University of Oxford researchers will undertake a $4 million study to investigate why people believe in God.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Danny Johnston)Worshipers from First Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Highland, Ark., gather in a meeting room at the Hardy, Ark., Fire Station Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008. A tornado destroyed the church building Tuesday, Feb. 5, in Highland.
The university's Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will bring together anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics for a three-year study on whether belief in a divine being is an inherent part of mankind's makeup.
"We are interested in exploring exactly in what sense belief in God is natural," said Justin Barrett, a psychologist and leading member of the research team, according to the Church of England Newspaper. "We think there is more on the nature side than a lot of people suppose."
The researchers will develop a "scientific approach" to why mankind believes in God and other issues around the nature and origin of religious belief. The study will also look into which religious beliefs are most common and most natural for the human mind to grasp.
Roger Trigg, acting director of the Ian Ramsey Center, said anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it's been waning in Britain and parts of Europe, according to The Associated Press.
"There are a lot of issues. What is it that is innate in human nature to believe in God, whether it is gods or something superhuman or supernatural?" he asked. "One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation."
The study comes as many Christians in the West feel there is growing hostility toward Christianity in the public square. Outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have come out louder in recent years, arguing against the Christian faith and encouraging other atheists to come out of the closet.
Researchers of the Oxford study will not attempt to answer whether God exists but they will examine evidence to try to prove whether belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, according to UK's The Times.
The study will be funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a U.S.-based philanthropic organization that funds wide-ranging research into questions that deal with the laws of nature and issues of spirituality.
RSS
This link might be interesting to those who are seeking an explanation for the human belief in God.
http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/pdf.php...
and this site
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosoph...
These demonstrate clearly why while the theory of evolution itself is not only not incompatible with the belief in God in a way it virtually requires a belief in God in order to maintain its validity.
You have GOT to be kidding me? I guess these guys have been reading that tripe by Richard Dawkins that some people are genetically predisposed to religion and that it needs to be "weeded out" of them. Kind of has a Hitlerian sound to it doesn't it? And why shouldn't it? Atheism's natural outworking is tyranny and death - ala Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. To these people, "Survival of the fittest" needs to be helped along by engineering their sick theory into people.
They're called the "new" atheists, but there's nothing new about them.
Here is some more hard evidence regarding Jesus. Incidentally, the disciples and other first century witnesses cannot be dismissed merely because they believe. James for example in which history points toward him having founded what is today known as the Eastern Orthodox Church as the brother of Jesus. Apparently he did not think highly of his brother Jesus for having caused disruptions and criticisms of the family. He was skeptical of Jesus until he witnessed the resurrection of Christ first hand. His martyrdom was recorded by Josephus.
Here is more archeological evidence that not only Jesus existed, but that he was regarded highly enough to have been inscribed on tombs.
Tomb Inscriptions - late 30's C.E.?
"Several of the tombs in the Dominus Flevit ['the Lord wept'] catacombs outside Jerusalem bear inscriptions like, 'Jesus, have mercy', and 'Jesus, remember me in the resurrection', inscriptions thought to date from the 40's or late 30's, and indicating the presence in Jerusalem from a fairly early date of a community that believed in resurrection and in the power of someone named Jesus to see the believer safely through death and beyond."
- Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus
This quote was copied from a liberal scholarship web sight by the way.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sources.html
The problem with natural morality is that it cannot ultimately account for Christian virtues such as self-sacrifice; which was looked upon the Romans and Greeks as week. Neo-Darwinism cannot explain Mother Teresa, William Carey, William Tyndale, etc, etc, except but to say that they are malfunctioned. Yet they inspire us all too different levels of self-sacrifice. The Greco-Roman heroism consisted of fighting and conquest. The new virtue of Christian love and self-sacrifice was not a gradual development over time brought on by social evolution, rather it was a very stark contrast that literally compelled a personal response and still does to this day. I would say that not only do materialists have to account for morality, but they also must account for Christ himself and with those who come in contact with him personally and via the gospels.
Naturalism lacks the inert power to make such paradigm shifts. Perhaps the meta-Darwinists can develop some sort of quantum leap to account for Christ. This would only elevate Christ to a super-human status. Because of his not mere contribution, but entire restructuring of morality and virtue he cannot simply be divorced from society, not just ours but the world over. What I am trying to say is that not only does naturalism have to account for the transformation of society, including morality, but it must also explain Jesus Himself. He cannot summarily be dismissed as a quasi-historical religious figure. The symbol of Greek heroism was Alexander the Great. Heroism is essentially what the culture values. It is interesting how William Blake makes the point that classic heroism is the real source of evil, referring to Napoleon Bonaparte’s conquest. Why did it take religion, Christianity in particular to cultivate and institute a higher evolved ethic? It was not a mere byproduct, but a direct result. Other Christian virtues include loyalty and generosity, both akin to self-sacrificial love. It was actually considered heroic to go into debt to give.
One example of this is how William Wilberforce knew that when he begun fighting for the abolition of slavery that he would not win and yet he was esteemed as a hero by many at the time. This was in spite of his defeat and despite his sacrifice.
Token says: “I know through experience that my efforts are fruitless... in order for me to be able to discuss this and make any headway is if i make claims with heavily backed evidence, or if i am an expert.”
This point that you make is very important to consider the nature of debate in the first place. Whether or not you have considered this or not it is still worth pointing out to others on the thread: The Christian/atheism debate such as this does not prove incontrovertibly one way or another regarding a particular matter. Because neither can be proven in the imperialistic sense, we must get into more subjective areas and postulations that are necessarily drawn from preconceived ideas developed beforehand. Most everyone comes to the table with there own notions, therefore it is difficult to have a transparent conversation. I do however appreciate your personal transparency that you brought to the discussion. I do hope that you will be willing to examine the references that I posted, especially, N.T. Wright’s work, ‘The Resurrection of the Son of God’. This is the crux of the matter, as you well understand no doubt.
Anyway, the winner of the debate often belongs to whoever has researched the most and is able to articulate it in a matter that is most persuasive. Sometimes this is connected to whichever side has a more compelling position, but it is not necessarily so. Furthermore, it can be argued that if someone loses a debate it does not infer that that person’s position is actually wrong; it may be that the person is either not well informed or incapable of delivery.
I would also like to recommend to you a book that I have been reading titled The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories by Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler. It is a difficult read, but important nonetheless in understanding the issues of the debate. It is written by Christian evolutionists that are not afraid of critiquing every side. Unfortunately they do not include Hugh Ross and other old-earth creationists, which is where I lean.
I was flagged the other day for something that seemed very trivial.
TheHuron137, thank you for brining that to my atention. I will check it out.
I agree. All these flaggings are really annoying as well as unneccesary. I've only flagged people a couple times in the past year. And that was because of their language and their use of ethnic slurs. I wish people would quit flagging just because they don't like the other person's opinion.
citsonga, look how often I have been flagged, and whence is the hate speatch? Nowhere and yet it occurs.
And keep government out of religion.
"Oxford Probes Why People Believe in God"
Genetics plays a large role in ones additude towards religion..........its runs in families
Looks like theres posters out there that cant stand the opposing view so they decided to flag my comments. Free speech would be one of the first casualties in a theocracy. Thats why it is important to keep religion out of government.
seedplanter
First it should be noted in the Time article that the author nowhere references that quote or heard him say it directly. I have posted a link to the Time article below.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103,00.html
This quote is suspicious on several points. An article in Skeptic Magazine titled "Misquoting Einstein" Vol. 12 No. 3 2006 deals with this quote. The Skeptic article further states that in a letter by Einstein dated March 28, 1947 the contents of the letter state that early in the hitler years he had casually mentioned to some journalists that hardly any german intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom. Einstein added that this statement had subsequently been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own.
Since this article is still fairly recent a free copy may be unavailable. I just happen have most of the Skeptic magazines in print. You can however locate a copy at a library or find a downloadable version of the article that may run you a few dollars.
seedplanter-
I believe that you have possibly made a mistake in your attribution or interpretation of that quote by Einstein. I will research and get back to you. If I've made a mistake I will admit it as I am pulling something from memory from a while ago.
Sigh... I'm going to lay down my pen at this point... my tenacity to debate this subject has lessened with the more experience ive obtained from the discussions I've had in the past... I've already passed the point where the motivating factor behind my desire to discuss being simply to prove it to myself. At this point if i enter any religious discussion, it is simply to attempt to explain something to an individual... but I know through experience that my efforts are fruitless... in order for me to be able to discuss this and make any headway is if i make claims with heavily backed evidence, or if i am an expert. Im not calling you stubborn or thick headed, as this may sound, you are actually very intelligent, and you have picked me apart for my lazyness, but ive no longer the stamina to do the leg work necessary. Thanks for this discussion and good luck in your ventures.
Regarding naturally evolved objective morality. Conquest was the Greco-Roman virtue. It was a Christian who stood up at the last Gladiator game and decried the human depravity which ensuing his martyrdom caused two reverberations that to this day can still be felt. (1) He brought human dignity to the attention of the masses as a force to be reckoned with. (2) He triumphed over Greco-Roman heroism which consisted of conquest as the extolled virtue of the day.
Why is it that love and self-sacrifice was not a virtue until the light of Christ’s sacrifice brought it to bear upon human consciousness? It is because within the Neo-Darwinian paradigm it doesn’t seem very advantageous. In fact it is quite contrary to what we see in nature. To what benefit is sacrifice in the scheme of survival of the fittest?
I will speak more of this tomorrow.
Morality: (1) It needs to be demonstrated that it does exist as an objective historical value within the natural materialistic foundation. (2) It also needs to be demonstrated how it evolved within the naturalistic paradigm. A) This needs to deal with issues relative to its transitions within evolution. B) It must include a basis for morality in reference to animals, among themselves. (3) Regarding the latter, it would seem necessary for us to take responsibility for instituting some sort of morality and justice between animals since we are the higher species.
The important thing within atheism is for it to consist of a coherent worldview. Christianity does offer that. I find atheism to be a sort of wishful speculation that defies reality. It does not seem to fit comfortably in the real world.
Token says: “sorry if i came off as rude... I used to be able to be much better at keeping my manners”
SP- I haven’t noticed anything that was rude in our interaction. We may have gotten off to a rough start on some other threads. I appreciate the way you have entered into a respectful dialogue.
Token “…i have to say that i dont see how people intrepreting scripture in different ways would benefit anyone...”
SP- It sounds like maybe you are fishing for information and yet I gave you plenty. Do you need me to spell it out for you and give you all the details? I do not intend to come across rude in saying so, but it does seem a bit odd. It reveals a lack of familiarity on your part, with the Bible and with its historical relevance.
Token “... basically what im going to say is that if it wasnt christianity it would of been something else, and what we find in most religions is that they all basically teach the same things....”
SP- Again, this is entirely too simplistic. It doesn’t explain anything, it just relegates it as nothing more than an accident. Out of all the nations and cultures and out of all the religions and beliefs, these benefits were only expressed within the Christian worldview. This is not an issue to side step, especially from militant atheists who want to eliminate faith. This is why you are here is it not, to eliminate faith?
Token “Im going to make this bold challenge to you, im going to claim that there is 0 evidence of the existence of Jesus in history outside the confines of the Bible.”
This is an absurdity. Look around the internet, there is plenty of info out there. The James ossuary is the most recent archeological find that is credible evidence to the existence of Jesus. Ben Witherington wrote some stuff on it. N.T. Wright has published the most comprehensive volume to date on Jesus. It is called The Resurrection of the Son of God. Check it out.
So you've spoken.
Where there is no accountability, there is no responsibility. Where there is no responsibility, there is no guilt. Where there is no guilt, there is no end to man's atrocities and abominations.
citizen,
I’m not sure if you have caught up with the thread, but I wanted to further elaborate on my response to your presentation of Hitler. While atheists such as Dawkins argue over Hitler’s religious affiliation, it seems that the fact that Christians fought for the Jews’ lives is completely omitted. Gene Edward Veith points out in his work “Fascism: Modern and Postmodern” how that Albert Einstein turned to the universities, editors of newspapers and individual authors to find them reduced to silence: "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. …The Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom." Albert Einstein, Time magazine (December 23, 1940).
As we look at what I would be considered a pseudo-Christian Hitler vs. Biblical Christians we discover Scripture speaking; ‘Test everything, hold onto the good.’
Or better yet, if you don't like the punishment, don't do the crime. Simple.
Are you arguing the punishiment? Or the warning?
prophet:''You live in a society that is all about fear and retribution. You speed...you get a ticket and a fine. Yous steal...you go to jail. You rape...you go to jail for a longer time. You murder someone you go to jail for a VERY long time....or face a worse punishment. I don't hear you complain about those retributions. Please come up with a better argument."
They all pale in comparison to the "loving God" sending the non-believers to eternal torture chambers.
citsonga,
You live in a society that is all about fear and retribution. You speed...you get a ticket and a fine. Yous steal...you go to jail. You rape...you go to jail for a longer time. You murder someone you go to jail for a VERY long time....or face a worse punishment. I don't hear you complain about those retributions. Please come up with a better argument.
prophet: "eternity in hell. "
Its all about fear and retribution for Christians and Muslims. I thought religion was suppose to bring comfort to people. Seems like its all based on fear. Fear of death and hell and the promise for eternal life in heaven if you "believe" is whats its all about.....all rather silly stuff. I guess you ccan believe in what you want, I say there Prophet what ever floats your boat..
The road to hell is a super highway. Built for speed and maximum comfort. No one would want to go to hell if the ride wasn't so comfortable. But, alas, a few short years of comfort on earth in exchange for eternity in hell. That's a good trade.
And, as far as "organically atheistic" countries having a better standard of living. Whether a country is Christian or atheist has absolutely nothing to do with standard of living. We could institute just about everything that those countries do without sacrificing our relgious beliefs. Such as socialized medicine. Christians don't keep that from happening in America. Politicians do. I would like to see some changes in many aspects of our country, and many of them have nothing to do with religion. I think the way we do income tax is a farce. Once again, that has nothing to do with religion.
I'm predicting that Oxford will come up with a scientific based reason for human kind's need to believe in god. The religious community will shrug it off as irrelevant just like they did when the religiously affiliated Templeton Foundation conducted the largest most rigorous research to investigate the effect of intercessory prayer and found that intercessory prayer had no effect. Either that or blame the devil. I wonder if they will be able to demonstrate the evolutionary advantages of faith as Daniel Dennett asserts.
Im going to make this bold challenge to you, im going to claim that there is 0 evidence of the existence of Jesus in history outside the confines of the Bible. But to modify this statement a bit, as I've said before... Men of religion will go to such great lengths to change concepts and history itself in order to defend religion, so im going to say that if you find anything that states jesus's existence in history is valid was written by a clergymen who wasnt even alive at the time of jesus's supposed existence. Find to me a document written by an objective observer of Jesus's time, that mentions Jesus as a real person. Im also going to throw out this theory that the story of Jesus heavily borrows from the story of the religion worshiping Mithras, and that it also stole things such as the halo from that religion, and even stole the story of how Mithras was born.
Whats more most religions teach some of the basics, dont steal dont murder, and almost all religions teach the golden rule 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' Some religions are vastly modified because of individuals, but they all start out the same...
TokenSP—
You seem to act as if “religion” is some big monolithic belief system that people have. Over six billion people in this world are “religious”, but they believe radically different things, much of it which contradicts each other. The fact that religions may have some similarities is really irrelevant. It’s the DIFFERENCES that matter and they are huge.
You say “most religions come to the same conclusions on moral precepts.” Well have a look at Islam as one example—both in their sacred text and the way they live it out. I think you’ll find their morality quite different from Christianity. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength. What other religion holds this as the greatest moral imperative?
You also said, “what I’m going to say is that if it wasn’t Christianity it would of been something else”
This totally ignores the fact that Christianity wasn’t simply the creation of a new religion. Christianity began as the result of something that had HAPPENED—Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead. This is what changed his followers from being scared and confused to turning the world upside down. Christianity is rooted in a historical event that can be verified.
Since youre logging out ill just say my final comment on that... One arguement Christians use is that we are simply denying authority or we're scared or that somehow Christianity is in the back of our concious nagging us causing us to fear that we may be wrong... I've gotten to the point where I have no fear what so ever that i may be wrong... I mean I never knew if that was possible, and i never really thought it was but i have actually gotten to the point where i actually dont even care about this discussion... I am only discussing this right now in passing interest.. of course i feel strongly about my position no doubt about that, but I dont fear that im wrong... I have just had so much convincing evidence against religion... and i havent even gone over a fraction of it... Whats more, and probably the part that caused me to loose great interest in this discussion is that I have found out that many experts arguing for the Christian side have actually lied, or made conclusions with limited knowledge... I was kind of disgusted at the lack of professionalism. In any case im done for the night, sorry if i came off as rude... I used to be able to be much better at keeping my manners, but i admit i have lost that ability along the way.
I suppose there were benefits to people messing around with the Bible... I am not against giving respect to what ever contribution those may have been, although i have to say that i dont see how people intrepreting scripture in different ways would benefit anyone... as an atheist i am biased and i do think that not believing in religion in general is better than believing in religion... but thats not much different than me rooting for my team, I mean I have reasoning behind my beliefs on this matter, but just being practical im going to think that regardless...
Now your whole thing with the constitution... my goodness, do you not realize how SIMILAR most of the religions are in the world? Seriously I havee never taken a class in anthropology, but i have been in these discussions millions of times, and i have had mini courses in the developments of religion... religions all have a basic structure in development, that follows the same pattern until they become a supra religion such as christianity or islam... its just how societys work... every society throughout history has had some form of religion, and sometimes those religions develop into a mainstream religion and become as famous as christianity... basically what im going to say is that if it wasnt christianity it would of been something else, and what we find in most religions is that they all basically teach the same things.... because morality, tends to be the same thing across the world... there are differences, for example sometimes the punishment for stealing grains of rice in a society that depends on rice for their survival, would be more severe than anywhere else... but excluding these differences, most religions come to the same conclusions on moral precepts.... so you claim that christianity was a factor in developing the constitution, but i think that if youre an intelligent person you can find the morals that are sound in any religion, now i think if it was a different religion our constitution would of been different, but who can say it would of been worse? You have no way of knowing that.
I'm signing off for the night. Not to lay on the psychological pressure, but I do pray for you guys. Have a good night Token!
citizen, I'll be keeping an eye out for your response.
Token: “having money doesnt mean your living standard is better.... that just means we're greedy people...”
Your assessment here is correct in my opinion. One thing that I would have to qualify is that through Luther’s reformation a high value was put on work ethic. No longer was the priesthood the only high calling of God. This distinguishes the nations of Christian influence.
Token says: “…the motivational factor that caused them to do good…”
Seedplanter response: The long list of Christian achievements in the world is another complex story. Keep in mind, the things that I listed is not even half the contributions to society. Some of the factors included the Bible itself as a means of understanding our world, human dignity, interacting with each other, with nature, etc. Obviously the monasteries did not invent things to gain points in heaven. I am interested in researching this more myself. Numerous reformers lead the charge against Rome for many things. Luther stood on trial for his work called the Diet of Worms (no kidding). He had seen the Scripture truths outside of the confines of Rome and for the first time understanding salvation by faith rather than human perfection and works, transformed him and thereby literally changed the world forever. This single issue should be driven deep into the halls of the academia. As it is most Christians are completely ignorant, as was I. At any rate, Luther refused to recant upon two issues, the Bible and plain reason.
Luther was condemned, but for political reasons continued his work, he was protected by the prince. He then translated the Scriptures in German (as Tyndale did in English) and with the invention of the printing press, the chains of Biblical ignorance were forever broken. If you study the pattern of this development throughout the nations, what you will find may surprise you. Study the history of China and see why even though they invented a printing press before Gutenberg, it was sterile as to developing anything. Read the life of William Carey by Vishal Mangalwadi (who has first hand experience as a native to India) and see what he did there. (You can find some of his stuff online). Compare the social posits of Christianity verses Buddhism and Hinduism.
So it was not just the press, it was the Bible that changed the world. How? Not through fear of hell, but by its infinite wisdom. You may laugh at this, but just how much of the constitution and our government do you know to have been directly influenced by its wisdom? You may say, well its unscientific. How do you know? Are you just presuming so based on certain interpretations of Genesis? So to give you a short answer to your question of motivation; some was spiritual, while others were practical, fear would not be included as a motive for productivity at all. I do not think that I included any contribution in my list that was merely a casual believer.
I understand what youre saying, and i agree... it is beneficial in this way, my mother was a drug addict who became clean when she turned to religion... I see it all the time, im no stranger to this concept, and i have to thank religion for that... but what you dont see are the hundreds of thousands of people who are able to overcome their addictions and problems via other ways that have nothing to do with religion... now of course, so many people are not so strong willed... for example my story is that in this 5 years i have lost 5 family members 4 of them passing away this past year, with only month intervals... that is i lost my brother my father my uncle my grandmother and sister... all in separate events... and I dont speak with my mother, and havent spoken to her since my fathers funeral... I am basically a wretch at this point... a man without a family to speak of... and yet I was able to keep my head held up high, and i was able to pull through and i am going to college and striving to make something of myself... i am not an alcoholic, I havent been brought down by depression, and so on and so forth.... but not everyone is so fortunate... many people do turn to alcohol or drugs, or other evils to ease the pain... and some people do need religion to give them a sense of purpose... but i contend that if we give people the support the love and we help them see that life still goes on after tragedy, and that we are still able to experience joy even after all the pains we've gone through, we wont need religion... now its not that simple and i know that... but I say that every single case can be explained... what psychological reasons caused a person to turn good... but youre right, i dont see them as miracles.. but i can see why anyone who has witness countless cases such as that may come to the conclusion that some larger force is at work... because it does seem that way... but when you sit down to examine it, that is an extraordinary claim, thats going to need extraordinary proof that youre not goin to find..
and even if you dont take joy in helping other people, as some people dont, we can still see the logic in helping other people. By helping eachother to live in this world, by creating harmony in the community, we are helping eachother, we can see that society in general becomes happier, prospers, and to just state it... are better able to survive in this world, if we work together... we can see the logic there... if i help you and you help me, then together we'll prosper... thats basically what morality aims to achieve... by not killing this man, the man is able to live on to help other people or to find the cure for cancer, or maybe just to help the ecconomy, by going to work, and buying food and luxuries from time to time... Morality simply creates harmony...
Let me answer your thoughts on motivations from your initial challenge.
The most fascinating factor in Christian conversion is an inner transformation that takes place. Many atheists doubt the veracity of miracles. If no other miracle was evident besides the resurrection, the rebirth would be enough. Murderers, drunks, homeless, hateful, vengeful people are instantly transformed by the power of the gospel. Some do indeed turn to AA and such for help, but an inner change begins to take place nonetheless. I have seen men’s arms with needle marks up one side and down the other; men who today are in executive positions. I have met at least two men who were millionaires that became homeless who are now reconciling with their families because of the gospel. I have met former murderous drug addicted pimps who are now preaching hope to the seemingly insignificant of society. Now for you no matter how long I went on it would not faze you a bit. But for these people and millions of others, this transformation is not only real but it is evidence of a divine power that has penetrated their heart, transforming it inside-out. To get to my point; this change that takes place seems to act on its own, sort of like naturally. Of course it involves will and desire, but often times this unearthly power supercedes the will in such a way that alcoholics are literally no longer riddled with a desire whatsoever. The sexually abused woman is no longer bitter and living in gilt driven grief, she is now not only wanting to forgive (often times to their horror), but wants to help the abuser mend his soul. The power of the gospel can so infect a man that it causes him to do the things that he would never do. This is not fueled by heaven, hell, a point system or anything else that is self-serving. Of course heaven and hell have their place. Often times they can motivate in one way or another. But there is something much deeper down affecting the psyche than fear could ever tell. This of course is something that atheism could never touch. Why America is the way it is in regards to the penetration of the gospel, we may never know. One thing that is for certain is that people have a spiritual nature and a mysterious inherent tendency towards worship. There is indeed a God-shaped vacuum that atheism cannot fill. This is one more reason of many why militant atheism is hitting a brick wall.
Morality is something that you can understand using logic and reason.. things are only morally correct if their justifications are sound and valid... some things we can just say are opinions or personal choices... the difference between morality and any other opinion is that morality strikes us on a deeper level... we feel its more apart of our character, we feel more is at stake when we play odds with morality... we say its bad to murder someone, and when ever we witness it we feel shock and horror and a sense of repulsion at the man or woman who commmitted the murder, because we feel they did WRONG. If we steal from someone, depending on if you realize the pain youre causing the person, we are likely to feel guilt, a sense of shame in our action, in knowing that we did something wrong. If we see someone doing good, such as a man who goes out of his way to help an old lady shovel her side walk free of charge, we feel a sense of joy and inspiration this sort of sense that that man is doing good, and that we should do likewise because it creates happiness and harmony for others and we can take joy in knowing that we have helped other people (this is a bit selfish, but im trying to catch the emotions people feel when something is moral rather than just an opinion) and the lists of examples go on....
sorry, same = sam
To further explain this.... two people, same and tom, give money to hobo joe... sam does it because religion taught him to love his fellow man, and so it is just became an ingrained charactistic of his personality, tom does it because his parents taught him to be good and to always help people in need so it became ingrained in his personality... both people are right.. they gave money to hobo joe... but religion isnt necessary to be good, it helps ill give you that, if religion is good for anything it is good for teaching morality, but religion doesnt hold the monoply on morality. It did for centuries in the past, anthropology tells us that religion has been around in one form or another as far back as man was able to record history... but now we dont need to hear a story in order to do good... now we can realize that if we help hobo joe, we are giving him the oppurtunity to go and buy some food so that he can live in a bit more harmony... we are creating harmony by giving him money.. we dont need a story anymore...
:P Ok that is an act of me being lazy... i know its more complex than that but im just saying... I realize and respect that people of religion have done wonderful things to progress humanity... that is what every man and woman should strive to do, to make this world a better place, whether it is to give money to a homeless person, or discover the laws of gravity... and i realize that christians dont all act in the name of religion... but if youre trying to say that religion is good because people are taught to do good things, i say that people should be good just because it is right. Now I think that it doesnt matter how we become good people as long as we are good people, but what im just trying to say is that we shouldnt say that just because a religious person did good we should attribute that to his religion... we should attribute that to the person themselves.... I mean its like your pawning off all the good people do to religion, and the only way you can get away with doing that is if you say that religion was the motivational factor that caused them to do good... if it wasnt then it wasnt because of religion and we shouldnt even consider that in our discussion of these peoples achievments...
What I said was that hte living standards are better... having money doesnt mean your living standard is better.... that just means we're greedy people...
By the way the name of the article is Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns, but for some reason they took the article down, maybe to further edit it but you can find commentary on the article if you google it... some of the sites are just statistics, but just look for sites that contain comentary on the actual article itself... or perhaps excerpts from the article or if youre really lucky the article itself.
Token: “Better lives in that better health longer lives, less divorce rate less death rate, and less crime rate.... Money isnt everything folks....”
Token asked: “Did you know there is a study that says that the more atheistic a country is the better the living standards are?”
Seedplanter Response: I answer your challenge, now you say it doesn’t matter.
Token: “What do you say about the bible condoning slavery and striking slaves should they misbehave and all the other punishments you get, such as working on sabath (spell check) and all the other aspects of the bible...”
SP Re: Some work has been done on the issue of slavery, examining the historical and the cultural setting. I have not read up on that personally. It does come across as a flaw.
Token: “About contributions... IT DOESNT MATTER!!”
SP Re: Oh Really? You obviously are riding on the Neo-Darwinian bandwagon and you do not think that survivability matters?! You actually think that abstract truth, specifically in regards to religious belief, in a worldview that consists of relying upon naturally evolving intelligence can give real answers for such a thing? You think that Neo-Darwinism provides an authority by which its adherents get to decide what is advantageous for everyone else? Talk about objectivity.
Token: “People should be good just because its the right thing to do not because theyre trying to get some brownie points with the 'man upstairs' thats horrible! If you help out a person because youre trying to get to Heaven, thats a horrible motivational reason. So I dont agree with people who use such arguements... look at all the good people have done in the name of religion... that just tells me how horrible the human race is....”
SP Re: Not to be rude Token, but this just reveals how little atheists really know and understand Christianity and Christians. First of all, Christians need not apologize for the beliefs that they hold, not to you, not to anyone. How arrogant!
Secondly, there are numerous motives for why Christians do the things they do. Your assessment is entirely too simplistic. It reveals not only a lack of understanding and serious investigation, but also a trace of no real desire to. As a Christian I know that there are several reasons why one turns to atheism. People are complex. Your evaluation shows little respect in way of some of the greatest minds that ever lived. While you have in fact suppressed the sarcasm that frequents the post, you have not done so well in the integrity of your debates.
actually i did read every single page except for the maybe 4 - 5 posts preceding my first post because i had gotten tired of reading and wanted to put input in :P.
Token, have you read the thread?
Better lives in that better health longer lives, less divorce rate less death rate, and less crime rate.... Money isnt everything folks....
Ok have you ever read the Bible? What do you say about the bible condoning slavery and striking slaves should they misbehave and all the other punishments you get, such as working on sabath (spell check) and all the other aspects of the bible...
About contributions... IT DOESNT MATTER!! People should be good just because its the right thing to do not because theyre trying to get some brownie points with the 'man upstairs' thats horrible! If you help out a person because youre trying to get to Heaven, thats a horrible motivational reason. So I dont agree with people who use such arguements... look at all the good people have done in the name of religion... that just tells me how horrible the human race is....
Adding to what tgender said, Biblical inerrancy doesn’t mean that everything is to be taken literally. It is only to be taken literally where it is intended to be taken literally. For example, Jesus is pictured with a sword coming out of His mouth. This is obviously figurative. Skeptics love to have fun by imposing views in the Scriptures that are not warranted (i.e. the crazy misconception that Jesus taught cannibalism).
I personally take a more modest approach when it comes to debating skeptics. Inerrancy is not contingent upon salvation any more than moral perfection is. Bottom line, there is a God. We act as if there is a God, even when we live in rebellion against God. One may call himself an atheist, but he lives in self doubt by clinging to morality and meaning that he/she borrows from theists.
(I flagged myself)
TokenSP—
“No Christian alive follows every tenet of the Bible”
This is a problem with Christians, not the Bible. I’m not saying Christians are perfect; no one is, including atheists.
“I think, that if any part of the Bible is false, then all of it should be held under strict scrutiny.”
I agree, however I think the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches.
Europe is living off of the interest that has been invested by Christians. For example if it wasn't for John Wesley a brutal civil war would have been inevitable in England. Other priceless investments include:
Public schools: Martin Luther first had the idea of tax supported public education.
Universal Education
Lutheran Johann Sturm introduced graded levels of education.
Kindergarten
Education for the deaf.
Education for the blind.
TokenSP—
“My simple rebuttal to atheism having no purpose in life, if this were at ALL true, then we would be highly suicidal individuals, because believe me if i felt that my life was meaningless id of taken my life a long time ago and ended this meaningless existence.”
I’m not saying atheists have no meaning or purpose, but simply that they must invent it in order to live happy lives. This is because there is nothing in the structure of the universe to provide meaning and purpose. Everything is ultimately futile.
“Your view on life is rather morbid if I do say so myself.”
You’ll have to explain this because I experience hope, joy, and peace. On the contrary, I think the the atheist view is morbid and full of despair.
“Its a good thing you find purpose in religion.”
I don’t find purpose in religion, but in God as he’s revealed himself in Jesus Christ. There’s a big difference.
” My opinion is that if you answer those two questions fully and completely... then you cant honestly be a Christian.”
What two questions? You didn’t pose any questions.
GENEVA - American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.
They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States “leads the world in labor productivity.”
The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/
North Korea is not an organically atheistic country. Ill find the study for you, but basically much of the countries in Europe are atheist... and by the way the evil dilemma does capture the good aspect of the world.. but i have to discuss that later im running out the door.
I flagged myself to edit a few mistakes.
TokenSP,
I appreciate your courteous evaluation. I must ask however if you read through the threads here before you posted your thoughts?
Token says: “A little tip, the reason atheists are so interested in this subject in America, is because we are the minority in a religious country, so of course we're going to spend a lot of time trying to argue our point. My guess is that if you flip flopped this and placed a religious person in an atheist country youd find that the religious person would be similar to the atheist.”
While it is true that Christians are not the minority, it is also true that Christianity has been attacked from Hollywood and marginalized by the media elite for a number of years. Of course there has recently been a rise in programming such as Bill O’Reilly and Shawn Hannity. Even financial expert Dave Ramsey is allowed to point towards the Savior. This has been a recent phenomenon as media giants have come to recognize America truly is religious. They have discovered the profits to be acquired with such openness to the religious discussion.
Token: “Whats more if youve ever talked to an atheist person who lives in an atheist country youll find that they never talk about religoin, and that they simply dismiss the whole discussion as absurd...”
This is similar to what I have been arguing here. Why bother? Atheism seems akin to an oxymoron in its very nature. This is especially true in the case of the new militant atheism. I have yet to meet someone who is an aSantaist; an anti-Santaist or someone who is anti-Santa seems even more absurd. While it may be determined by certain propositions that Santa may or may not actually exist, if it defies all logic and reasoning to consider such a person, why bother at all? The person would be akin to someone who doubts there own existence. If theism is so absurd, it should seem rather obvious to everyone as with the example I gave. Furthermore the title aSantaist would be hopelessly absurd to use as an identification which numerous atheists do. I believe a similar argument was used by G.K. Chesterton.
About your pseudo-dilemma of evil and suffering: Logical though it may seem this is a very emotionally and subjectively based argument. For example, it does not take into account the presence of goodness. Neither does it reckoned with the outcomes of the good in terms of a relatively short time of the supposed ‘evil.’
Token,
You said "Did you know there is a study that says that the more atheistic a country is the better the living standards are?" What study is that? I'd like to look at the figures. Because N. Korea is an athiestic country, and I don't know anyone that wants to live there. America is a religious country, and it's the most free and prosperous country on the earth.
We live on in the memories of our friends family and most especially our children. I believe my purpose in life is to produce children and to raise them to be respectable young adults, so that they can continue our existence. Whats more, I also believe our purpose is to make this world a better place for our offspring and fellow men to live in. I also think this is the fundamental point of morality, simply to create a world of harmony, and to lessen chaos as much as possible. Consider that for a bit before you try to refute that. My simple rebuttal to atheism having no purpose in life, if this were at ALL true, then we would be highly suicidal individuals, because believe me if i felt that my life was meaningless id of taken my life a long time ago and ended this meaningless existence. No, I believe we contain purpose and it is something that can be found without the existence of a deity. Your view on life is rather morbid if I do say so myself.. Its a good thing you find purpose in religion =/.
My opinion is that if you answer those two questions fully and completely... then you cant honestly be a Christian. No Christian alive follows every tenet of the Bible, in fact Jews tell people NOT to follow most of the commandments the Bible offers, because we SHOULDNT. Its funny how, people try to pawn this off by saying that it is a cultural thing... but that makes morality relative... if you understand anything about cultural relativism, you are subscribing to this view by admitting this. And you know what? it is true.. each culture does have its own take on morality... thats just the way things are... but that doesnt mean that every culture is right... thats just simply the way life goes! I think, that if any part of the Bible is false, then all of it should be held under strict scrutiny...
TokenSP—
“We do feel accountable… we are accountable to ourselves”
When one talks about being morally accountable, it means to someone other than oneself. What you’re describing is moral relativism, which is a false ethical system that is easily disproven.
“Life is given meaning by everything we love.... to humans the only thing we apply value to are the things we care about. Find something you care about, and you’ll find meaning in life.”
Without God, there is no ultimate meaning in the universe. If each individual passes out of existence when he dies, what ultimate meaning can there be? If all events are meaningless, then it doesn’t matter if he lived at all – there is no significance to life. If everything ends at the grave, ultimately it makes no difference how one lives either. Since our destiny is unrelated to our behavior, we would be free to live as we please. Since there would be no goal for the universe’s existence, there could be no hope either for its ultimate destiny either. And if this is true of the universe, then this is true of each individual person as well. Without God, man is simply a freak of nature – a blind product of time plus matter plus chance. To live purposefully, atheists must make a blind leap of faith to provide a reason for living. They can only find any lasting happiness in life by deluding themselves.
“What is a Christians purpose in life? To die and go to heaven?”
Biblical Christianity provides the two conditions necessary for meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality. With these, man can live both consistently and happily. The Bible affirms that man is ultimately significant because he was made in God’s image. Every human being is extremely valuable to God. Man has eternal life, which is the fulfillment of his existence on earth. Moral values are rooted in the nature of God Himself. God’s commands are man’s objective moral duties. And our moral choices have eternal significance because God holds man accountable for them. Man’s life has a purpose – to glorify God by enjoying Him forever. Biblical Christianity succeeds where atheism breaks down. This doesn’t prove that God exists or that Christianity is true, but it clearly spells out the alternatives: If God doesn’t exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible is true, then life is meaningful, valuable, and purposeful.
TokenSP—
“I think atheists are faced with a lot more unknowns than christians”
Finally, an atheist who admits this! You are the first honest atheist I’ve seen in a long while.
“Christians never consider these questions "What if I’m wrong?" and then "Am I wrong?" you can dismiss the first one pretty quickly after you come to its conclusion, but the second, no Christian truly considers completely and actually tries to OBJECTIVELY answer that question.”
Perhaps some of the Christians you’ve run into are like this, but it’s unfair to say this of all Christians. I am certainly willing to ask both questions and I have. Believe me, I’m all in favor of objectively evaluating the evidence. It's just that I’ve found the evidence so overwhelming in favor of Christianity that I’ve become more and more sure of it over time.
We have moral foundation, take a class in ethics. We do feel accountable, its just that we are a little more mature about it. Its immature to think that we need to be accountable to some external factor, in order for us to behave morally... We dont need mommy to scold us for eating the cookie anymore, we know why we shouldnt eat the cookie. Whats more, we are accountable to ourselves, for committing evil. Havent you ever felt guilty? We should be mature enough to realize the consequences of our actions, and if you realize the consequence of your actions, and feel no guilt when you have done something wrong, then you dont deserve to be called a normal human being. If there is an afterlife, then we will all experience it. We may have no explanation, but that does not exempt us from experiencing it if it exists. What is a Christians purpose in life? To die and go to heaven? Seems like your purpose is death... I'd actually like an answer to that question, no sarcasm intended. Life is given meaning by everything we love.... to humans the only thing we apply value to are teh things we care about. Find something you care about, and youll find meaning in life. Its as simple as that.
Tgender said
I don’t agree with your concept of faith either. Faith is simply where one puts his or her confidence in the absence of all the information. And let’s face it, since we’re finite human beings, none of us will ever have all the information. So all of us live our lives by some measure of faith, including atheists. You live your life as if God does not exist, including all the implications of that view—no grounding for morality, no ultimate accountability for your actions, no real meaning or purpose in life, no hope for an afterlife, etc. In fact, given all the evidence for Christianity and against atheism, I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
I wasnt aware that I touched on the concept of faith in anything i said. But I agree I think atheists are faced with a lot more unknowns than christians, and thats why i think it should be amazing to Christians that we are atheist. What I meant by the part you quoted that i said, is that Christians never consider these questions "What if im wrong?" and then "Am I wrong?" you can dismiss the first one pretty quicckly after you come to its conclusion, but the second, no Christian truly considers completely and actually tries to OBJECTIVELY answer that question.
I disagree with your assumptions that we have no morality purpose accountability no hope for an afterlife and all that stuff.
TokenSP—
“The flaw in this debate when two people are honestly trying to decide which side is correct, is that the Christian never truly considers the atheists side. To do so would be to abandon faith, and to abandon faith would be to go against your doctrine. The atheist is not limited by such things, and is fully capable of entertaining the idea of a deity without any consequence to their lifestyle.”
I’m not sure why you say this. It is not hard for a Christian to consider the atheist side. Nor should it be hard for an atheist to consider the Christian side. I can easily imagine that God does not exist and consider whether or not the evidence I observe in nature fits that theory.
I don’t agree with your concept of faith either. Faith is simply where one puts his or her confidence in the absence of all the information. And let’s face it, since we’re finite human beings, none of us will ever have all the information. So all of us live our lives by some measure of faith, including atheists. You live your life as if God does not exist, including all the implications of that view—no grounding for morality, no ultimate accountability for your actions, no real meaning or purpose in life, no hope for an afterlife, etc. In fact, given all the evidence for Christianity and against atheism, I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
The flaw in this debate when two people are honestly trying to decide which side is correct, is that the Christian never truly consideres the atheists side. To do so would be to abandon faith, and to abandon faith would be to go against your doctrine. The atheist is not limited by such things, and is fully capable of entertaining the idea of a deity without any consequence to their lifestyle. When you truly consider the possibility that atheism may be correct, then you will make grounds in finally understanding the atheist.
In the end its all a game of semantics. Who is better at wording their sentence and using different types of definitions to win the arguement. Seedplanter I commend you for your intelligence, but simply because youre good in debates, does not mean that your position is correct. I hope everyone realizes this.
sorry dependent on god being perfectly good*
Atheists are not moral relativists. The only reason people think this is because religious people think that if we dont follow the philosophy of divince command then we obviously must be relativists. This is such a faulty assumption. In actuality, its mainly only religious people who believe this about morality. Plus whats more, divine command theory is extremely faulty. Consider this question, "Is what God command good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" If its the former, then morality is arbitrary. This means that if God ordered you to kill your son, you would be morally right in killing your son. Whats more, this theory is highly dependent on God being perfectly evil, which we all know is impossible.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
If God is all powerful all knowing and perfectly Good, then he is incapable of creating evil. Evil exists in the world, therefore either god is not all powerful all knowing or perfectly good. You see, if God was perfectly good then he shouldnt have created evil creatures. If he had more than one option of creating the earth, then he should have picked the one where humans did not exist, because he should be incapable of evil. That evil exists shows that he is capable of it.
Whats more! Most christians dont follow most of any of the commandments of the Bible! There are somewhere near 613 commandments in the Bible. Of those 613, Christians choose to follow somewhere around 10. A flaw if ever I've seen one.
The other theory that religious people follow is the natural law theory, which basically says that morality is objective in nature etc. etc. This is the theory you would follow if you follow the latter part of the quote "Is what God command good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" This is that theory that God engrained morality in us, or morality is found in nature, or morality is based on reasoning, or any of these kinds of theories. Many atheists follow some following of this theory.
Whats more if youve ever taken a class of ethics, you would realize that kant, utility, and all the other forms of objective morality, are ALL correct. They are just correct in different ways. Each one of them has flaws, and all of them do work. Relativists are people who believe morality is something that is subjective or relative to culture.
Did you know there is a study that says that the more atheistic a country is the better the living standards are? Basically they found out that the more organic atheists you can find in a country the better off the country is. Something like the top 20 or so countries are atheist. By the way, did you know USA is ranked pretty low? Its our arrogance that gets the best of us =/.
A little tip, the reason atheists are so interested in this subject in America, is because we are the minority in a religious country, so of course we're going to spend a lot of time trying to argue our point. My guess is that if you flip flopped this and placed a religious person in an atheist country youd find that the religious person would be similar to the atheist. Whats more if youve ever talked to an atheist person who lives in an atheist country youll find that they never talk about religoin, and that they simply dismiss the whole discussion as absurd...
Evolution is NOT RANDOM!!! Both sides err on this part. The only random aspect of it is mutation, and that is not the main proponent of the theory. It is more about parents giving phenotypes to their offsprings so that they may or may not get characteristics that are beneficial to their survival in the environment. generations of this happening lead to the gradual drift away from the parent making them a new species etc etc. If you had an intimate knowledge of the subject, you would realize that randomness is a rare part of evolution. Whats more, abiogenesis and the big bang are not considered evolution. These are totally different subjects.
“...The truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist.” - Alan Bullock
Hitler:
Nature...puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master's right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry...The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel. [Mein Kampf, pp 134-5, 285, 289]
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Hitler's Table Talk, p. 7
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. p. 51
So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science.... Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin—for science is bound to win. Hitler's Table Talk, pp. 59-61
Evidently Hitler was a materialist. At any rate he used Christianity to gain access to the populace in Germany, knowing full well that it was necessary in order to receive support. He then planned on cutting them off.
http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml
In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day points out the 30-point plan for a National Reich church, drawn up by Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi ideologist who was Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and head of the Centre of National Socialist Ideological and Educational Research. Three of its more significant points are as follows:
1. The National Reich church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
2. The National Reich church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.
3. The National Reich church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner's lifetime.
citizen: “Seventh: Are you really surprised that religious people are happier, when they aren't the ones being shoved to the fringe of society, as atheists are? That has nothing to do with the value of religion, that has to do with the power of tribalism and domination.”
SP- Christians are being persecuted far more than atheism. The only reason why atheism is not protected by the religious clause is because they are too stubborn to admit to the religious nature of the belief. Nevertheless, Humanism is legally protected a s a religion by the courts.
citizen: “As for William Wilberforce, and those others that you cite, what would you say to the millions of Christians before them who had no problem holding slaves, and who in fact considered the practice biblically sanctioned by god?
Sp- I would say that it is something that no Christian finds exciting to talk about. I will go so far as to admit that it is the single most embarrassing factor in the Bible for me personally. That goes not without saying that it is important to understand the cultural context before jumping to conclusions. Some work has been done on the topic that dives into the history and culture, I’ve not had time to get into it.
citizen: “Where were Christians in the women's equality movement?
SP- As a matter of fact, Susan B. Anthony actually has a pro-life organization named after her. It is also interesting to note that Jesus and the authors of the four Gospels gave an enormous amount of credibility to women and their testimonies to the detriment of their male counterparts, which was unheard of at the time.
citizen: “How do you explain away the mass slaughter of the Jews through the centuries by Christians, where was their human dignity then, hmmm?”
Sp- This is an attempt at producing guilt by association where it is not called for. This form of human depravity was neither practiced nor deduced from the apostles’ doctrines or any other part of Scripture.
citizen: “Where was the dignity when Christians stole Jewish babies to have them baptized?”
SP- I am not familiar with that one. Obviously anybody can take things to there extreme, like Eric Harris and Jeffrey Dahmer who took Neo-Darwinism very seriously and quite literally. Therefore it is no good pointing to religious extremism as a reason for eliminating faith.
citizen: “Fourth, morality needs no law-giver, because it is beneficial to our survival in groups. Morality evolved in other words, and so did abstract reasoning, because it aided us in learning, which is a key to survival.
SP- Survival of the fittest is key to our survival in a materialistic universe. Morality and beauty are unaccounted for. It is a just-so-story argument. Neo-Darwinism cannot even account for the origin of life, much less the origin of personality, morality and abstract thinking from raw materialism.
citizen: “Fifth, this line is hilarious: "True, but you have yet to demonstrate an adequate form of objective morality, except for the five different views that you previously posted." Do you even read what you write?
SP- You did not understand what I was saying. It is indeed hilarious, I was pointing out that your five different views only goes to prove moral relativism. In other words there really is no consensus as to what constitutes objective morality in an evolutionary frame of ethics. While it may be true that you only need one, that only proves that efficacy not the objectivity. Humanist Peter Singer argues in favor of Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide on the foundation of naturalism, applying his own brand of ethics known as moral naturalism (there really is no standard prescription in an evolutionary construct).
Eric Harris (the Columbine High massacre), Jeffrey Dahmer, and the atheist dictators who have taken Neo-Darwinian evolution seriously reveal that morality, human dignity, and purpose are not inherent to materialism.
Furthermore, if you really want to work on some type of social harmony that projects objective morality, it is counter-productive to come into a Christian sight posting anti-theistic messages. This, I think reveals your less than honest intentions.
citizen: “Sixth, if you are going to sneer at me about history, you should probably cite actual historians, which Michael Farris is not.”
SP- Prove him wrong. Have you read the book or the citations? He is not the only source, I just thought maybe you were tired of reading your polished humanistic sites. Where do you think Democracy came from? Certainly not the enlightenment. Of course, the enlightenment was also a result of Christian theism, so either way…
citizen: “Francis Collins did not become an evangelical Christian because of science, its because he saw a pretty waterfall. Science needs no religion.”
Sp- You’ve been hanging around too many antichristian web sights. That is entirely too simplistic. It was C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity that influenced him.
I would say that the only reason why science does not depend upon religion today is because it has already acquired the necessary tools from a Biblical worldview to fuel it.
http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_1.htm
citizen: “Secondly, you are under the mistaken impression that the only atheists that have ever existed have been dictators. This is roughly akin to saying that the crusaders and the inquisitors have been the only Christians.
SP- Are you looking on Amazon.com for From Tyndale to Madison? There have been Christian tyrants, but nothing life the genocidal maniacs of atheism. As a matter of fact where do you think the term ‘prime minister (servant)’ came from? “The greatest is the servant” –Jesus. The Bible declares that there is no one that is above the law of God. This inert sense of divine justice directly influences heads of state. This does not mean that all or even most rulers believe it. What it does mean is that our system of justice in a Biblical framework (which we still are a part of in the West) does not allow for tyranny to go unchecked. We live in a nation that not only allows impeachment, but calls for impeachment. You can also refer to the Bill of Rights as other evidence.
citizen: “Third, I'd like you to provide some evidence for your claims about "Teen Challenge" and AA.
SP- Well I know several people personally who have went who no longer have addictions.
citizen: “…just because a scientist is Christian doesn't make the science they do reliant on "a biblical worldview".
seedplanter - Just because atheism is the latest fad among a large portion of scientists does not make it true either. Furthermore, just because many scientists are atheists does not mean that science is atheistic in nature, it certainly does not warrant methodological naturalism as a de facto imposition.
citizen: “Louis Pasteur did not learn his technique from reading the bible, nor was it revealed to him mystically through prayer. He discovered it through the scientific method..”
Sp- Whether he did or not is unimportant. He was likely informed by both the scientific method and the Bible as was noted; he being a creationist and disavowing spontaneous generation was a major factor. However what is important is that the Bible does in fact incorporate sanitary practices well beyond its time. I refer to Grant Jeffrey’s book The Signature of God.
Mr. Scientific Method himself, Sir Francis Bacon: To Francis Bacon, the Bible provided a view of God, the world, and man that made science a noble duty. Nature was God’s finely crafted machine, and God had given man the aptitude and duty to discover its workings. Human reason alone was insufficient; it needed to be guided by Bible doctrine on the nature of God and the world, and by observation of the Creator’s laws. The very belief in natural laws was a legacy of the Scriptures. Sir Francis believed that, in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, man would increase in knowledge in the last days by casting off unbiblical authorities like Aristotle and investigating God’s natural revelation (creation) with minds that had been created in His image.
The Bible has been used directly in scientific discoveries; Reverse engineering for example has been postulated by some of the biggest names in science, from Kepler to Carver; both of whom were ‘Creationists.’
Citizen—
You are an historical revisionist—and it’s a lie. You try to change the past in order to get us to believe what you want in the present. Either your knowledge of history is alarmingly deficient or you are deliberately trying to deceive. There is no excuse for either one.
Wow, where to start? Well, I guess I'll start with some friendly advice: just because a scientist is Christian doesn't make the science they do reliant on "a biblical worldview". Louis Pasteur did not learn his technique from reading the bible, nor was it revealed to him mystically through prayer. He discovered it through the scientific method. Francis Collins did not become an evangelical Christian because of science, its because he saw a pretty waterfall. Science needs no religion.
Secondly, you are under the mistaken impression that the only atheists that have ever existed have been dictators. This is roughly akin to saying that the crusaders and the inquisitors have been the only Christians.
Third, I'd like you to provide some evidence for your claims about "Teen Challenge" and AA.
Fourth, morality needs no law-giver, because it is beneficial to our survival in groups. Morality evolved in other words, and so did abstract reasoning, because it aided us in learning, which is a key to survival.
Fifth, this line is hilarious: "True, but you have yet to demonstrate an adequate form of objective morality, except for the five different views that you previously posted." Do you even read what you write?
Sixth, if you are going to sneer at me about history, you should probably cite actual historians, which Michael Farris is not.
Seventh: Are you really surprised that religious people are happier, when they aren't the ones being shoved to the fringe of society, as atheists are? That has nothing to do with the value of religion, that has to do with the power of tribalism and domination.
As for William Wilberforce, and those others that you cite, what would you say to the millions of Christians before them who had no problem holding slaves, and who in fact considered the practice biblically sanctioned by god? Where were Christians in the women's equality movement? The biggest leaders, women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton
, Ernestine Rose, Emma Goldman, Harriet Tayler, and men like John Stuart Mill, were atheists. How do you explain away the mass slaughter of the Jews through the centuries by Christians, where was their human dignity then, hmmm? Where was the dignity when Christians stole Jewish babies to have them baptized?
Finally, non-evolutionists have caused far more destruction than those who accept the theory of evolution. Hitler was a creationist, Stalin believed in the pseudo-scientific Lysenkoism, and then of course we have all the creationist religious murder in Christian history. Sorry, the theory of evolution wins that round.
16. SP Why did you say you were an atheist?
a) cit Because I know of no evidence that theism is true.
b) Sp I know plenty.
17. Happiness
SP Religious people are proven to be happier.
18. Satisfaction
SP Religious people have been proven to live more satisfied lives.
19. General well being
SP Religious people tend to be healthier people.
20. Human Dignity
Sp It was Christians in the first centuries of Roman paganism that would go to the garbage dumps and pick up abandoned children that were left to die. This practice was common. It was because of the Bible that evangelical William Wilberforce fought to his dying day to abolish slavery. It is Christians today that lead the charge against infanticide and euthanasia which began in the first to second century BC. It was William Carey who ignored British authority an embarked upon his missionary endeavor to India. There he not only turned the country around, but fought against the common practice of Sati with Wilberforce helping him in the British House of Commons. Jim Elliot was a missionary to Ecuador who, along with four others, was killed while attempting to evangelize the Huaorani people who did not even have a term for ‘love’ in their vocabulary. Later his wife and son returned with the gospel, changing them from headhunters to heart transformed.
Bottom line, if you believe in Neo-Darwinism, you are obliged to check out the facts before you consider Christian belief as non-advantageous. You have revealed a very limited understanding of not only Christianity, but history in general. If one looks at the history of atheism it has caused more destruction in the last century than the entire world religions combined in the last few millennia.
8. sp moral foundation.
a) cit Because nobody knew that killing was bad for the first tens of thousand of years of human existence, right?
b) Sp The fact that we do know that unjustified premeditated killing (murder) is wrong reveals that there are moral absolutes that do in fact transcend culture. Animals do not have any kind of moral apprehension. Thus if universal moral laws do exist, then there must be a moral law giver. Where there may be signs of altruistic behavior in animals, beasts are not known for their kindness. Domesticated pets may be good companions, but as a general rule they do not concern themselves with helping others, whether they be the hand that feeds them or the neighborhood stray (we don’t see any doggy orphanages or cat justice).
9. Democracy
SP You need to study your history. Michael Farris spells it out in his book, From Tyndale to Madison: How the Death of an English Martyr Led to the American Bill of Rights.
10. SP The university
That one I'll give you.
11. Technological Revolution
SP Technology started in the monasteries, not the universities – check your history.
12. Industrial Revolution
SP Cyrus McCormick is considered a pioneer of the industrial revolution. He was a Christian who naturally believed in human dignity and as such invented the horse-drawn reaper to releave his workers. This common theme is evidenced through to today.
13. Ecology
SP Spare me the insanity. Christians do tend to be skeptical of global-warming being man-caused. It is interesting to note that none of us expect animals to do there part. You do realize that termites contribute to global warming? Bethatasitmay, the Bible does give precident for taking care of the planet.
14. What has atheism produced?
a) sp Militant atheists and dictators is about all I can think of.
b) cit It's hard to produce things when the religious are persecuting you.
SP come on now, do you really expect for us to believe that.
15. Moral relativity and postmodernism.
a) cit You clearly haven't been paying attention. I'm not the one whose been using those in this discussion.
b) Sp True, but you have yet to demonstrate an adequate form of objective morality, except for the five different views that you previously posted.
c) Sp Apart from God might is right as has been demonstrated in atheist dictators.
3. sp "The Biblical worldview has produced modern science"
a) cit Yeah, those witch-hunters were being really scientific, likewise those who thought that the biblical worldview required a geocentric solar system, and a scientifically impossible worldwide flood. Remember, Newton was a unitarian and an alchemist, both of which are unbiblical according to Christianity.
b) Sp You really need to get out a bit more. Maybe read a book or two. You obviously don’t know much about the history of science. Sorry, I am not going to tutor you, you can just take my word for it.
4. sp modern nursing
a) cit But it was science that discovered modern sterilization techniques, ensuring that the nurses didn't kill their patients.
b) Sp: But the Louis Pasteur was a Christian. He refuted the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. He firmly believed in creation, and strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution
5. sp modern education
a) cit Really? Horace Mann, the father of modern public education, was a Unitarian, and bitterly opposed by sectarians who complained he had taken religion out of education.
b) Sp: No, John Amos Comenius.
6. hospitals
a) cit but again, the medicine itself? science.
b) Sp There would still be hospitals, with or without science. Science is not a precursor to atheism.
c) SP Modern science itself was culminated in a Christian worldview.
d) SP Many scientists are believers including Francis Collins director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
e) SP Science left unchecked as an end to itself equaling Hitler’s Medical Experiments in the Third Reich.
7. sp orphanages
a) cit Plato, not the bible.
B) Sp: Plato was hardly the staunch atheist. In the Laws, you will find what Plato deems the needed "religion" to ensure order in the city. Basically, men have to hold three key tenets: that gods exist (that is, that the world is not a purely "material" thing, product of chance or necessity); that they care for the world; and that they cannot be "bought" or corrupted by men's gifts or prayers.
In either case, Christians are the ones who open up orphanages all around the world, not necessarily by rich donors, but by typical everyday middleclass people.
seedplanter: "You still have yet to demonstrate why materialists are working against natural evolution by eliminating religion although it is believed to be a product of natural evolution. It has proven to be invaluable to human survival.
1. sp "It gives people meaning where atheism and science cannot."
a) cit Scientists and atheists disagree.
b) Sp As I have stated before there is a big difference between adding up small things to form a basic meaning. I think it is clear that atheism is bankrupt in this department.
2. sp "It has social benefits and psychological benefits."
a) cit Which has nothing to do with truth or falsehood.
b) sp This is another categorical error. First of all it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. Secondly, if God does not exist then we look at how advantageous religion is in the order of human evolution. Evolution does not care about abstract reasoning (which in itself is another argument against materialism) it is concerned about survival. It is a fact that Christ has changed untold millions of lives over the centuries. Look at Teen challenge which has a much higher success rate for life-controlling rehabilitation. AA has helped many alcoholics pull there life together. Countless people have been turned from self-destructive behavior instantly by the power of the gospel. Many atheists recognize this. To dismiss this out of hand will only reveal how shallow you really are. It also reveals a lack of respect for others. But then again, if you were respectful, I doubt you would be here arguing about someone who you don’t think exists.
Seedplanter: Moral relativism denies that any objective standard of morality exists. It doesn't matter how many possible objective standards I've offered...once I've offered at least one, I'm not a moral relativist.
SP: "Your call, where do you obtain objective morals that are not relativistic?"
citizen: "There are so many options..."
SP: That sounds pretty relativistic to me.
citizen: Then you have no idea what moral relativism is.
Allow me to make it real simple for you. You gave me five different interpretations for objective standards for morality. Then you admitted “…a multitude of objective standards.” Why can’t you see that this is self-contradictory? Objective morality asserts that there are certain moral laws that transcend cultures, they are true for everyone. The problem is you just gave me five different so-called objective moral laws. Unless you can identify one as the objective moral law, then you are proving that you are relativistic. They all cannot be correct. You may find certain elements that are similar, but they are all different. Furthermore, it needs to be compatible with your philosophy of materialism.
Not as far as I know.
Is there any JUCHE in this thread?
Sorry, that was one of my few meltdowns I have from time to time.
And that second reason, genetics, is more absurd than our faith in God. Did you think that one up yourself? Or did your 5 year old kid have to help you? LOL.
citsonga,
There's a problem....none of your reasons fit me. You might want to go back and theorize again.
"Why People Believe in God"
Three basic reasons:
Fear of death.
Genetics
Explanations for the mysteries of life & the universe.
"That sounds pretty relativistic to me."
Then you have no idea what moral relativism is.
, the university
That one I'll give you.
hospitals
but again, the medicine itself? science.
orphanages
Plato, not the bible.
moral foundation
Because nobody knew that killing was bad for the first tens of thousand of years of human existence, right?
human dignity
Unless you happened to be a non-jew or non-christian. the biblical worldview didn't invent religious supremacism, just carried on the tradition.
democracy
The preferred government model in the bible is theocracy, not democracy.
technological and industrial revolution
Yes, that's why it only took 1700 years after the bible was collated for the industrial revolution, right? This is getting sad.
I guess that in a way you could blame Christianity for the ecological problems that are related to the latter two. Nevertheless, the Biblical worldview also accounts for ecology in the aspect that it is we humans that are in charge of caring for the earth, not merely by default but by command.
Like the command to stone rebellious children right? How about the command to ban wearing two types of fabric?
What has atheism produced, well militant atheists and dictators is about all I can think of.
It's hard to produce things when the religious are persecuting you.
Oh yah, moral relativity and postmodernism.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. I'm not the one whose been using those in this discussion.
I guess maybe Christians have a right to be narrow-minded.
Well, sure you have a right to be wrong, but you shouldn't expect a pat on the head for it.
Why did you say you were an atheist?
Because I know of no evidence that theism is true.
"Again, atheist is one who does not believe in God. It seems much more persuasive to object to belief in general. Atheism is a sort of retaliatory system. Militant atheism is probably defined as "taking the nation back from God.""
Ok, your first statement is correct, but the rest is word salad, chockful of unspoken premises and assumptions. Where are you going with this?
"You still have yet to demonstrate why materialists are working against natural evolution by eliminating religion although it is believed to be a product of natural evolution."
Is-ought fallacy. Just because something came about by natural processes doesn't make it a good thing. Atheists understand that, and so do you. Nobody is arguing that malaria shouldn't have been cured because it evolved.
"It has proven to be invaluable to human survival."
Well, prove it again. Show me the world without religion where human beings die out. Oh, wait, there is no such world.
" It gives people meaning where atheism and science cannot."
Scientists and atheists disagree.
" It has social benefits and psychological benefits."
Which has nothing to do with truth or falsehood.
"The Biblical worldview has produced modern science"
Yeah, those witch-hunters were being really scientific, likewise those who thought that the biblical worldview required a geocentric solar system, and a scientifically impossible worldwide flood. Remember, Newton was a unitarian and an alchemist, both of which are unbiblical according to Christianity.
modern nursing
But it was science that discovered modern sterilization techniques, ensuring that the nurses didn't kill their patients.
modern education
Really? Horace Mann, the father of modern public education, was a Unitarian, and bitterly opposed by sectarians who complained he had taken religion out of education.
"Your call, where do you obtain objective morals that are not relativistic?"
citizen: "There are so many options..."
That sounds pretty relativistic to me.
"SP: The point that I was making is that in materialism, it is the survival of the fittest. This means that truth is meaningless in the long run. What counts is survival and fitness, not science. Science and religion both have their part in survival, but not as an abstract as a means within itself. In this category it has no relevance."
citizen: “Are you serious? You can't be suggesting that truth is a detriment to surviving and thriving, but that's what it sounds like. The farther we are from truth, the more likely we are to act in ways that have negative consequences.”
SP: What I meant was that truth and philosophy are irrelevant as a means of survivability advantage, in a purely materialistic universe void of God; of course with except for things directly pertaining to survival.
This is all I have time for tonight.
citizen: "Again, your mind has narrowed to the point that you can't fathom meaning without your imagined god."
Again, atheist is one who does not believe in God. It seems much more persuasive to object to belief in general. Atheism is a sort of retaliatory system. Militant atheism is probably defined as "taking the nation back from God."
You still have yet to demonstrate why materialists are working against natural evolution by eliminating religion although it is believed to be a product of natural evolution. It has proven to be invaluable to human survival. It gives people meaning where atheism and science cannot. It has social benefits and psychological benefits. The Biblical worldview has produced modern science, modern nursing, modern education, the university, hospitals, orphanages, moral foundation, human dignity, democracy, technological and industrial revolution. I guess that in a way you could blame Christianity for the ecological problems that are related to the latter two. Nevertheless, the Biblical worldview also accounts for ecology in the aspect that it is we humans that are in charge of caring for the earth, not merely by default but by command. What has atheism produced, well militant atheists and dictators is about all I can think of. Oh yah, moral relativity and postmodernism. I guess maybe Christians have a right to be narrow-minded. Why did you say you were an atheist?
"SP: The point that I was making is that in materialism, it is the survival of the fittest. This means that truth is meaningless in the long run. What counts is survival and fitness, not science. Science and religion both have their part in survival, but not as an abstract as a means within itself. In this category it has no relevance."
Are you serious? You can't be suggesting that truth is a detriment to surviving and thriving, but that's what it sounds like. The farther we are from truth, the more likely we are to act in ways that have negative consequences.
"SP: It is really quite elementary. My point is not to say that I understand the atheist perspective in the personal sense. I was referring to the lack of support that should follow logically. Please take your time before you respond so that you know what the argument is."
Well, my point is that you don't understand atheism very well, so you don't have a very good grasp of what does and does not follow logically. Get rid of your theist/supernaturalist premises, and you'd have a better chance of understanding.
"SP: Fine, what constitutes meaning? Going to the local humanist church? Fighting against Christian theism? "
Making the world a better place.
"Your call, where do you obtain objective morals that are not relativistic?"
There are so many options...read Aristotle (the golden mean), Mill (maximize the good of society), Kant (reason), W.D. Ross (intuition), Rawls (social contract)...a multitude of objective standards, rooted in the physical facts of certain neurons in our brains that allow us to feel empathy.
Citizen “A different kind of time? Sounds like special pleading to me.”
SP: Time is relative. There are something life ten different dimensions.
Citizen ”How self-serving. Since when is the standard of truth "it does something for someone?"”
SP: Isn’t this the bottom line for the atheist? It certainly is in conjunction with natural evolution via Neo-Darwinism.
Citizen: “Evidence is the bottom line, not believing whatever makes you feel good.”
SP: The point that I was making is that in materialism, it is the survival of the fittest. This means that truth is meaningless in the long run. What counts is survival and fitness, not science. Science and religion both have their part in survival, but not as an abstract as a means within itself. In this category it has no relevance.
Citizen: “Arguing against faith is not futile”
SP: "From a materialistic perspective it is. Maybe I should have said, unprofitable, unfruitful, there is no point to it. It gets atheists nowhere if atheism is true."
Citizen: How would you know what its like from a materialistic perspective? you don't have one, you're imagining what it would be like from your supernaturalistic, theistic biases. Again, you should learn more, maybe even try the materialistic perspective on for yourself, before engaging in such presumption.
SP: It is really quite elementary. My point is not to say that I understand the atheist perspective in the personal sense. I was referring to the lack of support that should follow logically. Please take your time before you respond so that you know what the argument is.
Citizen “You contradict yourself, because you are still incredulous about meaning that doesn't rely on supernaturalism.”
SP: Fine, what constitutes meaning? Going to the local humanist church? Fighting against Christian theism?
Citizen: Why do you think I'm a moral relativist?
Your call, where do you obtain objective morals that are not relativistic?
Citizen—
“interesting...no sola scriptura for you, eh?”
I’ve already explained my view on this. God has revealed himself in many ways. Yes, I also adhere to sola scriptura, which means that God's written Word is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, interprets itself, and is the final authority on Christian doctrine. The primary reason for this principle was to deny that church leaders had greater authority than the Bible. Nothing I’ve written contradicts this.
I find it interesting that this would concern or bother you at all.
Citizen,
You said "Again, your mind has narrowed to the point that you can't fathom meaning without your imagined god."
Amen! My life has no meaning without God. Friends come and go. Children grow up and move away. And spouses can die. But God NEVER leaves. He is always there. And my life is hid in Him. When I was single and my fiance sent me a dear john letter, no one was there but God. Two months later when I watched my best friend die in front of my eyes, no one was there but God. And He got me through it all.
So, I'm glad you realize how a true Christian lives his/her life. Totally surrendered to God.
Again, your mind has narrowed to the point that you can't fathom meaning without your imagined god. You don't even recognize that you've given an example yourself of meaning without god: when one spouse dies before the other. No god necessary there...the couple finds meaning in each other and their relationship. That's open to anyone.
tgender: interesting...no sola scriptura for you, eh?
seedplanter: A different kind of time? Sounds like special pleading to me.
"Isn’t this the bottom line for the atheist? It certainly is in conjunction with natural evolution via Neo-Darwinism. "
Hardly. Evidence is the bottom line, not believing whatever makes you feel good. You should probably learn more about atheism before you presume to talk about it.
"From an materialistic perspective it is. Maybe I should have said, unprofitable, unfruitful, there is no point to it. It gets atheists nowhere if atheism is true."
How would you know what its like from a materialistic perspective? you don't have one, you're imagining what it would be like from your supernaturalistic, theistic biases. Again, you should learn more, maybe even try the materialistic perspective on for yourself, before engaging in such presumption.
"Atheism has no meaning. It imposes meaning on small pursuits which hopefully add up to some kind of meaningful purpose in one’s life. Meaning for the atheist is an adhoc concept."
You contradict yourself, because you are still incredulous about meaning that doesn't rely on supernaturalism.
"Hardly! It is not objective standards of truth that are in question, it is your fallacious presumptions and epistemology that is in question. You think that because you are a moral relativist who cannot handle the idea of accountability that everyone else should follow you. GET REAL!"
Why do you think I'm a moral relativist? Where in the world did you get that idea? The truth is you have no idea what I think about morality, you just have vague prejudices against atheists completely detached from reality. Why don't you try asking me to find out what I think, rather than imagining the most self-serving nonsense?
Meaning is a vital component to life as humans. Hitler’s brand of human experiments reveals how just how vital it is. Charles Colson discusses this in his book of how he became a Christian. Literally without meaning people die from the lack of will to live. This is also revealed as so often is the case when one spouse dies before the other. It is also revealed when people are on their death bed. The argument that I have maintained has been that Christianity in particular gives meaning where materialism cannot. Thus even if Christianity is false (which I do not) then truly it could be considered an evolutionary necessity for ultimate longevity and survival; this being the case, why the rise in "atheist fundamentalism" hysteria? Similarly, if Neo-Darwinian evolution is true then Christian theism would still in fact be advantageous. Therefore, militant atheism is a house of cards.
Citizen,
”How self-serving. Since when is the standard of truth "it does something for someone?"”
Isn’t this the bottom line for the atheist? It certainly is in conjunction with natural evolution via Neo-Darwinism.
“Arguing against faith is not futile”
From an materialistic perspective it is. Maybe I should have said, unprofitable, unfruitful, there is no point to it. It gets atheists nowhere if atheism is true.
“as many have freed themselves from their supernatural superstitions through argument.”
And many have come to faith via logic and reasoning.
“The only reason you think it is contradictory and meaningless is because you are using only one possible definition of atheism, and because your mind has become so narrow that you can't comprehend that other people don't need your imagined god for meaning.”
Atheism has no meaning. It imposes meaning on small pursuits which hopefully add up to some kind of meaningful purpose in one’s life. Meaning for the atheist is an adhoc concept.
“Why does it matter? Truth. Do you want to see others persist in error? Neither do I. Free your mind. Think for yourself. Don't accept something as truth because someone else said that a book of myths was true.”
Citizen, don’t patronize me.
By the way, Christians do not have to answer to an unjustified skepticism that assumes some kind of an absolute authority as to what warrants belief."
”How very relativistic. Thought you christians didn't like relativism, and yet here you are denying any objective standard of truth. How very...postmodern of you.”
Hardly! It is not objective standards of truth that are in question, it is your fallacious presumptions and epistemology that is in question. You think that because you are a moral relativist who cannot handle the idea of accountability that everyone else should follow you. GET REAL!
Dr William Lane Craig considers God to have existed in a different kind of time.
“Out of curiosity, where does the bible say that your god is outside of time?”
This is a discussion for Hebrew scholars. Nevertheless, the concept of creation ex nihilo is considered to include time, space and matter.
Citizen—
“Where does the bible say that your god is outside of time?”
I’m not sure the Bible specifically teaches that God is outside of time, but I don’t have to get my every understanding of God from the Bible. I’ve said all along that God has revealed himself in creation (nature), his word (the Bible), and his son (Jesus). From logic and science, we can infer that God is outside of time. I do acknowledge, however, that there is some debate about this even among Christians.
“[The Bible] only says god created heaven and earth, meaning the sky and the ground. Says nothing about him creating space, the galaxy, or the universe, much less time.”
I think you have a misunderstanding of the Bible on this point. Gen 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”, which includes the entire universe. Heb 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command.”
It reiterates this in many other passages as well.
tgender: Out of curiosity, where does the bible say that your god is outside of time? It only says god created heaven and earth, meaning the sky and the ground. Says nothing about him creating space, the galaxy, or the universe, much less time.
holito: Well, if we can't apply reality-based ideas, that leaves only unreality. Note the root word "unreal", meaning non-existent.
seedplanter:"Just because you do not ‘like’ her reasoning does not mean that she is wrong, nor does it make you right. The interesting thing about Christianity is that there are multiple reasons why people convert to Christ. Atheism can do nothing for anyone which reveals its bankruptcy. I am surprised at the utter futility in which atheists resort to eliminate faith; it is more of a bitterness of soul than an objective worldview. It also is self-contradictory and meaningless in its scope. To the atheist, what does it matter if people believe in a god that does not exist? The only way that it would seem to make sense, is that militant atheism is an attempt to forever silence the conscience within and the objections without."
How self-serving. Since when is the standard of truth "it does something for someone?" Arguing against faith is not futile, as many have freed themselves from their supernatural superstitions through argument. The only reason you think it is contradictory and meaningless is because you are using only one possible definition of atheism, and because your mind has become so narrow that you can't comprehend that other people don't need your imagined god for meaning. Why does it matter? Truth. Do you want to see others persist in error? Neither do I. Free your mind. Think for yourself. Don't accept something as truth because someone else said that a book of myths was true.
:By the way, Christians do not have to answer to an unjustified skepticism that assumes some kind of an absolute authority as to what warrants belief."
How very relativistic. Thought you christians didn't like relativism, and yet here you are denying any objective standard of truth. How very...postmodern of you.
Infinite does not set any boundaries. You applied a worldly aspect.
in·fi·nite /ˈɪnfənɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5. Mathematics. a. not finite.
b. (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
“The concept of infinity must be carefully distinguished from the concept of "all-being". Infinity implies that an infinite being cannot lack any reality in the line in which it is infinite, and that it cannot be surpassed by anything else in that particular perfection… "All-being", however, implies that there is no reality outside of itself … The infinite is equivalent to all other things put together; it is the greatest and most beautiful; but besides it, other things both beautiful and good may exist. It is objected that, if there were an infinite body, no other body could exist besides it; for the infinite body would occupy all space. But the fact that no other body could exist besides the infinite body would be the result of its impenetrability, not of its infinity. Spinoza defines: "Finite in its kind is that which can be limited by a thing of the same kind."
Very good, you get a silver star for effort.
The rules you apply only apply to a physical being. A being with out known boundaries does not work under those rules. You have no concept or idea of spiritual creatures therefore applying reality based ideas to them fail. Unless you have been to the spiritual side and have returned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
“The concept of infinity must be carefully distinguished from the concept of "all-being". Infinity implies that an infinite being cannot lack any reality in the line in which it is infinite, and that it cannot be surpassed by anything else in that particular perfection… "All-being", however, implies that there is no reality outside of itself … The infinite is equivalent to all other things put together; it is the greatest and most beautiful; but besides it, other things both beautiful and good may exist. It is objected that, if there were an infinite body, no other body could exist besides it; for the infinite body would occupy all space. But the fact that no other body could exist besides the infinite body would be the result of its impenetrability, not of its infinity. Spinoza defines: "Finite in its kind is that which can be limited by a thing of the same kind." (Ethics, I def. ii).”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm
"calling him eternal makes him the infinite set that according to seedplanter's website, cannot actually exist."
As was explained prior, you are confusing categories.
Citizen—
“Calling him eternal makes him the infinite set that according to seedplanter's website, cannot actually exist.”
Not if God is outside of time, which is also the Christian view. In other words, God created time when he created the universe. This means that there was not an actual infinite set of moments. Incidentally, this is consistent with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which implies that space, matter, energy, and time all originated with the origin of the universe.
Citizen: “well, you'll have to find another explanation for your feelings and beliefs, or help these other folks out, because if your god logically does not exist, all your feelings and beliefs cannot make him exist.”
Just because you do not ‘like’ her reasoning does not mean that she is wrong, nor does it make you right. The interesting thing about Christianity is that there are multiple reasons why people convert to Christ. Atheism can do nothing for anyone which reveals its bankruptcy. I am surprised at the utter futility in which atheists resort to eliminate faith; it is more of a bitterness of soul than an objective worldview. It also is self-contradictory and meaningless in its scope. To the atheist, what does it matter if people believe in a god that does not exist? The only way that it would seem to make sense, is that militant atheism is an attempt to forever silence the conscience within and the objections without.
By the way, Christians do not have to answer to an unjustified skepticism that assumes some kind of an absolute authority as to what warrants belief.
tgender: calling him eternal makes him the infinite set that according to seedplanter's website, cannot actually exist.
Citizen—
“How can god be infinite, meaning everything, when we exist? We are not god, right? Therefore, god is limited by the existence of not-god things, and therefore not infinite.”
When Christians say that God is infinite, we are not saying that he’s everything; that’s a pantheistic view. When we say God is infinite or unlimited, we mean that he is eternal, self-sufficient, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present. Saying he is “infinite” is an abbreviated way of saying all these attributes. There is nothing illogical or inconsistent in having an infinite God who creates a finite universe.
tgender: in fact, how can god be infinite, meaning everything, when we exist? We are not god, right? Therefore, god is limited by the existence of not-god things, and therefore not infinite.
tgender: you were the one who said your god wasn't a set of anything. I'm showing you how either that means that he's an empty set, and non-existent, or as seedplanter's site said, an actual infiinite cannot exist, therefore your god cannot be an infinite set, which is what he would have to be for an "infinite god" to exist.
anniefourjesus: well, you'll have to find another explanation for your feelings and beliefs, or help these other folks out, because if your god logically does not exist, all your feelings and beliefs cannot make him exist.
Citizen: sometimes your comments give me a real headache as they make no sense!
I believe in God because HE believes in me. He is very real and nothing you or anyone else can say Citizen will change that fact. You can deny Him, ignore Him but HE is still there.
The Heavens declare His Glory, the Oceans sing out His majesty and man is His greatest Creation and the one that denies Him. The animals all know who God is; HE feeds them, and yett the very ones that are GOD BREATHED, have HIS holy breath, deny Him.
The Earth was created as man's inheritance and man chose to give it to Satan in the rebellion and now this world is fallen; and as we look around we can see how far that decay is reaching. Man can never redeem this world; the wars grow worse, the diseases cover the planet and man is hopeless. Man will wipe everything off the planet if not for Jesus Christ!
God tells us to give the reason for the Hope that we have: My hope is only in Jesus Christ, HE is Lord God! I know who God is, I know Him personally and I acknowledge Him every day because HE is who He says He is; He does what HE says He will do; and HIS love is better than life!
I pray for folks like you Citizen, you have no hope in anything and you think you can change my mind with your logic; but JESUS has my heart and I have no desire to go back to the way I was. He is changing me and my life into what HE purposed before the Creation of the world!
May God open your heart to know Him! In His Name, I pray Amen
Citizen—
“If your god is not a set of anything, not even a set of one, then your god is, once again, nothing, and non-existent.”
Are you kidding me with these arguments? First you claim God is an infinite set, then you say he's a set of one. No Christian is saying God is either a set of one or a set of infinite things. You continually make category errors and logical fallacies in your reasoning.
“I understand infinity to mean unlimited. No limits. Everything and nothing at the same time.”
I would agree that infinity means unlimited, but it is nonsense to say that something is everything and nothing. Your second statement does not follow from the first.
Do you atheists actually want anyone to believe your views? If you do, you better sharpen your arguments and be able to refute theism with more than these weak and fallacious statements.
tgender: if your god is not a set of anything, not even a set of one, then your god is, once again, nothing, and non-existent.
As for my comment, I understand infinity to mean unlimited. No limits. Everything and nothing at the same time. Anything short of that is limited, and therefore not infinite. But if there is nothing, not only is there non-existence, there cannot be everything.either. Therefore, an infinite god not only does not exist, but is impossible, since there cannot be everything and nothing. By definition, they contradict.
Citizen—
“As your site says, an actual infinite cannot exist. Therefore, an actual infinite god cannot exist. Therefore, whatever caused the universe is not an infinite god.”
What W.L. Craig is saying is that an actual infinite set cannot exist. Notice he says “An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is ‘complete.’" This is part of a sound logical argument to disprove an eternal universe since we could not arrive at the present moment if an infinite number of moments have already elapsed (from an eternally old universe). God is not a set of anything, so this comment in no way applies to God.
And your comment that “infinite means everything, including nothingness” is nonsense. Explain what you mean.
seedplanter: As your site says, an actual infinite cannot exist. Therefore, an actual infinite god cannot exist. Therefore, whatever caused the universe is not an infinite god..
seedplanter: how would you go about calculating that probability?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
seedplanter: Nope, infinite means everything, including nothingness and things which don't exist. Otherwise, there are limits, and therefore, no infiniteness. An infinite god is an infinite amount of nothing, which is still nothing, and so an infinite god does not exist.
Which seems more probable?
Something came from nothing.
Something came from someone.
“To be truly infinite, your god would have to embrace all things, including nothingness. Since an infinite amount of nothing is nothing, your "infinite" god does not exist.”
This is a false dichotomy. God does not have to embrace all things, nothingness is not a thing.
"As generation pass, knowlege increase; Example, we no longer use horse drawn carriage as our means of travel. Our understanding as compared to older generations is better.
God acceptthe understand of past generations because He meausres our faith. "
Keep in mind that Christianity as you would understand it did exist back then, so it wasn't like they hadn't learned about it, as you are assuming. They explicitly rejected it. But let's play out what you've said about faith.
Suppose a Muslim, a Jew, a Wiccan, or a Baha'i has more faith than you, but they reject evangelical/fundamentalist christianity. By your own words, your god should accept them before you (because you say he cares about faith more than doctrine), and yet your official theology condemns them to hell. Sounds like you've got your own take on things, not bound by the official dogmas of Christianity. There is hope for you yet.
"Citizen, You like challenging Christian doctrine which you do not uderstand. You do not grasp you are worldly battling spiritual truths. The Spirit created the world; the world did not create the Spirit. I'll break it down to simple terms. Spirit (infinite, superior) > world (finite, inferior).
Citizen, Can you match wits with God ( Infinite being)?"
To be truly infinite, your god would have to embrace all things, including nothingness. Since an infinite amount of nothing is nothing, your "infinite" god does not exist.
Holito: You would not recognize the founders of America as Christians. You'd be calling them secular humanists or atheists if they existed today. They were deists, unitarians, freethinkers...sons of the enlightenment. In fact, that was one of the few times in our history when evangelical Christianity was shoved off into a corner. It had little or no influence, except as something to react against, on the founders.
You don't get to have a narrow definition for who is a Christian right now, and an expanded one when it helps you serve up self-serving spin as history. Remember, Jesus hates lies.
That is true. He's some knowlege.
As generation pass, knowlege increase; Example, we no longer use horse drawn carriage as our means of travel. Our understanding as compared to older generations is better.
God acceptthe understand of past generations because He meausres our faith.
Noah was considered more righteous in his generation... that's in the Bible. He believe God and built the arc. He preached the flood to his generation. They perished in their unbelieve; Noah survived.
Abraham believe God and left his father's house for an unknown land. Also, Abraham believed God and was willing to sacrifice Issac;
The Apostles had a better understanding that the prophets.
2 peter 1:19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your heart;
Citizen, You like challenging Christian doctrine which you do not uderstand. You do not grasp you are worldly battling spiritual truths. The Spirit created the world; the world did not create the Spirit. I'll break it down to simple terms. Spirit (infinite, superior) > world (finite, inferior).
Citizen, Can you match wits with God ( Infinite being)?
Prophet, This is for you.
Science is merely discovering God's creation and how it works. God created all the laws of science (of which evolution is not one of them. It is merely a theory). And since God created and controls the laws of the universe, He can suspend them at any time. Such as when Jesus walked on water, raising the dead, healing the sick, calming the storm. Or in the old Testament when God caused the sun to stand still for a short time. And in another place He caused it to acutally go backwards.
So you are calling God a lie. God said He does things that man cannot understand or reproduce. You are calling God a lie if you believe in evolution.
1) God created man by His power, not by man’s. God said not by might nor by power but by His Spirit. Can science measure God’s Spirit. Science cannot tell you what matter truly is, but science can figure out what God can do.
2) God created man in His image. You are saying God looks like an ape.
3) God breathed His Spirit into man and man became a living soul. God did not breathe into any animal or stated He waited for apes to reach a level. Science has not proven evolution. Thus, one cannot state it as fact. The missing link is just that missing. God calls such things fables, look up the word.
4) God is able to do as He pleases; just because man cannot do it does not mean God cannot. You should read about Gideon in Judges; it will help you out.
This is from the uneducated.
This is an interesting article, i think what people want is Hope, a hope in something greater then themselves, something that evolution and atheism doesn't give them. What i have noticed about the comments posted on this site is that a couple of militant atheist are calling any belief other then the Almight Science is ignorant. I have noticed that they want to blame christians or religion for every awful thing that has ever happened in the course of the world. Sounds as tho they have a deep seeded hatred for everyone and everything if it doesn't fall within there realm of understanding.
Most people don't care about evolution or science, because from my own point of view evolution and science are pretty much at the bottom of the list of my worries because i have way more important things to take care of such as my family, my friends and My God.
The reason people want faith, why they want religion is because it gives them more then anything else. It gives them a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging...
merkin,
Most of the skeptics that are posting comments here presume that Christians owe them an explanation. On one hand this is actually true; The Apostle Peter said, be ready to answer those who inquire as to the hope that we have. On the other hand, Christians do not have to answer to an unjustified skepticism that assumes some kind of an authority as to what constitutes proper belief. I for one have much more important things to do than waste time answering cynicism.
merkin: “Just because something may have provided an evolutionary advantage to our species at one point, doesn’t necessarily make it desirable.”
Seems rather condescending to think that you should be the judge of what would be desirable. You seem to have an axe to grind with God. What is it that is actually bothering you? Mounts of research assesses that religion is good for people. Numerous studies about prayer indicate that it is beneficial as well. You might consider it a placebo, but it does not change the conclusive evidence. Christian theism is not only advantageous to personal growth; it is also advantageous to the world at large. It was within the Christian worldview that modern science was developed. As a matter of fact it was a Christian that first wrote on natural selection. Coming from a Christian school, you should be familiar with Jim Elliot who was killed by the Waodani tribe in Ecuador. They did not even have a word for love in their language? It was Christian missionaries who were willing to sacrifice their lives to bring the Gospel which turned them around from headhunting to heart changing. I’m not really sure why I am telling you all of this, its not like you don’t know already. I guess maybe God still wants you to know that He cares.
At any rate, it is a few examples of how Christianity is proven to not only to be advantageous in the evolutionary sense of the word, but it reveals the bankruptcy of atheism (unless of course you use it as the survival of the fittest). There are enough posts on here to amply prove that. Atheism is not internally consistent with reality.
merkin: “I want to know WHY people believe.”
I find the same question puzzling, at least from the atheist perspective. It would seem that in a purely materialistic universe that not only belief in general would be absent, but that we should be rather impersonal in nature. I am a bit agnostic when it comes to certain points in evolution, but I think that it is fairly obvious that there are some things that a purely natural evolution just cannot account for. This of course is without mentioning the origin of life and the fine-tuning of the universe. In my opinion these two simple facts of reality are a bit much to consider as mere accidents. Are you familiar with the cosmological argument and the teleological argument? These are a couple of reasonable arguments that reveal not only the existence of God, but that this God is personal and caring.
HampsteadPete—
“I disagree here.”
I wasn’t talking about science. I was talking about atheism. Believe it or not, you have to prove naturalism, you can’t just assume it.
“The eye has evolved dozens of times in different species, each time in a manner consistent with the particular evolutionary pressures present. How's that for repeatability?”
Sorry, this is begging the question. You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove—evolution. You brought up repeatability, but you have to admit that there isn’t any for evolution. This isn’t surprising because discovering historical truth is not repeatable. Same for how God created the universe.
“Really? What is your evidence for this? Who gets to choose? Based upon what evidence?”
What is my evidence that it’s logically possible for one religion to be true, but not all of them? It’s called the principles of logic, like the law of non-contradiction for example. And nobody gets to choose which religion is right. Whatever is true about God is true for everybody. We don’t invent objective truths; we discover them. The evidence is there for one willing to follow it.
"ALL worldviews are on the line, including mine and yours. The point is to find the truth."
I disagree here. Science is not going to confirm a supernatural event, by definition that would be impossible. We live in a universe created by natural processes - we just haven't quite quantified them all yet, but that is no reason to give up & say god did it.
"If you were the least bit reasonable about this, you might concede that a supernatural explanation for this is possible, especially since there is no known or even plausible natural explanation."
Simply not true. There are many possible, plausible theories, just none that have been substantially proven. There is much controversy on the fringes of knowledge, and this has always been so. I don't know of any cosmologists ready to throw in the towel just yet.
"Has there been one for evolution? I wasn't aware that they've been able to repeat this in a lab."
Other than relativity, evolution is the most tested theory in all of science. Like any other theory, it makes many predictions, the failure of any one of which would be sufficient to cast parts of it into doubt. Repeatability does not always mean replicating in a lab. We can't duplicate gravitational lensing in a lab, but we know it works. The eye has evolved dozens of times in different species, each time in a manner consistent with the particular evolutionary preassures present. How's that for repeatability?
"I don’t think all religions are true and I think one would be foolish for believing anything that isn’t true. But, it is logically possible that one of them is true."
Really? What is your evidence for this? Who gets to choose? Based upon what evidence? There is simply no logical reason to believe any of them true. All of them sprung from the same root - attempting to explain natural processes, and fear of death. From earliest times they have been the best method to control the ignorant ever devised
HampsteadPete—
“You might consider that it is not OUR worldview that is on the line every time another fossil or scientific fact is discovered, but yours.”
ALL worldviews are on the line, including mine and yours. The point is to find the truth.
“Why should any reasonable person give credence to the supernatural?”
Why should any reasonable person give credence to the crazy idea that the entire universe popped into existence with no cause whatsoever? If you were the least bit reasonable about this, you might concede that a supernatural explanation for this is possible, especially since there is no known or even plausible natural explanation.
“There hasn't been any repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence for supernatural events in all of recorded history.”
Has there been one for evolution? I wasn't aware that they've been able to repeat this in a lab.
“You feel insulted?”
Not really. I was just observing a lot of insults flying around. I don’t take it personally, but would prefer a more civil debate.
“If you let one myth in, you have to let them all in.”
Of course, I object to your labeling of Christianity a myth, but allow me to rephrase it. “If you let one religion in, you have to let them all in.” Why? I don’t think all religions are true and I think one would be foolish for believing anything that isn’t true. But, it is logically possible that one of them is true.
"I don’t know where you get the idea that there is a Christian crusade against science. And most of what I’ve seen of atheist posts on this site are misunderstandings of Christian positions, close-mindedness to even the possibility of the supernatural, bad reasoning, and just plain ranting and insulting"
A common Christian point-of-view, and one I can understand. You might consider that it is not OUR worldview that is on the line every time another fossil or scientific fact is discovered, but yours. Why should any reasonable person give credence to the supernatural? There hasn't been any repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence for supernatural events in all of recorded history.
You feel insulted? I feel insulted every time I attend a board of education meeting and have to listen to the morons trying to water down the teaching of evolution yet again, 'till the teachers won't know what to teach. You want equal time to teach your myths? How about the Scientologists? They have at least as much evidence for their foolishness as you do.
If you let one myth in, you have to let them all in, and they are all an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable person.
And there as many left-wing, intolerant, uneducated militant athiests doing the same thing for their cause. What's your point?
Science is merely discovering God's creation and how it works. God created all the laws of science (of which evolution is not one of them. It is merely a theory). And since God created and controls the laws of the universe, He can suspend them at any time. Such as when Jesus walked on water, raising the dead, healing the sick, calming the storm. Or in the old Testament when God caused the sun to stand still for a short time. And in another place He caused it to acutally go backwards.
HampsteadPete--
“The Christian crusade against science is precisely what motivated me to "come out of the closet" five years ago and begin writing letters to the editor and posting on sites such as this.”
I don’t know where you get the idea that there is a Christian crusade against science. And most of what I’ve seen of atheist posts on this site are misunderstandings of Christian positions, close-mindedness to even the possibility of the supernatural, bad reasoning, and just plain ranting and insulting. I’ve, with rare exception, seen any kind of reasoned argument that would make one seriously consider your ideas. When you're presented with a well-reasoned argument, instead of trying to refute it, you revert to name-calling. And you call us childish?
holito: you honestly believe the bible is telling the truth about rival belief systems? You wouldn't trust a tract on Christianity written by me would you?
holito,
You must be uneducated and angry.
"God is required for morality and justice."
Nonsense! Every single bit of real morality in the bible (old or new) was in the culture thousands of years preceding "god's holy word." By real morality, I mean those things dealing with how we treat one another, and the alleviation of human suffering, which is what morality is all about.
You are so correct. There was beastality; there were men sleeping with women and men; there were human sacrifices. People worishing animals and people. God must have been jealous and made rules against these things out of spite.
You tell such good jokes. Don't quit your day job.
Holito: You would not recognize the founders of America as Christians. You'd be calling them secular humanists or atheists if they existed today. They were deists, unitarians, freethinkers...sons of the enlightenment. In fact, that was one of the few times in our history when evangelical Christianity was shoved off into a corner. It had little or no influence, except as something to react against, on the founders.
You don't get to have a narrow definition for who is a Christian right now, and an expanded one when it helps you serve up self-serving spin as history. Remember, Jesus hates lies.
God is required for immorality, bigotry, violence, slavery, ignorance, and misery.
Says what you will. But the record stand for itself.
This nation was found on Christian principles. And if you know of a better country to live, pleas go ahead and move there. There are many nations some are non religious. Thus you would be right at home there.
"God is required for morality and justice."
Nonsense! Every single bit of real morality in the bible (old or new) was in the culture thousands of years preceding "god's holy word." By real morality, I mean those things dealing with how we treat one another, and the alleviation of human suffering, which is what morality is all about.
The study comes as many Christians in the West feel there is growing hostility toward Christianity in the public square.
Are these people really Christians or pretenders? John 15:18 If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. That’s in the book called the Bible which all Christian are supposed to read. (2 Tim 2:15)Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.
Researchers of the Oxford study will not attempt to answer whether God exists but they will examine evidence to try to prove whether belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, according to UK's The Times.
Researchers do not believe God. They are continuing to use evolution when it has not been proven. This experiment is a ploy to say that you don’t have to believe in God to advance. They’re trying to determine if God is important.
God is not worldly and even pagan and unbelievers improve. God is required for morality and justice. We have drug addicts being awarded awards, child molester not being sentenced to jail, children murdering children, mother killing children and etc. God has laid the requirement for living. Man has tired to fix things with money, counselors (giving worldly advice), doctors (prescribing medicine for self control), and scientist (our new advisor on all matters). No one wants to listen to God, but people stop and do whatever scientist says and believe them. Scientist are men, and men fail and lie.
"Many atheists (and many science loving Christians) are fed up with this Christian war against science."
Yes! The Christian crusade against science is precisely what motivated me to "come out of the closet" five years ago and begin writing letters to the editor and posting on sites such as this. If those of us who are appalled by the Christian attacks sit by and do nothing - we deserve what we get.
Those of you who would like to repeal the enlightenment and return us to the middle ages should be aware that we are awake now, and will NOT go quietly into that good night.
"Oxford Probes Why People Believe in God"
Are Oxford going to probe why demons believe in God as well? Why even demons believe God is one and tremble don't they? I wonder if Oxfords' probe will find many people trembling over the existence of God and His Word?
"The study will be funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a U.S.-based philanthropic organization that funds wide-ranging research into questions that deal with the laws of nature and issues of spirituality."
Funded by the John Templeton Foundation? Hmmmmm.... I wonder what their spin will be? Issues of spirituality? What kind of spiritual issues? Demon possession? False gods? False religions? Will they be purpose driven?
Merging Religion & Science
The Templeton Foundation
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/templeton.htm
Something is not quite right about all this?????
hallelujah: You've given your testimony, now let me share with you a small piece of my story. I've been down before, not with drugs and such, but similarly self-destructive behavior. Like you I cried out for help, and like you, I felt so much better after I did so. Do you know who I cried out to? My mother. Not a supernatural deity, the human who bore me, whose love is total and without condition. If you had noone like that, so that you had to cry out to an imagined father figure, then I truly am sorry you were put in that position. Noone should be so abandoned.
"If you think about, there are many aspects of our personhood that are not material. "
Oh my, did this thread get real big in a hurry, all this testimony!
Of course anything going on in the brain needs interpretation. There is no way to see pain or pleasure either, directly, human "readout" is needed for both. There is simply no other place for Consciousness to go on other then the brain, and when the brain dies so do we.
Having said that, there is some really interesting work going on (to me) concerning planck-level quantum effects able to act at a distance (entanglement), and the possibility that there could be some sort of wider-level Consciousness then we currently are aware of. This research is very much in the realm of science, not the supernatural.
If your theory was correct, we would expect to see different results from brain injury and stroke, would we not? How, by the way, is Uncle Joe's "last good working personality" stored for the hereafter, in spite of his last two years of dementia?
No, the evidence is that the brain is all there is, and we are within perhaps only a few years away from unlocking most of it's mysteries. Of course, we could always say "God did it," but what a tragedy that would be for all those that could be helped
I think we have had enough of the effects of superstition, don't you?
To read my message in the order I entered it, one will need to read the comment typed at 6:49 first.....the one at 7:03 in a continuation of the same comment. FYI for those who are interested.
I wasn't against the message, but I was eager to search for the Truth no matter where it took me. I asked the Lord to help me to understand, because when people tried to explain it to me, I still couldn't understand it. I had an image in my mind of a piece of ice.....and the thought of that same piece of ice being able to be either a solid, gas, or water. Even though it can change into those 3 different forms (to play different roles), it was the same or One. Later while at a camp meeting, I saw a pamphlet on a table in the back of the room with a picture of this same image that had been in my mind. People can believe I am crazy or whatever, but I believe the Lord gave me that image, and allowed me to see the picture on this pamphlet to further encourage me. I have felt the Sprirt of the Lord move inside of me numerous times. At first, I was looking around to see where the draft might be coming from...........I have never drank coolant before, but if I could imagine what it would be like, I would imagine it would be like waves of coolant running through my body. I could find no draft or reason for feeling what I was feeling other than it being His Spirit running through me. He communicates with me (at times) in the forms of dreams, thoughts I know are not my own, etc. He has changed my life totally and completely. The Bible tells us to taste and see that the Lord is good, and He is. I have written a mini-novel here, and I do apologize. I left out a lot of stuff I would have liked to have also shared, but it would just be too long for this site. Anyway, that is my story and I am sticking to it.
I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and I have committed myself to live for Him the rest of my life. I believed in Jesus when I was little, because I was taught to believe in Him......just like I was taught to believe in santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny, etc. After becoming a teenager and going through the rebel years, I drifted away. I even started to think that, if we had been told all that other stuff to encourage us to be good, maybe the story of Jesus was the same thing.....just on a much bigger scale. As a teenager and young adult, I got mixed up in drugs, alcohol, and many other wrongs that I won't go into.....but I am quite ashamed of. When I had reached my lowest point and was seriouly considering suicide, I cried out to the Lord to help me, and told Him I couldn't take it anymore. I have a hard time explaining what happened next, but I could feel the pain lifting off of me.......much like the heat radiating off of one after getting a bad sunburn. It took a few more days to get totally back to normal, but it was awesome the way it happened. I began to really search out Jesus, after this experience along with other experiences I have had with Him. I have read Lee Strobel's book "A Case For Christ", and read many other books and watched tapes along the same line. I was invited to Church one day, and didn't want to tell my family, "No", so I went. It was an Apostolic Church, and I can honestly tell you I was scared. I started hearing things I had never heard before like the Oneness Doctrine message and the importance of being baptized in Jesus' name.
"The mere presence of atheists here on this sight posting and dialoging is evidence of the existence of God" from seedplanter........Helps a lot in dealing with so much negative comments. When one loves and cares very much for somebody, they really don't like to read or hear negative things about that person. I still don't like it, but your comment will help me see a positive in a negative.
seedplanter,
Which part do you find disingenuous? The part about me being open to changing my mind? Since you seem interested, I’ll tell you a few things about myself. I went to an evangelical Christian school from kindergarten to high school, and I attended an evangelical church every Sunday until I was about fourteen. I’m no newcomer to the Christian faith. I know it from both perspectives; believer, and outsider. If you think I’m simply being disingenuous, you’re wrong. But you’re also wrong if you think I’m here to learn more about (evangelical) Christianity’s basic tenets. I know them like I know my own face. I want to know WHY people believe. If I heard an argument that I couldn’t give an honest reply to, I would consider changing my mind; but it's true that I don’t really expect to.
As for “Neo-Darwinism”—evolution isn’t guided by moral principles. Just because something may have provided an evolutionary advantage to our species at one point, doesn’t necessarily make it desirable. We don’t look to evolution any more than we look to astronomy to draw moral conclusions, and I’ve spelled out my thoughts on morality at some length in the other thread.
tmerkin
Oops. My mistake.
Now then, this is not said to discourage you on your adventure. You are looking for evidence for the Christian faith. First of all it is noteworthy that Christianity is actually a faith that is based on historical time, space events. It is not a mere mysticism in which history and facts are irrelevant. Are you familiar with Dr. William Lane Craig or Professor J.P. Moreland? They have plenty of great material on the internet to get you started. From the scientific point of view you might try Hugh Ross with Reasons to Believe.
merkin: "I'm just trying to figure out what people actually believe and why. If I heard a persuasive argument, I'd be open to changing my mind. Your comment has an "Atheists aren't welcome here!" sort of air to it, by the way."
I find that a bit disingenuous to say the least. Nevertheless, if you are truly interested in researching the Christian faith and reasons to believe you are in the right place to start such an investigation and I immediately apologize for lumping you in with the rest ( I have had some great discussions with Agentorange, who has become less antagonistic). You will meet a great deal of fellow atheists here along the way and I would be surprised if you haven’t already. A puzzlement that I have personally recounted numerous times amidst the “out of the closet” atheists posting here is what seems to be the counterintuitive nature of their argument.
If Neo-Darwinism can explain everything (which it has yet to do), then naturally it follows that religion is a part of the evolutionary social development. Therefore when its adherents try to eliminate faith as Dawkins’ mission statement asserts; it is to work against the very thing that materialists believe in: natural evolution coupled with random selection and genetic mutations that work favorably towards more perfected species. This is where I believe militant atheism self-implodes. It seems to me that this is rather counterproductive. It also reveals a much darker and more sinister motive than mere religious debate; it is blatant bigotry and the most disgusting of ego strokes.
Haha, Calvin Coolidge! What a guy.
ender,
That's not a typo, I was addressing tgender.
"If American democracy is to remain the greatest hope of humanity,
it must continue abundantly in the faith of the Bible."
— President Calvin Coolidge, 1925
tmerkin
I did not mean to imply an atheist not welcome attitude. If I did so, I apologize. My weakness is a genuine curiosity as to why there are so many atheists posting.
The mere presence of atheists here on this sight posting and dialoging is evidence of the existence of God. I think that it is leap towards meaning and understanding. We do not see animals arguing over beliefs. I think the more realistic argument should be against belief in general. The term anti-belief might do better than atheist in stepping toward a world that is without God. Atheism is a sort of reaction towards one’s belief in God.
1 Peter 3:15
But give honour to Christ in your hearts as your Lord; and be ready at any time when you are questioned about the hope which is in you, to give an answer in the fear of the Lord and without pride.
Where did any reference to science come up in my post?
2 Tim 2:14-17
14 Put these things before them, giving them orders in the name of the Lord to keep themselves from fighting about words, which is of no profit, only causing error in their hearers. 15 Let it be your care to get the approval of God, as a workman who has no cause for shame, giving the true word in the right way. 16 But take no part in wrong and foolish talk, for those who do so will go farther into evil, 17 And their words will be like poisoned wounds in the flesh.
Romans 1:19-22
19 Because the knowledge of God may be seen in them, God having made it clear to them. 20 For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, he having given the knowledge of them through the things which he has made, so that men have no reason for wrongdoing: 21 Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. 22 Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish.
I don't believe that ender meant it the way you seemed to have taken it. I am new to this site too, and I was surprised by the number of anti-God comments posted on a christian site. It also passed through my mind that maybe they were hopeful someone could prove God's existence to them. I have also wondered if they were just trying to get us bogged down in a bunch of nonsense. Everyone has the right to believe the way they want to, and everybody has the right to be wrong. We are supposed to be ready with the answer for our hope and belief in the Lord, but we are not supposed to get into foolish discussions with people who have closed-minds. I am a Christian, but even if I didn't believe in God or wasn't sure of His existence, I would still appreciate true Christian people. I would have no reason to have anything against them. Anyway, I hope you find whatever it is you are searching for, but I hope it is the Truth.
tgender,
Science doesn't say that "nature" isn't eternal in any definite sense. Physicists have said that this universe isn't eternal, but nobody knows what's beyond this universe. That includes the two of us. I'm not pretending to know. You are.
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
Here is Word of the Living God about it:
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Some people are set apart and called into the Book of Live, the others stays in painful lonely miserable life. and like they say MISERY LOVES COMPANY.
--------
added info:
Hundreds of supporters of Egyptian-born Muslim cleric Youssef al-Qaradawi protested last week in Britain's embassy in Doha, Qatar decision to deny the influential preacher entry for medical treatment on grounds he supports terorrism.
Youssef al-Qaradawi who is a trustee of the Oxford University Center for Islamic Studies and chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research is a terrorist -and a regular patron at Bath street terror staging mosque.
ender,
I'm just trying to figure out what people actually believe and why. If I heard a persuasive argument, I'd be open to changing my mind. Your comment has an "Atheists aren't welcome here!" sort of air to it, by the way.
I'm fairly new to this site, but am amazed by the number of people who post here frequently that do not believe in God. Yet they argue continuously with those of us who are happy with our faith. Are they seeking God and THE argument that will persuade them or are they merely attempting to take that happiness from others.
To those with faith, no proof is needed. To those without faith, no proof will suffice. Yet for all of the claims of atheist, other religions or belief systems, no one has affected the world more than Jesus. And his ministry was only three years long.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in themf; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even† his eternal power and Godhead; sog that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Ro 1:19-32
A. They knew God .
God had given them a twofold revelation of Himself “in them” (conscience) and “unto them” (creation),. Man did not begin with ignorance and gradually work his way up to intelligence; he began with a blazing revelation of the power and wisdom of God and turned his back on it. God had revealed Himself from the very time of creation, so that people who have never heard the Gospel are still without excuse.
B. They glorified Him not as God
Vain thinking and foolish reasoning turned men from the truth to lies. We see indifference leading to ingratitude, resulting in ignorance. People today bow before the Greek and Roman philosophers and honor their words above the Word of God; but Paul calls all of these philosophies “empty imaginations” and “times of ignorance” The next step was idolatry, honoring the creature (including man) rather than the Creator.
C. They changed the truth of God
This word “changed” should really read “exchanged.” People replaced God’s truth with Satan’s lie! What is Satan’s lie? Worshiping the creature and not the Creator; worshiping man instead of God; worshiping things instead of Christ. Satan tempted Christ to do this (Matt. 4:8–11). Note that in Rom. 1:18, the Gentiles “held down the truth,” and now they “exchange the truth” for a lie! The truth believed and obeyed sets us free (John 8:31–32); the truth rejected and disobeyed makes us slaves.
D. They rejected the knowledge of God
These people had begun with a clear knowledge of God and His judgment against sin but now they reached the lowest level of their downward fall: they did not even want to have knowledge of God! “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ “
It is sad to see the tragic results of this decline. Evolutionists want us to believe that humans have “evolved” from primitive, ignorant, beast-like forms into the marvelous creature they are today. Paul says just the opposite: man began the highest of God’s creatures, but he made himself into a beast! Note the three judgments of God:
God gave them up to uncleanness and idolatry,
God gave them over to vile passions,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind,
God gave them up! This is the revelation of the wrath of God The sins listed here are too vile to define or discuss, yet they are practiced today around the world with the approval of society. People know that sin will be judged, yet they take pleasure in it anyway. Were it not for the Gospel of Christ, we would be in this slavery to sin ourselves. “Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift” .
merkin--
"What is nature? How do you know that it's not eternal?"
Well, for one, your science says so. And secondly, God said so.
HampsteadPete—
“Fear of death is what originally led to the idea of a "soul" in the first place.”
Actually, the idea of a soul has pretty solid evidence going for it. If you think about, there are many aspects of our personhood that are not material. For instance, just where in the brain has a memory ever been located? A memory is not a physical thing. No neurophysiologist or neurosurgeon that has ever stimulated a portion of someone’s brain, looked at his monitors and exclaimed, "Aha...a memory of Joe's grandmother!" Without Joe's first person report, the researcher has no clue what is happening when he stimulates Joe's brain. And Joe is not reporting anything physical when he reports a memory of his grandma. Therefore, the mental state that occurs cannot be a physical thing. It is not detectable by a third party. It does not have size or weight and does not occur in Joe's brain, but in Joe's mind, and a mind is not the same thing as a brain. All that occurs in Joe's brain is a causal or functional interaction among bio-chemical physical stuff. The mind and the brain may be interdependent, but that does not mean that the mind is the brain.
Here’s another example. As a collection of chemicals—which is how a naturalist describes a human being—then how could we have consciousness? From where does our basic awareness of self come from? We have a distinct sense of being different from our bodies. We are aware that we are selves that have a body.
In fact, there are many non-physical aspects to a human person—what we call our soul. Consider your own self-awareness, thoughts, beliefs, values, conscience, memories, emotions, desires, and sensations. These are all “mental events” because not one of them can be detected by scientific (physical) means.
tgender,
You're not getting anywhere. Supernaturalism is still inexplicable by your own definition. Your assertion that "nature is not eternal" is meaningless. What is nature? How do you know that it's not eternal? How do you know that our universe isn't simply one tiny cell in the body of an even grander process? Maybe "time" is a relatively simplistic human invention that is only useful for describing phenomena in this tiny universe. There are many things that could be true, but your anthropocentric god does not seem a likely candidate.
merkin--
"Supernatural explanations" is an oxymoron. Supernatural is another word for magic, which is another word for mystery, which is another word for "I don't know." If you don't know, you can't explain”
No, “magic” is very definitely a NATURAL explanation. Supernatural means it transcends nature. Something must transcend nature because nature is not eternal. Think about it.
"’m afraid you’re exposing your own ignorance of Christianity. We have no fear of death because we know what comes afterwards. I would think your atheism would experience more fear and ignorance about things like the afterlife and meaning and purpose in life."
No, you missed the point, and I can understand why. Fear of death is what originally led to the idea of a "soul" in the first place. The absurd idea that there is somehow some magical something that survives the physical death of the body and somehow encapsulates the "personhood" of the dear departed.
The idea becomes totally ridiculous, if you think about it a bi, but for those who can believe it, it should relieve the fear, of course that was it's purpose in the first place. Death is nothing more than going to sleep, or going under general anesthesia, if you prefer, without waking up. Why should one fear that?
Of course, every major religion in the history of the world, just about, has had some sort of afterlife myth, and they are quite pervasive, after all, who would not like to believe it?
I think it was Epicurus who said "If I am, then death is not. If death is, then I am not. Why should I fear something that is not here when I am?"
Gavulav:
How did I become an atheist? I guess the short answer is, I asked questions and didn't accept the answers I received at face value. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it was not forthcoming. I have made quite a study of the origins of Christianity and other religious myths over the years, and found them all lacking in one particular area - compelling evidence!
Why do Oxfordites probe why people believe in God? Answer: Taxpayers are fleeced to fund nonsensical studies.
tgender,
"Supernatural explanations" is an oxymoron. Supernatural is another word for magic, which is another word for mystery, which is another word for "I don't know." If you don't know, you can't explain.
merkin—
“As far as I understand, the whole enterprise of science—what sets the scientific method apart from every other approach—IS THAT it follows the evidence wherever it leads.”
Not if you rule out supernatural explanations from the very beginning. How would your science approach the resurrection of a person from the dead? Since you expect natural explanations for EVERYTHING, you would refuse to give an explanation because you didn’t have a natural one that was believable. If God truly does exist, we’d expect to see supernatural events. Science, as you define it, will never find them.
Sorry, that looks confusing. Let me repunctuate it:
As far as I understand, the whole enterprise of science—what sets the scientific method apart from every other approach—IS THAT it follows the evidence wherever it leads.
tgender,
What do you mean by "evidence" when you say that science "refuses to follow the evidence wherever it leads?" As far as I understand, the whole enterprise of science, what sets the scientific method apart from every other approach IS THAT it follows the evidence wherever it leads.
As for the origin of the universe, there are plenty of hypotheses on offer that don't require magic as part of the explanation.
HampsteadPete—
“Fear and ignorance - fear of death and/or the unknown, and ignorance of natural processes are the foundations of all religions on the planet.”
I’m afraid you’re exposing your own ignorance of Christianity. We have no fear of death because we know what comes afterwards. I would think your atheism would experience more fear and ignorance about things like the afterlife and meaning and purpose in life.
merkin—
“tgender, How would you propose scientifically investigating whether or not God exists?”
Well, I guess my first question is why must it be a scientific explanation? The reason I ask this is because science is set up to be methodologically naturalistic today, that is, only natural explanations will be sought for the world we observe. So, by today's definition, science will never find God. I disagree with this way of doing science, by the way, since it refuses to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
I believe that, since God created everything, science will be in harmony with other things he has revealed. In other words, science is just one of many ways we can discover things about God. Consider the origin of the universe. How did it all happen? Something has to be eternal—either the universe or whatever caused it to come into existence. Science has shown that the universe is not eternal. This points to God. I also think we can observe evidences in nature of intelligent causation, which also points to God.
BTW, see my latest reply in our morality discussion in the other thread.
From Indonesia,
First of all, University of Oxford motto "The Lord is my light" is taken from from Psalm 27:1 and this university has shown in its 912 years of history as being used by our Great Lord Jesus Christ for His people's education & research.
But recently people like Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist have use Oxford as a comfy chair to spread atheism, humanist secular, tree hugger, wishy-washy opinions. Opinions that lead to spread of Islam in UK, dhimmitude to Muslim terror and Caliphate expansion. Check out the central mosque at Bath Street, hey- the politically correct Britons cannot do anything even if they know that the place is a staging place for terrorist.
It's a fully intentional move by the John Templeton foundation to use University of Oxford, the comfy seat of Dawkins, for their research and see how the money can be used to determine why people believe in God, the Christian God and the intelligent design. Let us see how Dawkins face the Templetons having their way in 'his' domain. Best guess, there is nothing he can do about it, except whining, whining and whining.
PS: Hitchens is a celebrity misled. This political pundit advise the US, UK government to accept his argument that KOSOVO in former Yugoslavia was to be awarded to a “multi-ethnic plural democracy” (as if the Islamist understand the concept) led by Bosnian Kosovar, with an Jihadist terror cell working in Balkan in full support from the Albanian. KOSOVO Jihadist declared their independence recently. Somebody from the FSB ought to have a ‘real friendly’ conversation with Hitchens about it.
tgender, How would you propose scientifically investigating whether or not God exists?
“Researchers of the Oxford study will not attempt to answer whether God exists but they will examine evidence to try to prove whether belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind.”
Talk about a biased study. Apparently they’re presupposing that evolution is true. I would think that answering the question of whether or not God exists is profoundly more important than whether or not mere belief in God confers some imaginary evolutionary advantage.
HamspsteadPete......Here you go again! How are you, by the way? I was actually thinking of you when I posted that comment. You're right, Mr. Trigg was talking about religion rather than just Christianity. Sorry about that. How did you become an atheist?
"Fear and ignorance" = The suma logica of atheism.
I am rather gleeful and intrigued with what Mr. Trigg says about Christianity being the default position and atheism needing an explanation. I wonder what the self-proclaimed comrades of Richard Dawkins and Chritopher Hitchens, who needle us Christians mercilessly on this site, make of this?