All Comments (446)

I wrote Spirituality Arab ancient books to be sold, including handwritten hundreds of years. If you want to mail the forms to you and welcome Please contact me

subloral deafness calathiscus pseudoprophetical galet lymphocyte hydrocharitaceous pluperfectly
Giuseppi Crystal Sculptured Glass Gifts
http://www.countrymill.com/

subloral deafness calathiscus pseudoprophetical galet lymphocyte hydrocharitaceous pluperfectly
MapQuest Smyrna Mills Map
http://www.bartleby.com/17/2/

yxfvto hflwam hbyvd rslm vfnydr qvjyb jcgl

I think LFCDR said it all...

rnctv kgje sney pongrdmjz rxnzvlfts mjrwqglbu zfopisx

I might add, to those who can't accept evidence: If one says, 'Evolution is too cruel and random to be true,' *and,* 'God righteously removes things from creation,' well, I submit that the only real difference between these conditions is the idea of a *humanlike control* over a process that may *seem* random on a human scale.

It's the idea of deriving authority over other humans, however vicariously, from this idea, that is the attachment that makes reason difficult, and the evidence troubling to some people's worldview.

I'll note, by the way, that most Pagan beliefs about a universal God/dess sidestep most of these concerns and contradictions by the simple fact that we don't personalize this great embodiment of the Universe in these ways, particularly moralistic.

More human concerns have more human faces, and the vastness needn't either make or defend these kinds of absolutist assertions: they're in general logically-untenable and have a way of running afoul of the facts: it's much more direct, for instance, to see the Great Goddess *through* what we know about the universe, as opposed to trying to make the universe conform in our minds to statements.

There's simply no need to make these assertions of causality as 'rival facts.' To us, the universe is simply *alive,* at least as we can perceive it.

It's always problematic to try and project human or humanlike motivations or dictates onto something so big... We have 'smaller' ideas of the Gods for that, each more or less in its place.

Certainly it'd be irrational to say "The entire universe, or the ineffable ruler thereof finds your marriage improperly validated."

I think many of these philosophical problems have their roots in trying to claim 'Ultimate' authority for very human perspectives.

'Evolution' isn't 'mere random chance with error, therefore cannot be part of 'God,'' ...this is the process of life and change which is part of something very wonderful.

Eric,

insane asylums are full of people with "indescribably awesome experiences" talking to god, angels, dwarfs, Santa Clauses, demons, aliens.

No, you couldn't possibly know the difference between a god-order and your own warped decision, since all you have for perception (and dreams etc.) is your brain. The fact that somebody would say "I am god" ... see above.

And a general thought: If god is literally "omnipotent", he can be used as a joker for any imaginable phenomenon or event. Since he exists only by "faith", you can abandon any causal, logical order: Everything can always be attributed to god, since he is the joker for everything. It boils down to a semantic question: If god is everything, everything is everything, and the word "god" has no meaning anymore whatsoever. Nor has the concept the word describes.

And Anonymous: If god "takes away what he rightfully owns", using murder: He is an accomplice of murder, by any logical thinking.
Why don't you turn your logic around: Since I reject murder, I must reject the concept of god. But you seem not to reject murder, once somebody or yourself claims it to be "god's" will. You don't even have to prove this, ever.

That is the basic disaster with religion.

"If the big bang was orchestrated by God, it would not need to be random. The singularity could have been very coherently organized and designed, to unfold just right, without any mistakes. It's all very mysterious, so we really can't say much for certain about it."

According to the big bang theory, there is very little room for that - less than that in evolutionary theory. My point was a comparison of the two. Anyway, my fingers are tired and it is getting difficult to keep track of this discussion.

"Alas, my computer is bogging down because of the immense length of the contiguous posts. I will have to bail. But, I just want to say that I had a blast, as I have never had a conversation or debate with bright atheists before. Sometimes I felt like Captain Kirk must have felt while fighting off seven Klingons coming at him all at once, but it was well worth it. (No slight intended!)"

It was an interesting conversation. I think we set a record on OnFaith - this page is huge. I'll see you later.

Ben,

If the big bang was orchestrated by God, it would not need to be random. The singularity could have been very coherently organized and designed, to unfold just right, without any mistakes. It's all very mysterious, so we really can't say much for certain about it.

Alas, my computer is bogging down because of the immense length of the contiguous posts. I will have to bail. But, I just want to say that I had a blast, as I have never had a conversation or debate with bright atheists before. Sometimes I felt like Captain Kirk must have felt while fighting off seven Klingons coming at him all at once, but it was well worth it. (No slight intended!)

Eric

Hermit,

What is murder? You have your humanist blinders on. Is it murder when God destroys a life that he rightfully owns, which he himself created? Or is it his prerogative?

Murder is the unjustified killing of created humans by created humans. One creature unrighteously destroying the life of another creature is a far cry from the Creator removing its own creature righteously.

"I think I might agree in principle but I'm not sure it happened that way. Darwin's theory leaves it all up to random chance, with many 'mistakes' along the way. I'm not sure why an all-powerful God would leave the end result of his creation up to chance. I suppose if he foreknew the outcome then 'chance' would be an acceptable method for him. But I don't believe he 'played dice' with the universe or with life. Darwinism is inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. I suppose if God were wantonly cruel he would go ahead and use this method."

Point noted.

But you still have not explained by the big bang wouldn't be just as problematic for Christianity.

The big bang certainly seems like an example of "god playing dice". In fact, much more so than evolution by natural selection.

Maybe the reason evolution by natural selection seems like such a threat to Christians is that it explains (correct or not - that is not the issue) directly how the human body came to exist.

But on a deeper level the big bang theory in its modern form might be more damaging to Christianity. The big bang theory describes a singularity - the most extreme example of chance in nature. The big bang theory is part of a paradigm of modern physics that seeks a "theory of everything" - an algorithm without mind. There would be little room for any seed of God.

So I don't think it is a very useful strategy to try to claim that the evolution of species by natural selection (macroevolution) is false.

Hermit,

I said I would hate a God who commanded me to kill all unbelievers. I wouldn't hate a God who commanded me to strike and conquer my mortal enemies.

Actually, we had a leader who, for all his faults, made the right call a few years ago. That's why we're not stuck in Iraq right now...

And I don't consider innocent civilians anywhere to be my "enemy"...

You say "My position is that moral absolutes come from God, not religion." but you haven't explained your God's apparent violations of those moral absolutes. If the Bible is to be believed it wasn't the Israelites who chose to slaughter the children of their enemies; it was God who ordered them to. He even got pissed at them for not being bloody enough...Read Numbers 31, for example.

this isn't "religion" giving the orders, it's God! How can that God be the source of your "moral absolutes?

Hermit.

"What you're describing is an insanity defense, not a moral argument."

...I guess that if God doesn't exist then it would be insanity, wouldn't it?

On moral absolutes....
My position is that moral absolutes come from God, not religion. It wouldn't matter if they were not written down anywhere, they would still have come from God, being written on our hearts. But our consciences can become hardened.

"Do you think it's possible to have "a worldwide intelligence consensus" that any state is A) capable of such an assault and B) Is undoubtedly about to carry on out?"

Well, as the leader of Canada, you get to make the final decision whether to trust the intelligence services or wait for the mushroom cloud in Winnipeg to see if they were all right about it. Your call! Looks like you are willing to sacrifice your own people in an effort to spare your enemy some casualties. Wow, what a leader!

Ben,

"Evolution by natural selection does not necessarily preclude the existence of God, and the existence of God certainly would not preclude evolution by natural selection!"

I think I might agree in principle but I'm not sure it happened that way. Darwin's theory leaves it all up to random chance, with many 'mistakes' along the way. I'm not sure why an all-powerful God would leave the end result of his creation up to chance. I suppose if he foreknew the outcome then 'chance' would be an acceptable method for him. But I don't believe he 'played dice' with the universe or with life. Darwinism is inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. I suppose if God were wantonly cruel he would go ahead and use this method.

Actually, Eric, I would hope that if you felt God's presence and rightness so profoundly that it was leading you to overcome your reservations about killing innocent children that you would choose to seek psychiatric help. What you're describing is an insanity defense, not a moral argument.

Do you think it's possible to have "a worldwide intelligence consensus" that any state is A) capable of such an assault and B) Is undoubtedly about to carry on out? That's the bridge they sold us in Iraq, remember...

And even if you could prove such intent and capability, would preemptively killing thousands of innocent people be likely to prevent, or provoke an other attack? In your example, would the cop be justified in shooting into a crowd of innocent bystanders in the hope of scaring the bad guy into dropping his weapon? `Cause that's closer to the Iran situation. I'm personally not prepared to kill a whole bunch of innocent people to save my own life.

And please remember, the instructions God allegedly gives his people in the Old Testament don't include "surgical strikes" (a ludicrous concept when we talk about nukes, or even conventional "smart" weapons-they aren't as "smart' as most people think) or exhortations to limit civilian casualties. The instructions God gives are clear; kill `em all, man, woman and child; even their animals in some cases. Sometimes He tells them to keep the virgin girls alive as slaves...I can guess why; can you?

What you seem to be saying here is that you don't agree with God's orders; in fact you earlier said you would have to "hate" a god who gave such orders. So how can you expect me to accept your assertion that I, as an atheist, lack the kind of "moral absolutes" that can only come from religion? That the moral precepts of your faith are somehow superior to my simple humanity?

I'm sorry to go on about this; I know it's an unpleasant topic and a difficult one for someone who has come to believe in the goodness and love of the Almighty. But you did bring up the "torturing babies for fun" line. Don't do that unless you're prepared to deal with it. By all means study the question, consult your wise men, but don't worry about getting back to me on this one. I'd be very surprised if you came up with something I haven't seen before. In the end the "answers" I found all came down to some version of "you just have to accept it on faith." At some point that just stopped being good enough for me. Your mileage, as always, may vary...

Regards

A Hermit

"Yes, 'natural selection' is part of the algorhythm, hence observable microevolution - adaptation to environment.
Still doesn't prove the Macroevolution theory."

That is not the issue. I thought we were discussing the *implications* of the big bang and the evolution of species by natural selection, *if* they are true. Correct?

"What did the growth of a tree from a seed look like before the DNA instructions were discovered?
Mindless. But hidden in the material of the tree was information, a plan laid out in instructions, which were coded in proteins.
Could it possibly be that the plan for the universe is hidden in it somehow? That would be pretty hard to discover, but it could be. But it may just be a conceptually simple, undiscoverable thing, like God's setting up the Big Bang so that its properties and conditions would result in the development of galaxies, etc.
A Hermit's observation about "common sense" could also apply to your claims that the unfolding of the universe is "without mind": things aren't always as they seem."

That does not contradict what I have been trying to say. It is possible that the evolution of species by natural selection contains God's seed - evolution by natural selection would be God's means to create life. Evolution by natural selection does not necessarily preclude the existence of God, and the existence of God certainly would not preclude evolution by natural selection!

Christianity does not rely on the untruth of evolution by natural selection. There are some conflicts between science and religion, true. But to my knowledge the veracity of the foundations of evolutionary biology need not be an issue for all Christians.

"As far as preemption in a nuclear age, I believe you have to be certain that your civilization is very, very likely to be attacked. You preemptive attack must not be indiscriminate, but as surgical as possible. Where to draw that line of 'very, very likely' is the question. I personally would draw it at open threats and statements of intent from the enemy leadership along with a worldwide intelligence consensus that the means are available for him to carry through with his promised assault. This is the same level of threat that a police officer here must have before he can use deadly force to take out the suspect."

True. Another thing about 'Shoot-don't-shoot' that's often left out of these arguments that 'This is a just war!'

...is that ideas of 'Just War' are not *justifications for a war you *want,* ...there's also supposed to be an idea that you need to know what good can come of this.

Before you start.

On the question of 'What good can come of this?' no justification for pre-emptive war in Iraq holds water in the slightest.

That's why Saddam wasn't taken out years ago.

Cause it was well-known and well warned that as much as the guy was bad, there was no way to use certain levels of force without making things worse.

The war was lost before it began. If the Republicans had had something more on their minds than Clinton's peccadillo, maybe something could have been done all along to make a post-Saddam Iraq *possible,* but we had to settle for containment.

Gerry,
The appearance and presence of God would be indescribably awesome and intensely real and 'other', without question. I could not possibly doubt an actual appearance of God.

Of course you would say "God never commanded anything." You believe he never existed.

Eric,
God never commanded anything: People have only one brain to think, perceive, obey, create, imagine, wish, decide.

It is the silly or criminal (or both) delusion of a "god-order" they substitute(d) for their own decision. Would you follow such a "god-order", or would you start, as you finally seem to do, to doubt your perception? There are many errors of perception in all our senses, as can easily be proved, it is even an entertaining game. You would never know if it was "god" or yourself who ordered you the baby killing!

Hermit,

Thanks for the baby-dashing Psalm. I'd better investigate that one.

Don't forget that the OT also says that God killed everyone on on the planet once, except for Noah and Co.

If God told me to kill the Midianites, I would hope that the force of his presence and rightness of his decision were impressed upon me intensely to the point where my reservations were overcome. But looking at it from a detached perspective, it's not a pleasant thought at all.

As far as preemption in a nuclear age, I believe you have to be certain that your civilization is very, very likely to be attacked. You preemptive attack must not be indiscriminate, but as surgical as possible. Where to draw that line of 'very, very likely' is the question. I personally would draw it at open threats and statements of intent from the enemy leadership along with a worldwide intelligence consensus that the means are available for him to carry through with his promised assault. This is the same level of threat that a police officer here must have before he can use deadly force to take out the suspect. "Throw down your weapon and put your hands behind your head." But then he points the weapon at you....

"...we're supposed to believe that God ordered all those children to be killed in order to...save them from being killed?"

No, I honestly don't know why, at this point in my understanding, the infants were to be killed. In other battles, God commanded that the women and children be captured, not killed. I need to study this. I should have a reason to give you. Maybe some brighter folks than I know the subject it better. I'll get back to you on that.

Ben,

Yes, 'natural selection' is part of the algorhythm, hence observable microevolution - adaptation to environment.
Still doesn't prove the Macroevolution theory.

What did the growth of a tree from a seed look like before the DNA instructions were discovered?
Mindless. But hidden in the material of the tree was information, a plan laid out in instructions, which were coded in proteins.
Could it possibly be that the plan for the universe is hidden in it somehow? That would be pretty hard to discover, but it could be. But it may just be a conceptually simple, undiscoverable thing, like God's setting up the Big Bang so that its properties and conditions would result in the development of galaxies, etc.
A Hermit's observation about "common sense" could also apply to your claims that the unfolding of the universe is "without mind": things aren't always as they seem.

Oh, I just remembered the other point I wanted to make; even if we accepted that it was for some reason necessary to deliberately kill babies in order to achieve some higher moral purpose, (and honestly, I can't imagine any such reason, especially for an omnipotent god; couldn't he think of a better solution?!) wouldn't any moral human being still feel bad about it?

So what are we to make of this:

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9:"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I realize the word "happy" here can have a number of connotations, but personally, I can't reconcile any of them with the act of dashing out a baby's brains on a rock.

Regards

A Hermit

"if atheism is true, then what appears to be intelligent design is actually the total absence of intelligent design. "

Yes, but the absence of deliberate, sentient direction does not equal total randomness. What your common sense tells you must be the product of a designer is more probably the product of natural forces interacting in a regular, somewhat predictable manner.

Now about my genocide questions;

I skimmed through your link; nothing new there for me. Keep in mind that "history is written by the winners" and they can't always be trusted to give us both sides of the story. I find no comfort in the idea that the Israelites claimed to be acting on God's orders. How do you know when someone is acting on God's orders? Because they say so in a book they wrote themselves?

Since Miller relies almost entirely on the Bible itself his defense of the genocides his suspect, but even in that context it's pretty frightening to modern ears; the crimes he lists as justifying the slaughter of thousands of innocents include homosexuality. Do you think we should kill children if their parents are gay? Is that what God wanted then could he want the same thing today? That's what Miller is, in part, defending here. And even the "child sacrifice" argument is weak; we're supposed to believe that God ordered all those children to be killed in order to...save them from being killed? Sorry, I just don't find "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" arguments very persuasive.

You say "We have no divine command to wipe out Tehran or Iran" but your President seems to think he's doing God's will already; what if he gets word from his "higher Father" that the time has come? They're already fanning the flames, Eric.

Anyway, I was asking for YOUR opinion; If you thought that Iran was a threat would that justify, in your moral sense, pre-emptively dropping a nuke on Tehran? If it was morally correct in Moses day, why not now?

This is a big problem for the idea that morality comes from the Judeo-Christian version of God; an idea being fatuously promoted by George Bush's former speech writer here in the pages of the Washington Post today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

You see, Eric, it isn't just about the Midianites, these are important questions today; right here and right now. Gerson is the guy behind the "Axis of Evil" speech; these people want war, and they think they are doing what is good in God's sight.

My moral sense tell me that "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first" is wrong, and even more so when "hitting back first" means starting a war, which is guaranteed, nuclear or otherwise, to cause hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more deaths. It's wrong if George Bush does it, and it's wrong even if he says God told him to.

What about you?

Regards
A Hermit

Eric:

"Good question, but I see them as apples and oranges.
The tree starts as a seed 'exploding' with its God-implanted instructions for the tree (goal) within its DNA, which over time comes to full fruition as a tree. That is similar to how I see the Big Bang."

But everything we know about the big bang leads us to it being without blueprint. If god placed any goals into the big bang, it was in the nature of the energy itself, and not its configuration. The big bang was a singularity where the configuration of matter was causally disconnected from any previous configuration. Energy has formed into galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets - everything we know about this process leads us to it being completely without mind. You could say that it instantiates an algorithm. Energy has likewise formed into living organisms, again, without mind. Again you could say that it instantiates an algorithm - an algorithm best described as "natural selection".

Mathematically, there is a reason to doubt that God could have implanted his seed into the big bang - the singularity limits what could have been implanted. But evolution by natural selection begins in the natural world, where there was plenty of room for God to plant his seed.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that God created the universe with the big bang, then began a new creation with living organisms. However, you haven't made the case that God didn't create natural selection to reach his goals. You have simply explained the intuitive appeal that Intelligent Design has for you.

"Macroevolution is entirely different in that it's a bunch of randomly occurring mutations, some unfortunate, some lucky. There is no blueprint within the slime mold for becoming Christopher Hitchens."

The theory of natural selection describes a pattern, and the laws of physics describe a pattern. Neither is completely random, because they both operate according to certain "rules". If there was a blueprint in the big bang, there can be a blueprint in the evolution of species.

REALIST:

Yes, religion obviously gives comfort.

Notice that Jesus calls the Holy Spirit "the Comforter."

I suspect that atheism gives comfort, too; the comfort of feeling secure in the 'knowledge' that, contrary to popular opinion, there is actually no omnipresent God observing your private life who may hold you to account for your words, desires, and deeds. How freeing that worldview is, and how important to maintain it and promote it!

Not to divert from the discussion, but, when I cruise the headers for this topic, I keep looking with annoyance at Ms. Jacoby's assertion, 'Atheism costs the taxpayers nothing,' as though a Pagan chaplain wouldn't be earning their pay, or that it's cheaper somehow to leave our troops totally on their own, particularly in the face of frequent hostility from a largely-Christian chaplain corps that often doesn't consider our faith legitimate, and in fact, our appearance as merely an excuse to try and convert our troops while they're under a lot of stress.

Compared to the war itself, these 'costs' are negligible. But.

Pagan troops *are* the taxpayers. They deserve to be served in a manner at least proportionate to their numbers, not to be subjected to further stress just to celebrate their own religion while supposedly fighting for the same freedom.

That kind of stress, *that's* expensive.

Point taken, Hermit. I guess I could have done with better examples. It seems that the real story, when we find it, is usually just a more complicated version of the original commonsense notion, however, not a complete departure from it. For instance, the sun looks like it rises but it's really the earth turning as it orbits the sun. That's just a variation on the theme of "heavenly bodies having relative motion." But if atheism is true, then what appears to be intelligent design is actually the total absence of intelligent design. That is a *complete negation.* At least, with your smoldering coals, there WAS a fire which produced the coals.

Gerry, I just don't see anything patently invalid in that line of reasoning regarding the tribal self-defense issue and that that all life belongs to God and it's his purview to punish it or destroy it for wickedness.

"Hope you had a great blues gig."

Thanks, not bad, for a Thursday night. Jammed with some hotshot kid who made me realize I need to practice more...;-P

On common sense, thanks for proving my point.

"When you see smoke, you know there's also a fire."

The fire my wife had going in our fireplace last night was out when I got home, but the smoke was still there...so you're kinda right, but not really...

"You can't get blood out of a turnip."

You can if there's a worm in it...

and my favourite:

"When you see seagulls, you're getting close to the sea."

I see seagulls around here all the time; especially around the grain elevators, or following the farm equipment at harvest time. I live in Southern Manitoba. Check a map...I live 600 miles from the nearest seaport...(By the way, the prairies around here look really, really flat, and being so far from the sea one doesn't have the "ship on the horizon" thing to work with...)

That's the thing about "common sense", Eric; what may seem to be intuitively true isn't always so when we take a closer look. Doesn't mean it's always wrong, but we can't rely on it to consistently give us the right answer.

Regards

A (smalltown) Hermit

Eric,

I had decided to drop out of this debate after your baby killing arguments. After reading (part, I couldn't bear it anymore) of the link you praised for the good "homework) I am simply appalled that an intelligent human being can be brainwashed to a degree to concoct such a heap of utter superstitious nonsense, defying reason, moral, insight, history, anything that defines to me the dignity of a human being.

No, with such hogwash you further, thank god, the development of reason contrary to your intent.

OK, Gerry, "If God exists and is all-powerful, then he can just create stuff."

Ben;

Good question, but I see them as apples and oranges.
The tree starts as a seed 'exploding' with its God-implanted instructions for the tree (goal) within its DNA, which over time comes to full fruition as a tree. That is similar to how I see the Big Bang.

Macroevolution is entirely different in that it's a bunch of randomly occurring mutations, some unfortunate, some lucky. There is no blueprint within the slime mold for becoming Christopher Hitchens.

Eric:

"I reject that God would use macroevolution to populate earth, because intrinsic to the theory is the principle of goal-less, unguided randomness which has no need for God at all, and because as an entire process it would be inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. God has the right to take life if he deems it necessary, but he has no need to institute a wasteful and cruel method of creating complex life. He can just create stuff"

If he can just create stuff, then why would he use the big bang to create earth? Doesn't physics also imply a "goal-less, unguided randomness which has no [direct] need for God at all"?

Isn't the big bang, like evolution by natural selection, an example of a process that, once started, does not need God at all?

When God creates stuff, does it just instantly come into existence, sort of like building a plot of land in the PC game Sim City? Or might God have been more elegant and created everything from the root, as if planting a divine plant?

Evolutionary theory does not seem to say anything about how the natural world came to be such that evolution would happen.

Hermit,

Hope you had a great blues gig.

Hey, Mr. Hermit, don't disrespect common sense. Common sense is what tells you that:

When you see smoke, you know there's also a fire.
You can't get blood out of a turnip.
When you see seagulls, you're getting close to the sea.
When you see words drawn in the sand, it wasn't an accident of nature.
When you see tall ships sink down into the horizon and then emerge up from the horizon when they return, it means the earth must be round and not flat.
If you are having to drive through a bunch of cars going the opposite direction, you are driving the wrong direction on a one way street.

If it weren't for common sense, which you rely on every day, you would be in a world of hurt, or just dead.

Always remember that God knows the intent of peoples' hearts, even before they know it.
If God foreknew that if the opposing tribe would act to wipe out His chosen people, a people who would be the salvation of the world, then he would be commanding to them an act of self-defense, rather than just wanton murder, would he not? Remember that his judgment is not of the same quality as human judgment. It is Divine judgment. He has the info and the right. This would apply to your Iran question. We have no divine command to wipe out Tehran or Iran, as in your scenario.

But I fail to do justice to the question. Here is what looks like a much better handling of it from someone who has obviously done their homework:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

Eric,

you say "He can just create stuff!" How do you know?
You state this as a fact, blaming me for stating suppositions as facts...

My statement may be logically as little foolproof, but a lot more plausible than yours, since neither you nor me nor anybody we know has had a provable conversation with "god": People (me, for instance) talk to themselves all the time! And we see people "create stuff", or at least create forms (e.g. music), all the time, a 100% provable observation, and we don't need god for this observation.

Thanks Guys, for the interesting posts.

Ok, I will have to accept that you are very difficult to convince, and that you will probably go on being atheists forever, unless God intervenes in your lives because of his mercy and his love for you. He just might!

There are some problems I see in your last statements...

Gerry,

I totally see your point, and I am very glad that in the bible God doesn't command me (he forbids me) to kill unbelievers. I would hate a God who commanded that. The OT's Divine commands were special cases. So if a Christian threatens your life, don't blame his religion for it.

Also, you emphatically say this,

'"God" has never talked to anybody - he is a human illusionary artifact!'

When you say "God doesn't exist" and "he never talked to anybody" as statements of fact, it tends to discredit your position as a whole, because you can't know that to be a fact. You would have to have *all knowledge* to *know* there is no God. Just because I don't believe Bigfoot exists doesn't mean Bigfoot actually doesn't exist. I can't really know that, so I shouldn't say that. Bigfoot may actually exist, and I might be wrong about it. I should instead say that "I doubt that people have really seen Bigfoot as they are claiming."
Not a perfect analogy, but the principle is the same.

REALIST:

The kind of evolution that is 'observable' is microevolution within species, which is an accepted fact. But the theory of Macroevolution, where fish develop lungs and become philosophers over time, has very little to recommend it.

Also, it is just plain not true that religion inhibits discovery and scientific thought! Scientists who are theists see their work as studying the mind of God and investigating his handiwork. They are highly motivated to understand his mysteries!

Ben;

I reject that God would use macroevolution to populate earth, because intrinsic to the theory is the principle of goal-less, unguided randomness which has no need for God at all, and because as an entire process it would be inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. God has the right to take life if he deems it necessary, but he has no need to institute a wasteful and cruel method of creating complex life. He can just create stuff!

Eric says: "my position is that one of atheism's logical consequences is that it devalues human life"

And yet you are the one presenting a defense of genocide as a moral act...think about that...

Arguing that "It was a ruthless, tough world, filled with savage, human-sacrificing cultures, and the Jews were vulnerable" doesn't really help you much either; are you saying that there were different standards back then? Or that the rightness or wrongness of genocide and the wholesale murder of babies depends on the circumstances? What becomes of your idea that theism gives rise to absolute moral standards if those standards change depending on times and circumstances? Or would you argue that a genocide of Israel's neighbours would be a moral good today?

Given current events and the new saber rattling directed at Iran this is a troubling line of thought, Eric, and not just on a theoretical level. Would you support the killing of millions of innocent civilians in a preemptive nuclear first strike on Tehran on the basis of your Biblical morality?

As for the "common sense" of Intelligent Design just remember this; common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat. Reason is what tells us it's an oblate spheroid...

Regards

A Hermit

Eric:

"I understand that my position runs contrary to some current theories that one would have to give up to become a theist. That is a major problem you have with my argument. But the problem for me is that atheism is asking me to give up what I perceive as being common-sense conclusions that the overwhelming appearance of intelligent design points to an intelligent designer, that human free-will and OBEs point to the soul, and that the laws of logic, physics, and morality point to a Lawgiver. These seem so obvious and elementary to me that I don't see how I could ever be persuaded by any contrary ideas that anyone, even a cosmologist, could have."

If you believe God orchestrated the big bang, why stop there? He could have orchestrated everything, including evolution.

The most powerful argument for God involves abduction, or inference to best explanation. If God is the one most elegant explanation of, the architect and artist of, human morality, intelligence, feeling, benevolence, cosmological fine tuning, etc. - the mysteries of the universe - then it is all the more consistent, and amazing, if God orchestrated big bang, gravity, cosmological fine tuning, and finally the evolution of species.

True that evolution is one of a series of scientific discoveries that have challenged the political authority of the church. And perhaps because of that, Christians have not chosen to accept evolution into their thinking. But what if evolution represents one of the most magnificent of God's creations? Couldn't you be the one making a terribly unfortunate error?

"But I can't in good conscience fail to warn you about it, so I do my best to convince and implore you to reconsider.
If that is an offense to you, I sincerely apologize, because it is not my desire to offend. But I know from experience it can and does."

I am not the least bit offended, and not the least bit convinced.

Hi Eric,
Ah, so that's why you believe. You have fallen for the intelligent design argument. And your faith provides a sense of comfort. Those are common reasons for being religious. I always feel guilty when I argue with people who are religions because it gives them comfort.

The problem with the intelligent design argument is that it's just not true :-).

Advocates of intelligent design argue something like this: Life is very complicated and we don't understand how it got that way, so someone must have designed it. It's a very plausible argument. Religion's answer is: don't think about it: God did it.

What I don't like about that argument is that
a) there's no proof that God did it and
b) it stops people from figuring out how it really happened.

God has been the explanation of nearly everything that we didn't understand at one time or another. We don't think thunder is God being angry with us anymore.

Fortunately for biology, and for medicine, scientists like Charles Darwin were not content to just give up and say "It's all too hard to understand: God must have done it." They sat down and looked closely at how life actually works. We now know enough about it that it's more or less a solved problem (the complexity part that is). We don't know all of the details, but it's very unlikely that the theory of evolution is wrong. In fact, evolution is an observable fact supported literally by mountains of evidence, and there are thousands of scientists who are working in many fields of science who's work depends on it. Evolution happens. We know that. It's not a theory in crisis; that's complete nonsense and a blatant lie. It's not intuitive, but it is true.

The Discovery Institute is the modern equivalent of a flat earth society. Its "scientists" seem quite happy to lie and misquote people and ignore facts when it is convenient for them, and they admit that they don't really care about the evidence, they just want to prevent people from learning about evolution because it can't be true because it contradicts the Bible.

Anyway, I'm off to a birthday party.

Regards,
Realist

Eric,

if somebody had asked you to debunk religion, he would thank you for your arguments about killing babies. To me this is the final proof that religion is not only illusion at best, but extremely dangerous and murderous, as has been demonstrated through the last millenia of human culture. The bible with its genocides, 9/11, suicide bombing, the inquisition, witch burning (Luther was a strong advocate of it, together with a desire to kill all Jews), Galilei, Bruno, Hypatia, the 30 years' war, the "born-again" Bush with his Iraq war - all points to the desastrous consequences of religion, the institutionalized form of superstition.

ANY atrocity, ANY crime can be motivated, legalized, legitimized by religion. You have once for all forfeited the right to talk about moral and religion within the same breath. You have forfeited the right to criticize us atheists in terms of morality. We have an overarching sense of morality, you haven't. I have to hold my breath at the idea you produced about the atonement of the killed babies, about killing them to prevent them from burning in hell etc. Preposterous - but logical (I am illogical).

Why should we have any system or even any desire of justice? Anything goes, since it is "god's will". If I kill you, it is "god's" will to take you "home" for your eternal bliss, and society should be grateful to me for fulfilling god's will. All this is so preposterous, so anti-human, so low and self-serving, that I don't want to argue about details anymore. Let the ID crowd spin their silly statistics, their enmity against anything resembling reason, progress, compassion, justice, love, wisdom, development.

The only weak hope I have is that the statistics A Hermit produced about religion in the world will develop more in the direction of enlightenment. The fact that you love your "commonsense conclusions" of your religion certainly is no proof of its value - after you baby killing arguments it proves the contrary to me.

"God" has never talked to anybody - he is a human illusionary artifact! When god talked to Abraham (to kill Isaac), Moses, Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones in Guyana, or Bush, these people talked to themselves on the grounds of their historical and biographical consciousness, with all the disastrous consequences, grounded on the gullibility of their followers.

Ben,

I appreciate your constructive criticism. I understand the value in hearing atheistic arguments. I've been learning a great deal from many of you.
I understand that my position runs contrary to some current theories that one would have to give up to become a theist. That is a major problem you have with my argument. But the problem for me is that atheism is asking me to give up what I perceive as being common-sense conclusions that the overwhelming appearance of intelligent design points to an intelligent designer, that human free-will and OBEs point to the soul, and that the laws of logic, physics, and morality point to a Lawgiver. These seem so obvious and elementary to me that I don't see how I could ever be persuaded by any contrary ideas that anyone, even a cosmologist, could have.

I love my Christian faith, and I believe it to be true, for what I think are well-considered reasons. I feel I have only gained from my religion. From it I have had the most beautiful experiences of my life, and have assurance that I am loved by God and will be in heaven when my time on earth is through.
My feeling for you all is this; that I am concerned for the immortal souls that I believe you are... that one day you will have to answer to God for the sins you committed while in the body, sins that could be washed away from you right this minute, but you reject Jesus' atonement for them. I know this is just a silly, outdated idea to you, and it is your right to think so. But I can't in good conscience fail to warn you about it, so I do my best to convince and implore you to reconsider.
If that is an offense to you, I sincerely apologize, because it is not my desire to offend. But I know from experience it can and does.

Eric,

Honestly, I don't think you can argue in an atheist's terms very well. Hence, you are not convincing. Understanding how to argue for atheism would vastly improve your arguments for theism. I also think you have not fully realized the breadth and strength of the arguments for atheism.

You are going to need to abandon your argument regarding "Intelligent Design", because this argument asks people to simply abandon some very constructive and relevant theories. Or, if you would like, you can study evolutionary biology and criticize the conclusions scientists have reached.

But you are not going to get anywhere by saying, essentially, "it's wrong because of my theory is a simpler explanation". Intelligent Design doesn't help scientists to do research that allows us to understand the human body. It produces no information about the workings of the human body. It also conflicts with the evidence. Doesn't that trouble you a bit?

All points well made. I must admit I empathize with your points of view, because I've been there. Although if you have read most of my posts you probably know my position is that one of atheism's logical consequences is that it devalues human life. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that an atheist's sense of the value of his own life to himself is devalued necessarily, but I think Godlessness and soullessness lead to the sad conclusion echoed in "Deteriorada" (Nat'l Lampoon, mid '70s):

You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.

Eric wrote:
"Oh, death is so horrible! So terrible! You atheists usually talk about death casually, as a "part of life" that everyone must go through. So what's the big deal, I say facetiously."

"If someone killed me and I was immediately in eternal, infinite bliss, I doubt that I would mind it at all, to say the least. No, I'd be thanking God."

Yes, you'd be thanking God along with all of the suicide bombers who are enjoying their eternity with their 72 virgins. Are they also right? There are lots of different heavens. People have invented thousands of Gods. Why do you think your particular one is any more real than any of the others?

Do you see why some of us atheists have a problem with religion? It devalues the only life that we can be sure we have. To an atheist like me, this life is precious; it's the only life that I have. I want to make the best of it. I want to be the best person I can in this life. I'm not prepared to sacrifice my life (or anyone else's) because someone wrote some stories in a book a thousand years ago. I couldn't think of anything less responsible.

"If Almighty God appeared to you personally while you were out walking, and commanded you by name to do a thing, it would be pretty darn impressive, don't you think?"

What, you mean like when he told GWB to invade Iraq?

If God want to tell me something, he knows where I live. But unless there's more to go on than some ancient stories, I'm sorry, but I can't believe it. If I'm wrong about your God then it's an honest mistake; I can only make the best judgement I can based on the available evidence. If he/she/it wants to punish me for it then I don't think he/she/it deserves any respect.

Whew! It's a good thing hell is only for the devil and his angels. You had me worried for a while there. :-)

Sorry if I'm getting a little sarcastic, but when people start justifying murder in the name of religion, I can't just let it go.

Regards,
Realist

Huh, I'm a little cranky tonight (well, for me, anyway). Must be overtired . . .probably should go to bed before I start fussing and whining . . . : )

" I don't mean 'accident' with any negative connotations; I mean 'accident' in the sense of *something not intended* ...and Mindless meaning "without mind." I don't use these terms in the perjorative sense which you have colored them with!"

I don't think we're the ones doing the coloring - rather, the common usage of these terms tends to involve some fairly negative connotations - generally neutral at best - something which is only exacerbated in religious anti-naturalistic discourse. Disorder, chaos, breakage or disaster, unwantedness, stupidity or animalistic degradation - yikes! You might want consider using terms like (for example) 'non-intentional', or 'without mind' or so on, if you wish to avoid such implications . . .

"On God commanding the killing of innocents:
If God commanded it, there are three important points, from the Biblical point of view, to consider . . ."

I'm not a big fan of the 'religion poisons everything!!!' school of criticism, but if you were trying to make a case for it, this would be an excellent example. Here religious belief works not to sanctify but to radically devalue life, sorta along what Jacoby was arguing re: the last question.

"God had ordained that the Salvation of the World (Christ) was to come out of the Jewish culture, the lineage of which had to be preserved over the millenia"

Sometimes I really wish Christians would just leave my people out of their messianic and millennial beliefs, y'know? My ancestors are not a means to your end.

"Oh, death is so horrible! So terrible! You atheists usually talk about death casually, as a "part of life" that everyone must go through. So what's the big deal, I say facetiously."

Hmm. Well, the state of being dead, we believe, isn't horrible & terrible in and of itself, we believe - there's no eternal torment (or anything - anything at all); indeed, often death brings a merciful end to suffering. What's terrifying about it is that it's an end to life; we stop *being* - yes, we continue on in all the ways we've touched the world, all the lives we've helped or hurt, all the things we've worked to build up or destroy, everything we leave behind - but we're not around to appreciate it. Of course, we're not around to be bemoan that fact either, or be sad about being dead - in a sense, one could say, death exists only for the living. Fear/avoidance of death is the shadow, the negative image, of our love and valuing of life - so that often it can be accepted only as an inevitable (though not, except in physical or mental anguish, especially welcome) part of that life. We don't believe there is some happy land beyond the grave: as a result, life for the atheist is often viewed as immeasurably precious and immediate. Justice delayed is justice denied. The child that suffers today will not be comforted in a divine embrace when night comes: although it is to our credit that we so deeply wish it could be so, the fact is that it is up to us to take them into our arms, to act now before they go forever beyond our grasp, into a place where there is no suffering, but also no joy.

" If you continue to stiff-arm God as a fictional nonentity, then how do you expect him to treat you when you appear before him on your last day? "

Any God at a lower level of emotional maturity than I wouldn't deserve my *respect*, let alone my worship.

I guess I can offer three things;

Oh, death is so horrible! So terrible! You atheists usually talk about death casually, as a "part of life" that everyone must go through. So what's the big deal, I say facetiously.

If someone killed me and I was immediately in eternal, infinite bliss, I doubt that I would mind it at all, to say the least. No, I'd be thanking God.

If Almighty God appeared to you personally while you were out walking, and commanded you by name to do a thing, it would be pretty darn impressive, don't you think? That's what happened to Moses, according to the Biblical account. It would be pretty hard to ignore that.

Jesus said that hell was created for the devil and his angels, not humans. Satan and his legion have no opportunity to repent and submit to God. Their fate is sealed.
You, as a human being, have the opportunity as long as you live to repent and turn to God. Your fate is in your own hands. If you continue to stiff-arm God as a fictional nonentity, then how do you expect him to treat you when you appear before him on your last day?
You had better be right about Him.

Eric wrote:
"On God commanding the killing of innocents:
If God commanded it, there are three important poin