A lot of big words for Dawkins. He feel so strongly about this, one would swear he beliefs there is a God. (Maybe his got a little secret). I guess if your mind works like his, it is okay to attack things you do not belief in. I guess he always wanted to beat up his imaginary friends when they stole his moms cookies - even though he knew they where not there.
@TheLogicalTheist A more useful read is The Devil's Delusion by the agnostic David Berlinsky, his genius lies in his ability to communicate in layman’s terms the essence of what science claims to know about the natural world. But in exposing the considerable absence of real knowledge (and answers) pertaining to the great timeless questions Berlinsky, in effect, calls science’s bluff and unmasks the visage of atheism.
@heinno777 Further, gaps in science is not proof of a god. As Ive said before, as it does not seem to sink into your head, lack of an explanation does NOT mean you get to insert whatever the hell you want and call it true.
@heinno777 I have not read the God Delusion - the reviews was too poor - calling it an rhetorical hypothesis, unsophisicated and really an embarrassment to a very smart man.
@heinno777 Awesome, you just described yourself. You know you are wrong, yet continue to argue. You are intellectually dishonest, whether you know it or not, proof is that you continue to misunderstand evolution and refuse to attempt to fulyl understand it, instead I've got to explain the very basics of it to you over and over.
@mfunke - before one can take your comments about someone else seriously, it is expected that you must know the individual. If I make statements re your personality, but have never met you, how much weight does my comments carry?
If you read a book about a person's actions, you can judge his character. That's how you judge someone's character: by the actions. Unless the book is not true. He's assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is.
Like I said, I don't know Sauron, but torturing Smeagol and trying to bring darkness to Middle Earth was a sign of a bad character. I call him evil.
Am I wrong to call him evil? Should I get to know him first?
Do you think the devil is evil? Do you know him personally?
@mfunke your logic is almost sound, I can almost agree with what you are saying, but I would like to point out that difference is that Dawkins promotes Atheism - therefore it seems his attack on God is illogical. I never had a campain to try and disproof Sauron, so me calling him evil is not illogical in a sense. But your point is well taken, it is possible to bestow characteristics on a ficticious character, in that sense, and in that sense alone, I am wrong.
Well, maybe you would take the streets and shout "Sauron is just a fictional character" if the people who believed Sauron is real were trying to tell you who you can or can't have sex with, how you can or can't do it, what scientific researches are allowed or not, what recreational drugs you could or couldn't use, etc.
Sauron doesn't like heterosexual sex. From now on, only gay sex is allowed. So said Sauron.
Wouldn't you try to knock some sense into these people?
@mfunke I said you are right - it is possible to assign characteristics to a fictional character. But here is the point I am trying to make: If Dawkins really believe there is no God, then he should not be bothered by it; it is just a character in a story. I do not go out and tell the world that Sauron is evil; people would think that I am nuts. Dawkins believe that humans establish their own morals, so why does it bother him that a ficticious character "dictates" morals? unless he is a Satanist
I think you missed my point. An atheist, by definition, is standing against a position. Theists try to interfere on other people's lives by dictating laws. For someone who doesn't share their beliefs, it's reasonable to stand against it and ridicule them. No one bothers with Sauron because no Sauron believers try to create laws based on Lord of the Rings.
He's is not saying he's evil because he believes god's evil. He's saying to show that the god character is man made and flawed.
@mfunke - okay, I see your point now. Have you thought why humans would create a god that is bad? Why would they phantum history that points to all of their god's flaws? If I was to create a religion, I would create the most moral God possible. There would be no point for creating "false" history to point out god's flaws - it would make your proposed religion much less desirable.
First, they wouldn't knowingly create a god, but attribute human qualities to phenomena they didn't understand. And the growth of myth. Ultimately, you'd create a "bad" god because there is something called moral development, that morality evolves with time. The god they created was not bad according to the people from the time it was created. It was the best god they could come up with. But for us, who have a more developed moral standard, he looks like a capricious malevolent god.
@mfunke - I do not agree, you cannot write something unknowingly - you need to know what and why you are writing something - To me the Bible is very much structured and formulated with the idea to "create" a god. Remember the Christian religion and thinking is build on the teachings of the Bible. Like it or not, God's character is not bound by the laws or morals HE created for us - HE has no one to answer to - he does not have to be good (judged by our morals) to be God.
Which is EXACTLY what Dawkins is saying, though he means it another way. God, by our moral standards, is EVIL. If he was real, our morality wouldn't come from him. It could, to be fair, be dictated by him, but would anything god tells us be automatically moral? Is morality just god's subjective view?
Does it basically boil down to "Do as I say, not as I do"?
that is a lot of big words for Dawkins! One would swear he beliefs there is a bad God out there! But if your logic works as his, I guess it is okay to attack something you do not belief in.
@heinno777 When other people do believe in it, and force it on others and into classrooms, yes, it is ok to attack ideas, especially creatures you do not exist when others proclaim they do.
Science is athiestic in nature as theres no proof of a god. You give hard evidence, none of the philosophical garbage you are trying to pull, but real, definitive, testable, recreatable evidence that theres some being outside space and time, then science will be diestic.
Hello everybody, check out my videos on how evolution by natural selection has shaped our moral interactions, whether with our family or with those presumably unrelated to us. If a religious zealot asks you where you get your morality, tell them you got your morality from the same place they did: evolutionary history. Natural selection has favored certain behavioral strategies over others. One of the more "optimistic" ones would be our ability to cooperate and collude.
@sweetnluvly07 says: "God have mercy on Richard Dawkins"
Irony is as powerful a literary tool of communication as satire or hyperbole and the like. Though, it seems to me that your use of it here is as trite as it is cliché.
@sweetnluvly07 What you communicate is of little value unless the premise it necessarily relies on as a corollary is valid. In other words, one must first assume that a god exists before the ironic circumstance of a believer calling on this god to supply "mercy" to an atheist can be considered beyond what it is merely fanciful. It is therefore weak, due to the fact that its foundation is weak. You dont come off as clever. And that, I assure you, is putting it lightly.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins say that morals arose because we evolved as social animals. Creatures with more effective social morals tended to be naturally selected. Dawkins and Harris view this socio-evolutionary basis of morality as a sufficient explanation of morals. So if that is true, then evolution has everything to do with our instinctive moral sense.
Evolution is nothing more than our understanding of how life evolved to its present state. Part and parcel with this realization comes too the corollary that suggests our morals evolved along with us. Thus one can presume that much of our moral origins and how we make moral decisions can be gleaned from an understanding of how and why our morals evolved.
Though if one is simply speaking of our subjective application and adherence of and to social morals, a study of history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology appears a more practical path to understanding. I doubt there is much in biology that will tell you why cheating on a math exam is "wrong" (at least not yet). Tradition and the gradual shift of social morays (or the Moral Zeitgeist as discussed by Dr. Dawkins) are key a well.
I know of very few individuals who have or can use biology to guide them morally. But since you broached the possibility, I wonder if you have an example?
I agree it would be foolish to look to nature and evolution in order to learn morals. But Dawkins and Harris argue that our morals are guided by biology and socio-evolutionary history, so in effect they are doing just that.
"But Dawkins and Harris argue that our morals are guided by biology and socio-evolutionary history"
Speaking for Dawkins only, he gives extreme consideration to the shift of the moral zeitgeist as it relates to morals. He does view our current moral state from a perspective of a biologist and is always looking for an evolutionary explanation to flesh out the true cause of any biological phenomenon.
Try to separate the two concepts you appear to be conflating: I"nvestigation of the nature of a mechanism" and "its proper use". Biologist like Dawkins are investigating morality. They make no absolute claims about its use (as scientists). Understand?
Look I pretty much agree with you. And Ive read Dawkins and listened to a lot of his stuff.
Dawkins and Harris argue that morals arose due to socio-evolutionary forces. This implies moral relativism. Dawkins in particular denies that good and evil really exist. Yet both of these guys employ moral realism when they attack the evils of religion". The statement "evil does not really exist" is incompatible with the statement "religious fundamentalism really is evil". Somethings gotta give...
Well I dont remember Dawkins using the word "evil". Hitchens does and I disagree with his use of it. I never use the word unless im being ironic and I only use it to reference religion (hence the irony). The connotation attached to the word is theological and confuses communication in my opinion. Though you must realize that Dawkins' or Harris' opinion is his opinion and does not have to reflect that of all other Atheists and biologists. What point are you looking to make?
Dawkins does use the word "evil", but that is getting off topic. The point I am making is that without an objective moral reality morals reduce to mere opinion.
"The point I am making is that without an objective moral reality morals reduce to mere opinion."
One does not need to know the exact mathematical trajectory and dimensions of the sphere to throw a good football pass. Likewise, we dont have to fully understand the intricate details of our moral code to use it. In the mean time philosophy, psychology, sociology and even biology (to name a few) are discovering more about our moral origins and dynamics each day.
Whats this obsession with finding an absolute objective moral standard? What does that even mean? I doubt such a thing exists; and if it does, its probably quite simple like: stay alive or something. Boring if you ask me. But I tire of being on the defensive. Lets have it out: What is the point you really want to make? Forget Dawkins. Do you disagree with the theme of my video? Lets start there.
nonsence. yes there is some relativism in it, but not to a degree where, raping, slaughtering, human sacrifice, mass murdering could be justified in any case.
It is not "foolish" to look to nature to glean an understanding of our morals. We as well our morals derived from nature. It is important to understanding the nature of a thing so that we may improve it or direct it for the greater good (whatever that may be). Dawkins and other biologist are simply trying to learn the nature of reality as all scientist do. The origins and dynamics of our morals are not exempt...nor should they be
It's truly sad that Dawkins is completely blind to the fact that his argument about God's immorality has absolutely no foundation in an atheistic universe. His whole argument assumes that there does indeed exist an absolute standard of what is right and what is wrong by which God's actions can be judged. Yet if there is no god, no such standard exists. And if there is a God then He is the one who sets the standards. His entire argument evaporates upon a moments careful inspection.
Why are you assuming that a god is the only one who would be able to give an absolute standard of right and wrong?
And: Does Dawkins's argument really assume that there is an ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong? A standard relative to our feelings and moral intuitions as they have evolved would suffice, wouldn't it?
Thats what Jesus does. He dangles the ice cream in front of us, but gives us free will just 2 make it interesting (for him), but then says, "U better love me cuz if ya dont, Im gonna shove this bowl of broken glass down your throat!"
This god is utterly insane! Glad he's not real!
Yahweh kills your wife, your kids, even the goldfish, but Jesus...he's the sleeper! Meek & mild Jesus says "love & worship me...or I will follow U after death & torture your soul forever, but I love U."
Being skeptical isn't denying something, it's seeking the truth in something and is, therefore, probably no different for any practising Christian. Praise God Obama is not a cynic, like most Atheists.
The mother is holding the ice cream "and" the bowl of glass. What kind of parent would present that danger 2 their child as an option. But jesus is saying "if U don't do exactly as I say, I will make U eat the glass!"
If U dont see this in the analogy, please explain Y U cant see it.
Would U consider the threat of hell worse than the broken glass? We dont want that option, as fundies like 2 portray, we simply say "Y would U do this?"
J0eck and people like him cannot handle a challenge to their preconceived notions about life. Especially when they have no logical reason to believe them. He is a coward.
"My ways R wise but I know U must learn these things on your own. I'll leave U now but will check in on U occasionally. Just remember, if U don't live responsibly & keep the Golden Rule, U will suffer from your mistakes. But that's how U learn.
I love you & know I can't force you to love me, that would only cause resentment, and then hatred. So I leave it up to you to learn on your own.
My ultimate act of love is in giving U your total freedom.
"well thats how i feel.... so please dont start an arguement with me"
Thats like thrusting at me with your sword and saying "please don't parry". For it to be an argument, you would have to respond to my rebut. Just don't respond and there will be no argument. I always find you people odd. You know...the type that wants to spew their ideas for all to hear, but doesn't have what it takes to defend them. And so, you shamelessly ask that you be heard but not scrutinized. How can you?
The slaughter of animals was amde so that humans could go to heaven.
He gave people choices. He promised he would give us choices. If he didn't, it would simply be slavery.
Why do we kill horrible criminals? Because they do more bad than good. Look through the whole New Testament... God never EVER just killed someone without telling them first that they would be destroyed if they did 'it', normally a terrible sin. He didn't just say 'let's see, who am I going to kill today?'
What did he tell the people of Noah's flood? What did he tell the little children of Sodom and Gomorrah? What did he tell the little children who he sent those bears after when they made fun of the bald guy?
He had warned them before, told them to follow his commands and stop their evil ways. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah had angels come to the city and warn them numerous times. Even before God destroyed the city, he had an angel tell them to leave, for the city would have been destroyed.
God had told His people that if they sinned they would be punished many many times in the law.
Another point I want to make is that it is unfair to say I don't have justification for my moral principles; when God doesn't need an explanation for why what he thinks is right is objectively right. With God things just are right and wrong by virtue of God's nature. I am no less justified in saying based on human nature we can have a meaningful morality.
you're right - god's view of morality is subjective it has to be - god is a lawgiver. but to say that is to try and place yourself on a parallel with god. if you could do that you would, by virtue of your position, become a god. your argument demonstrates exactly why an atheistic worldview of morality is so dangerous, and potentially anarchical. human nature is, at its very core, self-serving.
"human nature is, at its very core, self-serving."
There's a difference between humanity serving and self serving. Anyways if God is perfectly happy without us what more could we give God? Isn't following God self serving since you think it is the best way to be happy and have rewards? All human desire can be broken down to some level of "selfishness."
our very basic, most primal, animal interests are all self-serving - they are not humanity serving.
god is not perfectly happy without us - sin breaks his heart. god loves us and desires that we be reconciled to him. if your son was estranged would you be perfectly happy without him?
i would argue that god should be worshipped simply becuase he is worth it. even if i thought god was going to send my soul to hell for eternity i would worship him anyway - for he is worthy of my praise.
"god is not perfectly happy without us - sin breaks his heart."
So you are a finite god believer or do you think God is infinitely happy? How can you break the heart of someone infinitely happy?
"if your son was estranged would you be perfectly happy without him?"
I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't give a 2 year old a knife knowing that he could freely stab himself, nor would I lock my kids in the basement for not loving me.
i know that god loves us, his work of atonement at calvary and the power of creation are witness to that. as is his command of unconditional love (christianity is, incidentally, the only religion where love is a requirement)
your analogy is flawed - a 2 year old does not have the capacity to understand god's message - you and I do - you have merely chosen to reject it.that's your perogative - god is not going to force you to worship him - for anything to have real value it must be freely chosen
Analogies aren't meant to be precise, but the point was that God more or less let the universe run on the rules of nature, for the most part at least, which inevitably allows a significant advantage and disadvantage for people to be killed and to follow the wrong religion. For example: if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would most likely be a muslim. This isn't a very carrying system since souls are at stake.
no i mean your analogy is so inherently flawed as to render it completely inapplicable to reality. a child cannot comprehend the workings of god and cannot then be punished - jesus taught that they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. we, however, do have a choice. and i've already dealt with that point - various different explanations are offered; but i, unlike many atheists, don't pretend to have the answer to every question - only to the one question that bears any significance whatsoever.
"don't pretend to have the answer to every question "
Bull shit, yes you do. You have an excuse for everything. The atheist is honestly saying they don't know yet don't think there is a god. I simply reject unjustified claims about God. I don't know whether he exists or now as you so arrogantly think it is absolute fact that God loves you and cares if you play with yourself.
really? if that's the case then why was there a six month long internet debate between atheists over whether to put "god doesn't exist" or god "probably doesn't exist" on the side of london buses. christianity, and theism in general is based on a premise that man's knowledge is imperfect. you, however, have hinted on many occassions to your own perfect knowledge (e.g. why should my opinions not have as much validity as those of god). you can't come to know god if you think you yourself are one.
"if that's the case then why was there a six month long internet debate between atheists over whether to put "god doesn't exist" or god "probably doesn't exist" on the side of london buses."
Because some atheists are more sure than others that God doesn't exist. How sure are you that Santa Clause doesn't exist? But you have no evidence that he can't exist. C'mon, the onlyl reason people consider God plausible is because it claims to explain everything that we think is unexplainable.
"more sure than others" - what?im talking about absolute knowledge.its not about being "more sure".its the same world over - the great irony of new atheism is that its adherents cling to its principles with as much tenacity as any religious fundamentalist - proposing all manner of ridiculous theories to back up their beliefs - the swoon theory, zeitgeist etc.and the motivation - what motivation?atheists try to cite morality but w/o religion there is no such thing - read gary woolf's new book.
No atheist claims absolute knowledge there is no God. Some claim it is impossible for certain illogical god's to exist.
"proposing all manner of ridiculous theories to back up their beliefs"
You do the exact same thing with everything but your religion. I don't think you studied Islam exstensively to see if it had any evidence before you rejected it and defaulted with skepticism. I am just as skeptical of Islam as I was as a Christian.
Give me one example, besides your religion, that you accept something important as fact without evidence? That's why you should and must meet the burden of proof. I don't defend evolution by saying ID is ridiculous. Positions have to be defended on their own merit.
there is plenty of evidence to justify the existence of a creator and to testify to the historical accuracy of the bible. if not there would be no such thing as apologetics. you have to take some things on faith. you take evolution on faith - macro-evolution has never been determinatively proved. in my own life - while i came to christianity as a skeptic after having researched many different faiths - the work god has done has made me more certain about that than about anything else in my life.
"there is plenty of evidence to justify the existence of a creator and to testify to the historical accuracy of the bible."
Your definition of evidence must include subjective arguments from incrongulity (or ignorance). Most scholars at some point have something against the bible's accuracy so there is no reason for me to not think you are following your own fringe of believers interpretation of the evidence.
"you take evolution on faith - macro-evolution has never been determinatively proved."
No, I take it as the best explanation of the data which can't be explained nearly as well by any other theory. All the biological trees fit neately in harmony in a way that only is explained by evolution. Even the details of mutation rate and speciation has been demonstrated to back up the plausibility and all the problems you insert God with doesn't negate the evidence that points to common descent.
"you can't come to know god if you think you yourself are one."
I could say you fundies act like an elitest group of God favored people that are above science. You can just give a "possibility" for every objection to your views and say that God can do amazing stuff so that solves the problem. Anybody else has to give instances or empirical evidence to refute strong objections to one's view. But not the religious. God can do anything so you cannot refute my God! What arrogant ignorance.
"fundies" as you call them don't think they are above science. give me one example, just one, of an empirically proven scientific fact that disproves ANY of the core teachings of the bible. just because christianity doesn't conform to your own world view doesn't necessarily mean its wrong. 1000 years ago if you'd told people that man would walk on the moon they would have laughed at you. besides i don't know why it bothers you - if atheism is true you should have no motivation.
"fundies" as you call them don't think they are above science."
Yes, anti-naturalism. I admit I have a bias towards naturalism because it is the only thing I know exists and it has shoved religious superstition time and time again. Why else do you think lots of fundies think the earth is 6000 years old? Also birds came after fish and the sun didn't come after plants came. There is actually a lot of evidence in the Bible that it thinks the earth is young, but science says otherwise.
no man's interpretation of the gospel is perfect, sure there are people like kent hovind who defy science and reason - but the evidence pointing towards a non-literal interpretation of genesis is highly compelling.
I can't say all fundies deny science. Many except it completely. I'm speaking of the majority though. I'm not making a refutation of the Bible, but a response to the claim that atheists are arrogant as if Christians aren't either.
i'd agree to an extent - but when god is really working in your life; and you can see the good that he has done for you and the people around you - other stuff becomes far less important. even supposing you were right, and that god doesn't exist, and the whole things a pack of lies (which i personally could never accept) the nature of christianity makes is something so valuable, something worth living, and even dying for. think about it - many men have lived their lives for less.
"And the whole things a pack of lies (which i personally could never accept)"
I've said the exact same thing to myself before.
"nature of christianity makes is something so valuable, something worth living, and even dying for."
Why? The only think I see worth while is the false hope for eternal life. But that doesn't mean a whole lot to me since I'd rather have 100% of people rest in peace than an elite group of guillable believers go to heaven and the einsteins and the rest go to hell.
that's a pity - the bible teaches us that only the fool hath deceived himself in his heart that there is no god.although there might be times when belief in god seems unlikely to you on the whole a belief in atheism seems far more unlikely. a religion that commands unconditional love for others?that commends virtues like patience, meekness and kindness?that argues for the equality of all men?that encourages forgiveness and charity?one can find such overwhelming beauty in prose in no other book.
"that's a pity - the bible teaches us that only the fool hath deceived himself in his heart that there is no god."
One of the many reasons why it is a false book. Just look around at some of the most intellegent and nobel people that ever lived. Some were atheists or at least deistic or had the wrong religion.
"a belief in atheism seems far more unlikely."
Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief in the god claims. Just as you lack belief in islam. I'm not sure there is no God.
In most parts of the Bible no. I love how you cherry pick all the virtues in the Bible when most of it is pretty violent and a product of a barbaric morality in human history. Jesus did say a lot of good stuff for his times, but he wasn't unique in all that he said. Alsom, I'm not concerned about how good or bad the bible sounds as much as if it has rational justification for being true.
"i'd agree to an extent - but when god is really working in your life;"
How would I know that? All religions have instances of strong subjective feelings. And just because I feel good about a belief, I'm not convinced unless it is proven rationally. No feeling or psychological sensation gives me evidence. Emotions and feelings are the way you react to something and not what that something does in itself. If you have a good grasp of psychology this should be apparent to you.
"i'd agree to an extent - but when god is really working in your life"
How would I know that? All religions have instances of strong subjective feelings and crazy coincidental happenings. And just because I feel good about a belief, I'm not convinced unless it is proven rationally. No feeling or psychological sensation gives me evidence. Emotions and feelings are the way you react to something and not what that something does in itself. You should know this if you understand human pyschology.
No you looked at my analogy from the wrong angle. I was saying that careless things can incidently happen if you allow a kid a knife. Same with a universe where creatures are able to hurt eachother and squelch the truth so that even if you are open to the truth it can be hard for you to be saved.
Just like little children we do stupid things. We don't have the wisdom and power to be responsible for stabbing ourself in eternal torment. We are punished in eternal torment for finite "crimes" where we were born into sin and when many people don't have a clear message of the gospel with evidence to follow it. Furthermore, God created a system where most people go to hell. Even if Jesus clearly told us how we can go to heaven how does he want our greatest good if most of us are going to hell?
don't try and critique the moral law when you don't know what it is. go research it - then come back. the moral law has been around (its proponents suggest) since man first attained conciousness - whether by evolutionary or creative design. the bible is merely the culmination of that moral law. man is merely choosing to disregard the bits he doesn't like - you seem to have a particular fondness for masturbation, for example.
"don't try and critique the moral law when you don't know what it is"
Who's law? On what authority?
"the bible is merely the culmination of that moral law."
Your assertion. Your proof?
"man is merely choosing to disregard the bits he doesn't like"
Like stoning a person to death for working on one of seven arbitrary days we made up (whether or not it is moral now, it was absolutely moral then. Not sure if the Bible takes the absolute in an absolute sense)?
"Like stoning a person to death for working on one of seven arbitrary days we made up"
Yup, but Christians will say there was a new covenant in the New Testament.
But the NT never says to totally disregard the old law and in fact Jesus himself said he didn't come to take away anything from the laws of Moses. Furthermore, even after the disciples may have redifined God's law, they still uphold slavery, silence women in the church, send God's punishment on people all similar to the OT laws.
your ignorance of theology is astounding. jesus came to complete the law of moses not to take away from it. you need to study ANY contemporary, or historical, christian eschatology - go through the westminster confession of faith or something of similar ilk. i could write reams on the issues you've raised here.
"jesus came to complete the law of moses not to take away from it."
Yes, but that doesn't imply deletion. However, I realize the apostles did away with the laws and since they are supposedly inspired from God that would count for your beliefs. However, unless I have a memory lapse I don't remember jesus doing away with all the laws of the OT; in fact he upholded them usually.
"you seem to have a particular fondness for masturbation, for example."
It is my biology. I am fortunate (as are my Great Ape cousins) to have enough intelligence to use my reproductive organs recreationally. Funny that the Bible insists the cosmos has an interest in what I do with said organs?
a third point could be that dawkins is criticising god based upon his own moral law (see the writings of lewis for a beginner's introduction) but if that moral law was put there by a judeo-christian god then it is comparable to criticising the state for the application of a law the state created. god must be good, for without god, the very foundations of "good and bad" would not even exist.
"god must be good, for without god, the very foundations of "good and bad" would not even exist."
If that god is Jehovah, then baby killing is good. Rape is good. War is good. Animal sacrifice is good. Human sacrifice is good. Genocide is good. So I guess you aren't speaking of Jehovah?
"the very reason dawkins believes murder to be wrong is the judeo-christian heritage of his nation"
Ignoring the fact that you imply all European cultures (and the modern day non-Christian world) thought (thinks) murder was (is) ok (now)before the arrival (or eventuality) of Christianity and the Dark Ages, one should find on its face the assertion absurd. The duty in rebutting such a claim seems trifling. But I digress.
ok i'll take this slowly - a man's moral beliefs are, to an extent at least, shaped by the laws or the social heritage of his country - agreed? where else would you obtain your own particular moral values (for example). where those laws prohibit murder (as an absolute) we normatively tend to view murder as wrong. the same is the case for every other country regardless of religion and regardless of the point in history when it happened to exist.
"where those laws prohibit murder (as an absolute) we normatively tend to view murder as wrong."
No country does. Ironically, the countries closest to this stance are the most secular in the world (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc.). But even they allow murder for self-defense or maintain standing armies. No country on earth has an ABSOLUTE pacifist policy: None.
To your assertion: It would have been nearly impossible for us to survive over a 100,000 years without a moral code. How do you propose we did? And if you suggest we had one before your book of horror was completed, then why suggest Dawkins wouldnt know not to kill if not for your book?
"a third point could be that dawkins is criticising god based upon his own moral law (see the writings of lewis for a beginner's introduction)"
I have read Lewis. You don't have to know a straight line in order to know a crucked line. You can realize one line is better than the other and the better one you call a line. But that is besides the point. He views morality different than the atheist so it is no wonder why that argument would be persuasive to theists and not to atheists.
i was a skeptic at best - it persuaded me. and i was only raising the argument because our atheist friend above seems to have EXACTLY the same view of a common-sense morality akin to all humankind. as do many of the atheists i have deabted on youtube - where does that leave your argument now? as for your straight/crooked line argument - how could you possibly even know what the line looks like if you've never studied it for yourself - its a strawman argument.
"how could you possibly even know what the line looks like if you've never studied it for yourself - its a strawman argument."
I didn't straw man it. I just said that our standard of morality we could think of as a line when it isn't and we realize in the future what a "more" straight line is. For example PI is 3 or 3.14 or 3.14..... It doesn't mean the first one was totally false, it just wasn't exactly accurate. But at each number we can think that is what the ratio is in a circle.
to gain a realization of whether something is accurate or not you have to study it first.
this is what i thought you were saying -
when you say that you've read lewis (and presumably studied the bible - based on your cursory knowledge) but then go on to say you didn't need to, you are using dawkin's argument that one don't need to know the nature of something in order to critique it. but i would argue atheists construct a strawman view of god, and christian morality and attack that instead
Where did I say that? I have studied the Bible and I was a Christian for many years even arguing with atheists about my views.
"but i would argue atheists construct a strawman view of god, and christian morality and attack that instead"
That is a hasty generalization if I ever heard of one. Do you want to ask me bible trivia or argue for you? How bout this you argue for my side and I'll argue for yours. let's see who can do a better job.
that was what i took from your statement - the crooked line one. sorry if that's not what you meant.
i beg to differ. the vast majority of populist atheist academics, richard dawkins etc. argue that an ignorance of biblical scripture is no bar to their criticism of christianity. i want you to try and understand what god actually is before you begin to debate him. i have only recently embraced jesus as my saviour - so i doubt you could put foward any argument that i havn't considered already.
"i want you to try and understand what god actually is before you begin to debate him. i have only recently embraced jesus as my saviour - so i doubt you could put foward any argument that i havn't considered already."
I do understand the bibles view of God. And to the contrary I have been a Christian for most of my life and I have studied to defend my beliefs and I have argued with atheists. I also doubt you can give me an argument that I haven't already argued for myself.
one could spend all their adult life in fellowship with god, studying his word and living a life of prayer; and still not even come close to beginning to understand him.ther are many things i don't understand myself and probably never will.but when you reach a point where you start to argue your complete knowledge of the divine and to put your own moral judgements/ideas on a par with god you clearly have failed to see what christianity is all about - and its beyond my power to explain it to you
How can you be sure of a position that you can't even explain to someone?
"...where you start to argue your complete knowledge of the divine and to put your own moral judgements/ideas on a par with god you clearly have failed to see what christianity is all about"
Wrong, Jesus said to test the spirits and the apostles encouraged seaching the validity of the truths claimed. I didn't question Jesus until I doubted the verasity of Bible.
i am sure because god has explained it to me. i could (and have on many occassions) debated for days with people like you, who have actively chosen to turn away from christ, but in my experience, even were i to put down a conclusive list of the millions of rational arguments that justify the existence of god; you would dismiss them all out of hand. i will pray that god gives you eyes to see and ears to hear his truth, until then i hope you have a good life (as far aslife can be good w/o christ)
Tell God to explain them to me. Until then I cannot know he is real.
"who have actively chosen to turn away from christ,"
No, I decided to figure out my problems of belief and try to beat other atheists in debate and my reason forced me to a point where I couldn't believe any more.
"to put down a conclusive list of the millions of rational arguments that justify the existence of god"
"until then i hope you have a good life (as far aslife can be good w/o christ)"
Thanks... I hope you have a good life in living in delusions. The reason people get pissed off at Christian fundies is they don't consider the fact that they could be wrong and that people have rationally legitimate objections to their view. But of course it is all a conspiracy from the devil! Believe what you want to, but the debate ends when you are unwilling to be wrong. I am very willing to be wrong thank you.
"the vast majority of populist atheist academics, richard dawkins etc. argue that an ignorance of biblical scripture is no bar to their criticism of christianity"
No actually I usually listen to former apologist atheists. I can't stand atheists who don't deal with the real issues that Christians purpose. Dawkins makes some good points though; he just doesn't deal with the theist on their level or deal with interpretting scripture.
"so i doubt you could put foward any argument that i havn't considered already."
That is why I asked you to argue for my position and I for yours. Most theists I've argued with on you tube don't have enough knowledge of the atheists objections to pass for an ignorant, uncritical atheist.
as for god's law consider this analogy - a justice in the kansas state court of appeal was taking court, when his daughter appeared before him for drink/drive offences. because of his position as a judge he had to uphold the law - he gave her a penalty of $1000. he then stepped down from the stand, took of his wig, and paid the fine himself.
"he then stepped down from the stand, took of his wig, and paid the fine himself."
Except Jesus took a criminals punishment if we deserve more than murderers punishment in hell. I don't know of one court in America that would allow someone to go in jail for another. That is the definition of unjust and nomatter how nice the guy is it doesn't take away the punishment that is due for the offender.
i agree - that is one of the fundamental precepts of christianity. we don't deserve christ's atonement and punishment is our due. but that in itself speaks volumes as to christ's love for us. by ourselves we could never hope to follow his law but with god's help we can do anything. where all other religions are man's efforts to reach to god, christianity is god's stooping down to reach man.
"where all other religions are man's efforts to reach to god, christianity is god's stooping down to reach man."
That's meaningless to me because I don't hold to any religions and man always seeks for his own interest. Do you honestly think you would be a Christian if you didn't receive any kind of benefit in this life or the next? Your under the delusion that there is actually something you can perform under Christianity that is beyond anyone elses ability. Name one.
But since God is supposedly the only one that could take our punishment then he didn't have to die on the cross. He was the one deciding to make the rule.
It's absurd to believe a story where God dies to himself in order to make a loophole for a rule he made.
secondly - i'm not talking about the world in general, merely the united kingdom - dawkin's country, it is an indisputable fact that judeo-christian law has shaped the very social fabric of the nation and its laws and as such dawkin's attempts to criticise the bible on what is, in the end, a biblical basis are supremely ironic.
"im not talking about the world in general, merely the united kingdom"
So the creator of existence not only confines his attention to a single planet in a single solar system in a single galaxy among trillions, he is also particular about which arbitrary piece of landmass he favors on this rock?*
*(Along with an odd preoccupation with what one may or may not do with one's genitalia; one can't help but envy the less favored Great Apes who fiddle and flaunt their genitalia with impunity)
what? you are failing to grasp the very basics of the point i was trying to make. whatever the religious/social heritage of a nation it is that heritage that will determine the majority of a man's moral beliefs. a lack of religion may cause him to discard those laws he finds displeasing but, ultimately,through the process of political socialisation it is that religion that his determined many of his moral absolutes. also we do not know that god has confined his attention solely to mankind.
"whatever the religious/social heritage of a nation it is that heritage that will determine the majority of a man's moral beliefs."
This is typically true for sheep (who are indeed the majority)*. Men like Hobbs, Voltaire, and Paine ignored these rules of thumb and used critical thinking to discern morality. In doing so these men transcended their contemporaries with moral ideas that closely match those we carry today and sharply contrast those of their contemporaries.
*Though this isnt the case in time of moral paradigm shifts or movements in the moral zeitgeist. For instance well over half of the Spanish population support gay marriage. How many would have during the age of Inquisition?
You seem to underestimate common sense and critical thinking. You devalue the intelligence of man; and as a result you doubt his ability to self-govern. This leads you to believe that a god of some sort must exist—to think, Because if one didnt, then we would have long destroyed ourselves. You cant even consider the possibility that we are at this alone.
"You cant even consider the possibility that we are at this alone."
I'm glad you are a theist that actually is open to the possibility of being wrong. I honestly don't someone who believes in God as long as it is an hypothesis where you don't just make up the attributes you would like God to have without any evidence for those attributes. I'm an atheist, but my emphasis is on being agnostic about it.
this video is hilarious - the very basis for most of dawkin's moral beliefs is the bible itself. take murder for example - the very reason dawkins believes murder to be wrong is the judeo-christian heritage of his nation; the heritage which has shaped the laws of the country and underlined the fundamental moral beliefs shared by all people theist and non-theist alike for generations.
"the very basis for most of dawkin's moral beliefs is the bible itself. take murder for example - the very reason dawkins believes murder to be wrong is the judeo-christian heritage of his nation"
Was murder ok before the Ten Commandments? Did god order murder after? When is murder bad? God murdered children (according to the Judeo-Christian god himself); is it ok to murder children every now and then? Please clarify your odd statements.
firstly, god cannot murder - if you even begun to grasp the notion of an all-encompassing and supremely righteous god then you would realise that as the ultimate giver of all life he has every right to take life away again. as such any attempt to apply human moral standards to god falls miserably short.
"if you even begun to grasp the notion of an all-encompassing and supremely righteous god then you would realise that as the ultimate giver of all life he has every right to take life away again."
Or anything else that may catch his fancy? If this god were to tell you to beat a small child to an inch of her life, rape her, kill her slowly with judicious application of pliers and a blowtorch, and to top it off by then raping her dead body, it would be "good"?
"the very basis for most...moral beliefs is (insert holy book). the heritage which has shaped the laws of the country and underlined the fundamental moral(s)...shared by all...for generations."
What happens when this statement is made in reference to Saudi Arabia? How about pre-colonial Mexico? Ancient Greece? What you might find is that people are fairly similar. Where they differ sharply revolves around irrational constructs like nationalism, racism, maladaptive tradition and religion.
It was moral in pre-colonial Mexico to rip the heart out of your fellow human being in order to ensure that the sun would rise or otherwise please your god or gods. It is moral to execute a woman who has sexual intercourse out of marriage in Saudi Arabia. What you may find when you strip away the nonsense of religion, and other such irrational constructs, is that a purer—more common sense morality lays waiting beneath. One accessible to all. Your Jehovah corrupts this process.
0:10-0:42- i couldn't have put it better myself.
belladonna4577 1 year ago
i get my morals from everyday life.
ev11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch my videos Thanks =D
Gades117 1 year ago
May God have mercy on himself.
DougDiug 1 year ago
A lot of big words for Dawkins. He feel so strongly about this, one would swear he beliefs there is a God. (Maybe his got a little secret). I guess if your mind works like his, it is okay to attack things you do not belief in. I guess he always wanted to beat up his imaginary friends when they stole his moms cookies - even though he knew they where not there.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 You seem to take issue with Professor Dawkins on a personal level. Was the God Delusion an emotionally difficult book to read for you?
TheLogicalTheist 1 year ago
@TheLogicalTheist A more useful read is The Devil's Delusion by the agnostic David Berlinsky, his genius lies in his ability to communicate in layman’s terms the essence of what science claims to know about the natural world. But in exposing the considerable absence of real knowledge (and answers) pertaining to the great timeless questions Berlinsky, in effect, calls science’s bluff and unmasks the visage of atheism.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Further, gaps in science is not proof of a god. As Ive said before, as it does not seem to sink into your head, lack of an explanation does NOT mean you get to insert whatever the hell you want and call it true.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@heinno777 I have not read the God Delusion - the reviews was too poor - calling it an rhetorical hypothesis, unsophisicated and really an embarrassment to a very smart man.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 are you a Troll?
TheLogicalTheist 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
heinno777 1 year ago
@TheLogicalTheist - Not intentionally, but sometimes people know that they are wrong and are purposefully ignorant could perceive it that way.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Awesome, you just described yourself. You know you are wrong, yet continue to argue. You are intellectually dishonest, whether you know it or not, proof is that you continue to misunderstand evolution and refuse to attempt to fulyl understand it, instead I've got to explain the very basics of it to you over and over.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
@heinno777
If you said Sauron was real and a good being, he would say the same about Sauron. It doesn't mean he believes Sauron is real.
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke - before one can take your comments about someone else seriously, it is expected that you must know the individual. If I make statements re your personality, but have never met you, how much weight does my comments carry?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777
If you read a book about a person's actions, you can judge his character. That's how you judge someone's character: by the actions. Unless the book is not true. He's assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is.
Like I said, I don't know Sauron, but torturing Smeagol and trying to bring darkness to Middle Earth was a sign of a bad character. I call him evil.
Am I wrong to call him evil? Should I get to know him first?
Do you think the devil is evil? Do you know him personally?
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke your logic is almost sound, I can almost agree with what you are saying, but I would like to point out that difference is that Dawkins promotes Atheism - therefore it seems his attack on God is illogical. I never had a campain to try and disproof Sauron, so me calling him evil is not illogical in a sense. But your point is well taken, it is possible to bestow characteristics on a ficticious character, in that sense, and in that sense alone, I am wrong.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777
Well, maybe you would take the streets and shout "Sauron is just a fictional character" if the people who believed Sauron is real were trying to tell you who you can or can't have sex with, how you can or can't do it, what scientific researches are allowed or not, what recreational drugs you could or couldn't use, etc.
Sauron doesn't like heterosexual sex. From now on, only gay sex is allowed. So said Sauron.
Wouldn't you try to knock some sense into these people?
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke I said you are right - it is possible to assign characteristics to a fictional character. But here is the point I am trying to make: If Dawkins really believe there is no God, then he should not be bothered by it; it is just a character in a story. I do not go out and tell the world that Sauron is evil; people would think that I am nuts. Dawkins believe that humans establish their own morals, so why does it bother him that a ficticious character "dictates" morals? unless he is a Satanist
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777
I think you missed my point. An atheist, by definition, is standing against a position. Theists try to interfere on other people's lives by dictating laws. For someone who doesn't share their beliefs, it's reasonable to stand against it and ridicule them. No one bothers with Sauron because no Sauron believers try to create laws based on Lord of the Rings.
He's is not saying he's evil because he believes god's evil. He's saying to show that the god character is man made and flawed.
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke - okay, I see your point now. Have you thought why humans would create a god that is bad? Why would they phantum history that points to all of their god's flaws? If I was to create a religion, I would create the most moral God possible. There would be no point for creating "false" history to point out god's flaws - it would make your proposed religion much less desirable.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777
First, they wouldn't knowingly create a god, but attribute human qualities to phenomena they didn't understand. And the growth of myth. Ultimately, you'd create a "bad" god because there is something called moral development, that morality evolves with time. The god they created was not bad according to the people from the time it was created. It was the best god they could come up with. But for us, who have a more developed moral standard, he looks like a capricious malevolent god.
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke - I do not agree, you cannot write something unknowingly - you need to know what and why you are writing something - To me the Bible is very much structured and formulated with the idea to "create" a god. Remember the Christian religion and thinking is build on the teachings of the Bible. Like it or not, God's character is not bound by the laws or morals HE created for us - HE has no one to answer to - he does not have to be good (judged by our morals) to be God.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777
Which is EXACTLY what Dawkins is saying, though he means it another way. God, by our moral standards, is EVIL. If he was real, our morality wouldn't come from him. It could, to be fair, be dictated by him, but would anything god tells us be automatically moral? Is morality just god's subjective view?
Does it basically boil down to "Do as I say, not as I do"?
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke "Does it basically boil down to "Do as I say, not as I do"? ... like any good Dad
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777
Then you can add hypocrite to his list of "qualities".
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke ....yes, by the morals bestowed on us. It is irrelevant to God though.
heinno777 1 year ago
that is a lot of big words for Dawkins! One would swear he beliefs there is a bad God out there! But if your logic works as his, I guess it is okay to attack something you do not belief in.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 When other people do believe in it, and force it on others and into classrooms, yes, it is ok to attack ideas, especially creatures you do not exist when others proclaim they do.
Science is athiestic in nature as theres no proof of a god. You give hard evidence, none of the philosophical garbage you are trying to pull, but real, definitive, testable, recreatable evidence that theres some being outside space and time, then science will be diestic.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
Hello everybody, check out my videos on how evolution by natural selection has shaped our moral interactions, whether with our family or with those presumably unrelated to us. If a religious zealot asks you where you get your morality, tell them you got your morality from the same place they did: evolutionary history. Natural selection has favored certain behavioral strategies over others. One of the more "optimistic" ones would be our ability to cooperate and collude.
aplee2006 1 year ago
God have mercy on Richard Dawkins
sweetnluvly07 1 year ago
@sweetnluvly07 says: "God have mercy on Richard Dawkins"
Irony is as powerful a literary tool of communication as satire or hyperbole and the like. Though, it seems to me that your use of it here is as trite as it is cliché.
TheLogicalTheist 1 year ago
@sweetnluvly07 What you communicate is of little value unless the premise it necessarily relies on as a corollary is valid. In other words, one must first assume that a god exists before the ironic circumstance of a believer calling on this god to supply "mercy" to an atheist can be considered beyond what it is merely fanciful. It is therefore weak, due to the fact that its foundation is weak. You dont come off as clever. And that, I assure you, is putting it lightly.
TheLogicalTheist 1 year ago
@sweetnluvly07 yous be trollololin'!!!!!!
MetaLMunchies 1 year ago
If evolution is the *sole* basis of morality then how do we determine which products of evolution are right and which are wrong?
Why is "caring for family" right, but "killing other tribes" wrong?
tomfrh 2 years ago
What are you talking about? What does evolution have to do with the moral decisions you make? What is wrong with you?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins say that morals arose because we evolved as social animals. Creatures with more effective social morals tended to be naturally selected. Dawkins and Harris view this socio-evolutionary basis of morality as a sufficient explanation of morals. So if that is true, then evolution has everything to do with our instinctive moral sense.
tomfrh 2 years ago
Now I see. A little better. Ok:
Evolution is nothing more than our understanding of how life evolved to its present state. Part and parcel with this realization comes too the corollary that suggests our morals evolved along with us. Thus one can presume that much of our moral origins and how we make moral decisions can be gleaned from an understanding of how and why our morals evolved.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Though if one is simply speaking of our subjective application and adherence of and to social morals, a study of history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology appears a more practical path to understanding. I doubt there is much in biology that will tell you why cheating on a math exam is "wrong" (at least not yet). Tradition and the gradual shift of social morays (or the Moral Zeitgeist as discussed by Dr. Dawkins) are key a well.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
I know of very few individuals who have or can use biology to guide them morally. But since you broached the possibility, I wonder if you have an example?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
I agree it would be foolish to look to nature and evolution in order to learn morals. But Dawkins and Harris argue that our morals are guided by biology and socio-evolutionary history, so in effect they are doing just that.
tomfrh 2 years ago
"But Dawkins and Harris argue that our morals are guided by biology and socio-evolutionary history"
Speaking for Dawkins only, he gives extreme consideration to the shift of the moral zeitgeist as it relates to morals. He does view our current moral state from a perspective of a biologist and is always looking for an evolutionary explanation to flesh out the true cause of any biological phenomenon.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Ironically, Dawkins believes natural selection to be cruel and any morality patterned after it to be abhorrent.
Require video reference? :)
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Try to separate the two concepts you appear to be conflating: I"nvestigation of the nature of a mechanism" and "its proper use". Biologist like Dawkins are investigating morality. They make no absolute claims about its use (as scientists). Understand?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Look I pretty much agree with you. And Ive read Dawkins and listened to a lot of his stuff.
Dawkins and Harris argue that morals arose due to socio-evolutionary forces. This implies moral relativism. Dawkins in particular denies that good and evil really exist. Yet both of these guys employ moral realism when they attack the evils of religion". The statement "evil does not really exist" is incompatible with the statement "religious fundamentalism really is evil". Somethings gotta give...
tomfrh 2 years ago
Well I dont remember Dawkins using the word "evil". Hitchens does and I disagree with his use of it. I never use the word unless im being ironic and I only use it to reference religion (hence the irony). The connotation attached to the word is theological and confuses communication in my opinion. Though you must realize that Dawkins' or Harris' opinion is his opinion and does not have to reflect that of all other Atheists and biologists. What point are you looking to make?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Dawkins does use the word "evil", but that is getting off topic. The point I am making is that without an objective moral reality morals reduce to mere opinion.
tomfrh 2 years ago
"The point I am making is that without an objective moral reality morals reduce to mere opinion."
One does not need to know the exact mathematical trajectory and dimensions of the sphere to throw a good football pass. Likewise, we dont have to fully understand the intricate details of our moral code to use it. In the mean time philosophy, psychology, sociology and even biology (to name a few) are discovering more about our moral origins and dynamics each day.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
One does not need to know the exact mathematical trajectory and dimensions of the sphere to throw a good football pass.
No, but one needs an external spatial field to judge the goodness of the pass.
An no I don't disagree with your video. The bible contains nasty things. You would be unwise to follow the bible.
I don't particularly want to have it out. I've made my point. You disagree. And that's fine...
tomfrh 2 years ago
ok.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Whats this obsession with finding an absolute objective moral standard? What does that even mean? I doubt such a thing exists; and if it does, its probably quite simple like: stay alive or something. Boring if you ask me. But I tire of being on the defensive. Lets have it out: What is the point you really want to make? Forget Dawkins. Do you disagree with the theme of my video? Lets start there.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
@tomfrh you may be right but so what and if there is a absolute then isnt that just obediance to authority
patrickledford420 1 year ago
nonsence. yes there is some relativism in it, but not to a degree where, raping, slaughtering, human sacrifice, mass murdering could be justified in any case.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@tomfrh wtf do you get the statement "evil does not realy exist" at all?
VarykGerai 1 year ago
It is not "foolish" to look to nature to glean an understanding of our morals. We as well our morals derived from nature. It is important to understanding the nature of a thing so that we may improve it or direct it for the greater good (whatever that may be). Dawkins and other biologist are simply trying to learn the nature of reality as all scientist do. The origins and dynamics of our morals are not exempt...nor should they be
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
philosophy is a better tool for morality, if thats not enough, nature offers us universal morals, we look at animal societies.
like that of primates, or ants.
Paradoxical003 2 years ago 3
Wow. Respect to the women in the green. Perfectly said.
systemspm 2 years ago 2
good video
naikint 2 years ago
Thanks.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
It's truly sad that Dawkins is completely blind to the fact that his argument about God's immorality has absolutely no foundation in an atheistic universe. His whole argument assumes that there does indeed exist an absolute standard of what is right and what is wrong by which God's actions can be judged. Yet if there is no god, no such standard exists. And if there is a God then He is the one who sets the standards. His entire argument evaporates upon a moments careful inspection.
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
Why are you assuming that a god is the only one who would be able to give an absolute standard of right and wrong?
And: Does Dawkins's argument really assume that there is an ABSOLUTE standard of right and wrong? A standard relative to our feelings and moral intuitions as they have evolved would suffice, wouldn't it?
Jackies1979 2 years ago 2
The Logi..
Thats what Jesus does. He dangles the ice cream in front of us, but gives us free will just 2 make it interesting (for him), but then says, "U better love me cuz if ya dont, Im gonna shove this bowl of broken glass down your throat!"
This god is utterly insane! Glad he's not real!
Yahweh kills your wife, your kids, even the goldfish, but Jesus...he's the sleeper! Meek & mild Jesus says "love & worship me...or I will follow U after death & torture your soul forever, but I love U."
Cootabux 2 years ago 2
It seems Obama is a bible skeptic...awesome. Too bad he is silenced by or overly religious society.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago 10
Being skeptical isn't denying something, it's seeking the truth in something and is, therefore, probably no different for any practising Christian. Praise God Obama is not a cynic, like most Atheists.
GloryCarrier22 2 years ago
"Praise God Obama is not a cynic, like most Atheists."
Generalize often?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
lstdy 2 years ago
lstdy
U miss the real point! (why am I not surprised?)
The mother is holding the ice cream "and" the bowl of glass. What kind of parent would present that danger 2 their child as an option. But jesus is saying "if U don't do exactly as I say, I will make U eat the glass!"
If U dont see this in the analogy, please explain Y U cant see it.
Would U consider the threat of hell worse than the broken glass? We dont want that option, as fundies like 2 portray, we simply say "Y would U do this?"
Cootabux 2 years ago
Comment removed
lstdy 2 years ago
he calls himself the 'logicaltheist' because youtube didn't grant him anymore room to put the "a" between the L and T.
McWalker25 2 years ago 7
LOL J0eck removed his comments! Well done.
Celticking36 3 years ago
J0eck and people like him cannot handle a challenge to their preconceived notions about life. Especially when they have no logical reason to believe them. He is a coward.
HarryJAnslinger 3 years ago 2
God wanted love from us....
And if he didnt get what he wanted?
yes he could have created us with no sin and no choices and just loving him..
Yes he could have.
but thats not love its forced love.
What ISis how your god made it.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
The Logi..
Y couldn't god have simply said,
"My ways R wise but I know U must learn these things on your own. I'll leave U now but will check in on U occasionally. Just remember, if U don't live responsibly & keep the Golden Rule, U will suffer from your mistakes. But that's how U learn.
I love you & know I can't force you to love me, that would only cause resentment, and then hatred. So I leave it up to you to learn on your own.
My ultimate act of love is in giving U your total freedom.
Cootabux 2 years ago
...your saying all these things about God in the old testament..... that
could there be more love to give his son to us...
for our lives?
Huh?
and yes it does seem weird that God killed people to achieve his plan...
Yes it does.
and babies go to heaven when they die...
Then we should murder babies?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Comment removed
J0ecK 3 years ago
"well thats how i feel.... so please dont start an arguement with me"
Thats like thrusting at me with your sword and saying "please don't parry". For it to be an argument, you would have to respond to my rebut. Just don't respond and there will be no argument. I always find you people odd. You know...the type that wants to spew their ideas for all to hear, but doesn't have what it takes to defend them. And so, you shamelessly ask that you be heard but not scrutinized. How can you?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
The slaughter of animals was amde so that humans could go to heaven.
He gave people choices. He promised he would give us choices. If he didn't, it would simply be slavery.
Why do we kill horrible criminals? Because they do more bad than good. Look through the whole New Testament... God never EVER just killed someone without telling them first that they would be destroyed if they did 'it', normally a terrible sin. He didn't just say 'let's see, who am I going to kill today?'
StarLink101 3 years ago
What did he tell the people of Noah's flood? What did he tell the little children of Sodom and Gomorrah? What did he tell the little children who he sent those bears after when they made fun of the bald guy?
Zekkron 3 years ago 3
He had warned them before, told them to follow his commands and stop their evil ways. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah had angels come to the city and warn them numerous times. Even before God destroyed the city, he had an angel tell them to leave, for the city would have been destroyed.
God had told His people that if they sinned they would be punished many many times in the law.
StarLink101 3 years ago
"He had warned them before, told them to follow his commands and stop their evil ways."
Do you mean to say he warned three year olds? And to say he warned three year olds of their "evil" ways?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Another point I want to make is that it is unfair to say I don't have justification for my moral principles; when God doesn't need an explanation for why what he thinks is right is objectively right. With God things just are right and wrong by virtue of God's nature. I am no less justified in saying based on human nature we can have a meaningful morality.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
you're right - god's view of morality is subjective it has to be - god is a lawgiver. but to say that is to try and place yourself on a parallel with god. if you could do that you would, by virtue of your position, become a god. your argument demonstrates exactly why an atheistic worldview of morality is so dangerous, and potentially anarchical. human nature is, at its very core, self-serving.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"human nature is, at its very core, self-serving."
There's a difference between humanity serving and self serving. Anyways if God is perfectly happy without us what more could we give God? Isn't following God self serving since you think it is the best way to be happy and have rewards? All human desire can be broken down to some level of "selfishness."
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
our very basic, most primal, animal interests are all self-serving - they are not humanity serving.
god is not perfectly happy without us - sin breaks his heart. god loves us and desires that we be reconciled to him. if your son was estranged would you be perfectly happy without him?
i would argue that god should be worshipped simply becuase he is worth it. even if i thought god was going to send my soul to hell for eternity i would worship him anyway - for he is worthy of my praise.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"god is not perfectly happy without us - sin breaks his heart."
So you are a finite god believer or do you think God is infinitely happy? How can you break the heart of someone infinitely happy?
"if your son was estranged would you be perfectly happy without him?"
I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't give a 2 year old a knife knowing that he could freely stab himself, nor would I lock my kids in the basement for not loving me.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
i know that god loves us, his work of atonement at calvary and the power of creation are witness to that. as is his command of unconditional love (christianity is, incidentally, the only religion where love is a requirement)
your analogy is flawed - a 2 year old does not have the capacity to understand god's message - you and I do - you have merely chosen to reject it.that's your perogative - god is not going to force you to worship him - for anything to have real value it must be freely chosen
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"your analogy is flawed"
Analogies aren't meant to be precise, but the point was that God more or less let the universe run on the rules of nature, for the most part at least, which inevitably allows a significant advantage and disadvantage for people to be killed and to follow the wrong religion. For example: if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would most likely be a muslim. This isn't a very carrying system since souls are at stake.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
no i mean your analogy is so inherently flawed as to render it completely inapplicable to reality. a child cannot comprehend the workings of god and cannot then be punished - jesus taught that they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. we, however, do have a choice. and i've already dealt with that point - various different explanations are offered; but i, unlike many atheists, don't pretend to have the answer to every question - only to the one question that bears any significance whatsoever.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"don't pretend to have the answer to every question "
Bull shit, yes you do. You have an excuse for everything. The atheist is honestly saying they don't know yet don't think there is a god. I simply reject unjustified claims about God. I don't know whether he exists or now as you so arrogantly think it is absolute fact that God loves you and cares if you play with yourself.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
really? if that's the case then why was there a six month long internet debate between atheists over whether to put "god doesn't exist" or god "probably doesn't exist" on the side of london buses. christianity, and theism in general is based on a premise that man's knowledge is imperfect. you, however, have hinted on many occassions to your own perfect knowledge (e.g. why should my opinions not have as much validity as those of god). you can't come to know god if you think you yourself are one.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"if that's the case then why was there a six month long internet debate between atheists over whether to put "god doesn't exist" or god "probably doesn't exist" on the side of london buses."
Because some atheists are more sure than others that God doesn't exist. How sure are you that Santa Clause doesn't exist? But you have no evidence that he can't exist. C'mon, the onlyl reason people consider God plausible is because it claims to explain everything that we think is unexplainable.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"more sure than others" - what?im talking about absolute knowledge.its not about being "more sure".its the same world over - the great irony of new atheism is that its adherents cling to its principles with as much tenacity as any religious fundamentalist - proposing all manner of ridiculous theories to back up their beliefs - the swoon theory, zeitgeist etc.and the motivation - what motivation?atheists try to cite morality but w/o religion there is no such thing - read gary woolf's new book.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"im talking about absolute knowledge"
No atheist claims absolute knowledge there is no God. Some claim it is impossible for certain illogical god's to exist.
"proposing all manner of ridiculous theories to back up their beliefs"
You do the exact same thing with everything but your religion. I don't think you studied Islam exstensively to see if it had any evidence before you rejected it and defaulted with skepticism. I am just as skeptical of Islam as I was as a Christian.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
uh yes they do - that was the whole point of my argument - the bus signs et al.
and i have studied islam, and many other religions - but that is besides the point.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
Give me one example, besides your religion, that you accept something important as fact without evidence? That's why you should and must meet the burden of proof. I don't defend evolution by saying ID is ridiculous. Positions have to be defended on their own merit.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
there is plenty of evidence to justify the existence of a creator and to testify to the historical accuracy of the bible. if not there would be no such thing as apologetics. you have to take some things on faith. you take evolution on faith - macro-evolution has never been determinatively proved. in my own life - while i came to christianity as a skeptic after having researched many different faiths - the work god has done has made me more certain about that than about anything else in my life.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"there is plenty of evidence to justify the existence of a creator and to testify to the historical accuracy of the bible."
Your definition of evidence must include subjective arguments from incrongulity (or ignorance). Most scholars at some point have something against the bible's accuracy so there is no reason for me to not think you are following your own fringe of believers interpretation of the evidence.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"you take evolution on faith - macro-evolution has never been determinatively proved."
No, I take it as the best explanation of the data which can't be explained nearly as well by any other theory. All the biological trees fit neately in harmony in a way that only is explained by evolution. Even the details of mutation rate and speciation has been demonstrated to back up the plausibility and all the problems you insert God with doesn't negate the evidence that points to common descent.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"you can't come to know god if you think you yourself are one."
I could say you fundies act like an elitest group of God favored people that are above science. You can just give a "possibility" for every objection to your views and say that God can do amazing stuff so that solves the problem. Anybody else has to give instances or empirical evidence to refute strong objections to one's view. But not the religious. God can do anything so you cannot refute my God! What arrogant ignorance.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"fundies" as you call them don't think they are above science. give me one example, just one, of an empirically proven scientific fact that disproves ANY of the core teachings of the bible. just because christianity doesn't conform to your own world view doesn't necessarily mean its wrong. 1000 years ago if you'd told people that man would walk on the moon they would have laughed at you. besides i don't know why it bothers you - if atheism is true you should have no motivation.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"fundies" as you call them don't think they are above science."
Yes, anti-naturalism. I admit I have a bias towards naturalism because it is the only thing I know exists and it has shoved religious superstition time and time again. Why else do you think lots of fundies think the earth is 6000 years old? Also birds came after fish and the sun didn't come after plants came. There is actually a lot of evidence in the Bible that it thinks the earth is young, but science says otherwise.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
no man's interpretation of the gospel is perfect, sure there are people like kent hovind who defy science and reason - but the evidence pointing towards a non-literal interpretation of genesis is highly compelling.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
I can't say all fundies deny science. Many except it completely. I'm speaking of the majority though. I'm not making a refutation of the Bible, but a response to the claim that atheists are arrogant as if Christians aren't either.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
i'd agree to an extent - but when god is really working in your life; and you can see the good that he has done for you and the people around you - other stuff becomes far less important. even supposing you were right, and that god doesn't exist, and the whole things a pack of lies (which i personally could never accept) the nature of christianity makes is something so valuable, something worth living, and even dying for. think about it - many men have lived their lives for less.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"And the whole things a pack of lies (which i personally could never accept)"
I've said the exact same thing to myself before.
"nature of christianity makes is something so valuable, something worth living, and even dying for."
Why? The only think I see worth while is the false hope for eternal life. But that doesn't mean a whole lot to me since I'd rather have 100% of people rest in peace than an elite group of guillable believers go to heaven and the einsteins and the rest go to hell.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
that's a pity - the bible teaches us that only the fool hath deceived himself in his heart that there is no god.although there might be times when belief in god seems unlikely to you on the whole a belief in atheism seems far more unlikely. a religion that commands unconditional love for others?that commends virtues like patience, meekness and kindness?that argues for the equality of all men?that encourages forgiveness and charity?one can find such overwhelming beauty in prose in no other book.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"that's a pity - the bible teaches us that only the fool hath deceived himself in his heart that there is no god."
One of the many reasons why it is a false book. Just look around at some of the most intellegent and nobel people that ever lived. Some were atheists or at least deistic or had the wrong religion.
"a belief in atheism seems far more unlikely."
Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief in the god claims. Just as you lack belief in islam. I'm not sure there is no God.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"that argues for the equality of all men?"
In most parts of the Bible no. I love how you cherry pick all the virtues in the Bible when most of it is pretty violent and a product of a barbaric morality in human history. Jesus did say a lot of good stuff for his times, but he wasn't unique in all that he said. Alsom, I'm not concerned about how good or bad the bible sounds as much as if it has rational justification for being true.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"i'd agree to an extent - but when god is really working in your life;"
How would I know that? All religions have instances of strong subjective feelings. And just because I feel good about a belief, I'm not convinced unless it is proven rationally. No feeling or psychological sensation gives me evidence. Emotions and feelings are the way you react to something and not what that something does in itself. If you have a good grasp of psychology this should be apparent to you.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"i'd agree to an extent - but when god is really working in your life"
How would I know that? All religions have instances of strong subjective feelings and crazy coincidental happenings. And just because I feel good about a belief, I'm not convinced unless it is proven rationally. No feeling or psychological sensation gives me evidence. Emotions and feelings are the way you react to something and not what that something does in itself. You should know this if you understand human pyschology.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"no i mean your analogy is so inherently flawed"
No you looked at my analogy from the wrong angle. I was saying that careless things can incidently happen if you allow a kid a knife. Same with a universe where creatures are able to hurt eachother and squelch the truth so that even if you are open to the truth it can be hard for you to be saved.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
Just like little children we do stupid things. We don't have the wisdom and power to be responsible for stabbing ourself in eternal torment. We are punished in eternal torment for finite "crimes" where we were born into sin and when many people don't have a clear message of the gospel with evidence to follow it. Furthermore, God created a system where most people go to hell. Even if Jesus clearly told us how we can go to heaven how does he want our greatest good if most of us are going to hell?
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
don't try and critique the moral law when you don't know what it is. go research it - then come back. the moral law has been around (its proponents suggest) since man first attained conciousness - whether by evolutionary or creative design. the bible is merely the culmination of that moral law. man is merely choosing to disregard the bits he doesn't like - you seem to have a particular fondness for masturbation, for example.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"don't try and critique the moral law when you don't know what it is"
Who's law? On what authority?
"the bible is merely the culmination of that moral law."
Your assertion. Your proof?
"man is merely choosing to disregard the bits he doesn't like"
Like stoning a person to death for working on one of seven arbitrary days we made up (whether or not it is moral now, it was absolutely moral then. Not sure if the Bible takes the absolute in an absolute sense)?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"Like stoning a person to death for working on one of seven arbitrary days we made up"
Yup, but Christians will say there was a new covenant in the New Testament.
But the NT never says to totally disregard the old law and in fact Jesus himself said he didn't come to take away anything from the laws of Moses. Furthermore, even after the disciples may have redifined God's law, they still uphold slavery, silence women in the church, send God's punishment on people all similar to the OT laws.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
your ignorance of theology is astounding. jesus came to complete the law of moses not to take away from it. you need to study ANY contemporary, or historical, christian eschatology - go through the westminster confession of faith or something of similar ilk. i could write reams on the issues you've raised here.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"jesus came to complete the law of moses not to take away from it."
Yes, but that doesn't imply deletion. However, I realize the apostles did away with the laws and since they are supposedly inspired from God that would count for your beliefs. However, unless I have a memory lapse I don't remember jesus doing away with all the laws of the OT; in fact he upholded them usually.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"you seem to have a particular fondness for masturbation, for example."
It is my biology. I am fortunate (as are my Great Ape cousins) to have enough intelligence to use my reproductive organs recreationally. Funny that the Bible insists the cosmos has an interest in what I do with said organs?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
a third point could be that dawkins is criticising god based upon his own moral law (see the writings of lewis for a beginner's introduction) but if that moral law was put there by a judeo-christian god then it is comparable to criticising the state for the application of a law the state created. god must be good, for without god, the very foundations of "good and bad" would not even exist.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"god must be good, for without god, the very foundations of "good and bad" would not even exist."
If that god is Jehovah, then baby killing is good. Rape is good. War is good. Animal sacrifice is good. Human sacrifice is good. Genocide is good. So I guess you aren't speaking of Jehovah?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"the very reason dawkins believes murder to be wrong is the judeo-christian heritage of his nation"
Ignoring the fact that you imply all European cultures (and the modern day non-Christian world) thought (thinks) murder was (is) ok (now)before the arrival (or eventuality) of Christianity and the Dark Ages, one should find on its face the assertion absurd. The duty in rebutting such a claim seems trifling. But I digress.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
ok i'll take this slowly - a man's moral beliefs are, to an extent at least, shaped by the laws or the social heritage of his country - agreed? where else would you obtain your own particular moral values (for example). where those laws prohibit murder (as an absolute) we normatively tend to view murder as wrong. the same is the case for every other country regardless of religion and regardless of the point in history when it happened to exist.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"where those laws prohibit murder (as an absolute) we normatively tend to view murder as wrong."
No country does. Ironically, the countries closest to this stance are the most secular in the world (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc.). But even they allow murder for self-defense or maintain standing armies. No country on earth has an ABSOLUTE pacifist policy: None.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"a man's moral beliefs are, to an extent at least, shaped by the laws or the social heritage of his country - agreed?"
Agreed.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"the same is the case for every other country regardless of religion and regardless"
And to my point: Religion is supurfluous at best. I am glad we agree. Now we only need to contend over whether or not it is maladaptive.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
To your assertion: It would have been nearly impossible for us to survive over a 100,000 years without a moral code. How do you propose we did? And if you suggest we had one before your book of horror was completed, then why suggest Dawkins wouldnt know not to kill if not for your book?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"a third point could be that dawkins is criticising god based upon his own moral law (see the writings of lewis for a beginner's introduction)"
I have read Lewis. You don't have to know a straight line in order to know a crucked line. You can realize one line is better than the other and the better one you call a line. But that is besides the point. He views morality different than the atheist so it is no wonder why that argument would be persuasive to theists and not to atheists.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
i was a skeptic at best - it persuaded me. and i was only raising the argument because our atheist friend above seems to have EXACTLY the same view of a common-sense morality akin to all humankind. as do many of the atheists i have deabted on youtube - where does that leave your argument now? as for your straight/crooked line argument - how could you possibly even know what the line looks like if you've never studied it for yourself - its a strawman argument.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"how could you possibly even know what the line looks like if you've never studied it for yourself - its a strawman argument."
I didn't straw man it. I just said that our standard of morality we could think of as a line when it isn't and we realize in the future what a "more" straight line is. For example PI is 3 or 3.14 or 3.14..... It doesn't mean the first one was totally false, it just wasn't exactly accurate. But at each number we can think that is what the ratio is in a circle.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
to gain a realization of whether something is accurate or not you have to study it first.
this is what i thought you were saying -
when you say that you've read lewis (and presumably studied the bible - based on your cursory knowledge) but then go on to say you didn't need to, you are using dawkin's argument that one don't need to know the nature of something in order to critique it. but i would argue atheists construct a strawman view of god, and christian morality and attack that instead
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"but then go on to say you didn't need to,"
Where did I say that? I have studied the Bible and I was a Christian for many years even arguing with atheists about my views.
"but i would argue atheists construct a strawman view of god, and christian morality and attack that instead"
That is a hasty generalization if I ever heard of one. Do you want to ask me bible trivia or argue for you? How bout this you argue for my side and I'll argue for yours. let's see who can do a better job.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
that was what i took from your statement - the crooked line one. sorry if that's not what you meant.
i beg to differ. the vast majority of populist atheist academics, richard dawkins etc. argue that an ignorance of biblical scripture is no bar to their criticism of christianity. i want you to try and understand what god actually is before you begin to debate him. i have only recently embraced jesus as my saviour - so i doubt you could put foward any argument that i havn't considered already.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"i want you to try and understand what god actually is before you begin to debate him. i have only recently embraced jesus as my saviour - so i doubt you could put foward any argument that i havn't considered already."
I do understand the bibles view of God. And to the contrary I have been a Christian for most of my life and I have studied to defend my beliefs and I have argued with atheists. I also doubt you can give me an argument that I haven't already argued for myself.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
one could spend all their adult life in fellowship with god, studying his word and living a life of prayer; and still not even come close to beginning to understand him.ther are many things i don't understand myself and probably never will.but when you reach a point where you start to argue your complete knowledge of the divine and to put your own moral judgements/ideas on a par with god you clearly have failed to see what christianity is all about - and its beyond my power to explain it to you
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"and its beyond my power to explain it to you"
How can you be sure of a position that you can't even explain to someone?
"...where you start to argue your complete knowledge of the divine and to put your own moral judgements/ideas on a par with god you clearly have failed to see what christianity is all about"
Wrong, Jesus said to test the spirits and the apostles encouraged seaching the validity of the truths claimed. I didn't question Jesus until I doubted the verasity of Bible.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
i am sure because god has explained it to me. i could (and have on many occassions) debated for days with people like you, who have actively chosen to turn away from christ, but in my experience, even were i to put down a conclusive list of the millions of rational arguments that justify the existence of god; you would dismiss them all out of hand. i will pray that god gives you eyes to see and ears to hear his truth, until then i hope you have a good life (as far aslife can be good w/o christ)
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"i am sure because god has explained it to me."
Tell God to explain them to me. Until then I cannot know he is real.
"who have actively chosen to turn away from christ,"
No, I decided to figure out my problems of belief and try to beat other atheists in debate and my reason forced me to a point where I couldn't believe any more.
"to put down a conclusive list of the millions of rational arguments that justify the existence of god"
Conclusive? That's why its called faith remember?
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"until then i hope you have a good life (as far aslife can be good w/o christ)"
Thanks... I hope you have a good life in living in delusions. The reason people get pissed off at Christian fundies is they don't consider the fact that they could be wrong and that people have rationally legitimate objections to their view. But of course it is all a conspiracy from the devil! Believe what you want to, but the debate ends when you are unwilling to be wrong. I am very willing to be wrong thank you.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"the vast majority of populist atheist academics, richard dawkins etc. argue that an ignorance of biblical scripture is no bar to their criticism of christianity"
No actually I usually listen to former apologist atheists. I can't stand atheists who don't deal with the real issues that Christians purpose. Dawkins makes some good points though; he just doesn't deal with the theist on their level or deal with interpretting scripture.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"so i doubt you could put foward any argument that i havn't considered already."
That is why I asked you to argue for my position and I for yours. Most theists I've argued with on you tube don't have enough knowledge of the atheists objections to pass for an ignorant, uncritical atheist.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
as for god's law consider this analogy - a justice in the kansas state court of appeal was taking court, when his daughter appeared before him for drink/drive offences. because of his position as a judge he had to uphold the law - he gave her a penalty of $1000. he then stepped down from the stand, took of his wig, and paid the fine himself.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"he then stepped down from the stand, took of his wig, and paid the fine himself."
Except Jesus took a criminals punishment if we deserve more than murderers punishment in hell. I don't know of one court in America that would allow someone to go in jail for another. That is the definition of unjust and nomatter how nice the guy is it doesn't take away the punishment that is due for the offender.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
i agree - that is one of the fundamental precepts of christianity. we don't deserve christ's atonement and punishment is our due. but that in itself speaks volumes as to christ's love for us. by ourselves we could never hope to follow his law but with god's help we can do anything. where all other religions are man's efforts to reach to god, christianity is god's stooping down to reach man.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"where all other religions are man's efforts to reach to god, christianity is god's stooping down to reach man."
That's meaningless to me because I don't hold to any religions and man always seeks for his own interest. Do you honestly think you would be a Christian if you didn't receive any kind of benefit in this life or the next? Your under the delusion that there is actually something you can perform under Christianity that is beyond anyone elses ability. Name one.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
But since God is supposedly the only one that could take our punishment then he didn't have to die on the cross. He was the one deciding to make the rule.
It's absurd to believe a story where God dies to himself in order to make a loophole for a rule he made.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
secondly - i'm not talking about the world in general, merely the united kingdom - dawkin's country, it is an indisputable fact that judeo-christian law has shaped the very social fabric of the nation and its laws and as such dawkin's attempts to criticise the bible on what is, in the end, a biblical basis are supremely ironic.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"im not talking about the world in general, merely the united kingdom"
So the creator of existence not only confines his attention to a single planet in a single solar system in a single galaxy among trillions, he is also particular about which arbitrary piece of landmass he favors on this rock?*
*(Along with an odd preoccupation with what one may or may not do with one's genitalia; one can't help but envy the less favored Great Apes who fiddle and flaunt their genitalia with impunity)
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
what? you are failing to grasp the very basics of the point i was trying to make. whatever the religious/social heritage of a nation it is that heritage that will determine the majority of a man's moral beliefs. a lack of religion may cause him to discard those laws he finds displeasing but, ultimately,through the process of political socialisation it is that religion that his determined many of his moral absolutes. also we do not know that god has confined his attention solely to mankind.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"you are failing to grasp the very basics of the point i was trying to make."
I am starting to get that impression.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"whatever the religious/social heritage of a nation it is that heritage that will determine the majority of a man's moral beliefs."
This is typically true for sheep (who are indeed the majority)*. Men like Hobbs, Voltaire, and Paine ignored these rules of thumb and used critical thinking to discern morality. In doing so these men transcended their contemporaries with moral ideas that closely match those we carry today and sharply contrast those of their contemporaries.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
*Though this isnt the case in time of moral paradigm shifts or movements in the moral zeitgeist. For instance well over half of the Spanish population support gay marriage. How many would have during the age of Inquisition?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
You seem to underestimate common sense and critical thinking. You devalue the intelligence of man; and as a result you doubt his ability to self-govern. This leads you to believe that a god of some sort must exist—to think, Because if one didnt, then we would have long destroyed ourselves. You cant even consider the possibility that we are at this alone.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"You cant even consider the possibility that we are at this alone."
I'm glad you are a theist that actually is open to the possibility of being wrong. I honestly don't someone who believes in God as long as it is an hypothesis where you don't just make up the attributes you would like God to have without any evidence for those attributes. I'm an atheist, but my emphasis is on being agnostic about it.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"I honestly don't"
*I honestly don't mind
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
"I'm glad you are a theist that actually is open to the possibility of being wrong"
Im open to such a possibility. And sorry to disappoint, but Im an atheist like you.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
this video is hilarious - the very basis for most of dawkin's moral beliefs is the bible itself. take murder for example - the very reason dawkins believes murder to be wrong is the judeo-christian heritage of his nation; the heritage which has shaped the laws of the country and underlined the fundamental moral beliefs shared by all people theist and non-theist alike for generations.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"the very basis for most of dawkin's moral beliefs is the bible itself. take murder for example - the very reason dawkins believes murder to be wrong is the judeo-christian heritage of his nation"
Was murder ok before the Ten Commandments? Did god order murder after? When is murder bad? God murdered children (according to the Judeo-Christian god himself); is it ok to murder children every now and then? Please clarify your odd statements.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
firstly, god cannot murder - if you even begun to grasp the notion of an all-encompassing and supremely righteous god then you would realise that as the ultimate giver of all life he has every right to take life away again. as such any attempt to apply human moral standards to god falls miserably short.
QuisSeperabit60 3 years ago
"if you even begun to grasp the notion of an all-encompassing and supremely righteous god then you would realise that as the ultimate giver of all life he has every right to take life away again."
Or anything else that may catch his fancy? If this god were to tell you to beat a small child to an inch of her life, rape her, kill her slowly with judicious application of pliers and a blowtorch, and to top it off by then raping her dead body, it would be "good"?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"the very basis for most...moral beliefs is (insert holy book). the heritage which has shaped the laws of the country and underlined the fundamental moral(s)...shared by all...for generations."
What happens when this statement is made in reference to Saudi Arabia? How about pre-colonial Mexico? Ancient Greece? What you might find is that people are fairly similar. Where they differ sharply revolves around irrational constructs like nationalism, racism, maladaptive tradition and religion.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
It was moral in pre-colonial Mexico to rip the heart out of your fellow human being in order to ensure that the sun would rise or otherwise please your god or gods. It is moral to execute a woman who has sexual intercourse out of marriage in Saudi Arabia. What you may find when you strip away the nonsense of religion, and other such irrational constructs, is that a purer—more common sense morality lays waiting beneath. One accessible to all. Your Jehovah corrupts this process.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago