit here and read all day long where religion, God and Jesus are either bastards or an affront to the pagan or secular thinkers and believers--but I don't get all bent out of shape over it because I'm considering the source.  I deal with that at my own level then and quote what I know to be true out of the word of God.  It's strange how quoting God's word really pisses some people off as if I personally wrote it.

----------


## otherone

> Oh, so you're a believer in an infinitely existing universe, correct?  You believe there can be an infinite number of past events?


No. I believe that there is nothing inherent in the idea of existence that one can assume the possibility of non-existence.

----------


## lilymc

> You cannot, however, expect to find empirical evidence of the supernatural because the framework of naturalism positively assumes that there is no such thing as the supernatural.





> The problem is that you're trying to use a lack of natural evidence for the supernatural as evidence against the supernatural when it's impossible to have natural evidence of the supernatural in the first place because the two are mutually exclusive.


You have just pinpointed the problem with most atheists, and one that I run into all the time.  They are looking for natural evidence for what is supernatural.

Natural evidence can _point_ to the supernatural.  But they ignore that, because it's not what they want.  They want physical proof for something that is not physical.    

There are a number of things that science cannot "prove" because certain things are outside the realm of science.  Science presupposes them.




> That does not, however, mean there is no evidence of God's existence.  There is good philosophical evidence that the universe had to be created, and this is backed up by science.  Science is useful because it helps us explain our experiences within the framework of naturalism, but it cannot explain the existence of the natural world, so there's no reason to assume the universe had a natural beginning.  It can also bolster the philosophical case for God's existence by showing that there is good reason to think that premises in philosophical arguments for God's existence are probably true by showing us that what we find in the natural world is consistent the premises of these arguments.


I agree. There is evidence for God all around us, and many different types of evidence.   When one puts all those things together, and weighs the evidence overall,  the evidence for theism far outweighs any evidence for the other side.   At that point, one would have to be willfully blind to disbelieve in God.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If you don't believe that, then what DO you believe?


I believe in the existence of the universe, but I don't know how it got here.  Is it possible that it came about via a supernatural cause?  Yes, it's possible, because I see no _logical_ problem with such an explanation.  But I have no idea what the characteristics of such a cause might be.

Is it important for me to believe one way or the other?  I don't know.  One of your responses to another poster suggested that if I don't believe in a supernatural cause (and a very specific one at that) I could be in trouble.  That smacks of Pascal's Wager, which is a hopelessly fallacious argument that (among other things) relies on fear to coerce belief.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That's fine, but why don't you treat Christianity the same way?  Why are you in this thread if you give such little thought to the existence of God?  You're not running for president, so there's no reason for you to care (other than the reason that if He does exist, then you might be in trouble).


Christianity or even Islam is not the same as Paganism in terms of public discussion.  Paganism is barely on the radar in terms of ever being mentioned in the media.  Buddhism gets marginal coverage if the Dalai Lama visits the White House.  

Also, I suppose it's because Christianity doesn't treat me the same way.  Pagans are not telling me to convert or risk going to Helheim.  They don't have any real influence on national politics.  They're not trying to get city funding for holiday decorations.  They don't have temples in almost every county in America and across the world.  

It's also interesting you make the point about running for President because a Non-Christian could probably never win that office unless they lied and professed a belief in the Christian God even though they really don't believe it.

----------


## juleswin

Listening to Sam Harris videos is what scared me away from the atheist movement. The man is nuttier and more neocon than Bill Kristol and John Bolton combined. For the record, I did not listen to the video in the OP. I stopped listening to anything he says when I heard him say that the reason Palestinians do suicide bombing is so they inherit 72 virgins in heaven. For Harris, it has nothing to do with the occupation just 72 virgins.

Also you realize that his BFF is the fire breathing, violence to all Muslims in Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I would guess without watching the video or reading any post in the thread is that his problem with atheism has something to do with Atheists being to soft on Muslims.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> There is evidence for God all around us, and many different types of evidence.


I would respectfully request that you consider whether God is the _only_ explanation for this evidence or whether there are other possibilities.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No. I believe that there is nothing inherent in the idea of existence that one can assume the possibility of non-existence.


There's also nothing inherent in existence that one can assume the possibility of infinite existence.

So you believe it's possible to have an infinite number of past events?

----------


## moostraks

> Listening to Sam Harris videos is what scared me away from the atheist movement. The man is nuttier and more neocon than Bill Kristol and John Bolton combined. For the record, I did not listen to the video in the OP. I stopped listening to anything he says when I heard him say that the reason Palestinians do suicide bombing is so they inherit 72 virgins in heaven. For Harris, it has nothing to do with the occupation just 72 virgins.
> 
> Also you realize that his BFF is the fire breathing, violence to all Muslims in Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I would guess without watching the video or reading any post in the thread is that his problem with atheism has something to do with Atheists being to soft on Muslims.


Never really watched much from him. Small jag towards beginning where he gives a window into his particular opinion towards Muslims but largely discussion centered on not accepting labels and arguing from a position if you don't hold said belief as it is a waste of energy.

----------


## Terry1

> I would respectfully request that you consider whether God is the _only_ explanation for this evidence or whether there are other possibilities.


What other possibilities are you referring to?  Evolution-aliens or cosmic energies?  All of these things had to have a beginning and an end.  Scientists can't find either one as of yet--even with the advanced technology they have today.  The bible tells us that God is uncreated and everything He has created has no beginning or end.  So far--what evidence the secular world of science has found all points towards exactly what was written in the bible.  How do you explain that one?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I believe in the existence of the universe, but I don't know how it got here.  Is it possible that it came about via a supernatural cause?  Yes, it's possible, because I see no _logical_ problem with such an explanation.  But I have no idea what the characteristics of such a cause might be.


There are only two possible supernatural causes of the universe: 1) an abstract object, such as the number 7 or 2) an unembodied mind.  Since abstract objects don't stand in causal relationships, it therefore follows that the supernatural cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind.  We can further deduce that such a mind, if it is  the cause for the existence of the universe, must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial and unimaginably powerful.




> Is it important for me to believe one way or the other?  I don't know.  One of your responses to another poster suggested that if I don't believe in a supernatural cause (and a very specific one at that) I could be in trouble.  That smacks of Pascal's Wager, which is a hopelessly fallacious argument that (among other things) relies on fear to coerce belief.


You don't have to believe one way or the other, but that would mean you treat both options as equally likely, but I don't think you do that since you seem to think I need evidence for God to convince you He exists, but you don't need evidence against His existence in order to believe He does not exist.  If you want to be apathetic, that's fine with me, but it's no more rational to not believe in God than it is to believe in God.  The reason I mention that you might be in trouble if you don't believe in God and He does exist, then that's a valid reason to believe in God.  You can debate about whether God wants you to believe in Him (as has been done with Pascal's Wager) but my point is that it's simply a possibility that you should consider and there's no good reason to assume you should not try to find out.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You have just pinpointed the problem with most atheists, and one that I run into all the time.  They are looking for natural evidence for what is supernatural.
> 
> Natural evidence can _point_ to the supernatural.  But they ignore that, because it's not what they want.  They want physical proof for something that is not physical.    
> 
> There are a number of things that science cannot "prove" because certain things are outside the realm of science.  Science presupposes them.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. There is evidence for God all around us, and many different types of evidence.   When one puts all those things together, and weighs the evidence overall,  the evidence for theism far outweighs any evidence for the other side.   At that point, one would have to be willfully blind to disbelieve in God.


Oddly enough, I can't seem to rep you, which is weird because I don't remember giving you any rep recently.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Christianity or even Islam is not the same as Paganism in terms of public discussion.  Paganism is barely on the radar in terms of ever being mentioned in the media.  Buddhism gets marginal coverage if the Dalai Lama visits the White House.  
> 
> Also, I suppose it's because Christianity doesn't treat me the same way.  Pagans are not telling me to convert or risk going to Helheim.  They don't have any real influence on national politics.  They're not trying to get city funding for holiday decorations.  They don't have temples in almost every county in America and across the world.  
> 
> It's also interesting you make the point about running for President because a Non-Christian could probably never win that office unless they lied and professed a belief in the Christian God even though they really don't believe it.


None of those reasons mean you have to take a position.  You can still remain apathetic even if it's in the news and people are trying to convert you, etc.  You don't have to take a position, but you do.

Even if those were good enough reasons for you to take a position, that would mean you held that position all along since none of those reasons for caring about the question imply that one answer is better than another.

Nobody forced you to come to this thread.  You did so out of your own will and volition.  If you were really so apathetic, then you would avoid threads like this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would respectfully request that you consider whether God is the _only_ explanation for this evidence or whether there are other possibilities.


There may be, but should we always assume those other explanations before we accept God as an explanation?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What other possibilities are you referring to?


I don't know, because I don't know what kind of "evidence" lilymc was referring to.




> The bible tells us that God is uncreated and everything He has created has no beginning or end.


Excuse me?  The Bible says explicitly that God created the heavens and the earth, so they must've had a beginning.   And 2 Peter 3:10 says there'll be an end to the world.




> So far--what evidence the secular world of science has found all points towards exactly what was written in the bible.  How do you explain that one?


I don't explain it because it isn't true.  Among other things science doesn't support a 6,000 year old earth, the notion of talking donkeys, people turning into pillars of salt, the creation of the earth before the sun, or people living 800-900 years.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What other possibilities are you referring to?  Evolution-aliens or cosmic energies?  All of these things had to have a beginning and an end.  Scientists can't find either one as of yet--even with the advanced technology they have today.  *The bible tells us that God is uncreated and everything He has created has no beginning or end.*  So far--what evidence the secular world of science has found all points towards exactly what was written in the bible.  How do you explain that one?


Actually, that's incorrect.  God is uncreated and has no beginning or end, but everything He created absolutely did have a beginning.  All you have to is look at Genesis 1:1

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> There are only two possible supernatural causes of the universe: 1) an abstract object, such as the number 7 or 2) an unembodied mind.


Why are these the only possibilities?  Couldn't there be a non-sentient supernatural cause? 




> You can debate about whether God wants you to believe in Him (as has been done with Pascal's Wager) but my point is that it's simply a possibility that you should consider and there's no good reason to assume you should not try to find out.


How in the world could I possibly find out?

Let me throw it back at you.  Shouldn't you consider the possibility that God will punish those who believe in Him, and shouldn't you try and find out if this is the case?  You may thing this possibility is absurd, but I suggest it's no more absurd than believing that God is so vain that He will punish those who don't believe in Him.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't know, because I don't know what kind of "evidence" lilymc was referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  The Bible says explicitly that God created the heavens and the earth, so they must've had a beginning.   And 2 Peter 3:10 says there'll be an end to the world.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't explain it because it isn't true.  Among other things science doesn't support a 6,000 year old earth, the notion of talking donkeys, people turning into pillars of salt, the creation of the earth before the sun, or people living 800-900 years.


Science doesn't support the natural occurrence of those things, but once again, you're assuming a priori that the natural world is all there is.  Science most certainly can verify things the Bible says about the natural world.  I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I know there are some.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why are these the only possibilities?  Couldn't there be a non-sentient supernatural cause?


You mean like an abstract object?




> How in the world could I possibly find out?
> 
> Let me throw it back at you.  Shouldn't you consider the possibility that God will punish those who believe in Him, and shouldn't you try and find out if this is the case?  You may thing this possibility is absurd, but I suggest it's no more absurd than believing that God is so vain that He will punish those who don't believe in Him.


Why wouldn't you be able to find out?  Aren't you simply assuming there is no possible way you could find out?  

There's no good reason to think that God punishes those who believe in Him, and even if there was, that's not a good reason not to try to find out.  It would be like saying I want to find out if Santa Claus exists, but I'm afraid he might kill me if I ever do find out about him.  It's a remote possibility, but there's no reason to think it's true, and no religious text I've ever looked at says anything like that.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> There may be, but should we always assume those other explanations before we accept God as an explanation?


It depends on what the other possibilities are.  My point is that when no other explanation is available, too many people resort to, "Well, God did it."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It depends on what the other possibilities are.  My point is that when no other explanation is available, too many people resort to, "Well, God did it."


If it serves as a valid explanation, then why not resort to it?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Science most certainly can verify things the Bible says about the natural world.  I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I know there are some.


There are, but there are things in the Bible that aren't supported by science.  I was responding to the claim that _all_ scientific evidence supports what's in the Bible, which is clearly false.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Can you back that up?


There were lots of gods back in the day among the Sumerians, Canaanites, Babylonians, etc.  Many mentioned in the Bible:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." -Psalms 82:1"For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."  -Psalms 95:3"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" -Psalms 82:1-2"For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." -1 Kings 11:5"And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god."  -Judges 8:33lot's more...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If it serves as a valid explanation, then why not resort to it?


Why not simply say, "I don't know."?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There are, but there are things in the Bible that aren't supported by science.  I was responding to the claim that _all_ scientific evidence supports what's in the Bible, which is clearly false.


Well, I'm glad it's so clear to you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There were lots of gods back in the day among the Sumerians, Canaanites, Babylonians, etc.  Many mentioned in the Bible:
> 
> "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." -Psalms 82:1"For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."  -Psalms 95:3"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" -Psalms 82:1-2"For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." -1 Kings 11:5"And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god."  -Judges 8:33lot's more...


These are false gods that the bible says people believed in, correct?

When God "judgeth among the gods", for instance, He is judging the false gods that people believed in.  There are plenty of examples of that, but nowhere does the Bible say that there are multiple REAL gods.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why not simply say, "I don't know."?


Because if it's a valid explanation, then there's no reason to say we don't know.  Why not just say we have a valid explanation?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Because if it's a valid explanation, then there's no reason to say we don't know.  Why not just say we have a valid explanation?


How do you know it's a valid explanation?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> These are false gods that the bible says people believed in, correct?
> 
> When God "judgeth among the gods", for instance, He is judging the false gods that people believed in.  There are plenty of examples of that, but nowhere does the Bible say that there are multiple REAL gods.


How can you say that Yahweh is the "real" god, and all the others are "false"?

Because the Bible says so? You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Yahweh chose the Israelites, so wouldn't you expect a little bias considering who wrote the Old Testament? I sure would.

Have you read Kings, Judges and Leviticus? It's one blood bath after another. Would Jesus, who taught Love as the greatest commandment, worship a God of Death and Destruction? I don't think so.

I say Noah and Abraham worshiped the God of Gods, and the god that chose the Israelites is not the God of Gods, but one of many. Jesus, a rebel and reformer, was teaching the stiff-necked Jews to get back to worshiping the God of Abraham - the God of Gods.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How do you know it's a valid explanation?


You're moving the goal posts.  The goal was to establish that it should be accepted if it's a valid explanation, now you want to question its validity.  We can do that, but that's not what I was trying to prove.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How can you say that Yahweh is the "real" god, and all the others are "false"?


That's not the point.  The point is that the Bible does not say there are other real gods.  That's true.  You can argue whether the Bible is correct about that, but that wasn't the original point.




> Because the Bible says so? You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.


Like I said, not the point.  You're moving the goal posts.




> Yahweh chose the Israelites, so wouldn't you expect a little bias considering who wrote the Old Testament? I sure would.


Maybe so, but what does that prove?  




> Have you read Kings, Judges and Leviticus? It's one blood bath after another. Would Jesus, who taught Love as the greatest commandment, worship a God of Death and Destruction? I don't think so.


You're trying to be a scholar on a book you don't even believe in.  Why don't you admit YOUR bias?  You want all these things to contradict each other, but that just because you're not looking for the explanation that says they're consistent.




> I say Noah and Abraham worshiped the God of Gods, and the god that chose the Israelites is not the God of Gods, but one of many. Jesus, a rebel and reformer, was teaching the stiff-necked Jews to get back to worshiping the God of Abraham - the God of Gods.


Once again, it's really just laughable for you to try to interpret something you don't even believe in and lo and behold, your interpretation is wrought with contradictions and false gods.  Gee, I really wonder what made you think that.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> None of those reasons mean you have to take a position.  You can still remain apathetic even if it's in the news and people are trying to convert you, etc.  You don't have to take a position, but you do.


What do you think my position is?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> That's not the point.  The point is that the Bible does not say there are other real gods.


Of course it does. None of those verses above imply those gods aren't "real". They're just as real as any other. Why do you claim otherwise?




> You're trying to be a scholar on a book you don't even believe in. Why don't you admit YOUR bias?  You want all these things to contradict each other, but that just because you're not looking for the explanation that says they're consistent.


That's not true at all. The Old Testament is a history of the Jews, written by the Jews. That's how I read it. I know it's difficult if not impossible for most Christians, but if you could take off your Christian hat and put on your objective historian hat, you will see it in a different light.




> Maybe so, but what does that prove?


I'm not saying it proves anything, just lends insight into why the authors of the Old Testament might claim theirs is the 'real' god, and all the others are 'false'.




> Once again, it's really just laughable for you to try to interpret something you don't even believe in and lo and behold, your interpretation is wrought with contradictions and false gods.


What is there to interpret?

When reading history, especially concerning religion and politics, one has to consider who won the battle, and who wrote the history book. There's not really any "interpretation" involved - just keep those things in mind, remember there is two sides to every story, and follow the money.

What doesn't make sense is that because of your belief and nothing else, you would relegate the deities of the rest of humanity to second-class status, and call them false but yours is real. It's truly baffling.

And I don't get your "how can you interpret something you don't believe in" angle.  I don't care for Paul's theology, and I think the Israelites claiming their God is better than everybody else's is easily understood.

Plenty of great history in the Old Testament. What's not to believe in?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What do you think my position is?


I don't know, but I think you probably treat the proposition that God does not exist as being somehow more rational than the proposition that God does exist.  Am I correct?  

Either way, though, nobody's forcing you to even take part in this debate.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Of course it does. None of those verses above imply those gods aren't "real". They're just as real as any other. Why do you claim otherwise?


Those verses also don't say they are real, so you have to rely on the context, and the context is that all the rest of the bible says there is only one God.  If you understand those passages in that context, it makes perfect sense.  You don't even believe in any of the gods anyway, so how can you say whether the bible is right or wrong about there only being one God?  How is it that everyone else comes to a different conclusion than you?  You can say there are multiple gods mentioned in the bible, but you are simply wrong when you say that the bible says that all of these gods are real.  It does not say that.  I think you know this and are purposely being incredulous.




> That's not true at all. The Old Testament is a history of the Jews, written by the Jews. That's how I read it. I know it's difficult if not impossible for most Christians, but if you could take off your Christian hat and put on your objective historian hat, you will see it in a different light.


History backs up the Bible.  For instance, the overwhelming majority of historians agree that Jesus was a real person who was crucified.  Multiple eyewitness accounts also confirm that he was dead and then alive again.  




> I'm not saying it proves anything, just lends insight into why the authors of the Old Testament might claim theirs is the 'real' god, and all the others are 'false'.


I'm not trying to claim that any of those gods are false and one is real.  I'm just saying the Bible says there is only one God.  Anyone who reads the Bible comes to the conclusion that the Bible is claiming that there is only one God.  All you have to do is read Genesis 1:1.  If you want to argue for the existence of other gods, you can do that, but don't act like the Bible is saying that.




> What is there to interpret?


There are words on a page to interpret... duh.




> When reading history, especially concerning religion and politics, one has to consider who won the battle, and who wrote the history book. There's not really any "interpretation" involved - just keep those things in mind, remember there is two sides to every story, and follow the money.


There is ALWAYS interpretation involved.  The facts don't speak for themselves.  We interpret what the facts mean.




> What doesn't make sense is that because of your belief and nothing else, you would relegate the deities of the rest of humanity to second-class status, and call them false but yours is real. It's truly baffling.


It's not baffling at all.  Christianity is very unique in that it is the only religion that says God created the universe _ex nihilo_, or out of nothing.  There are tons of reasons to think the Christian God is real, but that has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.  I'm arguing for the existence of God, not for the specific identity of that God.  I have good reasons for believing that the Christian God is the only true God, but that's a completely different debate.




> And I don't get your "how can you interpret something you don't believe in" angle.  I don't care for Paul's theology, and I think the Israelites claiming their God is better than everybody else's is easily understood.
> 
> Plenty of great history in the Old Testament. What's not to believe in?


Well, for one, you probably don't accept the historical resurrection of Jesus.

And you probably don't believe most of Genesis.  You just believe the parts that fit your worldview.

----------


## lilymc

> There were lots of gods back in the day among the Sumerians, Canaanites, Babylonians, etc.  Many mentioned in the Bible:
> 
> "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." -Psalms 82:1


The word translated as "gods" here is the Hebrew word *elohiym*, which has more than one meaning. In this particular verse, it is referring to earthly judges.   Also see Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:9.




> "For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."  -Psalms 95:3


Same thing here.  This one is similar to the verses about Jesus that say He is the "King of kings, Lord of lords."   It's just another way of saying that God is THE highest power, above all other powers.  It doesn't mean the other powers are actual gods.  There is only one God.




> "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" -Psalms 82:1-2


You posted this one already.  (see above.)




> "For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." -1 Kings 11:5


The bible states over and over that people look to false "gods."  (or "goddesses")    You have to read and study the bible as a whole, or else you're going to be misled when you pluck out particular verses.

I don't want to get too off topic here, but I think that another place where many people (even Christians) go wrong is that they don't realize that in Genesis, a bizarre event took place where angels came down, took physical form, and mated with human women.  The result of that abomination was the Nephilim, who were hybrid beings... half human, half fallen angel - so they were much more powerful and advanced than human beings.  

I believe that many of the false "gods" written about in numerous ancient writings (not just the bible) were the result of that unholy union briefly mentioned in Genesis 6.    That's why some people worshipped them as "gods" but they were demonic.





> "And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god."  -Judges 8:33
> lot's more...


Yes, as I just said.... people worshipped false gods.  The bible makes that super clear.  You have to read and study the whole bible.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The word translated as "gods" here is the Hebrew word *elohiym*, which has more than one meaning. In this particular verse, it is referring to earthy judges.   Also see Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:9.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing here.  It's similar to the verses about Jesus that say He is the "King of kings, Lord of lords."   It's just another way of saying that God is THE highest power, above all other powers.  It doesn't mean the other powers are actual gods. There is only one God.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted this one already.  (see above.)
> ...


Thanks, Terry.  That was a good assessment.

----------


## lilymc

> I'm not saying it proves anything, just lends insight into why the authors of the Old Testament might claim theirs is the 'real' god, and all the others are 'false'.
> 
> What is there to interpret?
> 
> When reading history, especially concerning religion and politics, one has to consider who won the battle, and who wrote the history book. There's not really any "interpretation" involved - just keep those things in mind, remember there is two sides to every story, and follow the money.
> 
> What doesn't make sense is that because of your belief and nothing else, you would relegate the deities of the rest of humanity to second-class status, and call them false but yours is real. It's truly baffling.
> 
> And I don't get your "how can you interpret something you don't believe in" angle.  I don't care for Paul's theology, and I think the Israelites claiming their God is better than everybody else's is easily understood.
> ...


There are many ways to know that Christianity is true, and that there is only one God.

I get where you're coming from, because I was a nonbeliever for MANY years.   In my case, it was out of apathy and lack of interest in religion or spirituality.  It wasn't even on my radar, for a long time.

But if you really care about truth, and if you sincerely, genuinely search for truth, you will find that there are plenty of good, compelling reasons to believe the bible.... No other "holy book" even comes close.

But we're getting way off topic now.

----------


## lilymc

> Thanks, Terry.  That was a good assessment.


Terry?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Terry?


lol I'm sorry.  I have a tendency to forget who I'm talking to.

----------


## TheTexan

> When God "judgeth among the gods", for instance, He is judging the false gods that people believed in.  There are plenty of examples of that, but nowhere does the Bible say that there are multiple REAL gods.


The bible says that The Lord is a god above other gods... but that does not mean that the other gods are not "real" gods.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The bible says that The Lord is a god above other gods... but that does not mean that the other gods are not "real" gods.


It also doesn't mean they are.  Besides, as lilymc (almsot said Terry again ) already pointed out, the word used for "god" in that context doesn't mean God in the same sense.  It sometimes refers to earthly judges.  That's why the real God is capitalized whereas all the others are not.  The translators of the Bible understood this fact.  If you want to disagree with them, you can, but your view is certainly no more historically objective.

----------


## Terry1

> lol I'm sorry.  I have a tendency to forget who I'm talking to.


It's okay--I tend to have that effect on people.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't know, but I think you probably treat the proposition that God does not exist as being somehow more rational than the proposition that God does exist.  Am I correct?  
> 
> Either way, though, nobody's forcing you to even take part in this debate.


What do you mean by this debate? Using the analogy to racism as was in the video, should the debate be limited only for those who feel passionate about the subject as to what degree and the non racists must accept parameters forced upon them?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I don't know, but I think you probably treat the proposition that God does not exist as being somehow more rational than the proposition that God does exist.  Am I correct?  
> 
> Either way, though, nobody's forcing you to even take part in this debate.


It depends on the particular God and details given of this being.  The Christian God is usually described in a way that sounds vague to me.  Also some say HE is outside of Time and Space.  In a way, this describes a being that does not exist in the Universe where I live.  It makes God seem to me more like an abstract concept than a person.  

Aside from that, I suppose John Galt and I could sit down and he could explain why I should believe in Wotan.  I guess i could even go down the list of Gods presented by religions, or I can let all the religious types fight it out until they all finally agree on the God they think is the right one.  

I could also of course listen to the science minded people who have a lot of interesting theories, but a theory is not something you can know to be true.  

So basically in terms of the creation of the Universe, I can't say I have a concrete belief.  Yes, I do think the idea that the Universe was created by a God who waited many millennia while humans struggled to develop before getting involved seems unlikely.  I am willing to entertain the idea that a creative intelligence of some kind somehow kickstarted things.  That would be just one of many possibilities.  It could have been a committee of aliens or any number of absurd ideas.  Maybe we branched off another bigger Universe.  Maybe we're the by-product of someone else's Large Hadron Collider.  Maybe we're the background characters in some alien video game.  

All this is kind of stuff is great fodder for conversation, but I can't pin down one theory that I believe to be absolutely true.  If the mood strikes me, I might sometimes wonder if the Universe really was created by one or many beings, but that's about it.  Such creators could really be anything.  Or such a being made us by accident or they don't even know we're here.  It could all be a big alien laboratory $#@! up that someone swept under the rug.  I really don't know.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Those verses also don't say they are real, so you have to rely on the context, and the context is that all the rest of the bible says there is only one God.


No, the context of the rest of the Bible says we should worship God Almighty - the God of Gods - the same god that Abraham worshiped - the God worshiped all over the planet (same God, different names) - the God that created Heaven and Earth.  Not any of the lesser gods.




> You don't even believe in any of the gods anyway


Where have I ever said that?  I believe in ALL the gods - from all over the planet.  The Hindu pantheon, the Greek Gods, the Egyptian gods - the Mayan and Native American gods - the whole load of them.  How can you declare all of those aren't "real"?  And I believe there is a God of Gods - that's the one I pray to.




> How is it that everyone else comes to a different conclusion than you?


Ummmm...... no.  I think if you tally it up the majority of humans over the course of the millennia come to a different conclusion than you. I'm in that camp 




> History backs up the Bible.  For instance, the overwhelming majority of historians agree that Jesus was a real person who was crucified.  Multiple eyewitness accounts also confirm that he was dead and then alive again.


History does back up the historical Jesus; I believe Jesus was a real person too. And he was crucified. I don't believe he died on the cross but hey, I love conspiracy theories.  I don't believe the single bullet theory either   I also don't believe they hate us for our freedoms lol

But show me any historical source outside the Bible that says Jesus was dead and then alive again.  That's a pretty amazing thing, right? Isn't that something people would write about outside of Christian circles?  You would think so.




> Well, for one, you probably don't accept the historical resurrection of Jesus.


That's true. Same as above. You've probably seen those charts that list a dozen or so deities from around the world that were also born of a virgin, crucified, dead 3 days and were resurrected. It's a common theme.




> And you probably don't believe most of Genesis.


Cultures all over the planet have their own creation story. I wasn't there so I can't say for sure.




> The word translated as "gods" here is the Hebrew word *elohiym*, which has more than one meaning. In this particular verse, it is referring to earthly judges.   Also see Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:9.


No offense lilymc, but your breakdown of the names of God isn't very compelling. I don't read Hebrew, and I'm going to guess that you don't either. I've done a bit of research into the names of God used in the Old Testament and it will make your head spin. Singular, plurals, titles, honorifics, adorations and so on.....  I was real interested in tracing the use of YHWH and when it was introduced and in what context. It's been a while but it seems it wasn't used early in the narrative.

I would love to get my hands on a book by a peer-recognized Hebrew scholar (that's not a practicing Jew) giving a thorough breakdown of the holy names used in the Old Testament - with supporting references outside the Bible, too. That would be very interesting.




> I don't want to get too off topic here, but I think that another place where many people (even Christians) go wrong is that they don't realize that in Genesis, a bizarre event took place where angels came down, took physical form, and mated with human women.  The result of that abomination was the Nephilim, who were hybrid beings... half human, half fallen angel - so they were much more powerful and advanced than human beings.


I believe that story. Call them angels or call them aliens, I don't care. It makes all kind of sense that gods/angels/aliens came to earth "from the heavens".  It explains the plethora of deities all over the world.  Why? That's the million dollar question. I have my theories 




> You have to read and study the whole bible.


Yes, I agree.  You can learn a lot from studying the scriptures and beliefs of other cultures as well.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What do you mean by this debate? Using the analogy to racism as was in the video, should the debate be limited only for those who feel passionate about the subject as to what degree and the non racists must accept parameters forced upon them?


It means he can start up his own offtopic debate in my thread and I should ignore it or something.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What do you mean by this debate? Using the analogy to racism as was in the video, should the debate be limited only for those who feel passionate about the subject as to what degree and the non racists must accept parameters forced upon them?


I mean the whole debate over labels and whether or not God exists.  If people are so apathetic about the existence of God, then why do they come to threads like these and argue?  What's their point?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Atheism isn't a theory of morality, unfortunately SF doesn't seem to have the capacity to wrap his head around this simple fact. Atheism doesn't comment on good or bad, right or wrong. Atheism, very basically, is simply the disbelief in a higher power, supreme being, or god; or if you want to put it another way, the belief in no god. That's it. That's all. Atheism is nothing else beyond that. So, nothing about atheism--or the disbelief in a god--has anything to say about good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral, justice or injustice--it's not a theory or morality, or a theory of justice, or a theory of ethics. These things are entirely separate from atheism. 
> 
> That atheists may ascribe to various secular theories of morality does not make those theories a part of atheism. Atheism is one thing, morality is another.


This is a very good quick summary.

Your point is made very well. Atheism and Theism (in its many forms) are different ways of orienting yourself to the universe with respect to a supernatural being. Moral codes are basically independent of these belief systems, as many have existed through time, as well has have changed through time. Morality can be understood and _created_ through the simple application of logic. If not, it must mean it's illogical, right? Thus, morality is logical, and can be understood through that framework. Morality requires logic, not a belief in a supernatural being.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It depends on the particular God and details given of this being.  The Christian God is usually described in a way that sounds vague to me.  Also some say HE is outside of Time and Space.  In a way, this describes a being that does not exist in the Universe where I live.  It makes God seem to me more like an abstract concept than a person.


He is an abstract concept.  He is immaterial.  That does not, however, mean He doesn't exist in the universe where you live.  It just means you have to recognize that something beyond nature might exist, which is an entirely plausible concept before you even examine the evidence.  "Beyond" doesn't mean "not existing in the universe."  It just means there is something else besides the universe that exists.  There's nothing inherently illogical about that idea.




> Aside from that, I suppose John Galt and I could sit down and he could explain why I should believe in Wotan.  I guess i could even go down the list of Gods presented by religions, or I can let all the religious types fight it out until they all finally agree on the God they think is the right one.


Why not take part in the fight?  Is it not important?  Why should we have to figure out all the answers and bring them to you on a silver platter?  You're not even willing to try to find out who God is.  That, however, is a completely separate debate from whether God exists or not.  God is a philosophical concept, not just a story, so trying to figure out which specific identity of God you accept, you first need to accept there is a God in order to find out which religion got it right.  I think there is a lot of evidence for Christianity, but I don't debate that with you because you don't even accept the idea that any god is real.  




> I could also of course listen to the science minded people who have a lot of interesting theories, but a theory is not something you can know to be true.
> 
> So basically in terms of the creation of the Universe, I can't say I have a concrete belief.  Yes, I do think the idea that the Universe was created by a God who waited many millennia while humans struggled to develop before getting involved seems unlikely.  I am willing to entertain the idea that a creative intelligence of some kind somehow kickstarted things.  That would be just one of many possibilities.  It could have been a committee of aliens or any number of absurd ideas.  Maybe we branched off another bigger Universe.  Maybe we're the by-product of someone else's Large Hadron Collider.  Maybe we're the background characters in some alien video game.


All of those options you gave can be split into two categories: natural and supernatural.  Creative intelligence is in the supernatural category while aliens and other universes are in the natural category.  What I'm trying to do is show that it's not unreasonable to believe in the supernatural origins.  What you seem to want to do is assume that natural explanations origins are somehow more rational than the supernatural explanations.  If you're not doing that, then you're an agnostic.  What I mean by that is that you give equal weight to all possibilities and there's no way to know which one is right.  That's fine if you want to believe that, but I'm just trying to show people why it's no more rational to believe that God does not exist than it is to believe that He does. 




> All this is kind of stuff is great fodder for conversation, but I can't pin down one theory that I believe to be absolutely true.  If the mood strikes me, I might sometimes wonder if the Universe really was created by one or many beings, but that's about it.  Such creators could really be anything.  Or such a being made us by accident or they don't even know we're here.  It could all be a big alien laboratory $#@! up that someone swept under the rug.  I really don't know.


The idea that the creator is imperfect entails that that creator is not God.  In other words, it's just another attempt at a natural explanation.  Like I said, though, no matter how many sub-theories you come up with, they can all be split into natural and supernatural explanations.  What atheists do is assume the position of naturalism and say everything that we can know comes from nature, so we must assume that the universe had some kind of natural origin.  The problem is that there is simply no reason to assume that only natural things can exist.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I'm not assuming the supernatural.  *I'm just saying there's no good reason (no need, if you like) to assume that nature is all there is*.  If you're not using absence of evidence as evidence of absence, then why do you believe there is no God?
> 
> Yes it is.  It isn't _proof_, per se, but it is evidence because we would expect to find such evidence if they were real.  Therefore, they probably don't exist.  This does not apply to the supernatural, though, because you cannot expect to find natural evidence of the supernatural when the framework of naturalism already excludes the possibility of the supernatural being an explanation.


This is likely a core disagreement amongst many of us, but it is actually the exact opposite of what you say. There is no good reason to assume there is anything _beyond_ nature.

If you expect that we have a full and complete understanding of the natural world, then yes, some things are _super_natural, relative only to our understanding; this, however does not actually make them beyond the natural world - it is simply a reflection of our own imperfect understanding of the world.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *There are only two possible supernatural causes of the universe: 1) an abstract object, such as the number 7 or 2) an unembodied mind.*  Since abstract objects don't stand in causal relationships, it therefore follows that the supernatural cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind.  We can further deduce that such a mind, if it is  the cause for the existence of the universe, must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial and unimaginably powerful.


Holy mental gymnastics...can't argue with that!




> You don't have to believe one way or the other, but that would mean you treat both options as equally likely, but I don't think you do that since you seem to think I need evidence for God to convince you He exists, but you don't need evidence against His existence in order to believe He does not exist.  If you want to be apathetic, that's fine with me, but *it's no more rational to not believe in God than it is to believe in God*.  The reason I mention that you might be in trouble if you don't believe in God and He does exist, then that's a valid reason to believe in God.  You can debate about whether God wants you to believe in Him (as has been done with Pascal's Wager) but my point is that it's simply a possibility that you should consider and there's no good reason to assume you should not try to find out.


This is valid, and is why I place Atheism in the same category as any and all other religions that state certain facts about the universe for which there is no evidence. Religious people say something exists for which there is no knowledge of; Atheists say something does not exist for something which there is no knowledge of. Agnosticism is the _only_ logically (currently) defensible position to hold. Everything else is simply a statement of opinion with a user-selected reason to back up their belief.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Science doesn't support the natural occurrence of those things, but once again, you're *assuming a priori that the natural world is all there is*.  Science most certainly can verify things the Bible says about the natural world.  I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but I know there are some.


Science is _wholly_ about what you can observe. It was once said that "every revolution in science was preceded by a revolution in optics"...meaning that *what we can SEE is what drives us down certain lanes of discovery*. Remember, people observed things about the natural world, and _then_ wrote them in the Bible.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> How do you know it's a valid explanation?


Because...God said so!!! Duh!

----------


## Mr Tansill

> There are many ways to know that Christianity is true, and that there is only one God.
> 
> I get where you're coming from, because I was a nonbeliever for MANY years.   In my case, it was out of apathy and lack of interest in religion or spirituality.  It wasn't even on my radar, for a long time.
> 
> But if you really care about truth, and *if you sincerely, genuinely search for truth, you will find that there are plenty of good, compelling reasons to believe the bible.... No other "holy book" even comes close*.
> 
> But we're getting way off topic now.


Realize that there is a parallel person, just like you, on the other side of the planet, with just as sincere and closely held, convincing beliefs, who says the exact same thing about the Koran.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, the context of the rest of the Bible says we should worship God Almighty - the God of Gods - the same god that Abraham worshiped - the God worshiped all over the planet (same God, different names) - the God that created Heaven and Earth.  Not any of the lesser gods.


If God created the Heaven and the Earth, then none of those other "gods" are really God... because they didn't create anything and should not be worshiped.  Pretty straightforward.  They are "real" in the sense that they are ideas that people worship, but nowhere does the Bible indicate that these gods are the creator of the universe, which is really all that matters.  Any god that did not create the universe is irrelevant because they were all created by the actual God. 




> Where have I ever said that?  I believe in ALL the gods - from all over the planet.  The Hindu pantheon, the Greek Gods, the Egyptian gods - the Mayan and Native American gods - the whole load of them.  How can you declare all of those aren't "real"?  And I believe there is a God of Gods - that's the one I pray to.


If you believe there is a God of gods, then it follows that all of the others are either delusions or were created and thus not worthy of worship.  I agree, so what's the problem here?




> Ummmm...... no.  I think if you tally it up the majority of humans over the course of the millennia come to a different conclusion than you. I'm in that camp


I'm talking specifically about what the Bible says.  Everyone who reads the Bible comes to the conclusion that one God created the universe.  This God created everything and has power over His entire creation, including all of the other gods that people can come up with.  None of them are anything like the one and only God of the universe.




> History does back up the historical Jesus; I believe Jesus was a real person too. And he was crucified. I don't believe he died on the cross but hey, I love conspiracy theories.  I don't believe the single bullet theory either   I also don't believe they hate us for our freedoms lol


If you don't believe he died on the cross, then you're going against the majority of historians on that, too.




> But show me any historical source outside the Bible that says Jesus was dead and then alive again.  That's a pretty amazing thing, right? Isn't that something people would write about outside of Christian circles?  You would think so.


Why does it have to be outside of Christian circles?  I'm sure many people did write about it, but those stories didn't survive like the one verified by all of the eyewitnesses.  That's another thing.  The reason we know Jesus was dead and then alive again is because of eyewitness accounts.  Some of these people were willing to die for the veracity of this claim.  The most reasonable conclusion from that is that they knew it was true.  This is an historical fact.  Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross and we have many eyewitnesses saw him alive again.  After that period, Christianity spread like wildfire and I'm sure there were many stories, but it just so happens that the Bible is the "official" account of what happened.  Many people saw Jesus after he had risen and verified the claims made in the Bible.  




> That's true. Same as above. You've probably seen those charts that list a dozen or so deities from around the world that were also born of a virgin, crucified, dead 3 days and were resurrected. It's a common theme.


Probably because it's true.  Just because they got the story of Jesus right, doesn't mean we have to accept all of the other claims.  And hey, you were looking for other writings outside of Christian circles.  I guess you found them.




> Cultures all over the planet have their own creation story. I wasn't there so I can't say for sure.


Cultures all over the planet have their own worldwide flood story.  Maybe that's because it's true.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Realize that there is a parallel person, just like you, on the other side of the planet, with just as sincere and closely held, convincing beliefs, who says the exact same thing about the Koran.


^^Truth

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is a very good quick summary.
> 
> Your point is made very well. Atheism and Theism (in its many forms) are different ways of orienting yourself to the universe with respect to a supernatural being. Moral codes are basically independent of these belief systems, as many have existed through time, as well has have changed through time. Morality can be understood and _created_ through the simple application of logic. If not, it must mean it's illogical, right? Thus, morality is logical, and can be understood through that framework. Morality requires logic, not a belief in a supernatural being.


Morality absolutely is logical, but that doesn't explain why anyone should care about it.

----------


## lilymc

> No offense lilymc, but your breakdown of the names of God isn't very compelling. I don't read Hebrew, and I'm going to guess that you don't either. I've done a bit of research into the names of God used in the Old Testament and it will make your head spin. Singular, plurals, titles, honorifics, adorations and so on.....  I was real interested in tracing the use of YHWH and when it was introduced and in what context. It's been a while but it seems it wasn't used early in the narrative.
> 
> I would love to get my hands on a book by a peer-recognized Hebrew scholar (that's not a practicing Jew) giving a thorough breakdown of the holy names used in the Old Testament - with supporting references outside the Bible, too. That would be very interesting.


I think you misunderstood my reply.  I wasn't talking about the names of God.  I said that the particular word used in the verse you posted has several meanings.    Did you click on the word?  It was linked to a lexicon.

Here it is again. Take a look:  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...ngs=H430&t=KJV




> I believe that story. Call them angels or call them aliens, I don't care. It makes all kind of sense that gods/angels/aliens came to earth "from the heavens".  It explains the plethora of deities all over the world.  Why? That's the million dollar question. I have my theories


Hmm...interesting that you believe it.   I do too.    And I think that it's like the missing piece of a puzzle that makes so many other things become clear.   Also, I believe it ties in with biblical prophecy _and_ what we can see going on in the world today... which makes it a fascinating and relevant topic, imo.

But apparently you're believing it in a different way.    According to the bible (and the book of Enoch, and numerous other ancient writings)  ANGELS mated with human beings which created a hybrid.   Not aliens from another planet.  You said, "I don't care" but this is actually a very important point to understand.  

The deception that those entities are trying to push is that they're extra-terrestrials, along with all sorts of other lies.  I did a video on this topic (well, it was on the trend of "paranormal romance" but I also talked about the "alien gospel")  I'm not sure I want to post it here, but I can PM you the link to it if you want.  




> Yes, I agree.  You can learn a lot from studying the scriptures and beliefs of other cultures as well.


I agree.  And what is super interesting to me is that the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 causes ALL the other ancient texts to actually corroborate the bible.... not directly, but in an indirect, inadvertent way. 

Man, we really got off topic here.  I'm sorry to VIDEODROME.    If it bothers him, then we should start a new thread.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is likely a core disagreement amongst many of us, but it is actually the exact opposite of what you say. There is no good reason to assume there is anything _beyond_ nature.


Even if that were true, there would still be no good reason to assume that nature is all there is, so that leaves you with complete agnosticism, at best.  However, upon closer examination, we find that there absolutely is a good reason.  For instance, are the laws of logic natural?  How can you explain the existence of logic with science?  When I say logic, I mean things that are absolutely true whether anyone agrees with them or not.  These things were true even when there were no humans around.  The law of non-contradiction was still true even when there were no humans.  They are immaterial and thus, exist apart from nature.




> If you expect that we have a full and complete understanding of the natural world, then yes, some things are _super_natural, relative only to our understanding; this, however does not actually make them beyond the natural world - it is simply a reflection of our own imperfect understanding of the world.


There is still no good reason to assume naturalism.  Can the laws of nature explain their own existence?  Can you scientifically verify the claim that all things can be known through science?  You cannot know everything with science because science can never tell you how much of everything it knows.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Holy mental gymnastics...can't argue with that!


Yes you can.  Is there something else you can think of?




> This is valid, and is why I place Atheism in the same category as any and all other religions that state certain facts about the universe for which there is no evidence. Religious people say something exists for which there is no knowledge of; Atheists say something does not exist for something which there is no knowledge of. Agnosticism is the _only_ logically (currently) defensible position to hold. Everything else is simply a statement of opinion with a user-selected reason to back up their belief.


I don't agree that agnosticism is the only defensible positions, but it is the only intellectually consistent position for someone who says they "don't know" the answer.  The moment you say that it is more reasonable to assume that there is nothing beyond nature is the moment you make a religious claim.  You have left science at that point because there's no reason to assume that nature is all there is.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Science is _wholly_ about what you can observe. It was once said that "every revolution in science was preceded by a revolution in optics"...meaning that *what we can SEE is what drives us down certain lanes of discovery*. Remember, people observed things about the natural world, and _then_ wrote them in the Bible.


We can't see philosophy.  Can't see logic, yet we assume they exist.  You can't scientifically verify that science is the only way of knowing things.  You can't explain why natural laws exist with science.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Realize that there is a parallel person, just like you, on the other side of the planet, with just as sincere and closely held, convincing beliefs, who says the exact same thing about the Koran.


Good thing we can find out who's right.  You are convinced that it's pointless even though you apparently don't even try to examine the evidence for any of the religions.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Morality absolutely is logical, but that doesn't explain why anyone should care about it.


Valid. Those who don't care about it or disregard it we call _im_moral, and when they act out of accord with traditional morality, they are punished accordingly - punishment presents the _explanation_ you seek.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Yes you can.  Is there something else you can think of?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that agnosticism is the only defensible positions, but it is the only intellectually consistent position for someone who says they "don't know" the answer.  *The moment you say that it is more reasonable to assume that there is nothing beyond nature is the moment you make a religious claim.  You have left science at that point because there's no reason to assume that nature is all there is.*


Negative. The moment you claim that there is something beyond the visible universe, is the moment you make a _religious_ claim. Making claims about the universe is what science does. When someone steps into the debate and says that there is something that is beyond the reach of science, and is then rebutted by a scientist, that scientist is _not_ making a religious claim. He is making a statement that the other person doesn't know what they are talking about.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Good thing we can find out who's right.  You are convinced that it's pointless even though you've never even tried to examine the evidence for any of the religions.


I have examined Christianity closely, but you are correct about the rest of the religions in the world. Once I left the one that was handed to me by my parents and society, I was able to step back and examine not only _my_ religion (the one I was taught), but also all other religions (in an abstract sense) - including Atheism - which I consider a religion just like Christianity, because it purports to know things about the universe which are currently unknown/have not been observed.

----------


## lilymc

> Realize that there is a parallel person, just like you, on the other side of the planet, with just as sincere and closely held, convincing beliefs, who says the exact same thing about the Koran.


I think you've missed the point.    It doesn't matter how sincere one is, simply believing something doesn't make it true.

What I was saying was that if you examine all the world's "holy books", putting truth above all else, and weigh the evidence, you will find that there is no comparison.  There are number of valid, compelling reasons to believe Christianity above any other religion.

This is something that atheists just don't get.... and it drives me crazy.  They always say things like, "Why should I believe your God over thor or zeus or any other god?"

Search for the truth.  Examine all the world religions.   Weigh the evidence.  It's not that difficult to do.  It's not rocket science.   But you do have to genuinely value truth.   

I was a nonbeliever for most of my life.  I'm a very skeptical person by nature.  I'm not the type of person who would believe something with no evidence, or only because someone told me to believe.  

Heck, if that was the case I would either be an atheist (my dad is an atheist) or a Catholic (my mom is Catholic). 

Search for the truth.  If you really care.   As Jesus said, "Seek and you will find."

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Even if that were true, there would still be no good reason to assume that nature is all there is, so that leaves you with complete agnosticism, at best.  However, upon closer examination, we find that there absolutely is a good reason.  *For instance, are the laws of logic natural?  How can you explain the existence of logic with science?  When I say logic, I mean things that are absolutely true whether anyone agrees with them or not.*  These things were true even when there were no humans around.  The law of non-contradiction was still true even when there were no humans.  They are immaterial and thus, exist apart from nature.
> 
> There is still no good reason to assume naturalism.  Can the laws of nature explain their own existence?  Can you scientifically verify the claim that all things can be known through science?  You cannot know everything with science because science can never tell you how much of everything it knows.


Yes, they are. Take, for example, your fingers on one hand. Hold up two of them, then hold up three of them. This operation represents the mathematical equation 2 + 3 = 5. Conduct a second experiment: hold up three of the fingers on your hand, then hold up the remaining two. This second operation represents the equation 3 + 2 = 5. In both experiments, you get the same answer (all fingers on your hands are up). You have just discovered (or verified, or defined) the _associative_ law of addition. That is science from the chair in front of your computer.

I agree that there are "moral absolutes," and I take this from what many people would consider an unlikely source for a person such as myself: C.S. Lewis. In his book The Abolition of Man, he argues that there are absolute, objective moral principles, and makes a linguistic argument to demonstrate his point in the first two chapters. His logic there is flawless, and it is a fantastic argument - I highly recommend it if you haven't read it. He unfortunately takes his quest too far in chapter three however and makes some predictions that I don't think square with reality, but he defends his first presuppositions perfectly, and I think they are a great starting place for making moral claims.

----------


## lilymc

> Good thing we can find out who's right.  You are convinced that it's pointless even though you apparently don't even try to examine the evidence for any of the religions.


Heh.  You said what I just said, but in a lot fewer words.

Thanks.  I'd give you a + rep but I'm all out.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> We can't see philosophy.  Can't see logic, yet we assume they exist.  *You can't scientifically verify that science is the only way of knowing things.*  You can't explain why natural laws exist with science.


That is 100% true, and your use of an inherent imperfection in the scientific method to justify an alternative belief is an imperfection in itself. Of course science isn't the only way to know things. What science does is _describe_ the universe - attempting to hold it accountable for something it doesn't claim to do is nonsense. It never sought to explain the 'why' of anything at all...

Also, attendant with your critique of science is the _exact_ same criticism agnostics/atheists have of Christians when they defend their belief in God with "the Bible says..."

----------


## Jamesiv1

> If God created the Heaven and the Earth, then none of those other "gods" are really God


You're starting from a viewpoint that there is only one God.  I'm starting from the viewpoint that there are lots of gods, but only one God Almighty - the God of Gods.  If supernatural beings arrived on planet Earth with abilities humans didn't have, it's not at all unreasonable that people would refer to them all as gods. But there is only one God Almighty.

"Throughout the universe there are millions of names for God, and all of them are holy."  -Abhay Charan De




> ... because they didn't create anything and should not be worshiped.


If an angel/alien/god landed elsewhere on the planet, maybe adopted or helped the humans in that part of the planet, why wouldn't they worship him? I don't see why creation has to be part of the equation. But again, you say there is only one god, I say there are many - as do most other cultures.




> If you believe there is a God of gods, then it follows that all of the others are either delusions or were created and thus not worthy of worship.


No, it doesn't follow at all, as outlined above. You believe in one, I believe in many but one Almighty.




> I'm talking specifically about what the Bible says.  Everyone who reads the Bible comes to the conclusion that one God created the universe.


I think you mean "Everyone who is Christian and believes the Bible word for word" - but that's probably not accurate, either. And yes, clearly you're talking specifically about the Bible, and you believe the Bible is the true and scriptural Word of God and presumably the final authority making all the rest of the planet's scriptures invalid. Again, the large majority of humans disagree with you.




> If you don't believe he died on the cross, then you're going against the majority of historians on that, too.


That's a blanket statement you can't possibly verify. If you mean the majority of historians who are also Christians and believe the way you do then Ok, I'll agree with you.




> Why does it have to be outside of Christian circles?  I'm sure many people did write about it, but those stories didn't survive like the one verified by all of the eyewitnesses.  That's another thing.  The reason we know Jesus was dead and then alive again is because of eyewitness accounts.  Some of these people were willing to die for the veracity of this claim.  The most reasonable conclusion from that is that they knew it was true.  This is an historical fact.  Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross and we have many eyewitnesses saw him alive again.  After that period, Christianity spread like wildfire and I'm sure there were many stories, but it just so happens that the Bible is the "official" account of what happened.  Many people saw Jesus after he had risen and verified the claims made in the Bible.


Why do you think he was dead other than the Bible says so, and he must have been dead to be resurrected?  Why couldn't he have still been alive when placed into the tomb?  They didn't break his legs (as they normally did to hasten death), and he was only on the cross a matter of hours.




> Probably because it's true.  Just because they got the story of Jesus right, doesn't mean we have to accept all of the other claims.  And hey, you were looking for other writings outside of Christian circles.  I guess you found them.


Ok, now you're just talking smack, right?  Are you saying they are all talking about Jesus?







> Cultures all over the planet have their own worldwide flood story.  Maybe that's because it's true.


I don't have any problem with the flood story.

Stories of the Flood from around the World

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *I think you've missed the point.    It doesn't matter how sincere one is, simply believing something doesn't make it true.*


I don't think so, but I'm glad you recognize that simple fact about humanity.




> What I was saying was that if you examine all the world's "holy books", putting truth above all else, and weigh the evidence, *you will find that there is no comparison*.  There are number of valid, compelling reasons to believe Christianity above any other religion.


The person I referenced in the previous post...yeah, he's saying the same thing to me on another message board right now about the Koran.




> This is something that atheists just don't get.... and it drives me crazy.  They always say things like, "Why should I believe your God over thor or zeus or any other god?"
> 
> Search for the truth.  Examine all the world religions.   Weigh the evidence.  It's not that difficult to do.  It's not rocket science.  *But you do have to genuinely value truth.*


I do, which I why I jumped into this religious thread.




> *I was a nonbeliever for most of my life.  I'm a very skeptical person by nature.  I'm not the type of person who would believe something with no evidence, or only because someone told me to believe.*
> 
> Heck, if that was the case I would either be an atheist (my dad is an atheist) or a Catholic (my mom is Catholic). 
> 
> Search for the truth.  If you really care.   As Jesus said, "Seek and you will find."


Many people are mistaken about many things...do you think you are beyond error?

I too was a believer (or so I thought) for many years of my life - about until I figured out there was no Santa - of whom I was also a sincere believer. Here's how it went: "Is there such a thing as the Easter bunny?"...pause...Parents: "No."...Me (thinking)..."Is there such a thing as Santa?"...Parents: "No."...Me...thinking...thinking...thinking...

I took a philosophy class when I was like 18, and that opened my eyes to the similarity and relationship of all religions through the many different cultures of our planet. I wound up an Atheist for a time because of that class.

Many years later, reflecting on that experience, I realized that I'm not an Atheist the actual definition of the word (someone who does _not_ believe in God). My "atheism" at that time was simply a lack of belief in the cartoon deities that were dreamed up by men many hundreds of years ago, and my realization was that my atheism was a _reaction_ to a different, equally ridiculous set of beliefs - the same as not believing in Santa.

Where I am now, I consider to be much more close to what is actually, likely, true: that there is an organizing force behind the universe, expressed through natural laws (which we can discover), that generally align with what humanity would refer to as the "good."

----------


## otherone

> There's also nothing inherent in existence that one can assume the possibility of infinite existence.
> 
> So you believe it's possible to have an infinite number of past events?


I'm not so sure. IMO, the only thing that can be known is that the universe (existence/reality) is constantly changing.

----------


## Jamesiv1

I just want all of y'all to know that I have it *ALL* figured out - and you don't.

I rebuke all you guys.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're starting from a viewpoint that there is only one God.  I'm starting from the viewpoint that there are lots of gods, but only one God Almighty - the God of Gods.  If supernatural beings arrived on planet Earth with abilities humans didn't have, it's not at all unreasonable that people would refer to them all as gods. But there is only one God Almighty.
> 
> "Throughout the universe there are millions of names for God, and all of them are holy."  -Abhay Charan De
> 
> 
> If an angel/alien/god landed elsewhere on the planet, maybe adopted or helped the humans in that part of the planet, why wouldn't they worship him? I don't see why creation has to be part of the equation. But again, you say there is only one god, I say there are many - as do most other cultures.
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't follow at all, as outlined above. You believe in one, I believe in many but one Almighty.
> ...


Correlation does not prove causation, though it does make for a pretty chart.  Was that made by Zeitgeisters?  A comically inaccurate movie indeed!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I just want all of y'all to know that I have it *ALL* figured out - and you don't.
> 
> I rebuke all you guys.


lulz

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Valid. Those who don't care about it or disregard it we call _im_moral, and when they act out of accord with *traditional* morality, they are punished accordingly - punishment presents the _explanation_ you seek.


So thinks are only wrong because they are not _traditional?_  That's your whole basis for morality?  I guess if slavery was traditional, it would be okay.  Who'da thunk?  Why is it right to punish people who simply differ from the tradition?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Negative. The moment you claim that there is something beyond the visible universe, is the moment you make a _religious_ claim. Making claims about the universe is what science does. When someone steps into the debate and says that there is something that is beyond the reach of science, and is then rebutted by a scientist, that scientist is _not_ making a religious claim. He is making a statement that the other person doesn't know what they are talking about.


Can you verify the claim that nature is all the knowledge there is (or all the knowledge we need) scientifically?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I have examined Christianity closely, but you are correct about the rest of the religions in the world. Once I left the one that was handed to me by my parents and society, I was able to step back and examine not only _my_ religion (the one I was taught), but also all other religions (in an abstract sense) - including Atheism - which I consider a religion just like Christianity, because it purports to know things about the universe which are currently unknown/have not been observed.


But you claim that it is logical to assume that nature is all there is.  Isn't that purporting to know things about the universe which are currently unknown/have not been observed?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> So thinks are only wrong because they are not _traditional?_  That's your whole basis for morality?  I guess if slavery was traditional, it would be okay.  Who'da thunk?  *Why is it right to punish people who simply differ from the tradition?*


It's not, and my statement you responded to stands without my use of the word "traditional," and the fact that you latch on to that one qualifying word to attack my response is dodging the issue.

The people I'm talking about are those who act immorally. I qualified it with "traditional" to provide it some context in order to prevent linguistic or syntactic quibbling...but that didn't work - I meant actual, absolute, objective morality.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Can you verify the claim that nature is all the knowledge there is (or all the knowledge we need) scientifically?


No. What you are asking is a logical impossibility, and is quite literally _beyond_ the reach of science and logic. You are setting up a logical _paradox_ and demanding that someone escape from it - which is neither a valid way to make your point, or to demonstrate a weakness in the subject you're critiquing.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> But you claim that it is logical to assume that nature is all there is.  *Isn't that purporting to know things about the universe which are currently unknown/have not been observed*?


In a word? No.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, they are. Take, for example, your fingers on one hand. Hold up two of them, then hold up three of them. This operation *represents* the mathematical equation 2 + 3 = 5. Conduct a second experiment: hold up three of the fingers on your hand, then hold up the remaining two. This second operation represents the equation 3 + 2 = 5. In both experiments, you get the same answer (all fingers on your hands are up). You have just discovered (or verified, or defined) the _associative_ law of addition. That is science from the chair in front of your computer.


You said it yourself, these physical representations of mathematical abstract concepts are just that - representations.  Your fingers are not the math.  Math itself is not natural.  You can't weigh math or measure its energy content or its entropy.  It's not affected by nature.  It affects nature, but it is not affected by nature.




> I agree that there are "moral absolutes," and I take this from what many people would consider an unlikely source for a person such as myself: C.S. Lewis. In his book The Abolition of Man, he argues that there are absolute, objective moral principles, and makes a linguistic argument to demonstrate his point in the first two chapters. His logic there is flawless, and it is a fantastic argument - I highly recommend it if you haven't read it. He unfortunately takes his quest too far in chapter three however and makes some predictions that I don't think square with reality, but he defends his first presuppositions perfectly, and I think they are a great starting place for making moral claims.


That's great.  I'll consider it.  I probably agree with C.S. Lewis even more than you do.  He outlines the argument for the existence of objective moral principles very nicely, but I'm guessing that what you don't agree with is the grounding for these principles.  If there is no source of these principles other than ourselves, then there is no reason to think it should be binding on anyone other than ourselves.  I would argue that you can't get these objective moral values from nature.  Do trees tell you how to behave?  Do the laws of physics tell you how to behave?  There simply is no basis for moral values if nature is all there is.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In a word? No.


Explain.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Heh.  You said what I just said, but in a lot fewer words.
> 
> Thanks.  I'd give you a + rep but I'm all out.


Me too.  I've tried to rep you a few times, but I'm out, too, apparently.

----------


## TheTexan

> It also doesn't mean they are.


It also doesn't explicitly say Jacob or Peter is "real".  Because it doesn't have to.




> Besides, as lilymc (almsot said Terry again ) already pointed out, the word used for "god" in that context doesn't mean God in the same sense. It sometimes refers to earthly judges. That's why the real God is capitalized whereas all the others are not. The translators of the Bible understood this fact. If you want to disagree with them, you can, but your view is certainly no more historically objective.


I guess, if you want to redefine what words actually mean.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That is 100% true, and your use of an inherent imperfection in the scientific method to justify an alternative belief is an imperfection in itself. Of course science isn't the only way to know things. What science does is _describe_ the universe - attempting to hold it accountable for something it doesn't claim to do is nonsense. It never sought to explain the 'why' of anything at all...


If science isn't the only way to know things, then why should we assume that nature is all there is?  If you make the leap from saying science can't explain the "why" to saying there is no "why", then you've just made a religious claim.  You can't verify that nature is all there is, so why do you believe it?  I'm astounded at the level of cognitive dissonance it must require to say science isn't the only way to know things while still saying the natural world is all that exists.  I'm not trying to hold science accountable for what it can't explain.  I'm saying you shouldn't rely solely on the study of the natural world for your knowledge.  




> Also, attendant with your critique of science is the _exact_ same criticism agnostics/atheists have of Christians when they defend their belief in God with "the Bible says..."


I don't appeal to the Bible unless I'm talking to other Christians.  I am simply trying to establish the fact that belief in the supernatural is just as rational as the belief in nothing but nature.

----------


## otherone

> I guess, if you want to redefine what words actually mean.


“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. _You shall have no other gods before Me."
_

...seems to confirm your opinion.  Otherwise, it might be written "there are no other gods."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're starting from a viewpoint that there is only one God.  I'm starting from the viewpoint that there are lots of gods, but only one God Almighty - the God of Gods.  If supernatural beings arrived on planet Earth with abilities humans didn't have, it's not at all unreasonable that people would refer to them all as gods. But there is only one God Almighty.


Of course I am.  I only care about the God that created everything.  If there are other gods, they were created and thus, they are not worthy of worship.  If they did not create the entire universe, then they do not fit my definition of God as a maximally great being.  If you can conceive of a greater being than God, then that being would then be God.  When I say God, capital G, I'm talking about the greatest God and the originator of all other gods, small g.  




> If an angel/alien/god landed elsewhere on the planet, maybe adopted or helped the humans in that part of the planet, why wouldn't they worship him? I don't see why creation has to be part of the equation. But again, you say there is only one god, I say there are many - as do most other cultures.


No, "most other cultures" don't say that.  There are many monotheistic believers among all cultures.  Creation is important because if God did not create, then you're positing a natural origin of the universe, and that's not what I'm talking about.  God, if He exists, must be the origin of everything natural.




> No, it doesn't follow at all, as outlined above. You believe in one, I believe in many but one Almighty.


If you don't believe that almighty created the universe, then sorry, but that's not God.




> I think you mean "Everyone who is Christian and believes the Bible word for word" - but that's probably not accurate, either. And yes, clearly you're talking specifically about the Bible, and you believe the Bible is the true and scriptural Word of God and presumably the final authority making all the rest of the planet's scriptures invalid. Again, the large majority of humans disagree with you.


I'm willing to bet that most other people come to that conclusion when they read the Bible, too.  And no, it's not the "large majority."  What are the statistics?  I'm not exactly sure, but Christianity is pretty prevalent, even in today's world.  Other monotheistic religions probably account for the majority of people on earth.  




> That's a blanket statement you can't possibly verify. If you mean the majority of historians who are also Christians and believe the way you do then Ok, I'll agree with you.


What do you mean "can't possibly verify"?  Couldn't I give you statistics and examples of well-respected historians that say Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross?  Since these claims are historical, they aren't just a matter of pure faith.  Secular historians can study them, too.  If I got those statistics, would that convince you?




> Why do you think he was dead other than the Bible says so, and he must have been dead to be resurrected?  Why couldn't he have still been alive when placed into the tomb?  They didn't break his legs (as they normally did to hasten death), and he was only on the cross a matter of hours.


They did spear his side.  He couldn't have been alive because that is what the eyewitnesses say.  




> Ok, now you're just talking smack, right?  Are you saying they are all talking about Jesus?


They may not have called him Jesus, but it's the same story, so....




> I don't have any problem with the flood story.


So the Bible was right about that, then.  Why couldn't it have been right about creation?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> All of those options you gave can be split into two categories: natural and supernatural.  Creative intelligence is in the supernatural category while aliens and other universes are in the natural category.  What I'm trying to do is show that it's not unreasonable to believe in the supernatural origins.  What you seem to want to do is assume that natural explanations origins are somehow more rational than the supernatural explanations.  If you're not doing that, then you're an agnostic.  What I mean by that is that you give equal weight to all possibilities and there's no way to know which one is right.  That's fine if you want to believe that, but I'm just trying to show people why it's no more rational to believe that God does not exist than it is to believe that He does.


First, this thread is about questioning the stance of Atheism.  Just mentioning that again because I feel like we're drifting very far from the original topic.  

On this point, I will say I've often considered the alternative stance of Ignostic which is kind of similar to Agnostic.  As for why I even discuss Atheism in the first place, I feel that many people like myself are lumped in with it.  Also, many Ignostic minded people many join in with Atheist groups for political convenience because they happen to find actions of groups like Freedom From Religion agreeable. 

Maybe it's for this reason I found the original video appealing as Sam suggests the platform of Atheism should be discarded.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You said it yourself, these physical representations of mathematical abstract concepts are just that - representations.  Your fingers are not the math.  Math itself is not natural.  You can't weigh math or measure its energy content or its entropy.  It's not affected by nature.  It affects nature, but it is not affected by nature.


I don't think you're getting at what we were talking about. Your previous question was "Is logic natural?" The answer is yes, as (likely) one of our first steps out of the trees was being able to recognize discrete quantity, and then step back and "abstract" a natural law that was applicable to many different "things"...rocks, bananas, lions, etc. Fingers is a "natural" way to demonstrate that logic is reasonable/natural.




> That's great.  I'll consider it.  I probably agree with C.S. Lewis even more than you do.  He outlines the argument for the existence of objective moral principles very nicely, but *I'm guessing that what you don't agree with is the grounding for these principles*.  If there is no source of these principles other than ourselves, then there is no reason to think it should be binding on anyone other than ourselves.  I would argue that you can't get these objective moral values from nature.  Do trees tell you how to behave?  Do the laws of physics tell you how to behave?  There simply is no basis for moral values if nature is all there is.


In the first two chapters he does something very nicely: he points out that the authors of a book are critiquing the "value judgments" that another author is making, and thereby, themselves, are making an attempt to _transcend_ (in a sense) the very values (and principles behind them) which they are critiquing...in a sense, setting themselves above all others by the very act of judging values. C.S. Lewis' sublime recognition, is that this act, _is itself_, the result of a different, but equivalent, "value judgment" - _that_ judgment being that other people's values are invalid or "feelings" or "subjective."

The point is that, _no matter what_, humanity is subject to some sort of rule set that can be codified or captured - even completely irrational, unpredictable actors.

Humanity is inescapably bound by some sort of abstract set of rules - likely the result of our own rationality.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *If science isn't the only way to know things*, then why should we assume that nature is all there is?  If you make the leap from saying science can't explain the "why" to saying there is no "why", then you've just made a religious claim.  You can't verify that nature is all there is, so why do you believe it?  I'm astounded at the level of cognitive dissonance it must require to say science isn't the only way to know things while still saying the natural world is all that exists.  I'm not trying to hold science accountable for what it can't explain.  *I'm saying you shouldn't rely solely on the study of the natural world for your knowledge.*  
> 
> I don't appeal to the Bible unless I'm talking to other Christians.  I am simply trying to establish the fact that belief in the supernatural is just as rational as the belief in nothing but nature.


I consider ALL that is bound or explicable by logic to be part of the natural world. That includes ALL _science_ (physics, mathematics, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) AS WELL AS ALL other softer sciences (psychology, philosophy, morality (in my view), ethics, political science, human relations, etc, etc).

The supposed "defense" of the "natural world" being used as a _basis_ for morality by the agnostic/atheist crowd is a (false) straw man used by those religious among us to make those of us who question _seem_ to be taking the (ridiculous) position that it is somehow observable or veritable that morality is an absolute _natural_ theory in the same class as gravity or quantum mechanics - it's not, but that doesn't mean it is beyond the realm of logic or somehow supernatural.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't think you're getting at what we were talking about. Your previous question was "Is logic natural?" The answer is yes, as (likely) one of our first steps out of the trees was being able to recognize discrete quantity, and then step back and "abstract" a natural law that was applicable to many different "things"...rocks, bananas, lions, etc. Fingers is a "natural" way to demonstrate that logic is reasonable/natural.


No, you are not going to equate reasonable with natural and get away with it.  When I say "natural", I mean the things that compose the natural world: matter, energy, space, and time.  Logic itself is not natural.  It can be demonstrated naturally, but it is not natural itself.




> In the first two chapters he does something very nicely: he points out that the authors of a book are critiquing the "value judgments" that another author is making, and thereby, themselves, are making an attempt to _transcend_ (in a sense) the very values (and principles behind them) which they are critiquing...in a sense, setting themselves above all others by the very act of judging values. C.S. Lewis' sublime recognition, is that this act, _is itself_, the result of a different, but equivalent, "value judgment" - _that_ judgment being that other people's values are invalid or "feelings" or "subjective."
> 
> The point is that, _no matter what_, humanity is subject to some sort of rule set that can be codified or captured - even completely irrational, unpredictable actors.
> 
> Humanity is inescapably bound by some sort of abstract set of rules - likely the result of our own rationality.


Humans are inescapably bound by the laws of nature, but it does not follow that we are inescapably bound by moral laws.  If they really were inescapable, then nobody would violate them.  The question is WHY should we not violate them?  What's the reason?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I consider ALL that is bound or explicable by logic to be part of the natural world. That includes ALL _science_ (physics, mathematics, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) AS WELL AS ALL other softer sciences (psychology, philosophy, morality (in my view), ethics, political science, human relations, etc, etc).


Yes, but the existence of sciences other than natural science means nature is not all there is.  They are not all natural because they do not all deal with matter, space, time and energy.  That is what natural means.  




> The supposed "defense" of the "natural world" being used as a _basis_ for morality by the agnostic/atheist crowd is a (false) straw man used by those religious among us to make those of us who question _seem_ to be taking the (ridiculous) position that it is somehow observable or veritable that morality is an absolute _natural_ theory in the same class as gravity or quantum mechanics - it's not, but that doesn't mean it is beyond the realm of logic or somehow supernatural.


If it is not supernatural, then it is natural.  I think you need to define your terms better.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> No, you are not going to equate reasonable with natural and get away with it.  When I say "natural", I mean the things that compose the natural world: matter, energy, space, and time.  Logic itself is not natural.  It can be demonstrated naturally, but it is not natural itself.


Ok fine, yes...is your point is that there are abstractions that do not have a _physical_ reality? Yes, if in your lexicon "natural" = "physically real" (as in is composed of matter), then yes, logic is not "natural." This is not my definition of the word, however, and isn't how I've been using it.




> *Humans are inescapably bound by the laws of nature, but it does not follow that we are inescapably bound by moral laws.  If they really were inescapable, then nobody would violate them*.  The question is WHY should we not violate them?  What's the reason?


Yes, your P -> Q statement is TRUE, but you are connecting a P and Q which have no relationship - you are affirming your own conclusion (i.e I'm not making the argument that _because_ humans are inescapably bound by the laws of nature, they are _therefore_ inescapably bound by moral law - that is 100% your own strawman).

What I said is that humanity is absolutely bound by _some_ moral code - they may not all be the _same_, but each and every human who makes a value judgment is applying some sort of moral reasoning, and is therefore _exercising_ some moral code - even one they may deny or be unaware of.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> First, this thread is about questioning the stance of Atheism.  Just mentioning that again because I feel like we're drifting very far from the original topic.  
> 
> On this point, I will say I've often considered the alternative stance of Ignostic which is kind of similar to Agnostic.  As for why I even discuss Atheism in the first place, I feel that many people like myself are lumped in with it.  Also, many Ignostic minded people many join in with Atheist groups for political convenience because they happen to find actions of groups like Freedom From Religion agreeable. 
> 
> Maybe it's for this reason I found the original video appealing as Sam suggests the platform of Atheism should be discarded.


You have to define what you mean by "ignostic" and how it's different from/more suitable than other labels.

----------


## TheTexan

> What I said is that humanity is absolutely bound by _some_ moral code - they may not all be the _same_, but each and every human who makes a value judgment* is applying some sort of moral reasoning*, and is therefore _exercising_ some moral code - even one they may deny or be unaware of.


I dunno about that.  I don't know what the $#@! I'm doing, about 90% of the time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It also doesn't explicitly say Jacob or Peter is "real".  Because it doesn't have to.


That's why you need context.




> I guess, if you want to redefine what words actually mean.


Tell us, what does "Elohiym" mean?  Enlighten us.

----------


## TheTexan

> You have to define what you mean by "ignostic" and how it's different from/more suitable than other labels.


Is that the label that HB34 belongs to?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not so sure. IMO, the only thing that can be known is that the universe (existence/reality) is constantly changing.


And yet it exists.  There must be an explanation for its existence, right?  You're not going to tell me what you think is the best explanation?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I just want all of y'all to know that I have it *ALL* figured out - and you don't.
> 
> I rebuke all you guys.


I don't have it all figured out, but I believe I have more figured out than you.

----------


## TheTexan

> Tell us, what does "Elohiym" mean?  Enlighten us.


Do you speak better Hebrew than the people who translated the bible?  Do you have a better understanding of the historical usage of this word than the people who translated the bible?

I didn't think so.  It was translated to "god"; you have no biblical basis for saying that it means anything different.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's not, and my statement you responded to stands without my use of the word "traditional," and the fact that you latch on to that one qualifying word to attack my response is dodging the issue.
> 
> The people I'm talking about are those who act immorally. I qualified it with "traditional" to provide it some context in order to prevent linguistic or syntactic quibbling...but that didn't work - I meant actual, absolute, objective morality.


The statement does not stand without the word "traditional" if you don't replace it with something else.  If you don't believe tradition determines right and wrong, then what does?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Yes, but the existence of sciences other than natural science means nature is not all there is.  They are not all natural because they do not all deal with matter, space, time and energy.  That is what natural means.


Negative. I'll use biology as an example.

The more advanced our mathematics, computers, and algorithms become, the more biology is becoming a "hard" science. What was once the domain of generic verbal "rules," is now become the domain of statistics and probability - tomorrow, it will be fully quantified in terms of "natural" laws expressed by mathematical equations.




> The supposed "defense" of the "natural world" being used as a basis for morality by the agnostic/atheist crowd is a (false) straw man used by those religious among us to make those of us who question seem to be taking the (ridiculous) position that it is somehow observable or veritable that morality is an absolute natural theory in the same class as gravity or quantum mechanics - it's not, but that doesn't mean it is beyond the realm of logic or somehow supernatural.





> If it is not supernatural, then it is natural.  I think you need to define your terms better.


I posted my quote (and your response) above once again, because you did not get to the essence of what I was saying. I'm not talking about the difference between categories of natural and supernatural.

My criticism is that religious people claim that the argument of non-religious people is that if morality is somehow "natural," that makes it INVALID - which is bull$#@!, and highlights exactly how shallow those people who only behave morally because some supernatural being their parents threatened them with told them to do so.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No. What you are asking is a logical impossibility, and is quite literally _beyond_ the reach of science and logic. You are setting up a logical _paradox_ and demanding that someone escape from it - which is neither a valid way to make your point, or to demonstrate a weakness in the subject you're critiquing.


Yes, it is beyond the natural sciences, but not beyond logic.  There is no reason to think that everything MUST be derived from nature.  After all, logic itself is not derived from nature.  That doesn't mean it's not logical.  It is perfectly reasonable to think the supernatural can be logical.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Negative. I'll use biology as an example.
> 
> The more advanced our mathematics, computers, and algorithms become, the more biology is becoming a "hard" science. What was once the domain of generic verbal "rules," is now become the domain of statistics and probability - tomorrow, it will be fully quantified in terms of "natural" laws expressed by mathematical equations.


You're explaining how more and more of the natural sciences are being explained by the non-natural sciences.  That doesn't mean they're all natural.  My point is that you can't derive everything from matter, space, time and energy.




> I posted my quote (and your response) above once again, because you did not get to the essence of what I was saying. I'm not talking about the difference between categories of natural and supernatural.
> 
> My criticism is that religious people claim that the argument of non-religious people is that if morality is somehow "natural," that makes it INVALID - which is bull$#@!, and highlights exactly how shallow those people who only behave morally because some supernatural being their parents threatened them with told them to do so.


I never claimed you couldn't be moral without believing in God.  It's just that there's no reason to act morally if it's all subjective.  I'm not saying that morality is invalid if it's natural, either.  I'm saying it's not natural.  Once again, you need to define your terms.

If it IS natural, then that doesn't explain why we should make certain value judgments.  If I don't care about society, then there's no reason for me not to kill a bunch of people and then myself.  It's all the same in the end.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The statement does not stand without the word "traditional" if you don't replace it with something else.  If you don't believe tradition determines right and wrong, then what does?


Here is your quote (and my response) for those on the board who care to see what you are calling invalid:




> Morality absolutely is logical, but that doesn't explain why anyone should care about it.





> Valid. Those who don't care about it or disregard it we call immoral, and when they act out of accord with traditional morality, they are punished accordingly - punishment presents the explanation you seek.


My other response said to you I qualified it to avoid "quibbling," which you are choosing to persist in doing. Either way, what I'll say is that when people act outside of morality, they are punished accordingly - punishment presents the explanation you seek.

Now to get to your present question: "If tradition doesn't determine right from wrong, what does?"

The answer is that it is appeal to a moral axiom or precept such as "all men are born with the right to live." There is _authority_ being appealed to here - I want to be clear on that - we humans cannot escape "appeals to authority." The difference between you and me is that I appeal to something that can be reasonably explained or defended - the religious point at a book (of their choosing) and say "obey."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do you speak better Hebrew than the people who translated the bible?  Do you have a better understanding of the historical usage of this word than the people who translated the bible?


No, but you apparently do since you think I'm re-defining it.  What does it mean, Mr. Linguist?




> I didn't think so.  It was translated to "god"; you have no biblical basis for saying that it means anything different.


lilymc gave you a link showing what it means.  It has more than one.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You're explaining how more and more of the natural sciences are being explained by the non-natural sciences.  That doesn't mean they're all natural.  My point is that you can't derive everything from matter, space, time and energy.
> 
> I never claimed you couldn't be moral without believing in God.  *It's just that there's no reason to act morally if it's all subjective*.  I'm not saying that morality is invalid if it's natural, either.  I'm saying it's not natural.  Once again, you need to define your terms.
> 
> If it IS natural, then that doesn't explain why we should make certain value judgments.  *If I don't care about society, then there's no reason for me not to kill a bunch of people and then myself.*  It's all the same in the end.


Are you kidding me!?!!?! Yes there is!!! If you don't act morally, you have a higher chance of being imprisoned, killed, or ex-communicated than if you do!!!

Killing yourself is not a means to expand society or further the human race (i.e. the categorical imperative - check out Kant). Engaging in these activities cannot be "mapped" to the entire set of human beings without destroying/eliminating humanity - which is why they are immoral/unethical.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Paul, it is my view that what you have done to this thread is exactly what is wrong with this sub forum. You have systematically altered the terms of controversy with regard to the op and turned into into your own little lesson relative to what you feel the terms of controversy are. Straight hijack. I mean, you have asked question after question after question after question in a way in which you were able to just take the wheel and the op be damned. If it were my thread, I'd have it closed and not grant you the stage to continue.

----------


## lilymc

> I don't think so, but I'm glad you recognize that simple fact about humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> The person I referenced in the previous post...yeah, he's saying the same thing to me on another message board right now about the Koran.


I guess I didn't make myself clear in my previous post.  Let me try this again, in a different way.

First of all, as I'm sure you'd agree, it doesn't logically follow that because some people believe a lie, there isn't a truth.  So for the moment, forget the Koran guy.   

In my previous post, I wasn't talking about blind faith or just a warm fuzzy feeling about one's religion.  I was talking about external evidence -  things that are concrete.  Things that are either there or not.  

Take archeology, for example.  Archeological evidence is one way to determine the authenticity and reliability of a particular religious book. 

Another thing to look at would be historical evidence.    One could look at other ancient writings, to see if they corroborate what a particular book is saying.

I could go on, but I hope by now you get the point.   If someone genuinely values the truth, they will find it.  




> Many people are mistaken about many things...do you think you are beyond error?
> 
> I too was a believer (or so I thought) for many years of my life - about until I figured out there was no Santa - of whom I was also a sincere believer. Here's how it went: "Is there such a thing as the Easter bunny?"...pause...Parents: "No."...Me (thinking)..."Is there such a thing as Santa?"...Parents: "No."...Me...thinking...thinking...thinking...


Just out of curiosity, how old are you?     You said that you believed in God until around the time you stopped believing in "santa."   So... I'm guessing that was about age 5 or 6?        

If the first 5 or 6 years of your life is - as you put it - "many years" of your life,  then I'm sorry but that is funny to me.   You must be extremely young if 5 or 6 years is a long time to you, in the span of your entire life.  




> I took a philosophy class when I was like 18, and that opened my eyes to the similarity and relationship of all religions through the many different cultures of our planet. I wound up an Atheist for a time because of that class.


This is very telling.  And not surprising, at all.  University campuses tend to condition people a certain way.  

I'm really glad that when I went to college (a very left-wing university)  I was a bit older, had lots of life experience and had lived and traveled all over the world.  If  I was a wet-behind-the ears 18 year old,   I would've been much more susceptible to believing all the crap that was fed to me there.




> Many years later, reflecting on that experience, I realized that I'm not an Atheist the actual definition of the word (someone who does _not_ believe in God). My "atheism" at that time was simply a lack of belief in the cartoon deities that were dreamed up by men many hundreds of years ago, and my realization was that my atheism was a _reaction_ to a different, equally ridiculous set of beliefs - the same as not believing in Santa.
> 
> Where I am now, I consider to be much more close to what is actually, likely, true: that there is an organizing force behind the universe, expressed through natural laws (which we can discover), that generally align with what humanity would refer to as the "good."


So if you don't consider yourself an atheist, what exactly do you consider yourself to be.... a deist?  Pantheist?  

If you believe in a mindless "force" behind the universe....  I have to say, there are so many problems with that view.   But I can see why that would be more palatable to some people.    You get the benefit of believing in _something_ while having the freedom to live life the way you choose.... without a pesky personal God being the boss of your life.   It's a win-win, from a human nature standpoint!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok fine, yes...is your point is that there are abstractions that do not have a _physical_ reality? Yes, if in your lexicon "natural" = "physically real" (as in is composed of matter), then yes, logic is not "natural." This is not my definition of the word, however, and isn't how I've been using it.


Yes, that is my point.  Voila!  We have supernatural realities.  Why can't God be supernatural in the same sense?




> Yes, your P -> Q statement is TRUE, but you are connecting a P and Q which have no relationship - you are affirming your own conclusion (i.e I'm not making the argument that _because_ humans are inescapably bound by the laws of nature, they are _therefore_ inescapably bound by moral law - that is 100% your own strawman).
> 
> What I said is that humanity is absolutely bound by _some_ moral code - they may not all be the _same_, but each and every human who makes a value judgment is applying some sort of moral reasoning, and is therefore _exercising_ some moral code - even one they may deny or be unaware of.


But that doesn't tell us why we should make some value judgments and not others.  It also doesn't explain why they exist in the first place.  And you need a why if you're going to punish someone else for violating this moral code.

----------


## VIDEODROME

We already beat this morality topic to death in another thread.  It looks like my thread is being completely hijacked so I'm going to ask for a thread lock.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, but you apparently do since you think I'm re-defining it.  What does it mean, Mr. Linguist?
> 
> 
> 
> lilymc gave you a link showing what it means.  It has more than one.


If you can translate it better than the original authors, you should write your own version of the bible.  I'm sure Sola Fide would be happy to help.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Here is your quote (and my response) for those on the board who care to see what you are calling invalid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My other response said to you I qualified it to avoid "quibbling," which you are choosing to persist in doing. Either way, what I'll say is that when people act outside of morality, they are punished accordingly - punishment presents the explanation you seek.
> 
> Now to get to your present question: "If tradition doesn't determine right from wrong, what does?"
> ...


Fine, we don't have to quibble about it, but I still don't think you have any basis for your morals.  Even if it's written into our genetic code, that still doesn't explain why it's right or why we should follow it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We already beat this morality topic to death in another thread.  It looks like my thread is being completely hijacked so I'm going to ask for a thread lock.


Thank you, videodrome. If nothing else, I think we can take from what Sam was saying and compare it to exactly how the phenomenon evolved here by demonstration.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I don't have it all figured out, but I believe I have more figured out than you.


Says everybody in this forum with 50+ posts lol

I rebuke you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Are you kidding me!?!!?! Yes there is!!! If you don't act morally, you have a higher chance of being imprisoned, killed, or ex-communicated than if you do!!!


I have a higher chance of being killed if I kill myself?  Well, duh.  But why shouldn't I commit a heinous crime as long as I kill myself right afterward?  There's no reason for me not to do that if I really want to.




> Killing yourself is not a means to expand society or further the human race (i.e. the categorical imperative - check out Kant). Engaging in these activities cannot be "mapped" to the entire set of human beings without destroying/eliminating humanity - which is why they are immoral/unethical.


What if I don't care about society and value the crime more than I value furthering the human race?  Saying it's wrong to destroy/eliminate humanity is making a value judgment, but why is that value judgment right?  Why is it good to further the human race?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you can translate it better than the original authors, you should write your own version of the bible.  I'm sure Sola Fide would be happy to help.


Dude, you're the one who said I was re-defining it.  Do you know what it means?  Why don't you use the link that lilymc gave you?  Are you afraid I might be right?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Thank you, videodrome. If nothing else, I think we can take from what Sam was saying and compare it to exactly how the phenomenon evolved here by demonstration.


I'm about to submit the request.  I will say there was a few thoughtful replies here, but the original thread topic is long gone here.  Even worse, this morality topic is here when there is already a super long thread on Objective Morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We already beat this morality topic to death in another thread.  It looks like my thread is being completely hijacked so I'm going to ask for a thread lock.


That's too bad.  I was really enjoying this discussion, on-topic or not.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That's too bad.  I was really enjoying this discussion, on-topic or not.


I suggested in the original post people itching to vent should just start another thread.  This is like JohnGalt's thread all over again.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's too bad.  I was really enjoying this discussion, on-topic or not.


Of course, you were. You operate the exact same way that S_F operates. Is unfortunate. It would be really nice if some of you would actually show some respect for people when they initiate dialogue that they want to discuss with like minds once in a while and out of bounds of an interrogation routine of those who don't care for the subject matter in and of itself. I mean, it would be _really_ nice. Productive even...

----------


## TheTexan

> Dude, you're the one who said I was re-defining it.  Do you know what it means?  Why don't you use the link that lilymc gave you?  Are you afraid I might be right?


I'm on a mobile and I have no idea where this link is youre talking about.

But I do know, of the 3000 uses of the word Elohim in the bible, it was translated to 'god' 2995 times.

Not exact statistics but pretty close.  If Elohim meant 'judge' why would they have so consistently translated this to god?  'god' is a fairly unambiguous term in the English language, especially when used in phrases similar to 'God among gods'.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I suggested in the original post people itching to vent should just start another thread.  This is like JohnGalt's thread all over again.


Sorry, but I think it's pretty inescapable that if you start a thread that has anything to do with atheism, we're going to talk about morality.  There's no way people are going to keep the parameters of the discussion as narrow as you would like them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm on a mobile and I have no idea where this link is youre talking about.
> 
> But I do know, of the 3000 uses of the word Elohim in the bible, it was translated to 'god' 2995 times.
> 
> Not exact statistics but pretty close.  If Elohim meant 'judge' why would they have so consistently translated this to god?  'god' is a fairly unambiguous term in the English language, especially when used in phrases similar to 'God among gods'.


Maybe it's a bit more ambiguous than you think.  The translators of the Bible capitalized one use of the word God and not others for a very good reason.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Of course, you were. You operate the exact same way that S_F operates. Is unfortunate. It woulod be really nice if some of you woul;d actually show some respect for people when they initiate dialogue that they want to discuss with like minds once in a while. I mean, it would be _really_ nice.


And how is that?

----------


## TheTexan

> Sorry, but I think it's pretty inescapable that if you start a thread that has anything to do with atheism, we're going to talk about morality.


Or the lack thereof, am I right??!

This guy bumped into me this morning he didnt even bother to say excuse me.  I bet he was an atheist.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> *I guess I didn't make myself clear in my previous post*.  Let me try this again, in a different way.
> 
> First of all, as I'm sure you'd agree, it doesn't logically follow that because some people believe a lie, there isn't a truth.  So for the moment, forget the Koran guy.   
> 
> In my previous post, I wasn't talking about blind faith or just a warm fuzzy feeling about one's religion.  I was talking about external evidence -  things that are concrete.  Things that are either there or not.  
> 
> Take archeology, for example.  Archeological evidence is one way to determine the authenticity and reliability of a particular religious book. 
> 
> Another thing to look at would be historical evidence.    One could look at other ancient writings, to see if they corroborate what a particular book is saying.
> ...


You were clear, but my critique isn't that someone believing a lie doesn't mean there is not truth out there - I'm well aware. My point is that there are 100's of millions of people across the planet that hold very sincere beliefs - as you do - about their religions. Many even point to "evidence" that their religion is true. Look at the shroud of Turin (proven myth), etc. There is archeological evidence of many events, and history is at best a soft science and a fallible human endeavor at best. I mean, imagine if an alien race looked back at our archive of Fox News or CNN articles and decided, "well I guess all that stuff was 'true'." What type of perspective do you think they would have?

If someone genuinely wants to deceive themselves, they will find a way.




> Just out of curiosity, *how old are you*?     You said that you believed in God until around the time you stopped believing in "santa."   So... I'm guessing that was about age 5 or 6?        
> 
> If the first 5 or 6 years of your life is - as you put it - "many years" of your life,  then I'm sorry but that is funny to me.   You must be extremely young if 5 or 6 years is a long time to you, in the span of your entire life.


30s.




> This is very telling.  And not surprising, at all.  University campuses tend to condition people a certain way.  
> 
> I'm really glad that when I went to college (a very left-wing university)  I was a bit older, had lots of life experience and had lived and traveled all over the world.  If  I was a wet-behind-the ears 18 year old,   I would've been much more susceptible to believing all the crap that was fed to me there.


I'm glad it's telling - it's why I told it to you. Trust me, I, like many, have rejected much of what I realized was bull$#@!. The difference between me and you (and most other religious people like you), is that I reject just one (1) more god than you all do. You all reject 55343 gods...I reject 55344...




> So if you don't consider yourself an atheist, what exactly do you consider yourself to be.... *a deist*?  Pantheist?  
> 
> If you believe in a mindless "force" behind the universe....  I have to say, *there are so many problems with that view*.   But I can see why that would be more palatable to some people.    You get the benefit of believing in _something_ while having the freedom to live life the way you choose.... without a pesky personal God being the boss of your life.   It's a win-win, from a human nature standpoint!


Basically, yes - a deist that thinks there is a "higher" order in the universe that is currently beyond our comprehension. We have this discussion that is perpetual...is God scientific, is he all-loving, is he Christian, is he a man/woman, does he care about what I do, etc, etc. The point is that we don't know, but we're ALL trying to figure it out - some of us approach the question with an open mind; some of us take what our parents fed us and run with it.

I'd say that _you_ have problems with that view. The hedonistic assumption you're making exposes the drawback from religions that anthropomorphize God. Your guilt (a natural human emotion) is explained, and felt, through a supernatural being, mine is felt when I wrong another person.

----------


## TheTexan

> Maybe it's a bit more ambiguous than you think.  The translators of the Bible capitalized one use of the word God and not others for a very good reason.


Yes, so the top God doesnt get confused why the all the smaller gods.  But even a small god, ... is still a god.

By definition

----------


## Mr Tansill

> We already beat this morality topic to death in another thread.  It looks like my thread is being completely hijacked so I'm going to ask for a thread lock.


Dude, you're not even participating...why to you GAF?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Sorry, but I think it's pretty inescapable that if you start a thread that has anything to do with atheism, we're going to talk about morality.  There's no way people are going to keep the parameters of the discussion as narrow as you would like them.


This isn't even remotely close to the topic, plus there is already an extensive thread on it.  It just seems redundant and unnecessary to drag another thread into it.  

The funny thing though, is I started a thread on specific criticisms of Atheism and I was surprised so few people even though that was interesting to talk about. It wasn't so much about morality though.  If anything, I wondered if it would be a different stance based only on being open and honest.  

Oh well, I submitted my request so it's in the hands of the Staff here.

----------


## lilymc

> I'm on a mobile and I have no idea where this link is youre talking about.
> 
> But I do know, of the 3000 uses of the word Elohim in the bible, it was translated to 'god' 2995 times.
> 
> Not exact statistics but pretty close.  If Elohim meant 'judge' why would they have so consistently translated this to god?  'god' is a fairly unambiguous term in the English language, especially when used in phrases similar to 'God among gods'.


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...ngs=H430&t=KJV

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Dude, you're not even participating...why to you GAF?


It's his thread. It had a specific purpose. How can you ask him a question like that? Because some people flipped the script and made it their discussion on _their_ terms, he doesn't have any say so? Please...

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Dude, you're not even participating...why to you GAF?


I have been participating,  this is my thread.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You were clear, but my critique isn't that someone believing a lie doesn't mean there is not truth out there - I'm well aware. My point is that there are 100's of millions of people across the planet that hold very sincere beliefs - as you do - about their religions. Many even point to "evidence" that their religion is true. Look at the shroud of Turin (proven myth), etc. There is archeological evidence of many events, and history is at best a soft science and a fallible human endeavor at best. I mean, imagine if an alien race looked back at our archive of Fox News or CNN articles and decided, well I guess all that stuff was "true." What type of perspective do you think they would have?
> 
> If someone genuinely wants to deceive themselves, they will find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> 30s.
> 
> 
> ...


You reject one more identity of God than we do.  Only one Creator of the universe can exist.  Also, the fact that you reject Him is quite telling because that means you believe in the non-existence of God.  Isn't that a faith-based claim, even according to you?

----------

