Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Opinion|Fri, Jan. 09 2009 09:17 AM EST

Atheists Play Their Hand - Probability

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

The news first broke last year, when atheists in Great Britain announced the intention to put their message on London's famous city buses. Atheist celebrities including Richard Dawkins and A. C. Grayling joined the campaign and enjoyed the publicity. Now, the atheists are taking their advertising campaign throughout Britain, with 800 buses carrying their message.

The message? “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

According to The New York Times, the atheist campaign raised $150,000 in four days, providing the financing for the wider advertising effort.

The idea emerged from Ariane Sherine, a writer, who was offended when she saw bus ads placed by Christians. She came up with the idea of countering Christian messages with a "reassuring" atheist response.

The bus advertisements have probably achieved at least one central goal of the campaign - publicity. Nevertheless, organizers are frustrated that their signs have not caused more outrage. This lack of outrage, some suggest, is just more evidence of Britain's growing secularity.

As The New York Times reported, "Although Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England, Britain is a deeply secular country with a dwindling number of regular churchgoers, and with politicians who seem to go out of their way to play down their religious beliefs." Indeed, former Prime Minister Tony Blair's Director of Communications once famously quipped, "We don't do God."

Atheists in Australia attempted a similar campaign, but the bus companies refused the ads. The Australian advertising approach would have been slightly different than the British. The signs were to have read, "Atheism: Sleep in on Sunday mornings."

I must admit that I find the British campaign nearly humorous. In any event, it is certainly not threatening to the Christian message. No one is really likely to be converted to atheism by seeing a sign on a bus - and almost certainly not by a sign that declares that "there's probably no God." Probably?

In some sense, this campaign almost looks like a joke on atheists planned and performed by believers in God. The use of the word "probably" does more to demonstrate the weakness of the atheistic argument than could ever be done by outright condemnations of atheism.

Atheism supposedly declares its central conviction that there is no God. But this central conviction doesn't appear to be held very strongly - not if you look at the advertising message the atheists in Britain have chosen for their own campaign.

I do not believe in God because I have become convinced that his existence is probably true, but because I am convinced that the existence of God is the first principle of all truth. The Christian conviction is not based in probability, but in the assurance of God's existence and self-revelation.

So, in an odd and completely unexpected sense, I am actually thankful for the atheist bus campaign in Britain. When the best atheists can come up with is a message that God probably does not exist, the weakness of the atheist intellectual position becomes clear.

Despite all this, it appears that the atheists behind this campaign in Britain are excited by their effort. Perhaps we will soon see a similar effort here in the United States. Will it happen? Probably.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent I am curious, have you read any books by C.S. Lewis?

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Math,

    "Forgive me for expecting you to do a little Googling on your own."

    Well, to be sure in past biological dialogs, when you have listed links I do visit them and reply in kind, so I am only asking for the same in this case. Make a case, link it. Simply listing anonymous names & figures with nothing behind it is hardly worthy of even discussing.

    "after I've looked at all the videos you've recommended over the last 6-8 months. What are the videos, peer-reviewed journals or just clever animations?"

    I am not sure specifically, we'd have to list which ones & then which refer to works cited and peer reviewed publications. When visual aids aren't available I offer up the .edu articles. But the most common ones I refer to are cited. I do make an honest attempt to always follow this practice though.

    "If we've both got to live up to the same standard, I guess we can toss all of them in the trash."

    Well here is seems you're folding, but I'd rather read it from the scientifically peer reviewed source.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent,
    Forgive me for expecting you to do a little Googling on your own. That's rich, after I've looked at all the videos you've recommended over the last 6-8 months. What are the videos, peer-reviewed journals or just clever animations? If we've both got to live up to the same standard, I guess we can toss all of them in the trash.

    I will look for the articles again and try to put up a link directly to them for you. Till then, bon nuit.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    seedplanter

    'Does this mean that you approve of such cultural practices ...'
    Well of course not and nothing I wrote even remotely suggested that I would approve of such things.

    Possibly the people that do those atrocities can somehow reconcile them with their moralities (though how they could I do not know), but even if they can consider such things moral that does not stop the rest of us from considering their acts immoral.

    There needs to be a means of deciding which moralities are correct. Whether this is decided by majority or agreed by selected few leaders by philosophical debate or rational argument it is clear that the moralities used in society change over time. For those who think their moralities are decided by the bible or other book, people pick and chose which bits to follow and use their morality to decide which bits to pick, so morality comes before religion.

    Whether it is morally right to impose our moralities on other countries because that country demonstrates moralities we do not like is itself a moral question. One that is hard to answer, is it right to impose on a country because it gases its own population or because it denies basic human rights to minority groups(for example homosexuals)?

    Maybe in the future eating meat will be considered morally wrong and anyone doing it will be viewed as evil. Does that mean we are evil to eat meat now, no it doesn't. (note I am not saying I would like such a change, I'm not a vegetarian.) Some morals are near universally accepted, but that does not mean that morality is a fixed absolute. Maybe a moral that is mostly consistent around the world is mostly due to genes and maybe those that vary more are more due to environment and memes. Understanding the source of morals could give great benefits and I suspect the answer to that is more likely to come from science that religious studies. It might help us end the very attrocities you mentioned.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Seed,

    "as long as he is hanging around here I think it reveals a part of him that is searching whether he admits it or not"

    Oh please, don't patrionize & pretend to be humble when you actively seek out & speak out proselytizing your own religions dogma daily.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mathetes,

    So if I show the examples of instances where prayers don't work, doesn't that offer anything? Not in your eyes, you already accept they work, regardless of negative results. Coincidence & statistical averages are foreign to you it seems.
    Math, by citing an example, it means by referring to & citing THE ARTICLE (as in link it) which supports your claim, which you didn't then and now. You list some names, some numbers, but nothing backing up either beyond that. Certainly you see the problem in this as this is basically down to your own word - again. More or less it equates to hand waving.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Thanks mathetes I'll check it out later.

    Agent is a follower of scientism. I use to be a self-righteous hedonist myself. We all need Jesus, as long as he is hanging around here I think it reveals a part of him that is searching whether he admits it or not.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Seedplanter,

    Here's a copy of my post to Agentorangex (on 7-31-08 under the article "A Knight of the Mind) after I had gone through these same kind of hoops with him. I just want you to know you're not the first person to encounter his extreme skepticism.

    "You demand proof that God exists. I've tried to give you reasons to believe that He does indeed exist and answers prayer. You doubt that miracles happen. I told you about two people I knew personally who had untreatable cancer and were completely, instantaneously healed. You said that was not good enough, not dramatic enough - you want a limb regrown. I told you about more dramatic miracles, two of them only 2nd-hand (not 3rd, etc.). You said that's not good enough; you want clinical, scientific proof.

    Are you listening to yourself? Do you remember where this started? I gave you two scientific, clinical studies that proved prayer worked. Go read about them yourself if you don't believe me; I gave you enough details. [One study was by Kansas City cardiologists William Harris and James O'Keefe. 1000 heart patients, and the 500 prayed for by the chaplain and a group of volunteers had 11% fewer heart attacks, strokes, and life-threatening complications. Another: Dr. Elizabeth Targ of Pacific College of Medicine in S.F. tested prayer on AIDS patients. The "prayed for" group had six times fewer hospitalizations, and their hospitalizations were significantly shorter than the people who received no prayer.]

    You're always complaining Christians are closed-minded to the truths of science. Why not open your mind to the possibility that a supernatural being exists that is beyond your comprehension? Why not humble yourself and ask Him to reveal Himself to you? If you mean it, He just might."

    God bless you, Seedplanter. May His grace and patience be yours in abundance.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Seed,

    "Don't be so cynical Agent,"

    That would be an affirmation of my prediction. I am not a cynic, I am skeptic, there is a difference.

    "this is a very real story"

    Then you can very really back it up with evidence, right? I mean, it's not an every day occurrence, as you note, it's a *miracle*. So, back it up with evidence already.

    "there are countless other amazing testimonies such as this one."

    and all of them exist only in countless email spam messages too huh?

    "Her name like many others will remain anonymous as much as possible."

    Such an anonymous person makes it all the much easier to be skeptical of, after all, you're unable/unwillingness to provide sufficient details to even research if it occurred is telling.

    "If you really wanted to talk to her, I might be able to get her email address to you in private,"

    And how can I confirm objectively some anonymous email account is indeed the person in question? See the problem there seedy? Such is beyond reproach, it's untenable and worthless. Can't you offer something which CAN be critiqued?

    The missionary I spoke of is Mark Hausfeld,"

    Oh, so you got this email spam from him/them as a 3rd party story? Not impressed. You came off as if YOU personally were contacted by the person who had this vision, not a 3rd party account.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent: "unless you can really substantiate this story, it doesn't carry much for it in terms of evidence. Heck, it sounds like made up propaganda."

    Don't be so cynical Agent, just because you have never had such an experience. this is a very real story and there are countless other amazing testimonies such as this one. Because Iran will not allow missionaries into the country, they must take a different approach. Her official capacity will be a school teacher. She could be killed for converting to Christianity as well as for evangelizing other Muslims. Her name like many others will remain anonymous as much as possible. If you really wanted to talk to her, I might be able to get her email address to you in private, but with this kind of skepticism I kind of doubt it would make any difference to you.

    The missionary I spoke of is Mark Hausfeld, author of Silk Road Stories. He serves as Assemblies of God World Missions area director for Central Eurasia and also teaches at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Perhaps you still doubt his qualifications, in the 90s at least two Assembly of God pastors were executed in Iran. One was a national Evangelical leader in Iran, he was arrested, released then executed.

    I have been reading similar stories for years from such as Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ and Voice of the Martyrs. You can do your own research if you would so be inclined. You can check out one of Mark's mp3s here: http://stonechurch.blogspot.com/.

    Agent there are many stories of miraculous circumstances in which people are converted to Christ. While mine is not nearly as dramatic, I too have shared a bit of my own with you previously. You should really get out more my friend... maybe even visit some churches. I promise the roof wont fall in.

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ktulu: "My country now has no death penalty. Morality regarding attitudes towards women, homosexuality and slavery have changed considerably over the years. Morality is not a constant."

    Does this mean that you approve of such cultural practices as female genital mutilation as is commonly practiced in the Middle East? What about the genocide in Rwanda, the slaughter in Sudan and the millions of women who are being sold as sex slaves around the world? Is all of this just a matter of perspective? Is cannibalism acceptable so long as it is not in America?

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Math,

    "Is it not even a little bit surprising to you that the chaos following the Big Bang could settle into such an orderly universe?"

    I wouldn't call it all orderly, it does behave according to laws if you will, but it's quite chaotic with all the black holes gulping down matter, colliding galaxies & planets, stars going supernova, gamma ray burtss, quasars, etc. Certain parts are more relatively orderly than other parts in the universe and in galaxies, but they're a mess overall, lots of destruction going on.

    "If I remember correctly, the angular momentum of objects flying apart from each other should have kept them moving in those directions,"

    Not if matter acts as a gravitational force slowing or preventing their separation. Collisions of matter in the early universe were no doubt more common as the density was higher. From COBE we know the early universe wasn't uniform, in that certain pockets of space constituted a higher mass density than others, this in turn lead to the first stars & galaxies as the matter & its gravitational force went to work to fuse helium atoms.

    "not creating circular orbits or planets spinning in different directions."

    Steve's a geologist, as far as I know the orbits aren't circular, they're elliptical, & this has been known for about 400 years. Angular momentum would be concerned in retaining the orbital path the planets followed during the formation of Sol, our sun, or other planetary systems. But not their own axial tilt, nor their directional spin. In space, there is no preferred axial spin.

    And ktulu, the (I think) Levy space telescopes have confirmed many (I want to say hundreds) of black holes in the center of our galaxy, not one.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "the miracles and resurrection of Jesus"

    I deliberately cut that part out as 'Jesus' is unique to a particular faith, but not that miracles in general are. So I left miracles in. So, I couldn't say other religions have a demi-god (what have you) named jesus which is resurrected, but other religions do have miracles of people rising & the god rising later after death.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "True, anyone can be moral, but without God there is no basis for moral law."

    Ok, so it appears that you don't deny morality exists outside of acknowledging god, but then you have an issue with humanity providing their own terms of morality (subjectively anyway).Why?

    Are the moral precepts in the bible or ANY other religions book, or precepts as per any society ANY less subjective than how other contemporary religions view morality? Not really. It's all different views on morality already, the only difference is it's one god's point of view on morality VS another gods view on morality. Both are subjective & both appeal to authority in this sense.

    Are you seriously saying we are entirely beyond any good measure of enacting laws which fit our moral needs & require a (as you noted non needed) supreme dictatorship?

    If we can truly be moral without religion/god precepts, then who else but ourselves would we refer to in setting up moral laws?

    "I personally find arguments for the natural evolution of morality a skeptics' power grab without merit."

    And why is this? Many endless species exist in social groups and act in accordance with their own, albeit subjective, views on morality in their actions & they're are entirely absent of god or religion either.

    "Moral law merely points to a moral law Giver."

    And we as a society can't democratically elect laws to back certain moral ideals? We do already in courts, so what's the biggie?

    "In other words, morality evolves."

    Look at the OT and some its barbaric laws & punishments & how in the middle east much of this barbarism is still rampant there. Evidently it does change over time as we become more civilized.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    By the way, agent, I enjoyed your conversation with viking. I thought he made a good argument regarding the impossibility that rational thought could evolve out of chaos and chemicals. I hope you get to finish that conversation.
    Good night; I'll look for your replies tomorrow.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Re big bang
    First stating the obvious, if the big bang was shown to be wrong, that would not automatically make an alternative hyposthesis true. So an argument against the big bang is not an argument in favour of a god.

    Regarding the circular orbits. I'd guess that this is due to the particles spreading out from the big bang not being evenly distributed resulting in an uneven forces acting on the particles causing them to group up and collide with each other. According to big bang theorty the particles are still moving away from the centre they are just interacting with each other on the way. Look at the study of the centre of our galaxy where the suspected black hole is, what the telescopes see there is anything but orderly. (At least according to a very good tv program I saw on just that the other day.) I am no expert on this and rather that pick apart my vague answer check out what an expert says on the matter http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM (the first of a series of five clips).

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent, glad to see you are online, but sad that I have to leave. Still, let me respond. You wrote, beginning with a PARTIAL QUOTE from my post:
    "These evidences include His attributes as seen in creation/nature, near universal moral law, fulfilled prophecy, and the miracles"

    And these you're saying aren't found in any other theological texts outside of the bible? C'mon, get real. you think muslims in palestine & abroad didn't 'praise allah' as being involved in 9-11? You might doubt their belief, but theirs is as fervant as yours.

    Now, I don't think you were trying to be dishonest; really I don't. But I guess the complete quote would not have fit into your answer: I was specifically writing about (here it is again) "the miracles and resurrection of Jesus" - no, the miracles and resurrection of Jesus are not found in other theological texts. But none of those other theological texts can be considered as accurate as the Bible, based on the number of manuscripts, archeology, or fulfilled prophecies. To investigate the evidence for yourself, check out the same books as I recommended to ktulu below.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "how skepticism and naturalism can bring such hope to one searching for fulfillment?"

    The fulfillment I (& generally all people at large) seek is in coming to understand/know reality (whatever it might be) to the best of my ability based on senses. As it would turn out, the naturalistic process of science allows for accurate understanding of material cause & effect we see in nature & allows us to free ourselves of the demons, ghosts, spirits & supernatural mumbo jubmo which has plagued & haunted humanity.

    "There are many other miraculous stories of redemption that is spreading across the Middle East."

    Sure, I guess they all appear like that canned e-mail spam memo you just put up? It looks like you made it up on the spot or received as some spam.

    "but I find it hard pressed to explain away the miracles that take place everyday."

    Well, that's you, & you alone in your own subjective opinion, of which science cares very little for. Objectivity is required in science for a reason.

    "Every worldview has to come to grips with it's explanatory power or lack thereof."

    And oddly enough science in its naturalistic, materialist nature provides very powerful explanations for natural phenomena. Invoking the supernatural explains nothing, it appeals the ignorance to another level for which itself can't be examined either, it's an intellectual cop out. Look at all the fruits of science, heck, the very conversation we're having now is directly related to it. To deny this, while also proclaiming science to be wrong, or the alternative to be superior is awfully arrogant if not darn hypocritical in ones actions.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ktulu, you wrote: "Miracles + resurrection of Jesus - again you have to start with an assumption of truth of the bible for this to count as evidence."

    As shown below, the gospels are considered to be accurate history, uncontested by the enemies of Jesus and Christianity. While Jesus was alive, his enemies did not question whether He was making blind people see, the lame walk, etc. They only questioned the source of His power, incorrectly attributing the miracles of Jesus to the power of Satan. Don't you think His enemies would have called Jesus a faker, unless He was in fact curing people?
    Same with the early Christians, as Luke recorded in Acts. The Pharisees thought they had taken care of the Jesus problem, then along come His followers doing the same kinds of miracles and preaching about Jesus. Would not the Pharisees have called them fakers and charlatans if it were so? But they could not. They could only threaten, beat, or imprison them, because the blind could see, the lame walk, etc.

    The same applies to the resurrection of Jesus. The Pharisees would have loved to prove it did not happen, but they could not. Jesus was seen by many witnesses after His crucifixion. For answers to the alternate explanations posed for the resurrection of Jesus, check out the books by Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, or The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an atheist journalist in Chicago when he set out to disprove the Bible once and for all. Instead the evidence convinced him that the Bible was real and Jesus is exactly who He said He was. If you were closer to me, I'd loan you my copies. Good luck with the research; let me know what you think about it.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Seed,

    "This morning a missionary shared a story of a traditional muslim woman in Iran"

    Just an FYI, unless you can really substantiate this story, it doesn't carry much for it in terms of evidence. Heck, it sounds like made up propaganda.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Since Luke wrote his gospel before 63 A.D., if he had "doctored" the results (sorry, just could not resist that), many contemporaries who were alive contemporaneous with Jesus (including the Pharisees) could have pointed out the inconsistencies. None did; it was accepted as fact.
    The prophecies in question were written 600-1000 years before Jesus and kept in the care of the Jews, most of whom rejected Jesus. The Jewish hierarchy was certainly unfriendly to Jesus; if the facts about Jesus had not matched those prophecies in minute detail, would not those Jews have pointed out the errors? Yet none did, because they knew that Jesus fulfilled them perfectly. As for the Greek "prophecies," they do not share those characteristics of precise record-keeping over hundreds of years.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ktulu, (continued)
    Re: fulfilled prophecy - You wrote: "Well this assumes that what the bible says is true. With an assumption that it is true then you believe in god because you believe in the bible and believe in the bible because you believe in god. Start with an assumption that it is false and it is hard to get into that cycle. Between believing Luke's gospel is true and believing that he altered the stories he heard to match the prophecies, the latter seems more likely."

    I am aware of what a circular argument is. How about this one: "These two creatures are related because they share physical characteristics. Why do they share physical characteristics? Because they are related by ancestry." (Homological principle of evolution)

    Moving on: how strange that you chose to mention Luke; do you ever feel you are supposed to be on this journey? Sir William Ramsay, generally regarded as one of the greatest archeologists to have ever lived, set out to disprove Luke's account of the early church in the Book of Acts. After years of digging, he came to this conclusion:
    "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense....In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
    Since this same Luke recorded the history of Jesus in the gospel bearing his name, we should grant the same status to the gospel: no archeological find has ever contradicted his writings. Skeptics used to claim Pontius Pilate was a fictional character, until a large stone from the first century A.D. was unearthed at Caesarea Mari bearing his name: Pontius Pilates.
    Since Luke wrote his gospel before 63 A.D., if he had "doctored" the results (sorry, couldn’t resist that), many people who were contemporaries of Jesus (including the Pharisees) could have pointed out the inconsistencies. None did; it was accepted as fact.
    The prophecies in question were written 600-1000 years before Jesus and kept in the care of the Jews (especially the scribes and Pharisees), most of whom rejected Jesus. The Jewish hierarchy was certainly unfriendly to Jesus; if the facts about Jesus had not matched those prophecies in minute detail, would not those Jews have pointed out the errors? Yet none did, because they knew that Jesus fulfilled them perfectly. As for the Greek "prophecies," they do not share those characteristics of precise record-keeping over hundreds of years.

    I hope that helps you understand the difference between those other documents and the Bible, especially the writings of Luke.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good afternoon, ktulu; I appreciate your response. Sorry, Monday as well as Sunday has been busy. Time for 2-3 quick answers.

    Re: Creation/nature - Many early scientists believed we could understand nature because it operates in a consistent, orderly fashion, an order and consistency which was set in operation by God and reflects His attributes. Is it not even a little bit surprising to you that the chaos following the Big Bang could settle into such an orderly universe? If I remember correctly, the angular momentum of objects flying apart from each other should have kept them moving in those directions, not creating circular orbits or planets spinning in different directions. Steve?

    Seedplanter did a good job explaining the moral law argument. Thanks, Seedplanter.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    seedplanter

    Regarding his refusal to debate Craig; This links gives Richards explaination of why he wont debate creationists
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

    I had not heard of Craig and did a google search and I noticed a number of sites wrongly attributed the following quote to Dawkins. 'That would look great on your CV; not so good on mine'. According to Dawkins book the God Delusion that quote actually comes from an Austrialian colleague of his.

    Re morality evolves. Yes I believe it does. The average morality today is different to what is was just a hundred years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. My country now has no death penalty. Morality regarding attitudes towards women, homosexuality and slavery have changed considerably over the years. Morality is not a constant.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ktulu: "Near universal moral law - well as morality exists in all people, Christian and non Christian, this is not proof of any one god over another. Also Dawkins and others have given good explaination for the fact that morality is the result of human evolution. Religion is not necessary for morality."

    True, anyone can be moral, but without God there is no basis for moral law. Many a'skeptic have been backed against the wall over the years on the issue. I personally find arguments for the natural evolution of morality a skeptics' power grab without merit. It is interesting how that Richard Dawkins embarrassingly avoided debating Dr William Lane Craig, suggesting that he only debates "church officials."

    You may be surprised, but you actually interpreted the moral law as the typical Christian philosopher would when you asserted that morality does not prove a specific god or God to be the one true God. Moral law merely points to a moral law Giver.

    Dr Craig has argued over and over, "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." They are merely subjective and as you asserted - they are the result of human evolution. In other words, morality evolves. In this you actually are asserting that objective moral laws do not exist, they are a mere product of our genes and our environment.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, How are you? I was reading your earlier comments have you ever read Pascal's Pensees? Are you questioning his commitment to the Gospel?

    This morning a missionary shared a story of a traditional muslim woman in Iran who had been seeking to get close to God through various Islamic traditions. All to no avail, she finally came to the end of her rope and set out to end her life. Standing at the edge of her roof top at 11 O'clock at night with her back to the street, unexpectedly her cell phone chirped. The voice on the other end said, "Don't kill yourself." The voice began addressing her situation directing her to Jesus. When she hung up the phone it was 7 O'clock in the morning. Later as she made her way through the streets, wearing the full Muslim traditional dress as she always has - covered from head to toe, with a mere slit for the eyes she was approached by a man that she had never known or seen before, he reached out to her and handed her a Bible. It is not well looked upon for a man in her culture (especially a stranger) to approach a woman, unless it is a relative. This woman was changed by God and today she is entering full time missionary work. She understands the risk of such a confession of faith, and yet she considers it an honor to serve her Lord and Saviour.

    May I ask you Agent, how skepticism and naturalism can bring such hope to one searching for fulfillment? There are many other miraculous stories of redemption that is spreading across the Middle East. Not only can naturalism not give account for the mere search for fulfillment itself, but I find it hard pressed to explain away the miracles that take place everyday.

    Every worldview has to come to grips with it's explanatory power or lack thereof. Naturalism and a life of skepticism I have found to be weighed in the balances and found wanting. There is hope yet for you!

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Math.

    "The Muslim is more like a Deist:"

    Not really, not at all really. I've read parts of it (go find it online too) mirror the bible & they are as fantasy ladden in miracles of Allah as the bible is. Like it, it also refers to 'god' as being the only reason for rationality in nature, & ironically, when nature doesn't tend to behave in a comprehending way & is apparently irational, they too leap for the 'god did it' clause to explain it all away.

    Regardless, this still would be *another* possible god for which Pascal excluded in his wager.

    "Allah started it all + will judge mankind"

    Indeed, this is part of their theology, as in their view all infidels (you, I, & all non-muslims) get to enjoy their respective hell. The other thing Pascal ignored.

    "These evidences include His attributes as seen in creation/nature, near universal moral law, fulfilled prophecy, and the miracles"

    And these you're saying aren't found in any other theological texts outside of the bible? C'mon, get real. you think muslims in palestine & abroad didn't 'praise allah' as being involved in 9-11? You might doubt their belief, but theirs is as fervant as yours.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:59 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Hi mathetes

    If by evidence you mean when you said 'These evidences include His attributes as seen in creation/nature, near universal moral law, fulfilled prophecy, and the miracles + resurrection of Jesus.' then this is my response.

    Creation/nature - how is this a proof of any god, let alone proof of one specific god. Did a god leave his signature in a fjord on Norway to prove it was his creation? Even if scientific theories for nature are shown to be false, that does not automatically make an alternative hypothesis true.
    Near universal moral law - well as morality exists in all people, Christian and non Christian, this is not proof of any one god over another. Also Dawkins and others have given good explaination for the fact that morality is the result of human evolution. Religion is not necessary for morality.
    Fulfilled prophecy - Well this assumes that what the bible says is true. With an assumption that it is true then you believe in god because you believe in the bible and believe in the bible because you believe in god. Start with an assumption that it is false and it is hard to get into that cycle. Between believing Luke's gospel is true and believing that he altered the stories he heard to match the prophecies, the latter seems more likely. Greek myths have stories about fulfilled prophecies but that does not make me believe those myths to be true.
    Miracles + resurrection of Jesus - again you have to start with an assumption of truth of the bible for this to count as evidence.

    As for genuine evidence, the best is something I can observe or verify for myself. Obviously it is not possible for me to observe or verify everything for myself so for deciding the truth of a claim in that case I simply have to use my judgement based on the knowledge I have, the reliability of source of the claim and the plausibility of the argument and the evidence they have to back it up.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ktulu,
    I will check back late today or tomorrow. Today is a busy day for me. Hope you have a good one. I thought your dialogue with viking was educational. I look forward to the same here.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Welcome, ktulu. I'm glad you found your way to CP. Thanks for sharing your story candidly.

    I am curious about one thing. After I provided 4 evidences that the God of Christianity exists, you wrote: "despite no deity ever intervening in human history and no god giving genunine evidence that they exist or being actively involved in mankind." What do you consider "genuine evidence"?

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Re worrying as a Christian. As a young child I did hear lots of warnings of eternal pain and suffering in hell given in considerable and gruesome detail, so realising that it was all pure fiction was indeed a freedom from worry. I live in Northern Ireland and even to this day there are firebrand preachers on the streets threatening passers-by with everlasting torment if you do not believe in their god (heard one earlier today!). I pass Christian ads on billboards nearly every day. Unlike England religion still holds strong in Northern Ireland and here being openly atheist can lead to hostile reactions which means most who don't believe still pretend they do. As a child I assumed everyone around me believed and if I questioned it to my teachers they mocked me for doubting it so I just assumed it just me who 'couldn't get it'. I was told to just accept it was true without questioning it.
    When older I realised they nearly everyone I knew who publicly professed to being a Christian didn't even remotely believe it to be true, it was just convenient to go along with it to fit in. It was about being seen to believe regardless of actual belief held. Then I got it. Then I felt true enlightenment. This is why religions have survived despite no deity ever intervening in human history and no god giving genunine evidence that they exist or being actively involved in mankind. The benefits occur regardless of the gods existence! Realising that I was not unusual in not having faith made me happier. Realising that in fact it was very common and learning about groups like humanists and their beliefs has lead to me having a much more positive attitude to life. The poster campaign is not trying to convert devoted believers, but is for those uncomfortable with their faith, letting them know that atheism is a valid acceptable option. If your faith works for you and makes you happy then I am pleased for you. But it doesn't work for everyone and for some of them the poster says exactly what they need to hear.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent,

    The Muslim is more like a Deist: Allah started it all + will judge mankind by their works in the end, but in between offers little evidence for Allah's existence. Same (or less) for Odin, Zeus, etc. The LORD of the Bible does reveal Himself personally to mankind, interacts with mankind, and offers evidence of His existence which can be understood by mankind. These evidences include His attributes as seen in creation/nature, near universal moral law, fulfilled prophecy, and the miracles + resurrection of Jesus.

    Enjoying your conversation with Viking on the other page. I'll catch up with you tomorrow. G'night.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It is sad to read these posts of the sinners. Always ready to put down Christians. I pray a lot for them as I and God do not want anybody miss out on Heaven

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Pascal believed only one of those many deities has intervened in history repeatedly. Only the LORD of Judaism + Christianity has given any evidence that He exists and is actively involved with mankind."

    From Pascals view, naturally. If we'd asked a Muslim in the contemporary time or now, they undoubtedly would favor Allah, in accordance with their affinity. The persona for god seems to shift like that. Funny how the typical affinity of ones of god becomes the only one, while others become imposers, posers, fakes.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "if one is trying to believe, count it. If purely faking it, ie, not trying, it's no good"

    This seems fair. This isn't something Pascal accounted for though. He left it entirely out of the equation that a god would/could see through such hedge betting. He offered up mere 'belief' as being the prime virtue to a god, it over works or other variables which a god could qualify a person, he used belief as the standard.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You know, Mohler's certainty about his beliefs can also be viewed as arrogant, while the atheist's position can be viewed as humble."

    Because one believes in truth vs probibilty is arrogant vs humility. hmmm, I know the sky is blue, am I being arrogant, no, i am stating a fact, just because you choose not to believe doesn't change that...

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Who cares? Christian apologetics is just as worthless as the phony messages of these Atheists.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Re: 3000+ gods. 1st, I'm curious: you started using that # in the last few days; where did you read it?

    More important, Pascal believed only one of those many deities has intervened in history repeatedly. Only the LORD of Judaism + Christianity has given any evidence that He exists and is actively involved with mankind. For me, this refutes the "multiple gods" counter-argument.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, I read the Stanford article on Pascal's wager. Interesting. Near the end, the author dealt with a nonbeliever's struggle to find belief + said thatsuch seeking/struggling would be acceptable to God. Not exactly equal to your notion of "fake hedge betting belief" but helpful: if one is trying to believe, count it. If purely faking it, ie, not trying, it's no good.

    (cont)

  • Mee »
    Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As a christian I have nothing to worry about but I'm sad to know that there are people who will not, will not run out of a burning building when someone yells fire. For those that will listen to the warning they will be save.
    By excepting the Bible as the true Word of the living God and obeying it. We'll all have a happier life and free of worry all problems are in the hands of our father, God. For at the end God will rule the world. God Bless the USA.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    You know, Mohler's certainty about his beliefs can also be viewed as arrogant, while the atheist's position can be viewed as humble.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    youngstudent, I couldn't help but notice you used the same logic reasoning employed by mathematician Blaise Pascal, infamously known as 'Pascals Wager'. This was known on principle as it being better to believe, for beliefs sake.

    Unfortunately for him, & you, his reasoning 'of nothing to lose' from the theistic position has been critiqed over the centuries as being wrong in many aspects, & in totality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

    Pascal, like you, only offered up 'a single god' as being included in the hypothetical & therefore he unwittingly ignored the other 3000+ recorded gods in humanities history. Paradoxically, with this he ignored the obvious. That being that all recorded gods are, at least in principle, equally possible, as being the 'one true god' & that for each god, they are overwhelming mutually exclusive. That is, a christian cannot be a muslim, & thus but each's own admission the infidel ends up in their gods hell.

    Additionally, by sheer numbers, 3000+ to 1, the odds are that whichever god you have an affinity for is actually the wrong one. Therefore, a Christian could have utter head over heels belief, & in the end, end up in another religions gods hell. Fancy that. For all you know, Baal, Allah, Appolo, etc. are the one true god, and in the end you will have earned nothing as your enter their respective hell.

    Another objection is the notion of 'belief for beliefs sake', aka, hedge betting belief. Surely if one believes in an all powerful, all knowing god they must also realize that such an omnipotent being/thing would readily recognize such a a fake hedge betting belief which Pascal advocated. In turn, it would also be reasonable under this premise that said god would be as vengful & toss such fake believers in hell anyway. Of course there are other objections.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:20 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    It might be of interest to some that the word probably was inserted to conform to the British Advertising Standards Association rules. I'm sure R.A was unaware of this.....probably.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Let's look at both sides for one second:

    those atheists said "there's PROBABLY no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

    and Christians say "there's SURELY is a GOD, when you accept Christ into your life you no longer have to WORRY about what happens after this life is over because you've repented and made a u-turn on the road of life, and you will experience joy as no other you've ever experienced both in this life and in the next forever through Jesus Christ!"

    Now which side do YOU THINK is right? Which side offers you a better life/outcome?

    The way I se it, as a Christian, if I'm wrong, and you who are atheists are right- then I die and nothing happens to me either good or bad, BUT if I am right because I believe and follow Jesus (and I faithfully believe that I am right) then YOU WHO ARE ATHEISTS will surely face eternal consequences for your rejection of the one true God.

    saved by grace through faith in Christ and YOU CAN BE TOO,

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:28 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    `the ads seem to be selling that you will enjoy your life more if you stop havng faith.

    however with believers it is just the opposite, their ability to enjoy their lives increases exponentially in living their faith in christ.

    it is man's burden that is heavy, it the beliefs of the world that are burdensome.

    but it is christ whose "yoke is easy and whose burden is light."

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links