The Apologist

You misunderstood. It cannot be proven that the the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is axiomatic that either the sun will rise, or it will not, and this is my point.

Again, your response is misguided or obscure. This time, my point was that if absolute certain knowledge is unreachable, then you cannot contend the nonexistence of God with any certitude.

Note that I stated that logic alone deduces such views. If one is simply a "logic machine" (an automaton ), he will most likely not become a Christian. What persuades the logical mind to embrace Christianity are additional factors which bear little relation to logic, such as emotion or intuition. We are commanded to love God not only with all our mind, but also with all our heart, soul, and strength. God says that we will seek Him and find Him when we seek Him with all our heart. He promises no such revelation when sought by the mind. I know this from own experience - God asks that you apply more than logic to theology.

You have not yet fulfilled this endeavor. I still maintain that atheists are prejudiced by presuppositions, and I was explaining why I believe this is so, in most cases.

Then on what is it contingent? Where and why did it originate? What makes it objective?

If there is no incentive, why would we be good (by the way, without God, who is to say what is "good"?)? Of course, this is reliant on whether morality is objective, so you may ignore this part if you respond well to the previous inquiries on moral objectivity.

These authorities apply only if you are caught commiting a crime. Besides, there are many acts which are immoral, but legal. Examples include abortion, fornication, and inebriation. When one believes in God, conscience is customarily sufficient to prevent such sin.

Of course, I was not speaking of global statistics. Obviously, my point is that most atheists do live where atheism is popular or there are few who disapprove of it.

How mature of you...

Have you looked at the music industry lately? Or the television industry? Or the cinema industry? The media is permeated by the philosophy of naturalism.

My point is that macro-evolution highly favors and potentiates atheism, though it remains a questionable theory. Disproof of macro-evolution alone would impair atheism to the point of senseless sophistry (this is why atheistic evolutionists are so vehement in defense of evolution). Anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is outright ridiculed.

Very well, I will rephrase to "most nontheists reprehend anyone who publicly professes theism.

If Santa held you accountable and punished your iniquity, then yes.

If men were to invent the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy - without sin and without the ability to commit sin. The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy. Behaving more morally than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.

In nearly all religions, salvation is attained through human effort. Only in Christianity does salvation come solely as a gift from God - it cannot be earned through human effort. Clearly, in doctrines such as the nature of God and the way of salvation, there is very little common ground between Christianity and the religions of the world.

The God of Christianity also differs from the gods of the world's religions in terms of His nature and existence. Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe. In many cases, these gods even have parents. These gods show resemblance to human and indication of human conception, but the Christian God is unique.

Is it logical to assume the God of the Bible is man's invention? Compare the characteristics of God with those of man:

God is omnipotent; man's power is negligible and very limited.

God is omniscient; man's knowledge is inconsiderable and once again, very limited.

God is omnipresent; man is currently restricted to the solar system.

God is extradimensional; man exists in only three dimensions.

God is larger than the universe; man is six feet tall.

God is a spirit; man is composed of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen.

God is eternal; man has a relatively short longevity.

God is absolutely holy; man is a sinner.

Is the Christian God an invention of man? Those who think logically would say not.

Even if the thinking is responsible, you are not the thinker. You rely on the "reason" of previous generations of atheists.

In that case, allow me to rephrase to "no objective morality." If humans invented morality, it is subjective.

Is the degree of responsiblity not dependent on which code of ethics is more exacting? It is not more responsible to follow the more liberal, easier morality. If anything, it is more lazy.

Thor Q. Mada

We are 2002. We found large quantities of water on Mars, making exploration of the planet possible.
On this forum we are involved in a Medieval discussion which we should have anymore since at least 500 years.
Soon we will be discussing here how many angels can stand on the head of a needle.
The old idiot in Rome takes a piece of the body of one of his predecessors and gives it as a relic to a cathedral in Bulgaria.
My bucket is nearly full.

hezekiah jones

No we don't. And that's the point.

Jobar

Sigh.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Once more into the breech...

Let's try this. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that your 3-O (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) God exists.

OK, we get from the arguments presented here that he is infinite in all ways. His very nature is unboundedness, am I correct?

If this is true- then we can say nothing at all about Him. No least thing. Because a finite being cannot comprehend, or describe, or define infinity! The most you *might* be able to say is that he exists- but none of his attributes are describeable, because we limit- we delineate- what we define. So when you say *anything* about God- you are wrong.

In the words of Meister Eckhart, 13th-century heretic: "Even if I say "Thou! Oh, Thou!" I say too much."

So, why do you persist in trying to talk about that which is unspeakable?

MrDarwin

Gemma Therese, have you given any thought to any of my questions?

Trekkie With a Phaser

This entire statement is false. The reason you assume that a belief in a god is natural is because it is something that is taught from the moment an individual is born (if the person is born into a theistic family). It's "natural" based on the fact that it was indoctrinated into the individual for their entire life. As for the statement that atheism is "easy and comfortable," I don't think we're talking about the same thing. For me, the realization that Christianity was wrong frightened me and pushed me into a period of deep depression where I frequently thought about suicide. It took me nearly a year just to pull myself out of that depression. On top of that, almost everyone that goes to my school is a theist of some sort (mostly Christian) and, in fact, one of my best friends is a Jehova's Witness (you can imagine how awkward it is when we discuss religious issues, eh? ). Is this how you define "easy and comfortable?"

</strong>

What would be simpler!? Compare the two ideas for just a moment. As an atheist, one must live with the knowledge that there is no afterlife, that the majority of people in almost any community will disagree with you, some believing you're immoral, you have to choose or create a philosophy which you then must live by instead of simply following what everyone else is doing and/or what you've simply been told; need I go on? Also, you made a major mistake when you said that atheists have no responsibility, et cetera, et cetera. Your mistake is that most atheists are not hedonists and, even those who are, are not completely free to do whatever they want as you imply. We have accepted or defined different moralities than the one that you blindly accept, but that does not make us immoral.

Again, you have reversed the roles of atheism and theism. Theism is the widely accepted concept, not atheism. Also, macro-evolution is widely accepted as correct because there is a good deal of evidence to support it. If you have some proof (note: not faith, proof or, at least reasonable evidence) that creationism is the correct method by which life came into existence, I eagerly await it.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Objectivist Man ]</p>

Synaesthesia

The Apologist,
I don't think men purposefully invented God any more than they invent any other popular delusion. The God of the Bible is a consequence of memeic evolution. Those conceptions of God that most fit with our fears and hopes propogate. The Gods that demand the most active effort in spreading word about him propogate. The religions that provide the most satisfaction propogate.

The assorted gods are all very powerful because they are the expression of our hopes and desires. Those conceptions of gods spread that constitute wish fulfillment, which people enjoy believing in and which are more likely to be taught to others.

We can, however, relegate God to the same league as Santa Clause. The shadow of such a remote possibility isn't the cause of great fear or hope.

Morality is, in my view, contingent upon a value system. (Value systems to not, of course, need to always place the individual before the state etc.) With respect to a single value system, there are objectively better and worse ways to go about achieving them.

Given this fact, your reasoning that "If humans invented morality, it is subjective." is invalid. It does not follow from the humanity of moral systems that they are wholly dependant upon passing subjective inclination.

Morality is not objective, however, in the sense that mathematical realists concieve of mathematics as being objective. There is no platinum standard morality in the sky. No stone tablets exist with a complete and moral system usefully applicable to every circumstance.

The bible warns against excessive drunkeness, and presumably that would apply to other drugs. There is nothing inherently wrong with the moderate consumption of drugs up to and including mushrooms, marijuana and alcohol. (The legal situation is another matter, one which varies from state to state.)

This is indeed unfortunate. However, sweeping 'disagreement' with the basis of modern biology is based in nothing other than ignorance of the scientific method at large and the theory of evolution in particular.

Perhaps I should qualify that. If there is someone on earth who has a sound basis for a sweeping dismissal of evoutionary biology, he has hidden himself as well as God!

As a skeptic I cannot be satisfied with others reasoning but I can make use of other's reasoning.

Ion

Gemma,
I wrote in the thread "Free Will" which you also started, what I am writing here:
your purpose in this Forum is to crusade your religious dogmas, since you don't accept, adjust, learn and respect other's people ideas.

Synaesthesia

It is worth noting that throughout history, children are vastly more likely to belong to the religion of their parents than any other. The basis upon which most theists believe in their religion isn't rational. It cannot be.

Philosoft

The_Apologist,

I notice you're quite sure of the lure of atheism. Well, a number of us have been through the "atheism lacks morals" argument (or whatever you wish to call it) very recently. I'm not going through it again, hopefully to save my sanity and your ego; suffice to say you're about 180 degrees from right. If you want to know why, see this thread:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000299" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000299</A>

I predict that you have nothing to say about this topic that hasn't already been said. I suggest you become familiar with that thread and the reasons that DaveJes is dogmatically wrong. Otherwise, it'll be a long, hard road for you.

[...can't....format....worth....damn]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>