Just_An_Atheist

"Sounds like an interesting point but I truly don't follow all of it, especially the first part of the first sentence. Care to expound?"

Sure. My point is, even if you sidestep the evidence objection, I think that you unwittingly set yourself up with another objection. That is, can we really act so different from what our desires are? If no, then the free will objection is undermined. If yes, then why would we act that way? Furthermore, if we are influenced by both simultaneously, then that further weakens the free will objection in regards to belief.

The evidence we consider, even have access to, with regards to most important questions of life, is limited. to belief.

True, but you still have to address the cumulative case against free will when it comes to belief, which consists of not only the evidence objection, but also the desires objection. Both influences may be weak alone, but together they make difficult (and almost practicly impossible.

Furthermore, the God of the bible has foreknowledge of all future actions, as is displayed countless times throughout the old, and the new testiment. It may not be predestination, but if God knows that I'll do A, then A's already true and I can't do anything other than A. If I can't do otherwise than what I do according to the Christian worldview, then the free will objection fails.

"The evidence we consider, even have access to, with regards to most important questions of life, is limited. We fill the rest of the picture with what he estimate it to look like which is always the product of what we preconceive. That is to say, the vast majority of what we know, is actually what we believe rather than "know" in the empirical sense. Or put another way, that which we know, really makes up very little of our cognizance. If the unknown is a plane (infinite), and the known is a circle on that plane, as our cumulative human knowledge (product of science) grows in diameter so does our contact with the unknown (circle's circumference) so that the more we know, the less we "know". "

True, but how is that related to my objection? If people "think" that they've got good evidence, then it would seem that they couldn't believe it otherwise and (here comes the computer analogy again) to deny what one thinks one knows would be like saying that there is no computer in front of me, and actually believe that by an act of pure will.

"I've heard good arguments on both sides. I stand with Paul though and say no one is without reason to believe in God via conscience and creation (see Romans 1:18-32). Once one moves to theism by this, he is then compelled by the Resurrection, among other lesser evidences, to move into saving faith in Christ (another called this general revelation and special revelation, respectively). "

I still say that this is falsified by empirical evidence; one cannot assume that when somebody say's that they wish that theism were true but can't believe it because of the evidence, then, at least in my case, I'll give 'em the benifit of the doubt. Even if it is difficult to "arrive" at atheism, in my experience that difficulty has occurred with respect to every belief that I try to have good reason for believing. Believe me, it takes work! In my case, I've tried to look at all sides as best as I can, trying to weigh the evidence that I had, and was in a continuos search for evidence that I have not yet been considered. That was how it was (and still is) in my case.

"I think if one really wants to believe in God, he will find evidence for Him. As I did." I've never encountered really encountered good arguments for *Christianity* although there do seem some interesting arguments for the existence of God in general; however, those seem to me to be outweighed by the counterevidence.

Mageth

onceuponapriori:

One cannot simply say "I believe in and accept you, God". God, by virtue of his omniscience, would not be so easily fooled. If Hitler or Stalin or <insert favorite meanie here> were to try and trick God into believing that they are honest about their acceptance of God, they'd be sure to fail.

OK, but they could be sincere, couldn’t they? Is god then forced to accept them?

The fact that some people might *try to* abuse this possible option (it may not be given to everyone... I don't know), does not make it impossible or even implausible that such an option exists.

No, but the more we discuss this option, the fuzzier it seems to become.

Probably not. But I'm sure God would be a much better judge of that than I. I can say: I'm sure, by virtue of his being just, God will treat them justly.

My guess, though, is that some of those "meanies" will find their place in Hell. I doubt that many people will remain for long in Hell, but some will be so obstinate as to reject God even after being shown their depravity, and being punished for it. Some might even continue to hate God forever. I'm not sure.

More fuzzy stuff, that.

Sorry. I *believe* that God always acts morally. God could act imorally (mind you, I wouldn't worship him), but he never would.

It seems to me that you’ve devised a god/system that you’re comfortable with. I thought things were supposed to work the other way around – god was supposed to provide his own definition and accept or reject whom he pleases. Forgive me, but you appear to have gotten the concept ass-backwards.

Good point. In any world where murder exists, it is wrong.

So the “objective” moral rule “murder is wrong” is applied according to the situation? Is not necessarily universally applicable?

As I said, I know that murder is wrong. That doesn't mean that I've spent the time to define each and every one of its terms. Do you have similar, perfect, and technical definitions for "love, car, the, boat, elephant, justice, is, exist, occupy, relation, etc"?

I haven’t used any of those in any objective claims, have I?

The point I'm trying to make: a concept can be rather clear in one's mind, but difficult to explicate.

This is true. Subjectivity enters the picture. You can’t fully, objectively define “murder is wrong”, and we can’t really objectively communicate what’s in our minds to each other. Subjectivity rules the day, it seems.

I think I'll refrain from defining each of those words. After I did, would you ask me to define those words which I used to define them, and after those, the next? I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't have hours to spend on this.

You don’t have to. I think it makes clear the difficulty in claiming a truth as objective or defining any claimed objective truth. It all comes down to two or more people having to agree on a whole string of definitions. It’s impossible to keep subjectivity out of it.

I suppose so. But since reason (which is fallible) is involved, and is only guided by God, someone might be mistaken along the way.

Subjectivity enters the fray, eh?

Of course, just because a truth is apprehended by a subjective process, does not preclude that truth's being objective.

No, but it makes it impossible to prove its objectiveness.

By the same process I use to try and determine if what someone is telling me is true. I look to the other relevant facts, and try to find the best possible explanation. Do you belief there is no truth in the Bible?

Of course not, but I don’t claim it as a source for religious guidance, either.

Do you believe that each science text book is inerrant? If not, how do you distinguish the truth from error?

By comparing them to other science books, by asking scientists. Science deals with real-world stuff, empirical, testable information. With the bible, you have no such other sources to compare it to, and I’d hardly call its truth claims “empirical.”

They might be mistaken about particular details along the way. But yes, I do believe that, should someone claim to worship the same God as I, but insisted that brutal rape is moral, I would think that he was lying, or confused about which God *I* believe in.

Well, “brutal rape” a bit of an extreme case. How about if they just differed with you on what might justify a murder, or on whether someone acted intentionally in committing a murder? Or on exactly what “caring for others” entails?

Truth is "proud, presumptuous, and arrogant". By definition, it excludes all falsehoods. I've always wondered at the irony of someone calling someone else arrogant for believing that they know something...

Making an exclusive claim to the Truth is the height of arrogance, IMO. Not to mention that it tends to lead humankind into all sorts of wars and other bad situations.

I'm sure they do. And those that do will *at some point during their existence* find God.

The old “in the afterlife” out again, huh?

As I said, God will not be fooled by empty words.

What’s to preclude them from realizing the error of their ways and honestly accepting god in your afterlife scenario?

Arriving at a truth through a subjective process does not preclude it's being objectively so.

It prevents you from proving or establishing the “ truth” is objective. You can claim it, you can believe it, but you can’t prove it to be objective, not even to yourself. And a statement that cannot be established as objective is, what, subjective, right?

Cross Examiner

Ok back to brevity, hopefully. An ever-existant universe is as dubious as an ever-existant God. Both take a good leap, from the empirical standpoint, to put stock in.

I've really found nothing comparable in mythology or other religions to the Resurrection of Christ. I understand the concept is not new but the details certainly are. To which eye-witnesses testified preferring death to recantation as honest men do. Certainly nothing else that passed as historical fact. I'll cut short and say unsubstantiated myths of varying persuasion are not comparable to concrete historical evidences.

I do not suspect we'll find one. Of course, one's prognosis depends squarely upon his ideological presuppositions as I've mentioned previously. We should make the best use of this planet, as the good stewards God intended us to be. Christianity, though "ancient", is far from dead and quite relevant. Christ did make exclusive claims. You are free to reject them though I personally would hope you would reconsider because the thought of seperation from all that is good in the real life, the next life, is saddening. Paul was so panged by the loss of much of Israel, his countrymen, that he pleaded to exchange his own eternal fate for theirs.

Sure have. Why is there something, instead of nothing? Because of an eternal universe and some random mixing of primordial soup and a catalyst like lightning? I'll sooner believe that JFK was assassinated by a Cuban-Mafia-CIA-Nixonian revolutionary junta. I mean no disrespect but I find it amazing what some consider as solid foundation. Yours requires more faith than mine.

This is a fatiguing thread. If it doesn't boil down to chance, then what? Processes don't come into being by themselves.

Instinct only. Basic instruction set. Not really "planning for the future". Are you aware of another reasoning, self-aware animal with a conscience? You are skeptical that only humans fit this bill.

The brain is the conduit/interface and so these human characteristics can be "bottle-necked" by injury, producing what appears to be diminished spritiual ability.

I understand your terms, I am acquainted with the rules of discourse. Frankly, I don't have a burden for a prima facie assertion. Just do a google search for the atheists tribesman. You'll not find them. Anthropology repeatedly shows man to be a religious creature. Prima facie.

I think the Resurrection is the linch-pin. If the Jews or the Romans had only paraded Christ's body about Jerusalem, as evidence of his permanent death I'd be on your side blasting Christians as we speak. How 'bout for starters you read the following from Simon Greenleaf:

http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

and let me know what you think.

Unique? Not to the world, but it is to me. As I've stated, subjective. No need to try to make it objective.

If you were perfect you would not die nor would you do anything wrong nor would you ever struggle with guilt. Declaring perfection as meaningless to you is irrelevant.

Christianity is not going to the junkpile, nor will it. Likewise, because of reason, it is impossible for me to deny the Resurrection, especially given my affinity of ancient history. Pride certainly does factor in. Are you kidding? You'd not be better off because this is now who you are, how you define yourself, the way you've set yourself apart from all the "sheeple". No pride at all? I've been there too, I know the hallmarks.

Fry you? Maybe in the cartoon hell. Whatever spritiual seperation God is it sounds like you prefer it over union with God as described in the Bible. That is, of course, your choice to make. And it wouldn't be because Sally got her hair pulled. Refusing the Resurrection of Christ, before you die, is really what the issue is. The fact that we're obviously imperfect is only a signpost that we cannot save ourselves.

Neither do I except that I have victory over fear in this life and hope for the next, grounded at the foot of the empty tomb.

How so is it humbling to acknowledge one's imperfection? I realize that I cannot shoulder my own burden and so Christ does for me, this is freeing, the kind that sets you free. And so when the joy of living for you goes, as it will when tragedy strikes, so go you. Tenous grip on life.

No, the first people chose to "know" the cancer of evil. The doctor in this analogy merely is aware of the cancer but has no part in it. Remember, he originally made us perfect but with free wills.

Really? Please elaborate on these myriad Christ-like figures of history. The life of Christ is unique in all history. The Resurrection has no parallel in history. Please post your best evidence to the contrary. No empirical evidence of God's existence, no first-hand, eye-witness experience of God, true, plenty of circumstantial evidence though. Enough to make it reasonable to believe. Enough that people the world over come to this knowledge, from every culture, tribe and tongue. As would be expected when plenty of circumstantial evidence is readily available.

If we just are, why does our conscience prick us when we act less-than-perfectly? If we just are, nothing about just being should bother us, but it does. As CS Lewis puts it
"If nothing in this world satisfies me, perhaps it's because I was made for another world". The hallmarks of your other-wordliness are there though just cannot be deduced or perceived by natural reasoning alone. This may sound like mumbo-jumbo to you, that is to be expected since I believe as Paul said that to the perishing, these words are foolishness.

No. I take it at face-value. It would make sense that other cultures also report similarly, they all originated from the same two people. Please tell me more about these parallel accounts. Links are good too.

Osiris, right? What else you got? Links are cool.

He was tempted in every way yet did not sin. He knew the all the pressures and suffered more physically and emotionally and spiritually than any other. He was a "man of sorrows". He can both identify with us and rescue us.

Look, I know when I'm talking to someone arguing fervently from the heart. We both clearly are. Do you want to continue this back-and-forth? The truth is these things between people like you and I always end in draws since such things are part of who we are, and are not easily given up. You've heard all you need, only now you require the child-like faith that is required. Christ said how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven (being self-assured by his wealth), today, how hard it is for the intellectually-wealthy who are self-assured. Both are self-assured. Both have incredible difficulty seeing a need for a savior since they are they're own best bet. I hope that works out for you.

Pyrrho

On the contrary, they are extremely different. First, we have direct evidence for the actual existence of the universe, but do not have that for any God. Furthermore, ABSOLUTELY ALL of our experience is of things changing, not of things being created out of nothing or being made into nothing. When, for example, a piece of wood is burned, the wood is converted into smoke and ash. It does not magically vanish. So, the idea that everything that we observe has always existed, in one form or other, is in perfect conformity with all of our experience. It is the most natural position one could possibly take.



You're joking, right? First of all, the supposed witnesses all contradicted each other. I refer you to "The First Easter" by John K. Naland, published in Free Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 2, Spring 1988 for a detailed analysis, telling chapter and verse of the Bible with what the various "witnesses" supposedly claimed. You can buy a copy of the back issue for about $7.

But if you are unwilling to spend any money on your education, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ain/chap6.html

However, I still recommend "The First Easter".


Furthermore, a willingness to die for a cause does not mean that the person is right. Otherwise, you must believe that all of those suicide terrorists are right, as they are obviously willing to die for their causes. Being willing to die in no way provides evidence for the truth of one's claims.



Primitive peoples believe all sorts of superstitious nonsense. That, however, does not mean that such stuff is in any way true.



First of all, no one knows what tomb Jesus was buried in (even if he really existed). So there is no particular tomb to which you can point and say, "There is the empty tomb!" Second, there are many ancient tombs that are now empty (such as the pyramids of Egypt); do you believe all of those people rose from the dead, too?



If Adam and Eve were perfect, they would not sin. What do you think is going to happen in heaven? If "free will" makes people sin, then either there is no "free will" in heaven, or people will sin there.



Apollonius of Tyana is but one of many who, like Jesus, were claimed to rise from the dead and to have performed a variety of miracles. For a list of some others, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...6/chap33.shtml

You can then research them all individually, if you are serious about these matters.

Here is another relevant link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/kooks.html

If you want to read whole books:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...16/index.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...on/index.shtml

There is much more to be found, if you only look.

It is worth remembering, in the case of Jesus, most of the people in his day did not believe him, even according to the Bible. So your idea that there is some great evidence in favor of believing those silly stories about him is ridiculous.



Ever hear of conditioning? Of empathy? Even animals seem to have these. If conscience were placed in people by God, why is it that in different societies, people's consciences tell them different things? Indeed, even within a society, different people have different consciences. I suppose you must think of God as a prankster, telling different people that different things are right!

Cross Examiner

I'll admit, in the business of my life I believe I've lost track of the main issue here with you Just_An_Atheist. Since it's more expedient to answer what I think it is you're talking about I ask that you be patient if/when I misunderstand you.

Desires are the lusts of the heart. We do not typically act apart of our desires. We act out our desires unless tempored by something else e.g self-control via reason, conscience etc. Just because one acts out his desire does not preclude his free-will in the matter.

Neither evidence contrary to an opinion nor belief against that opinion, combined even, rule out free-will when deciding upon that opinion.

Seems to be a matter of standpoint, temporal vs. atemporal. From God's timeless standpoint, all decisions have already been made. Yet from our temporal standpoint we've still our decisions to make, you are free to do whatever you wish even though God already knows what you'll do. I don't see how God's knowledge of your entire decision-tree throughout your life precludes your involvment in those decisions.

What is good evidence? In the context of origins it boils down to an an unmoved mover; eternal universe or eternal person. Here it is that modern science fails us most obviously since it can never recreate history. How one colors evidence as "good" or "bad" is derivitave of their pre-existing world-view. To use your example, denying the empirical evidence that a computer lies before me shares nothing with my denial that the universe in not eternal. The former can be seen while the latter must be believed.

I do not doubt your's nor other's sincerity. It is the most important part of an examined-life and you are doing well to investigate. Too many do not even do this. I have to admit though, I do not know what it is that is "falsified by empirical evidence". Please clarify.

Most skeptics consider a "good" argument as something that can be put to the test by modern scientific methods, something empirical. All else is ruled out as superstition of the ancients. It's amazing anyone believes any history at all. Unfortunately, Christianity is best evidenced by history as told reliably by witnesses recorded in the Bible. A good place to start is here:

http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

Just curious, which part of SD do you live in?

Take Care

Mageth

BGiC:

Ok back to brevity, hopefully. An ever-existant universe is as dubious as an ever-existant God. Both take a good leap, from the empirical standpoint, to put stock in.

Umm, not really. A god that created the universe is by definition more complex (in some aspects) than the universe. Further, we know the universe exists, unless one embraces some form of Solipsism. So all considered, it is less dubious to believe in an ever-existent universe, or at least a self-contained universe, than an ever-existent god that created the universe.

I've really found nothing comparable in mythology or other religions to the Resurrection of Christ. I understand the concept is not new but the details certainly are. To which eye-witnesses testified preferring death to recantation as honest men do.

In the first place, the bible only gives one (or two) eyewitnesses to the actual resurrection – a couple of angels. Further, the Gospels are generally not considered to have been recorded by eyewitnesses to the events they portray, and were written decades after the fact. So the best we have from the Bible is second-hand stories; not exactly solid evidence, that. Add to that that the gospels were written with the motive of supporting the religious beliefs of the early church, recording the “myths” of the religion, and not necessarily as historical accounts.

And if you’re referring to the alleged Martyrdom of the Apostles, do you realize that they for the most part are church tradition and by no means necessarily historically accurate accounts?

Certainly nothing else that passed as historical fact. I'll cut short and say unsubstantiated myths of varying persuasion are not comparable to concrete historical evidences.

And here we must disagree, because I don’t think the historical evidences for the resurrection are concrete at all. In other words, I think the gospels are themselves unsubstantiated myths.

I do not suspect we'll find one. Of course, one's prognosis depends squarely upon his ideological presuppositions as I've mentioned previously.

Personally, I don’t see what one’s “ideological presuppositions” have to do with this one. Are you saying that god didn’t create another earthlike planet anywhere in the universe? If so, that’s a fantastical claim for a theist.

In any case, my ideology has nothing to do with this matter. I also have serious doubts as to whether we’ll ever find one. We’ll have to do some serious engineering, spend a lot of money, and overcome some serious physical limitations to do so. Not to mention developing technology to detect such a place from afar (random searching might never produce a “hit”, unless such places are very common). I sure don’t see that happening in the near future, but it’s possible we will sometimes in the future.

We should make the best use of this planet, as the good stewards God intended us to be.

We should make the best use of this planet because it’s where we have to live, at least for the foreseeable future. You don’t need god’s intent to recognize that.

Christianity, though "ancient", is far from dead and quite relevant.

In the new, global world, exclusive religions such as Xianity and Islam are quite harmful (as is evidenced by the wars they regularly bring about). We’d be better off as a planet to be rid of them.

Christ did make exclusive claims.

As have other figures throughout history. That doesn’t make any of the claims true, obviously.

You are free to reject them though I personally would hope you would reconsider because the thought of seperation from all that is good in the real life, the next life, is saddening.

Well, of course it is to you. You believe the myths. Shucking religion opened my eyes to the good in life, made it even more important.

Paul was so panged by the loss of much of Israel, his countrymen, that he pleaded to exchange his own eternal fate for theirs.

Well, good for him, I guess; he believed the myth as well, obviously. But Paulianity is even more irrelevant than Christianity (think about it).

Sure have. Why is there something, instead of nothing? Because of an eternal universe and some random mixing of primordial soup and a catalyst like lightning? I'll sooner believe that JFK was assassinated by a Cuban-Mafia-CIA-Nixonian revolutionary junta. I mean no disrespect but I find it amazing what some consider as solid foundation. Yours requires more faith than mine.

You take what I “believe” in (a self-contained universe, whether eternal or not; it’s difficult to argue against its existence) and add a whole other, even more complex layer, an invisible, undetectable, eternal, creator-god above it. There’s no way mine takes more “faith” than yours. It takes no faith at all for me to “believe” in the universe. All I have to do is kick a rock.

This is a fatiguing thread. If it doesn't boil down to chance, then what? Processes don't come into being by themselves.

You just can’t let go of the strawman, can you? No one I’ve heard claims that it “all boils down to chance” except theists with little or no understanding of science.

Instinct only. Basic instruction set. Not really "planning for the future".

Perhaps in some of the cases I mentioned, but I don’t think you can list such activities as “instinct only” in all cases. There appears to be at least rudimentary planning for the future in the case of the elephants. The young future matriarch learns the “good places” to go at an early age and remembers how to get there and when it’s best to go. Many years later, the matriarch may lead the herd to a spot that she’s remembered from her youth and that she hasn’t visited in years, and usually at just the right time. If that’s not planning or thinking ahead, I don’t know what is. Whatever it is, it’s much more than just “instinct”.

Further, the great apes and some monkeys such as baboons, particularly chimpanzees and bonobos, have exhibited many behaviors that illustrate at least rudimentary “planning” capabilities. Group societies such as baboons and chimpanzees provide many examples of scheming, plotting, trickery and other techniques with the goal of advancing status in the troop, either for an individual member or even sometimes for its offspring.

Are you aware of another reasoning, self-aware animal with a conscience? You are skeptical that only humans fit this bill.

Yes, I’m definitely skeptical. If there’s a difference between us and bonobos, for example, in these aspects, it’s a difference of degree only. Chimpanzees and bonobos indeed exhibit at least rudimentary elements of all three of those. Perhaps gorillas as well.

The brain is the conduit/interface and so these human characteristics can be "bottle-necked" by injury, producing what appears to be diminished spritiual ability.

So how do drugs work to interfere with the spiritual “conduit”?

And describe for me the mechanism of this mysterious, never-detected conduit/interface between the brain and the never-detected spirit, and tell me how it’s supposed to work. Surely there must be one. If there was one, we should be able to build some sort of instrument to detect this mysterious “spirit” Or is the conduit/interface simply some “magical” process?

Occam’s razor, once again, (in addition to the real-world evidence for physical brain function -> mental activity and total lack of evidence for the “spirit”) leaves us with the parsimonious explanation that brain damage diminishes mental ability because the mental ability is a product of the brain.

I understand your terms, I am acquainted with the rules of discourse. Frankly, I don't have a burden for a prima facie assertion. Just do a google search for the atheists tribesman. You'll not find them. Anthropology repeatedly shows man to be a religious creature. Prima facie.

Once again, I never claimed that such a thing as “atheist tribesmen” existed, so you’re persisting in your strawman for some reason. I don’t doubt that humans have for a long time turned to various religions and myths in attempts to explain the world around them. But the fact is, we don’t know when this seeming predilection began; some point to early burial of the dead (even exhibited by the Neanderthals, which were not “human” as we are) as the earliest signs. You claimed that “all men since the dawn of time have sought to answer the question of the supernatural of his own volition”, a claim that remains unsupported, as it should as it was an unsupportable assertion in the first place.

I think the Resurrection is the linch-pin. If the Jews or the Romans had only paraded Christ's body about Jerusalem, as evidence of his permanent death I'd be on your side blasting Christians as we speak. How 'bout for starters you read the following from Simon Greenleaf:

http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

and let me know what you think.

I’ll pass on the Greenleaf if you don’t mind; I prefer to deal with your arguments, not his. And I’ve heard it all before, in one form or another. Besides, there’s been a lot of scholarship on the subject since he wrote what he did. He’s way out of date.

I don’t really see how the apparent fact that Jesus’ body wasn’t paraded around Jerusalem lends much if any support to the resurrection, anyways. The gospel accounts were written decades after the events they portray; even if such a thing had happened, they obviously wouldn’t have included it in the Gospels. And the Jews or Romans not parading the body around can just as easily, and more satisfactorily from my standpoint, explained by saying that the story of the resurrection of Jesus was not public knowledge in Jerusalem at the time. This could be taken as evidence that it didn’t happen, so there was no reason to parade any body about, or I reckon that it did happen but was kept secret (kinda unlikely; those kinds of secrets are rather hard to keep).

If you were perfect you would not die nor would you do anything wrong nor would you ever struggle with guilt.

Well, that’s your definition of “perfect”. I don’t agree with your definition , and I don’t require one, and think it’s meaningless to consider “perfection”. And I thought guilt was a good thing from your perspective? It can be from mine. Personally, doing an occasional “wrong” isn’t always all that bad, either, and I sure don’t think an occasional wrong makes one “imperfect.” Personally, I don’t think “not dying” would exactly be a “perfect” state in this world, either; think of the potential for population problems, not to mention the serious damper that would put in evolution. Death is a necessary part of life, so “not dying” is not really a sign of perfection for a living creature.

Declaring perfection as meaningless to you is irrelevant.

Why so? Perfection is meaningless for me, and your definition of perfection is, well, imperfect and unnecessary. And I could just as easily assert that “declaring perfection as meaningful is irrelevant.”

Christianity is not going to the junkpile, nor will it.

That remains to be seen. It wouldn’t be the first religion to pass into the mists of time, after all.

Likewise, because of reason, it is impossible for me to deny the Resurrection, especially given my affinity of ancient history.

I think the earlier comments you made to me regarding my “ideological” bias would apply here.

Pride certainly does factor in. Are you kidding? You'd not be better off because this is now who you are, how you define yourself, the way you've set yourself apart from all the "sheeple". No pride at all? I've been there too, I know the hallmarks.

No, I’m not kidding, why should I? You certainly have not ever been me, and I don’t think you can read minds, so there’s no way you can make any kind of claim about whether what I believe or don’t believe has anything to do with “pride.” Your past experience is not applicable to me. It’s this kind of judgmental thinking that gives Xianity its bad reputation, don’t you know?

And I obviously haven’t “set myself apart from all the "sheeple".” My wife and family are mostly theists, like I said; I live among them. And that’s fine; that’s their beliefs. I don’t consider myself superior to them because I don’t believe. I don’t argue with them or try to convince them I’m right and they’re wrong; I reserve that kind of discussion for here on this board.

Fry you? Maybe in the cartoon hell. Whatever spritiual seperation God is it sounds like you prefer it over union with God as described in the Bible. That is, of course, your choice to make.

Umm, I’m an atheist, remember? There is no “choice” to make. I have no preference for heaven or hell; god does not exist. Separation or union with “God” are both nonsense to me, merely the stick and the carrot of Xianity.

And it wouldn't be because Sally got her hair pulled. Refusing the Resurrection of Christ, before you die, is really what the issue is.

Assume for argument’s sake that the only thing I did wrong in my life was “pull sally’s hair” (assuming pulling Sally’s hair is “wrong”, for the sake of argument; substitute some other rather innocuous wrong if you wish), and thus kept me from having lived a “perfect” life, and I didn’t ask god to forgive me of it, would not that one incident keep me from reaching heaven?

The fact that we're obviously imperfect is only a signpost that we cannot save ourselves.

Well, I don’t think that’s a “fact”; in fact, I think it’s a meaningless statement, obviously, as I think there’s no need to consider “perfection”. And if there’s any “saving” to be done, we’d better get to it; there’s no one out there to save us.

Neither do I except that I have victory over fear in this life and hope for the next, grounded at the foot of the empty tomb.

I don’t have “fear” of death in this life either. And I’ve learned it’s best not to waste one’s time on senseless hopes of an afterlife, for which there is absolutely no evidence. One had best concentrate on this life, make the most of it while you can. Thinking about heaven just wastes the time you could spend otherwise improving your life.

How so is it humbling to acknowledge one's imperfection?

There we go again with that “imperfection” bit. I don’t acknowledge my “imperfection”, so I’m hardly humbled by it. Rather, I acknowledge my humanity, and am uplifted by it.

I realize that I cannot shoulder my own burden and so Christ does for me, this is freeing, the kind that sets you free.

Well, if you consider yourself that weak of a human, more power to you. Personally, I’ve cast off the crutches of Religion and am now happily and freely running through the fields of life, free to explore what I wish without imposing any artificial guilt from above.

And so when the joy of living for you goes, as it will when tragedy strikes, so go you. Tenous grip on life.

This sounds a bit like the “no atheists in foxholes” myth. Bad argument, that; demonstrably false.

I recently dealt with a tragedy in my family, and handled it just as well, and in fundamentally similar fashion, as the rest of my family, only I didn’t have to turn to a non-existent god for support. I found the support in myself and in my family. Not once did I come to doubt my non-belief.

Actually, I have a tighter grip on life now that I’m freed of the shackles of superstition. This life is even more precious, more wondrous, and even more joyful to me. I’ve learned that I am something, and I’m free to explore what I am without resorting to the guide of an ancient religious text that considers me “imperfect” and thus in need of some cosmic rescue to be of any real worth. In a sense, you might say I’ve discovered that I’m “perfectly” me, and that’s enough.

No, the first people chose to "know" the cancer of evil. The doctor in this analogy merely is aware of the cancer but has no part in it. Remember, he originally made us perfect but with free wills.

Well, this is a tired old argument. He build the tendency to “cancer” into us, and set the carcinogen (the fruit) within our grasp, where he knew we would eat it, which he didn’t have to do; little difference does it make that he didn’t directly introduce the cancer. So one cannot argue that god “had no part in it”. To have had no part in it he would have had to never create us.

Really? Please elaborate on these myriad Christ-like figures of history. The life of Christ is unique in all history.

Well, the particular myth of Christ is unique in all history, perhaps, but the mythical motifs found there (virgin birth, death and resurrection) can be found in many other myths.

The Resurrection has no parallel in history.

Oh, there’s lots of other things that didn’t really happen but were introduced as myths into our psyches. Even the bible includes a couple of other resurrection accounts; Lazarus, remember?

Please post your best evidence to the contrary.

Joseph Campbell. Read through his books (The Power of Myth, The Hero With a Thousand Faces, etc.).

No empirical evidence of God's existence, no first-hand, eye-witness experience of God, true, plenty of circumstantial evidence though. Enough to make it reasonable to believe.

I believe in things that pique our predilection for believing fantastical things. UFO believers and conspiracy theorists make similar arguments. Do you think it’s “reasonable to believe” in UFOs or alien abductions? I don’t think those things point us to god, and especially not to a particular god.

Enough that people the world over come to this knowledge, from every culture, tribe and tongue. As would be expected when plenty of circumstantial evidence is readily available.

And each of them comes to their own unique understanding of “god”, typically based on the god of the religion of the culture in which they’re raised. Of course, many of them, such as me, are skeptical enough not to make such a leap from such scarce circumstantial evidence to the belief in a deity. As would be expected if the “plenty of circumstantial evidence” is not as convincing as you think.

If we just are, why does our conscience prick us when we act less-than-perfectly?

Stated simply, what we sense as a conscience is an evolved, and beneficial, trait to help us behave better in our social groups. Of course, there is no such thing as “perfect behavior”; that’s one reason why we’re also capable of sometimes doing “imperfect” acts, acts that go against the “conscience” of the social norm when it’s to our advantage. You can see just such behaviors in social groups of baboons and chimps, BTW.

You don’t need god to explain our conscience; Occam’s razor strikes again.

If we just are, nothing about just being should bother us, but it does. As CS Lewis puts it "If nothing in this world satisfies me, perhaps it's because I was made for another world".

Speak for yourself. Nothing about “just being” bothers me. Things in this world satisfy me, and many others. Perhaps it’s because I wasn’t made for another world. (If Lewis’ feelings are a valid argument, then mine should be granted equal validity).

The hallmarks of your other-wordliness are there though just cannot be deduced or perceived by natural reasoning alone.

So they’re unknowable, then. Lots of use they’ll do me. I’m not familiar with any form of “unnatural” reasoning, BTW, but it doesn’t sound too healthy.

This may sound like mumbo-jumbo to you, that is to be expected since I believe as Paul said that to the perishing, these words are foolishness.

It does (though, intellectually, I understand your arguments), and what Paul said was mumbo-jumbo as well. Of course he said that; he had to find some way to make the mumbo-jumbo sellable to the masses.

No. I take it at face-value. It would make sense that other cultures also report similarly, they all originated from the same two people.

A&E is a claim which, thanks to modern science, we now know is false. And thus so is the claim that the “myths are similar because everyone arose from the same two people”. So it doesn’t “make sense” to believe that contrary to the plain evidence.

Please tell me more about these parallel accounts. Links are good too.

Honestly, if you’re truly interested in comparative religion/mythology, do your own research. Do a search on “creation myths”. And again, if you’re really interested, read Joseph Campbell. It’d help you understand the roots, and true meanings, of your chosen mythology and to understand the parallels between it and the world’s other mythologies. Your chosen myth is nowhere near as “unique” as you claim.

Osiris, right? What else you got? Links are cool.

That’s one example. Do a search on “resurrection myths”. Or read Joseph Campbell.

He was tempted in every way yet did not sin.

How do you know that? The bible told you so, I assume. I seriously doubt that whoever wrote it was with Jesus for every minute of his life. So we’re left with an assertion that Jesus was tempted in every way yet did not “sin.” The best you can say is that it’s your belief that He was tempted in every way yet did not sin.

He knew the all the pressures and suffered more physically and emotionally and spiritually than any other.

Another totally unsupportable assertion. Do you expect me to believe that Jesus suffered more than any other person in history? For example, more than the child who was separated from its parents at the gates of a concentration camp, brutalized, raped, and subjected to forced labor for years, and who slowly, painfully died due to starvation, disease, and abuse, with a total lack of hope and loss of the human spirit? Give me a break.

He was a "man of sorrows". He can both identify with us and rescue us.

He was a man, perhaps. Rescuing is up to us.

Look, I know when I'm talking to someone arguing fervently from the heart. We both clearly are. Do you want to continue this back-and-forth?

Not really.

The truth is these things between people like you and I always end in draws since such things are part of who we are, and are not easily given up.

Okay.

You've heard all you need, only now you require the child-like faith that is required.

Faith = setting aside of reason. No thanks; I’ll pass.

Christ said how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven (being self-assured by his wealth),

I’m not rich.

today, how hard it is for the intellectually-wealthy who are self-assured.

Self-assurance is a good thing; you should try it sometimes. Shed the shackles of guilt and shame. Perhaps I could save you from your demeaning superstitions.

Both are self-assured. Both have incredible difficulty seeing a need for a savior since they are they're own best bet. I hope that works out for you.

I’m my only bet, as you are yours. There is no Invisible One to rescue us. But if that’s what helps you make it through your day, more power to you.

Just_An_Atheist

"Desires are the lusts of the heart. We do not typically act apart of our desires. We act out our desires unless tempored by something else e.g self-control via reason, conscience etc. Just because one acts out his desire does not preclude his free-will in the matter."

It depends on what you mean by "free will". Some people define it in terms of compatibalism: a person P is free if p attempts to do x, and p is successful in doing x.

However, a theist cannot rest content with this definition because God could create us with this sort of freedom and create all people as believers. For instance, if God created us with the irressistable urge to be believers, the point that almost everyone would be a believer by the time of their physical death. Why are they free in the compatibalist sense? Because in their attempt to be a believer, they were successful in being a believer.

Or another definition could be constructed along the lines of incompatibalism: A person p is free if, and only if, p has choices x1 x2 x3, in which neither one of them is causally determined.

This conception of free will fails because if actions are not causally determined, then they are causally indetermined, or acausal. But it's hard to see how this differentiates from shere randomness. For instance, if my arm just shot up in the air without a cause, it's hard to see how I was free.

Until a better definition for free will is put forward, the free will defence fails.

"Seems to be a matter of standpoint, temporal vs. atemporal. From God's timeless standpoint, all decisions have already been made. Yet from our temporal standpoint we've still our decisions to make, you are free to do whatever you wish even though God already knows what you'll do. I don't see how God's knowledge of your entire decision-tree throughout your life precludes your involvment in those decisions. "

If God already knows my descision tree, as you put it, then I can't act in any other way than my "descision tree". You could call me free in the compatibalist sense, but that route has already been precluded. Furthermore, you're appealing to a person who exists out of time, which seems to me to make no sense (because every concept of what it means to be a person happens within time.) Consequently, appeal to God's atemporality or timelessness is simply appealing to unintelligable attributes.

"What is good evidence? In the context of origins it boils down to an an unmoved mover; eternal universe or eternal person. Here it is that modern science fails us most obviously since it can never recreate history. How one colors evidence as "good" or "bad" is derivitave of their pre-existing world-view. To use your example, denying the empirical evidence that a computer lies before me shares nothing with my denial that the universe in not eternal. The former can be seen while the latter must be believed. "

Evidence that can be explained by a worldview better than others. Your appeal to an "unmoved" mover in this context is irrelevant to the talk at hand, because the unmoved mover could be any number of gods, and thus fails to support Christianity. Furthermore, if both an eternal universe, and an eternal God plus the universe are both equally probable (as you seemed to conceed) then an eternal universe is more likely to exist than an eternal God plus a universe because it's much simpler. I would say that in the case of the computer in front of me, it is better founded than an eternal universe, but an eternal universe possibly can be known to some degree. And if it better supports a no-God hypothesis, then I must, in order to be reasonable, accept the no-God hypotheses.

"Most skeptics consider a "good" argument as something that can be put to the test by modern scientific methods, something empirical."

I thought you'd give me a little more credit than that.

"All else is ruled out as superstition of the ancients."

Actually, I don't necessarliy disbelieve nor believe in the *super-trillians* (Just a silly large number.) of amounts of gods that man has believed over the years. I mainly concentrate on relevant religions of today.

"I have to admit though, I do not know what it is that is "falsified by empirical evidence"" I was just refering to the often parroted idea that nonbelievers disbelieve because they want to. I thought that might be implicit in your general revelation idea, so I stated that that idea is falsified by empirical evidence.

"It's amazing anyone believes any history at all. Unfortunately, Christianity is best evidenced by history as told reliably by witnesses recorded in the Bible. A good place to start is here: "

If I have time I'll read it. (but it's hard to rebut an article that doesn't answer back to your concerns.) I think that you ought to examine that site yourself (if you hadn't already) and raise similar points to me that the article made so that we can have a reasonable discussion on the matter.

P.S. I live in Mira Mesa, about ten miles away from the UTC.

Just_An_Atheist

Just to get us back on the main issue as to why we're talking about the free will defence, as well as the much lamented after life defence, the issue is the problem of nonbelief as applied to evangelical Christianity. However, I don't think that any of the known purpose defences are sound, so maybe you ought to bring up the unknown purpose defence? (Which I consider the most interesting, and intriguing of all the defences against ANB.)

theophilus

I'm always fascinated when someone with "questions about God" go to people who don't believe in God for answers. It's a little like asking a Democrat to explain the Republican position.

The answers to these questions, like all questions about "the Christian God," can be found in the Bible. No, they aren't listed by number and you might have to ask someone, like a believer, to help you.

What "believers" have you asked for answers?

Mageth

Originally posted by theophilus
I'm always fascinated when someone with "questions about God" go to people who don't believe in God for answers. It's a little like asking a Democrat to explain the Republican position.

Well, it seems Majody asked the theists around here as well as the atheists. Several theists have responded, haven't they?

The answers to these questions, like all questions about "the Christian God," can be found in the Bible. No, they aren't listed by number and you might have to ask someone, like a believer, to help you.

You're "like a believer", aren't you , theo? I think he already asked for your help here.

Where in the bible are the questions "What happens to a baby that dies?" and "why couldn't there be a higher form?" answered? It seems like, if you knew, you could do a great service to Majody by providing him the answers. Let's face it; those are valid questions, and the answers aren't exactly clearly stated in the bible (hence the varying answers, esp. on the first one, that one's likely to get from different believers).

What "believers" have you asked for answers?

You, for one, but so far you seem a bit reluctant to tackle the task of answering them yourself.