If you say, “because God is great and fine and dandy, and because the world will be a better place because everyone plays by God’s rules,” I’ll say this: “Why should I believe that?”

Why do you believe that God’s morals (from the Bible, or from whichever link on the chain between you and God you think they came) are “real” and “true” and “effective?”

Now, really think about that before you answer it. What I mean here is, why do you believe the morals in the Bible? Why do you think they are objective and true?

Should you say, “because it’s the word of God,” then I ask this: Why do you believe it’s the word of God?

And given that you do believe it is the word of God, why do you believe that it’s right? What about the nature of this “word of God,” given that we have no actual physical “proof” of God’s existence one way or the other, causes you to believe it’s more well-founded than the moral code of an atheist?

What I mean is….if we assume God is real, how do you know He is right? Because he’s God? What about that makes him right, or objective? Where can you point to show me his “rightness” or “objectivity?” If you believe it on your own, that’s fine. But you assert that you are bent on legislating this morality; thus, you require a method by which to “prove” it to other people. If we take away the presupposition (because it is just that, it’s a presupposition, not a fact) that God is real, and that he is just right because he’s God, then on what grounds can you say that he’s right?

…all of which is basically a way of saying, “I’m not a robot.” I think logically, yeah, but not 100%. I don’t think anybody does. I also don’t think anybody’s going to say, “Well, since God’s not watching….hmm, what’s the most atrocious act I can perform?”

People—even stupid ones—believe in what they’re doing. Nobody performs atrocious acts for the sake of being atrocious; we perform seemingly random acts of kindness because there is a positive sensation accompanying that kind of behavior—it’s a pleasant feeling to know that you are in the company of gratitude—but there is no immediate motivation to do “evil.” There would have to be some intervening physical factor, like hunger or desire, to motivate someone to do that. All “morality” is is the little voice that steps in at this point, the voice of reason that says, “hey, think about the long term. If you do that, then….[insert rationalization here].”

All of which makes my point that morality is no less dangerous even if it’s taken from Christianity. Because with solid, unmoving guidelines comes the justification of atrocious acts based on technicality. True “morality” must contain a spirit, as well—you know, like when they say, “that doesn’t actually break the rules of the game, but it breaks the spirit?” The “spirit” here meaning the intention, the atmosphere. If your morals never change or waver to account for individual situations, then there will inevitably be situations in which technicalities arise that can be taken advantage of.

P.S. Allow me to clarify a little. You seem to think that, just because I have no religious motive to avoid killing people, that I will do so without hesitation—that I need to be “held back” somehow from doing this for no reason, that deep down I actually want to do this, and that I just need some reason to cling to not to do it. And what I say is, if you know someone who does need to be “held back” from doing something like that, you don’t have an immoral person—you have a crazy person.

I don’t always avoid them. I just generally don’t like them. However, I’m known to dabble in them from time to time, when I feel like stating facts isn’t going to do good one way or the other.

And no, Christians haven’t been “mean” to me. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. But I have been discouraged when dealing with many of them ever since I heard a group of them describe science and rationality as “the beast of logic” that seeks to “taint the holy waters” of religious morality, as well as every single time when I turn on the TV and see these Christian folks talking about how people like me (who’ve never even met most of them) are somehow trying to destroy them and their morality. Oh, and the whole “being gay is bad, even though being gay in itself doesn’t actually do anything bad” thing kind of pisses me off.

***Why do you make this accusation when you have not established that it is a valid accusation. Remember an assertion is not an argument nor evidence or a statement of fact. You’d have to show this was true and why before we could argue it. Until that point I tend to just treat it as rhetoric.

Because I am just so blown away by the aggressive nature of the idea that Christian morality is somehow “more right” than any other way of determining right and wrong—you don’t see an “ad hominem” embedded in there?

Who says Christian morals are right? What, in the objective world, can you show me to prove that they are right? Because “God said so?” How do you know that’s “right?” You don’t; you “trust” that it is. And I’m sorry but your trust is not a good enough foundation on which for me to establish such pathetic “morals” as “being gay is bad because God said so” (for example).

*** Why do you make THIS accusation out of the blue. Actually the argument at some point seemed to be that Atheism lent ITSELF to perfecting the Race, certainliy not Christianity (as we are the ones accused of pandering to the weak). And the root question is WHY was Hitler wrong as you imply, if there is no absolute morality? And if there is one, why do you get to decide what it is?

Because it is. Someone here used the argument that atheism/science somehow condones racial superiority, and that is simply wrong. It’s a fallacious straw man argument—you won’t find very many people (atheists or otherwise) today who would agree with that. People who believe in such things are the minority in all walks of life, and unsurprisingly, many racist groups are also predominantly Christian (such as the KKK, which we get a lot of down here). So don’t try to say that just because I’m an atheist I’m somehow obligated to explain to you why I don’t believe in killing to purify the race (even though I already have, and you just didn’t like my answer). I don’t need a reason not to be a douche-bag; that’s just the way I think, and frankly, I don’t care if it’s good enough for you.

You know, this is why I included the part about Christians being afraid of other types of “non-blind-followership” morality; it’s not that it’s any less sound than Christian “morality,” it’s that there’s no physical way to “prove it.” If we all just agree that we’re supposed to trust the man in the sky, then that’s somewhat of a common ground, but it’s still nowhere near “objective.” It’s just a given that we’re supposed to accept without examining, something of which I am not particularly fond—what’s that? I can’t prove why I feel the way I do? Then it must not be right. I love my girlfriend? Well, I guess I can’t prove it, so it’s not right, then. We’re not together based on Biblical principles, so I guess that’s not “right,” huh? I don’t feel the urge to go around commiting extreme, atrocious acts just for the hell of it (I mean, why not, I’m an atheist, no repercussions, right?), but I can’t tell give you a solid reason that anybody would abide by, so it’s not right?

The fallacy of the Christian “moral” argument is that it’s not any easier to solidify than personal morality. I can explain my personal feelings, and you’re no more obligated to hold to them (you can just disagree and say, “well, that’s your opinion”). Likewise, I can turn to a Christian and disagree with the idea that I have to trust in a high power and just accept His rules as a source of morality, without question or examination, and say, “well, that’s just the way you feel. I don’t feel that doing that is right.” Do you see my problem?

*** Huh? Are you saying people are not animals? But surely you can’t be serious. Any true evolutionist would realize that humans are merely animals who have evolved in a certain way (brains vs. body). Why treat them any different than another evolved ape? What special rights do they get and why?

Now you’re just being fececious. This argument comes from the ancient, tired assumption that, just because I as an atheist feel no obligation to *not* perform atrocious, extreme crimes on the basis of a God’s command, that I must feel no obligation not to do so at all—that if I have no specific moral identity that says, ‘this is always wrong no matter what,’ then I will just go out and do it whenever.

Most people will tell you that the idea of a brutal murder is disturbing. Few people can listen to the stories of things Hitler did to the Jews without cringing just a little. This is because of a thing called empathy, something that allows us to relate to others in a way that is very, very difficult to explain. It’s not so much science that keeps me from attacking people on a random basis as it is common sense—what need is there for me to kill someone? Right now, none. Even if I were starving; what need is there to kill someone? Sure, it would immediately get me what I want (food), but then I’d just have to do it again later when I needed more. And besides, my goal is to eat, not to kill. So I would only be pressured to kill from duress if someone else decided their life was more important than my food, right?

But then, this goes back to the idea of a common precedent. It’s in the interest of everyone to maintain such precedents as “stealing is wrong,” because if everyone agrees on the same beneficial idea and works towards it, then they will all be there to help each other if and when someone else decides they are exempt from this rule. This is how society functions.

P.S. You do realize that animals all over the world treat their own species differently than the others, don’t you? Do you think there’s some sort of “logical basis” for that? Do you think the animals do so based on “morality?” I don’t. I think it’s instinct.

*** I”m not sure where you get that. Christianity is quite clear that until we are in heaven/the new earth we will never live in harmony due to our sin nature (which you don’t believe in). It’s the atheists and the humanist who say that we can achieve peace in our time. Christians say strive for peace but know that the laws are given to allow us to achieve some modicum of it.

See, the catch is, Christians don’t care about the world in the long term. They think Jesus is on his way back, and that he’ll come down and fix everything once all the convertin’s done and all the theocracies are set up. For those of us who don’t believe this, it’s alarming to watch Christians seize power over our governments and, say, march us into illegal wars that destroy our credibility on the world stage. Because these leaders claim to speak for us, as well, and rest assured that they do no such thing.

Atheism (at least, my brand of it) doesn’t believe in achievable “world peace.” But that’s simply due to the variety of human nature; I wouldn’t say humans are “evil” by nature, or “good” by nature. Christianity is a good example here—Christians try to say that if you’re Christian, you’re good, and if you’re not, you’re bad (by nature)…and yet, there are Christians who do both good and bad. This is because of the nature of the person, the predisposition—if you are a “good” person by nature (whatever your idea of good may be), then you will search for things in the Bible that will help you accomplish good, and you will search for a positive message. If you are “bad” by nature, you will use the religion as a tool to accomplish political goals and make money. Same circumstance + different person = different result.

So why strive for peace, then, if it’s not possible? Simple. Social interaction and diplomacy is an ongoing job, because people are constantly taking action and communicating with one another; there will never be a day when it’s simply “done” and we have world peace. And yet, I don’t think anyone would disagree that an unsteady world is better than one that has fallen apart altogether. I’d rather live in this world (as run-to-the-ground as it is) than one full of Christian barbarians who execute homosexuals and fornicators.

*** But this is patently false and if I may be so bold this shows that you really have no concept of true Christian theology. Sounds like you got all your info from atheists or something.

Ah, but this is where you are wrong! Everything I accuse Christians of here is taken from conversations (or television broadcasts) with/from Christians themselves! Things I would never have thought to accuse anyone of on my own, things that literally make me hang my head in shame for humanity whenever I hear them.

The Christian theology clearly says the following: The laws are given for our safety and are not capricious.
For your analogy this would be closer: The Creator has 2 options.
a. Restrict us from doing anything stupid. E.g. Cover all the 110AC covers and make sure no power tools are in the house. That seems to be your option apparently. Do you really want that?
b. Allow us full freedom but alert us to the dangers: Here is how these things work, beware, don’t stick a fork in the socket. Use these general principles to determine the details.

Ah, so you value consistency over substance? That explains a lot. The reason Christians value their “morals” is because they are consistent; they are “finished,” somebody else did the work to figure them out, and now one need only sit back and apply the results where necessary. Is that it?

I don’t value consistency over substance. I realize that there are moral gray areas, places where the Bible’s vague sense of “morality” is tested at length. It’s situations like these for which I seek real answers to morality—and again, that’s an ongoing job. There will never be a day when humankind as a whole will say, “oh, we’ve figured it out! We’ve figured out everything about morality!” To do so would defy the very nature of the task of discerning morality—morality concerns itself with conditions, with specific situations and with the actions of others, all of which are in constant flux. So to say that your “morals” are valuable just because they are consistent is a fallacy; you need a better reason.

Tim, I found it interesting that much of your post avoids the blog issues and seem to make some apriori assumptions. Let me address those first. For example you said:

1. “And I think what troubles Christians the most about this ideology is that it doesn’t allow grounds on which to justify forcing other people to think the way you do; if someone isn’t willing to try and work for their share, then they don’t get one.”
***Why do you make this accusation when you have not established that it is a valid accusation. Remember an assertion is not an argument nor evidence or a statement of fact. You’d have to show this was true and why before we could argue it. Until that point I tend to just treat it as rhetoric.

2. “Killing people to “perfect” the race (i.e. Hitler-ism) is stupid. I’m sorry, but if you think otherwise by any standard, even God’s, then you’re an idiot.”
*** Why do you make THIS accusation out of the blue. Actually the argument at some point seemed to be that Atheism lent ITSELF to perfecting the Race, certainliy not Christianity (as we are the ones accused of pandering to the weak). And the root question is WHY was Hitler wrong as you imply, if there is no absolute morality? And if there is one, why do you get to decide what it is?

3. ” Why would people exist if they were merely meant to be killed and harvested by other people? Why not make such people animals, instead? ”
*** Huh? Are you saying people are not animals? But surely you can’t be serious. Any true evolutionist would realize that humans are merely animals who have evolved in a certain way (brains vs. body). Why treat them any different than another evolved ape? What special rights do they get and why?

4. ” You make it out as though, if society were completely Christian, everybody would live in perfect harmony and nobody would ever have sorrow or conflict or disagreement. ”
*** I”m not sure where you get that. Christianity is quite clear that until we are in heaven/the new earth we will never live in harmony due to our sin nature (which you don’t believe in). It’s the atheists and the humanist who say that we can achieve peace in our time. Christians say strive for peace but know that the laws are given to allow us to achieve some modicum of it.

5. “About the device with the buttons….the Christian analogue here is like a meager instruction manual that tells you not to ever touch a certain few buttons, because those are “bad” buttons. Those buttons exist, but they should never be used; they are only there to tempt you from pushing them, and for no other reason”
*** But this is patently false and if I may be so bold this shows that you really have no concept of true Christian theology. Sounds like you got all your info from atheists or something.
The Christian theology clearly says the following: The laws are given for our safety and are not capricious.
For your analogy this would be closer: The Creator has 2 options.
a. Restrict us from doing anything stupid. E.g. Cover all the 110AC covers and make sure no power tools are in the house. That seems to be your option apparently. Do you really want that?
b. Allow us full freedom but alert us to the dangers: Here is how these things work, beware, don’t stick a fork in the socket. Use these general principles to determine the details.

If I have time I’ll address other issues later.

Neil

The most ironic part of the whole idea is that, once you understand it, it’s delightfully simple….and easy.

Likewise, Christianity emphasizes suffering—if it makes me feel bad, then it must be more virtuous than if it makes me feel good. The harder it is, the more moral it becomes, essentially. Whereas a complete lack of an all-encompassing moral center would, on the surface, appear to endorse the idea that the easier the better, since there will be no afterlife in which to be compensated for my suffering. Right? Again, I accuse you of being shortsighted here; in the long-term, it’s actually easier to establish some moral code and follow it than it is to simply do “random acts of dumbness.” Likewise, Christianity becomes less appealing once one realizes that it’s entirely possible to be “moral” as well as live a life relatively free from suffering—not entirely, of course, as suffering is a part of life; things must be done, work must be finished, and basic necessities must be acquired….but this is simply the way the universe works. Change (and the desire for change) is a part of existence; without change, there would be nothing at all, not even thought or movement. Everything would be perfect, perfectly still, and it would never have to change at all—for to do so would disturb its perfection.

Killing people to “perfect” the race (i.e. Hitler-ism) is stupid. I’m sorry, but if you think otherwise by any standard, even God’s, then you’re an idiot. But what you can’t argue with is that people of all races, all creeds, both genders, and all walks of life are here. They exist. So what do we do with them? How do we decide how to deal with them? If you go around killing them to suit your own goal, you’re only thinking about yourself, and you’re ignoring the world around you, which makes no sense—so what if you live, and you kill others around you in the process? Why, to extend your own life for a little bit without having to do extra work (that doesn’t involve killing or “wrong”ing someone)? That’s silly, and I don’t think you’ll find many who disagree. People are here—argue for whatever reason you want, “because God put them here,” “because genetics made them,” whatever. The point is, they’re here.

My “morality” (I hate that word, because the Christians have stolen it and distorted it beyond salvaging) comes from the here and now. What can we do with what we have, that will make use of all of the parameters of our world, that will use them in the way that the clues of nature intend for them to be used? Why would people exist if they were merely meant to be killed and harvested by other people? Why not make such people animals, instead? We don’t seem to feel the same remorse from killing animals. It doesn’t make sense, then, to say that a person should be killed solely for the benefit of another.

Think of it like this; you have a control panel in front of you. You have all of these buttons; you could just press a few, figure out a basic sequence that does something cool, and stick with that forever and ever, until you die. Or, you could learn more about it as you use it, make a few mistakes here and there, and try to learn how to use all of its functions in a way that will make use of this device ultimately easier than it would have been, had you just stuck with that simple formula.

Here is where you say, “but isn’t it just easier to stick with the easy formula? What motivation do you have to work on learning the rest of it?”

Simple; it gets even easier if you do that. Ultimately, it’s easier to have principles than to pursue barbaric anarchism. You Christian folk make it out like, if somebody didn’t tell us what to do, we’d all go crazy and become sodomites. You make it out as though, if society were completely Christian, everybody would live in perfect harmony and nobody would ever have sorrow or conflict or disagreement. Except, of course, that could only happen in a perfect world, devoid of human imperfection—even in a world of only Christians, you would inevitably have the outcasts, the “false Christians” (to use the popular Christian buzzword), who would “succumb to the temptations of the world” (as we have now) and do “evil.” That’s why you have laws in the first place, right? To draw the line? What good is a line that nobody’s wiling to cross?

It seems your criticism of the non-Christian sense of morality is rather short-sighted. Maybe you should think it over a little more?

We’re clear, like I said… just point it out. which you did.

“All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.”

I respect where you are coming from on that angle… however, I ask you to check yourself here. Just do a little introspection before you respond, lol! None of those man made gods or deities have laws universally written on our hearts that divides their behavior into two camps, productive and unproductive. If it is unproductive… well, what are they doing? this is where the clarity of moral principles comes in, they are either right or wrong.

“There are thousands of Gods. You feel happy to dismiss all as mythology, figments of man’s imagination, apart from your own.

That’s fine, but you can’t then say “Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.

All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.

“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.

So tell me, does that apply to people dismissing ALL Gods, or just your own?

Scientism is a meaningless term. If you want to dismiss the evidence then you’ve either got the information to falsify the science or you haven’t. I suspected your knowledge or the way science works because a few posts back you made it clear you didn’t even understand the term ‘falsify’.

I haven’t got time to rehash it all over again. Just re-read it.

Me: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist.” In other words, Zeus.

You: “No you did, and have not… at all.”

So what did you mean by ‘You have not… at all”? I DID give you an examples of something you were able to say categorically doesn’t exist. Zeus.

well I am certainly not going engage in a futile debate of what science is to you, there is and has been only one… and it is what it is. There is science and scientism… all of the information you have supplied in this thread to support your arguments errs clearly on the side of the latter, which is fine we all expect that, but it doesn’t make it evidentially correct.

“So why, when I said this: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist,” did you reply this: “No you did, and have not… at all.”

I was only responding to what your claim of what may exist to you to challenge what the Christian places their faith in. I believe I was quite consistent there. If not please let me know where I dropped the ball and I’ll make it clear for you.

No, that is how science works.

“I have been unwaivering in my emphatic acknowledgment that Zeus is an irrefutable figment of man’s imagination.”

So why, when I said this: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist,” did you reply this: “No you did, and have not… at all.”

Don’t even go there… I have been unwaivering in my emphatic acknowledgment that Zeus is an irrefutable figment of man’s imagination.

“OK, do you have a degree in any of the biological sciences?”

I went through medical school and a couple years into my residency before I had finally decided medicine wasn’t really what I was passionate about. There, now you a little more about myself… and I’ll tell you this as biology and Chemistry major, you believe what is convenient for you accept - that is the law of man;s behavior. So it is irrelevant to to make blind consensus arguments levying that as a potential reason someone should just simply accept what you say. Today it is plainly evident that academia has their own agenda, and anyone not on board is going to kind it very hard work in those ranks.

“Right - that IS how science works you know? Got a better method?”

Wrong, That is how scientism works… it is nothing more that propaganda leveraged in the name of “science” with the sole goal of advocating a social position or lifestyle. The more “scientists” that agree means it must be a “scientific” fact - right? Wrong… Science is what is has always been, the pursuit of validating hypothesis through what can be plainly observed and/or proven through analysis of empirical evidence. Consensus doesn’t make anything more or less valid unless being compared to something else more or less credible. Not where atheists in science are concerned, they have infected academia specifically to scew the “consensus” of those who agree with their social agenda or ideals and pawn them off as fact to support how they want to live and call anyone else who disagrees a religious fanatic. That is rank propagandizing and is that is plain and simple.

OK, do you have a degree in any of the biological sciences?

“is tantamount to saying every Nazi scientists doing experiments in the name of the ethnic cleansing was validated and sanctioned “scientific” research because every scientists agree on what was being done.”

No it isn’t. All scientists dismiss what the Nazi ’scientists’ did, which had its basis in superstition, not science.

“No, you are reaching for consensus”
Right - that IS how science works you know? Got a better method?

You: “No you did, and have not… at all.”

So you DON’T categorically say Zeus doesn’t exist? Make up your mind!

“…But you were basically saying that it was arrogant simply because no man knows everything and so cannot make such a definitive statement.”

Why can’t a clear thinking person make an absolutely accurate and factual statement about the limits of man’s knowledge? It is a fact, man is not omniscient. We do not posses infinite knowledge of the universe… I know it is not politically correct to say that, but you seemed to be governed by those self imposed limits, not myself.

“… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist.”

No you did, and have not… at all.

“…And if you’re going down that path, you are rejecting peer-reviewed scientific evidence for natural selection.”

I never digressed, this is a different line of thinking right here, but I already mentioned to you earlier in this thread that I conceded on the basis that certain elements of natural selection may be valid because they have universal biblical dynamics in them. Creation science, Intelligent Design, and Darwinian naturalism all have varying applications of the same hypothesis.

“…I don’t call you arrogant for it, though many might, given that you are stating that you have a much better understanding of biology than tens of thousands of scientists who’ve spent their lives researching the subject”

Well, you don’t know my backgroud… so I wouldn’t’ really go down that road, though I understand the rational for using it. That is tantamount to saying every Nazi scientists doing experiments in the name of the ethnic cleansing was validated and sanctioned “scientific” research because every scientists agree on what was being done. No, you are reaching for consensus… just because a number of people do a given thing doesn’t make it right, or factual. That is every liberal tactic of persuasion, you don’t need to resort to that, you’re smarter than that. Try not to paint such broad strokes… that you cannot know for certain can back up your position my friend.

If you are NOW saying it’s arrogant of atheists to reject evidence that YOU personally find convincing, fair enough. But that’s a different thing.

And if you’re going down that path, you are rejecting peer-reviewed scientific evidence for natural selection. I don’t call you arrogant for it, though many might, given that you are stating that you have a much better understanding of biology than tens of thousands of scientists who’ve spent their lives researching the subject.

TDR, I was just answering YOUR post of “June 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am:

“…intelligent people scratching their heads at the unmitigated arrogance of some minds out there [collectively] that can make and then project as if true such a bold claim as there being no God.”

I thought your post was a bit of a diversion from the thread topic, but I’m an obliging person and so I addressed your point.

“There are thousands of Gods. You feel happy to dismiss all as mythology, figments of man’s imagination, apart from your own. ”

The whole purpose here is to draw a distinction between Divine agency - the basis for our innate awareness of right and wrong, and human inspiration the system of convenience based moral awareness. Not to slam anyone - nor reduce individual/personal significance, but I feel you are loosing sight of the nature of the thread. No one here is calling you out. You are obviously very bright, and intelligent. We [actually] care enough about you to continue this thread - ad museum. But having said that, cultures based on myth and imagination share a common thread, when they cater to self indulgence and that indulgence takes center stage over practical governance, balance, and self-control, they [hmmm… go figure] disappear, ever thought to wonder why?

Secular sociologists and anthropologists, as well as zoologists will all conclude when self indulgence takes center stage, the culture looses its value to itself and devolves, then disappears, this is a matter for historical fact; the Sodomites & Gomorrahans, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans all succumbed to having their own way, and that is a matter of historical record. Secular minds have a funny way of conveniently dismissing that in favor of vociferous finger pointing - all in vain though, majorities still don’t buy into their arguments, but I respect where your thoughts came from but the empirical evidence that is hard for seculars to refute is that every culture that Christians inhabited was vastly improved where they allowed to practiced their values - thus the point of this thread. In this nation, we didn’t have to be “allowed” to practice anything, they are incorporated into the very fabric of what we are. Europe didn’t have that grounding… but do they still know better, yes.

“That’s fine, but you can’t then say “Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.

All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.”

Well the assertion is still logical, no man has that knowledge, thus we rely on evidence coupled with faith for inspiration. God’s Word supplies all mankind with what we need for guidance, a sense of worth and purpose… and faith by not answering ALL the question about the who, what and why? with them all answered, why have faith? We still have evidence in us, in nature to support what would be considered gross claims by secular special interests looking to forward their own agendas. Who in themselves have no answer for this in their own self-propagated theories and postulations.

One such view has a self-purposed and molded esteem based on topical moral affiliations aimed at attracting one’s attention with a projected image of value, but based entirely man-made objectives and enforced by the contrived nature of political correctness’s hypocritical moral leveraging for value in the minds and hearts of those who cannot quantify it is a value to practice and above all base law on.

The other is innate, we know because we know better. Practicing them doesn’t make us Holy, but does make us able to survive with other people with a high degree of cohesiveness, does it mean wars will never occur? No, not at all… does it mean perfect harmony exists? Well that is a different question, again, morals are about how man relates to man, religion is about how man relates to God. Secular special interests intensionally try to blur the lines between morality and religion all to leverage their own arguments about not having any of it present in law or in the public square, but resident in their won practices is nothing better - only convenient.

People who are ignorant to that fact fall for it simply out of a lack of knowledge, that reveals an agenda and tactics of personal persuasion at work rather than that of letting them work themselves out in the marketplace of free ideas… not ideals, to minds that know better call it propagandistic.

So tell me, does that apply to people dismissing ALL Gods, or just your own?

There are thousands of Gods. You feel happy to dismiss all as mythology, figments of man’s imagination, apart from your own.

That’s fine, but you can’t then say “Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.

All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.

“If that applies to my atheism then it also applies to you saying the following:

“Zeus is a figment of man’s imagination regardless of it predating the Iliad or not. “

Surely you’re not attempting to incinuate that Zeus is anythig more that mythology?

If that applies to my atheism then it also applies to you saying the following:

“Zeus is a figment of man’s imagination regardless of it predating the Iliad or not. “

“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.

“You then claimed you knew Zeus didn’t exist because he’s a character in the Iliad. I pointed out that he was a worshipped God prior to the writing of the Iliad. Then the conversation ended.”

I am sorry I missed this somehow… I’d have jumped on this right away if I had saw it straight way. Zeus is a figment of man’s imagination regardless of it predating the Iliad or not. The fact is our sense of moral acuity doesn’t stem from the writings of Homer, and the basis for them predate even he. We are bound by the character of God in the placement of these moral burdens on our hearts. Not so with the laws of man themselves. Some of them transcend the laws of laws of nature to provide a spiritual guidance in our individual lives as to how we are to interact with each other all based on character dynamics of God Himself. We as His creation reflect those when we act on them revealing through a flawed nature than we cannot possibly act on good impulses without a model or standard.

The fact is you seem to be a materialist to which Frank may have been correct in pointing out, if so… you rely on what can manifest itself to your advantage in the natural as the projected reasoning why you refute supernatural influence on man’s morality. But sens what is presented from the mind of man appearing to be [superficially] is a contrived effort at righteousness, and is flawed from the core because it is as selective [who receives this grace and mercy] as it is elective in how you apply it. Rendering it completely subjective and not objective in its proving the same for all without compromise provided you follow its mandates.

The humanistic approach is miry clay at best and its applied morality is entirely subjective in application - this is why people have a problem with it by-in-large. Reprising the currency analogy again, it is a kin to saying “…my dollar [or pound note sterling] is what I feel it is because I need it be, not that I have valid reason to substantiate such… just that it fits what I am doing for now, and I need it to be worth what I claim - and you need to value it for what I said its worth, even though I have nothing of universal value to back its value to you - but only my feelings that is is a value to prop it up.”

Well… if that is they atheists best argument [reduced] it’s a hard flung battle right there.

I wasn’t aware I was attempting to do any such thing.

“Your Goldeen Rule was inpsired by Levitical Law”

It’s arisen in many different cultures. We’ve no reason to believe that Pittacus, Isocrates, Lao-tzu, Confucius, Plato etc got the idea from the Old Testament.

http://www.secularhumanism.org.....goldenrule

I have to give you an A for effort of that one… but it still doesn’t predate Christ of the Holy Scriptures - Jesus always referred to the scriptures as basis for His message of grace, look here in the Levitical Laws of the Jews int he Pentateuch written by Moses:

“…’You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.? 1440 -1400 B.C. The Lord God through Moses

Who is Jesus? He is God incarnate… again, man of him own nature could not devise such a rule of our nature - it was inspired by God for our best interests to coexist together, and most of us can’t do those. These Levitical Laws predate even your best sophic minds of the day. Good shot though, but you’ll never show man’s nature and tendency for evil to trump the inspiration or motivation to do good in and of itself…

“…Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. ” James 1:17

Compassion, understanding… concern… love - all inspired by God, therefore anything emanating from that gift He received the credit and the Glory for - because we all know we couldn’t author it of our own accord. Summary: Your Goldeen Rule was inpsired by Levitical Law and infact did not predate Christ nor Scripture.

Resolved.

And many others.

I said it predates scripture. I didn’t say it doesn’t appear in scripture. I came to that conclusion because the idea of the Golden Rule was discussed before scripture. By the Greeks for example. Therefore, it predates scripture!

“The Golden Rule predates Christ. As you say, nothing new under the sun.”

How do you come to that conclusion? It is Scripture:

‘Honor your father and [your] mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” Matthew, 19:19

This is the Scripture, now the burden on you my friend is to prove who said it before Him - you won’t find one ancient Egyptian talisman, or tea sipping Buddha with those words having been uttered on record. The structure of the old anecdote “do unto others as you would have them do unto you…” follows the form of scripture its model in Scripture perfectly.

The Golden Rule predates Christ. As you say, nothing new under the sun.

You don’t need to apologise for typos. As long as I can understand your post, it’s fine.

“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.

You then claimed you knew Zeus didn’t exist because he’s a character in the Iliad. I pointed out that he was a worshipped God prior to the writing of the Iliad. Then the conversation ended.

“Atheist just means you don’t believe there’s a God. It doesn’t mean anything else. I’m glad to have been able to correct this misconception!”

No misconception… just intelligent people scratching their heads at the unmitigated arrogance of some minds out there [collectively] that can make and then project as if true such a bold claim as there being no God. Being intellectually honest you have to look at the word for what it meas first. The atheist has one fundamental argument that saws the legs off its namesake right up front and casts them in a rather disingenuous light from square one.

In the Greek language when the prefix “a” is put before a word in means - no. The “theos” which is the Greek word for God [subsequently where we get our word for the study of God - theology] the two together: “a” [meaning no] and “theos” [meaning God] - “no” God, well how can such a grand claim be made? Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.

Agnostics have a more intellectually honest disposition, the prefix “Ag” isn’t has strong as “a” by itself… the prefix “Ag” means “without” then the word “gnosis” which simply means “knowledge”; the two together mean “without- knowledge”, now take that on its face value, it is a more reasonable position to take. In other words, they have no knowledge of God because He has not been made real to them, not in relationship nor nature has God been revealed to them. This argument is an intellectually honest position to make - and Christians completely empathize with that. We recall our unregenerate nature and can understand that completely.

“Google the Golden Rule, read what the great philosophers had to say on this subject”

Where do you think the philosophers got it from? Christ spoke it Himself… Solomon said it best “there is nothing new under the sun” the atheist thinking themselves a law unto themselves is age old my friend.

Please pardon any typo’s in advance… thank you and blessings.