Christian Conceptions of God: Can God be Judged? (Book Notes: The Atheists Debater's Handbook)
In The Atheists Debater’s Handbook, B.C. Johnson writes:
[N]o Christian can afford to claim that we cannot judge God. If God creates the rules by which behavior must be judged and if the rules do not bind their Creator, then there is nothing that is improper for God. Therefore, when God promises that Christians will go to heaven and atheists will go to hell, there is no reason to believe that he will not break his promise and send Christians to hell and atheists to heaven. In fact, it is just as likely that he will break his promise as it is that he will not.
What possible grounds could the Christian have for maintaining that God will keep the promise in question? God’s love for Christians? But we could not call him unloving if he sent ChristIans to hell, for this would be to judge God. Could we say that God will keep his promise because he is honorable? But again, if God broke his promises we could not judge him to be dishonorable, for that too would be a judgment.
If, then, we must hold that whatever God does is the right thing, then we have no way of knowing what he will do. The Christian who insists that we cannot judge God is also adhering (although inadvertently) to the belief that Christians will go to heaven is just a guess, and anyone else’s guess is just as good. If Christians are right and we cannot judge God, then Christianity is in serious trouble. It is not a religion but, in fact, only a self-confessed haphazard guess. [emphasis added]
The truth is, believers can’t avoid making any sort of judgments about God. A complete avoidance of judgments would reduce religious language to little more than neutral observations and this wouldn’t attract anyone’s long-term interest or loyalty. Religious language and ritual is full of judgments, not only about the world generally but also about what God has planned for it.
So, if believers say that we cannot judge God, they don’t meant it in precisely that manner: they don’t and won’t act like they believe it and they don’t accept the implications of such a position. At most, they merely mean that we can’t judge God in this way and in these circumstances. It’s a very limited assertion that amounts to a form of special pleading: it’s OK to “judge” God when you say good things, but not when you say bad things.
Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.
This fails to understand that Christians maintain that the Bible is God’s revelation and He has revealed certain aspects of His nature. To claim truth based on what He reveals about Himslef is not “judging” it is simply acknowledging what a Chrstian would hold as absolute truth. God reveals that He is consistant in His eternal judgement concerning who will and will not go to Heaven or Hell. He also claims that He will be true to these promises. What a Christian is presupposing is that God will be true to these statements He has made. It is a faith proposition based on believing the Bible is His revealed word. What the athiest/agnostic is doing is claiming their moral superiority in determining what is god or loving or appropriate. This is a complete misunderstanding of the Christian position and their presuppositions. By what authority does the athiest or agnositic even discuss what would be moral, loving, or appropriate? Their argument hinges on a corporate and cultural understanding of these truths that smply will not work.
1. Not every culture will agree on what is moral, loving, or appropriate.
2. These words have no meaning apart from a proper definition which cannot be arrived at by culture but must have an authority, for the agnostic/atheist they become this authority and why would they demand we should all submit our understanding of these terms to their concept of them.
In absence of a source of authority they have made themselves the authority. They are asking us to perceive them as god, while denying a real God.
This assumes, first, that the information is accurate and, second, that the information has been understood correctly.
It’s a judgment to conclude that this alleged “truth” is indeed true.
That’s a moral judgment.
Atheists are simply contrasting their judgments against theists’ claims and judgments.
Empathy, experience, and reason. These are far superior to merely obeying orders.
Christians’ arguments hinge on a corporate and cultural understanding of their allegedly universal “truths” they cherry pick out of their Bible.
This assumes that the only valid “authority” is a god, which is not true. In the end, we must all determine four ourselves what is good, loving, or appropriate. Some of us are willing and able to take responsibility for our decisions, judgements, and actions; others are unwilling or unable to do so and thus foist the responsibility off onto ancient books, superstitions, religious leaders, or alleged deities and claim that they are just “following orders.”
This assumes, first, that the information is accurate and, second, that the information has been understood correctly.
1. Yes. That is why it is a
presupposition. Both sides are presupposing.
It’s a judgment to conclude that this alleged “truth” is indeed true.
2. Yes again. But the issue was judging God not an epistimelogical judgment on the nature of the knowability of truth.
That’s a moral judgment.
3. It is not a moral judgment to acquiesce to a stated proposition. i.e. it is not a moral judgment to believe my math teacher that says 2+2=4. I know an atheist would say these are not known facts. My point is again, there is a presuppositional framework at play here.
Atheists are simply contrasting their judgments against theists’ claims and judgments.
4. Yes
Empathy, experience, and reason. These are far superior to merely obeying orders.
5. We are not discussing obedience are what may or may not be superior. To claim the ability by ones own empathy, experience, and reason to understand morality simply won’t work. One only needs to consider that this lends itself to ultimate subjectivity so that what is moral, loving, and appropriate are held in bondage to each individual. So that the greatest of crimes or the most heinous of abuses can be defended by that individuals understanding of morality, love, and appropriateness. Again, you have basically agreed that people are being called to dpend upon the atheist for clarification or direction on moral issues.
Christians’ arguments hinge on a corporate and cultural understanding of their allegedly universal “truths” they cherry pick out of their Bible.
6. This is an ad hominam attack that degrades your argument.
This assumes that the only valid “authority” is a god, which is not true. In the end, we must all determine four ourselves what is good, loving, or appropriate. Some of us are willing and able to take responsibility for our decisions, judgements, and actions; others are unwilling or unable to do so and thus foist the responsibility off onto ancient books, superstitions, religious leaders, or alleged deities and claim that they are just “following orders.”
7. And others claim to be the sole authority for determining responsibility and commit horrible things. This is not a proof one way or the other. One could murder and say “to me it is morally acceptable and good” or one could say “God told me to”. Both (presuming it would be morally wrong) are unacceptable. The discussion goes to judging God which is to say a person has some moral base to make judgments upon. You are making moral judgments based on your experience, empathy, and reason and are probably a “good” person. But what of those who have had horredous experiences, fel no empathy or cannot reason. You would still expect them to abide in general by what you perceive as moral. And when you do that you are attempting to be their authority. You don’t really want someone to come and harm you and say it was good (I know I don’t want someone to do that to me and say it was good)we would both want to tell them their actions are morally unacceptable and to do that we must have some authority to do so. That may make what I am saying clearer . . . or not:-)
It’s not a “presupposition” to simply not accept an unsupported claim.
The two are connected here because the judgment in question is whether one is being told the truth by, according to believers, God.
It’s a moral judgment to judge that your math teacher wouldn’t lie to you.
The theistic morality in question reduces to obedience, so that’s what we are discussing.
No, people are called upon to depend upon themselves, atheist or theist.
It’s niether an ad hominem nor an attack. It’s not an ad hominem because it’s not about the person; it’s not an attack because it’s not even a criticism. It’s simply a fact of life that Christians a corporate and cultural understanding of their Bible. Because of this, the “truths” are not as universal as they claim (thus they are “alleged”). Furthermore, their culturally-bound understanding requries emphasizing some things over others – thus the “cherry picking.”
This doesn’t appear to have any relation to anything I wrote.
This Christians do when they say that God is good.
It’s not a “presupposition” to simply not accept an unsupported claim.
- It is a presupposition for it is assuming that the claim that scripture is God’s word is unsupported and that God exists and would communicate is unknowable. The point is that the quote cited attempts to define God in a scriptural way (I say this because it is directly aimed at Christianity) and then deny other claims of scripture that God does not change, is true to His word, and has set the only imovable standard for His own justice. Again, the Chrisian is presupposing the veracity of the statements made by scripture. This is not “moral judgment” this is an assumption of a fact that underlies an understanding of who God is . . . a presuppostion. A presuppostion is not a judgment. A judgment would be attempting by some other objective means the right of God to function as He claims He will. You can believe these claims or not. But you must begin with a presuppostion of the Bible one way or the other.
The two are connected here because the judgment in question is whether one is being told the truth by, according to believers, God.
- This question then is basically what I just cited. If God exists, and if He communicates with mankind, is that communication the Bible? That is an entirely different “judgment” than whether or not God ought to function in a certain manner.
It’s a moral judgment to judge that your math teacher wouldn’t lie to you.
- It is not a moral judgment to give credence to fact. The sky is blue and grass is green. You don’t have to judge me morally to know these things. This is why it again goes to a presuppostion of whether or not what is revealed in the Bible is truth or not. You presuppose it is not, I presuppose it is. Neither is neutral.
The theistic morality in question reduces to obedience, so that’s what we are discussing.
- I agree that ultimately this discussion can only go to the practical outworking of a persons life. However, if people should dtermine on their own what is moral, ethical, and loving the atheist will be left at a loss for even making a judgment on right and wrong for there are far too many examples of people doing that which is right in their own estimation and the harm this results in causing. At the end of the day, you will want some general standard and that standard must go beyond individual determination or soceity breaks down.
It’s niether an ad hominem nor an attack. It’s not an ad hominem because it’s not about the person; it’s not an attack because it’s not even a criticism. It’s simply a fact of life that Christians a corporate and cultural understanding of their Bible. Because of this, the “truths” are not as universal as they claim (thus they are “alleged”). Furthermore, their culturally-bound understanding requries emphasizing some things over others – thus the “cherry picking.”
- It is personal because it accuses me of ignoring difficult concepts to strengthen my argument which would be dishonest at best and manipulative at worst. It is an attack because it generalizes and degrades. But this is beside the point. My desire is to continue this discussion in the absence of overtly condescending comments.
This doesn’t appear to have any relation to anything I wrote.
- The relation is that your system of individuals determining their own right and wrong leads to anarchy and destruction. On what basis do we judge Hitler, the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, or the attempt at Communistic conquest with the loss of many lives and terrible crimes. Were they not simply doing that which they thought was moral, loving, and appropriate? Your system can’t deal with these real issues of life because they have done what you advocate any of us can do.
This Christians do when they say that God is good.
- Again, God is good because He claims to be good. I have no ability to even determine what is good apart from being informed by someone or something at some time.
Until you support the claim, it stands as unsupported.
The quote points out that the reader must believe that the god allegedly speaking is good and trustworthy – in other words, the reader must make a moral judgment.
My statements do neither. It is a fact that Christian arguments hinge on a corporate and cultural understanding of their Bible, traditions, and doctrines. That is neither personal nor an attack. It is a fact that Christians emphasize certain passages, traditions, and doctrines over others. That is neither personal nor an attack.
If my pointing out simple truths is going to be interpreted as personal attacks, then I’m afraid that we’re at an impasse.
Individuals do decide right and worn already, without anarchy and destruction always following.
Believing this requires, among many assumptions, a moral judgment about the trustworthiness of this alleged gode.
Arguing that “god is good because god claims to be good” is a circular – and thus invalid – argument.
Thanks again for the interaction. I’ve had some pressing issues that prevented the continuation for the past few days.
Until you support the claim, it stands as unsupported.
- What support would be deemed acceptable?
The quote points out that the reader must believe that the god allegedly speaking is good and trustworthy – in other words, the reader must make a moral judgment.
- This goes to the underlying presupposition as to 1. the existence or non-existence of God 2. the reality of that god communicating 3. the revelation of fact by this deity. It is not a moral judgment if an immoral person states a fact or a known liar speaks truth. We are simply citing that at minimum in that moment they have stated truth because it is an absolute.
My statements do neither. It is a fact that Christian arguments hinge on a corporate and cultural understanding of their Bible, traditions, and doctrines. That is neither personal nor an attack. It is a fact that Christians emphasize certain passages, traditions, and doctrines over others. That is neither personal nor an attack.
- It is your opinion that Christian arguments are based on a corporate and cultural understanding unless of course you are referencing the normal literary practice of understanding an ancient text in the light of its readers which would be the truth whether it were the Bible or not. If that is what you are referencing then this would only be a testimony to biblical scholarship for it would show consistancy in their scholarship. Of course, I doubt this is what you are saying but instead are attempting to make a bold statement that all Christians (including myslef, whom you do not know) are simplistic in their approach to what they view as God’s word and intellectually dishonest which are rather brash claims with no foundation. You cannot possibly defend such bold and widesweeping statements. They may get you “amens” from the atheist crowd but reveal a bias.
Individuals do decide right and worn already, without anarchy and destruction always following.
- Really??? Are you claiming that your own concept of right and wrong has not been influenced by, informed, and guided by your culture, soceity, and training? Think about this, you have already stated this would not be the case by claiming an understanding of moral issues based on experience. But, everyone in this world has varying experiences which if left to their own would result in quite a different view of right and wrong from your own. This being the case, we must look at the logical conclusion of your statements concerning these things which would lead invaribly to destruction. All I would have to do is cite one example of an individual or group attempting to determine their own right and wrong which would be in stark contrast to your own to manifst that therw would be the need for a corproate standard which would then disprove your claim for the ability of each to make their own determination.
Arguing that “god is good because god claims to be good” is a circular – and thus invalid – argument.
- Claiming there is no God, so His Bible is not His Word, so we can’t “trust” the Bible, which proves there is no God, is also circular and invalid. This is why there must be an origination. So, we muust ask what proof would be deemed reliable or valid. This is intellectual honesty.
Depends on the precisely claim in question.
None of this entails that the deity in question is trustworthy. To believe anyone is trustworthy is to make a moral judgment.
It is not “simplistic” to be heavily influenced by culture.
Yes, and that’s not a claim that moral decisions are not influence by culture, society, history, etc.
I have never made this argument.
Depends on the precisely claim in question.
- The claim in question has been that “It is a presupposition for it is assuming that the claim that scripture is God’s word is unsupported and that God exists and would communicate is unknowable.
Until you support the claim, it stands as unsupported.”
It is not “simplistic” to be heavily influenced by culture.
- You are still making a claim which you cannot support. To what degree could you measure this influence? Additonally in your next reply you admit influence by the culture in the formation fo your own morals. So, what makes you different?
Yes, and that’s not a claim that moral decisions are not influence by culture, society, history, etc.
- Then how do you differentiate betwen what you would call “obedience” in christians which you mocked with your own “obedience” to your culturally based, soceity influenced, and history guided morality?
I have never made this argument.
-Your qouted source is attempting to make this arguement.
Really? I wasn’t discussing that at all.
By noting parallel claims, changes, attitudes, etc.
I didn’t say I was different — you still seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that being influenced by culture is a bad thing.
I don’t believe that I am obligated to obey any orders that might conceivably be issued by a society.
Strange, but I haven’t detected it. Perhaps you should support this assertion.
Austin,
I have appreciated the discussion thus far, however, I do not understand what you are doing here. In this last exchange you have ignored the obvious flow of thought and discussion. There is no need for me to rehash it all when it is available before you. We have been discussing the validity of the Bible and the nature of knowing if it is truth or not. To claim we have not been discussing this is to ignore the obvious. You did claim a level of superiority in determining your morals over and against the determinations of Christians and now you claim that you did not say you are different on this very matter. You have contradicted yourself in this. You claim to not feel obligated to obey commands of society yet claim your morals have been at least influenced if not determined in part by them. This is in fact a form of obedience. Your quoted source claims an attempted definition of God from the Bible then denies wholesale the claims made by God in the Bible and uses his denial of those claims as proof against the definition of God. This is horrendous logic and invalid argumentation. It obviously assumes a denial of the Bible which goes to a circular form of reasoning. Austin, consider this thread. There is much here that would go to debating but not dealing with how this really affects peoples lives. Philosophy without application is schoolyard drivel. Our philosophical beliefs and attempts at metaphysical understanding must be conducted with intellectual honesty.
That isn’t the topic of the post here, and that’s what I am discussing. If you are trying to discuss something else, you should post to the forum.
Actually, I deny that obeying orders is a method for determining morals in the first place; what I said I was no different in is the fact that we are all influenced by culture. These are not contradictory because being influenced by culture is not the same as obedience to orders.
Being influenced by someone or something is not the same as mere obedience, except perhaps with the most tendentious of definitions — and in the context of rank sophistry.
I don’t see this. Please support this claim, if you can. You’ve made quite a few claims which you haven’t even tried to support thus far.
I think that describes most all of theology. Nothing you’ve written thus far here has any practical application.
I agree, but thus far I haven’t found anything you have written to have any application, usefulness, or value. Your very first post is almost entirely empty of content — it’s just a series of claims with a loose connection to the post you are responding to. You seem to be very good at hand waving, but not much else. If you have anything substantive to write that is relevant to this post, feel free to respond with it.
Theist Steve J. maintains that:
“What a Christian is presupposing is that God will be true to these statements He has made. It is a faith proposition based on believing the Bible is His revealed word. What the athiest [sic]/agnostic is doing is claiming their moral superiority in determining what is god [sic] or loving or appropriate. This is a complete misunderstanding of the Christian
position and their presuppositions. By what authority does the athiest [sic] or agnositic [sic] even discuss what would be moral, loving, or appropriate?”
Regarding the establishment of moral precepts Steve J maintains:
“In absence of a source of authority they [atheists, agnostics] have made themselves the authority. They are asking us to perceive them as god, while denying a real God.”
We need not dwell on what this implies about the myth of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. We can only conclude that Steve J. believes people are unable to perceive any difference between what is right and what is wrong without recourse to the Bible. This, despite the abundant historical evidence demonstrating that the exact opposite is true. There is also the matter of contradictory moral values expressed in the Bible, a matter judiciously avoided by Austin Cline, since it is a matter outside the subject under discussion.
Steve J. assumes that morality is derived from authority and that a human being is incapable of determining what is morally right without recourse to an authority. He perceives that a person taking a moral stand without recourse to his chosen authority “is claiming their moral superiority in determining what is god [sic, probably means "good"] or loving or appropriate.” In other words, despite ample historical evidence of morality in human society prior to the Bible’s existence, Steve J. claims that no such morality was valid, despite the fact that the Bible reflects this morality.
Steve J. exhibits the Christian propensity to put words into their opponents’ mouths and to ascribe motivation to those who disagree with them. Instead of clearly stating what the atheist claims (that God and the Bible are not the sole source of moral truth) and arguing against that, he ascribes to the atheist an action, i.e. that of having “made themselves the authority. They are asking us to perceive them as god, while denying a real God.”
In point of fact, Austin Cline makes no such statement and has made no demand on how the reader should perceive him. Again, Mr. Cline displays considerable restraint in avoiding the subject of dogma as a critical determinant of morals (e.g., the dogma that the Bible is the word of God).
From this point the exchange loses any coherence as a discussion, a conversation, about morality. Instead, Steve J. uses it as a platform to project the belief that the Bible is inerrant, God’s word, eternal, etc. Clearly, he disposes of any appearance of attempting to debate the issue and simply continues to state his reliance on the Bible.
“This is why it again goes to a presuppostion [sic] of whether or not what is revealed in the Bible is truth or not. You presuppose it is not, I presuppose it is.
Neither is neutral.” He chides. However, that is not at all the issue. What he claims to be “revealed in the Bible” are ideas and precepts that were propounded historically well before the existence of the Bible. In that sense, they cannot be “divine revelation.”
But the issue is not the truth of the Bible, but the ability of a human being to determine for him or herself the difference between right and wrong. To maintain that the Bible is the sole authority on the matter, the only way to determine right from wrong, is to ignore many obvious facts. Even today there are people who have never read the Bible who believe killing others is morally wrong, who believe that stealing is morally wrong, who believe that lying is morally wrong. Are their decisions wrong simply because they do not hang their hope for a happy afterlife on a belief in Jesus’ self-sacrifice? Is that the only way to be morally right? If so, then dogma, not morality, is the determinant.
It is difficult for me to follow the debates of you intellectuals as I only was schooled thru the 8 grades. As for myself, before I could make any judgments about God,I would first need to know 4 things. 1. How tall is he? 2. What is his color? 3. What is his shape? 4.How much does he weigh? I am ignorant of these things. When I discover these things, I will be in a better position to make some judgements.
I thought I was done . . . and yet, I am back
“We can only conclude that Steve J. believes people are unable to perceive any difference between what is right and what is wrong without recourse to the Bible.”
This is quite a leap! I certainly do not believe this. What I am driving at is simply this: To claim ultimate individuality in determining a set of morals would have been ridiculous. I was questing to see if this was Austin’s claim as he had alluded to in his first reply. He later clarify’s that there is a reliance on things other than his individuality. This is where Austin attempts to make a distinction between influence by soceity and obedience. He needs to do this because he has mocked obedience. I did not think it necessary at the time to point out that the fact that what he is calling influence is a form of obedience. I did not ask his opinion of specific issues like pedophelia, rape, polygamy, torture, and murder which are all documentable aspects of other cultures and thus the people in said cultures are being “influenced” that these are correct. So, to claim individuality in determiniing morality and to lay and moral judgement against these actions is hypocrytical for you must grant them the right to be “influenced” by their own individuality. So then, by what authority would an athiest / agnostic claim moral superiority? First, it was Austin’s own empathy, experience, and reason. Then it was some sort of moral code that is influenced by culture. But it still rests with him.
“Steve J. exhibits the Christian propensity to put words into their opponents’ mouths and to ascribe motivation to those who disagree with them. Instead of clearly stating what the atheist claims (that God and the Bible are not the sole source of moral truth) and arguing against that, he ascribes to the atheist an action, i.e. that of having “made themselves the authority. They are asking us to perceive them as god, while denying a real God.”
Actually, what I am doing is showing that Austin’s argmentation when put to the test falls apart. What other conclusion may be drawn from his premise? I did not argue that the Bible is the sole source of moral truth ahem . . . putting words in others mouths??? I am asking what is the source of moral truth for the atheist and manifesting that it does not work practically. You cannot enjoy the benfits of a governed society (ie authority) and mock obedience. You cannot claim individuality in determining morality even that which is influenced by our governed soceity and claim moral authority over anyone or any action.
Is this because you never intended to support your assertions and claims?
No, you don’t need to “point it out” — it’s an assertion you are making which you need to support.
My experiences are influenced by my cultures. Are yours not?
Really? Let me know when you start.
Austin, do you follow the will of anyone else in regards to morality?
I don’t know enough about what you mean to answer your question – and since you have so many outstanding questions yourself, I’m also not inclined to answer your question
So, bartering eh
?
The only legitimate question I can find is “my experiences are influenced by my cultures. Are yours not?”
Yes mine are. Everyone’s are. This is basic.
Are there other questions you seek for me to answer?
So, again I ask . . .
Austin, do you (not everyone else but, you alone) follow the will (submit or obey)of anyone else (your family, government, soceity, etc.)in regards to morality (distinguishing between right and wrong)?
In that case, it’s illegitimate to act as though the two are entirely separate issues.
However, that is not the only question put to you — you forgot all the points where you have refuse to support your assertions.
Austin,
If you look at the first two lines of #6 and then #7 you will note how one thought developed in this discussion. I simply ask you what proofs would you accept in regards to God exisitng and communicating. You have never answered this question. The first real question in the stream by the way.
You request that I support the assertion that the author is using bad logic and poor argumentation in attempting to make his point. I’ll try to show here why I believe this is the case again. Please give this some thought.
1. Author says “God. If God creates the rules by which behavior must be judged” This is using the Bible to attempt to define at least a manifestation of God in that He has set out a firm code for the judgment of behaviour.
2.Author says “and if the rules do not bind their Creator”. The author has now made an illogical assumption. He has presumed that A.The “rules” do not bind God. B.If a person does not judge God then the “rules” do not bind Him. This is now a departure from how the Bible continues to describe God. If the author wishes to stay intellectually honest he must utilize his source in all of its defining and not “cherry-pick” for his arguement. The Bible explains the infallibility, truthfulness, love, and justice of God.
3. Author says “What possible grounds could the Christian have for maintaining that God will keep the promise in question? God’s love for Christians?” This is a straw man and not a Biblical basis for this belief.
4.These fallacies lead to an inaccurate conclusion “If, then, we must hold that whatever God does is the right thing, then we have no way of knowing what he will do.”
This would be the same as if I made the arguement (which I am for illustrative purposes only) Atheists claim that morality can be determined by their reason, experience, and empathy and expect us to trust that if all of soceity were thus engaged as opposed to being bound by obedience to dogmatism we would all be better off. Since the mentally deficient, horribly abused, and otherwise afflicted cannot share in the same development of empathy, reason, and experience the Atheist cares only for the well adjusted and “normal” among us. So the atheist would prefer all others to be eliminated.
I borrowed part of your statements to define you, took it to address something your definition was not attempting to discuss and caried it to an illogical and riduculous conclusion.
Now, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that “it’s illegitimate to act as though the two are entirely separate issues.” Do you mean culture and experience are the same? Do you mean that you really are obedient to the mandates of your soceity but this is the same as influence? Please clarify.
I’ve asked you to support quite a few of your assertions.
It’s called a “hypothetical.”
This presumes either the accuracy of human reporting, or the truthfulness of God.
It’s a question, not an argument, and thus not a straw man.
You are, of course, welcome to provide a case for the idea that God can do the wrong thing.
The two categories, “entirely separate” and “the same,” are not the only ones which exist. Saying that two things are “not entirely separate” does not entail that they “are the same.” The reason why they are “not entirely separate” is the simple fact that everyone’s experiences occur in some context, and the most common context is their culture. Moreover, a person’s understanding of their experiences is greatly mediated by their culture.
Obviously, context is not the same as obedience.
OMG You guys are freaking nuts this so called “GOD” DOES NOT EXIST!!
he is a figment of everyones imagination
you give praise to someone you dont even know!!! how can you give thanks to someone else for your hard work!!!!!! come on give me a break send me to hell i still wouldn’t care or believe
I followed the thread and drew out what I hope to be the base arguments. Atheists use “empathy, experience and reason” to determine morality. Theists are required to suspend empathy, experience and reason on orders from God/Allah. Whatever God orders must be obeyed, because whatever God orders is situationally moral. As the situation changes, so does the morality. That is why is was morally correct for the Mosaic era Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites, but the pope says it is morally wrong for a preemptive war in Iraq. The ultimate goal of the faithful phalanx is divining the mind of God in a given situation and/or finding the most convincing prophet, not in simply doing what is right. To quote a hymn from my childhood,
“Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before…”
“Whatever God orders must be obeyed, because whatever God orders is situationally moral.”
Yet God ordered many things in the old testament that people choose not to follow today. Paul said many things about woman not being able to teach, some say this was only Paul’s opinion yet god said every word in the bible was inspired by him. And if god is so great why would he allow contradictions to be in his bible, if he is omnipresent, then he knew what the bible would say.
“because whatever God orders is situationally moral.”
But how does anyone know what this god is ordering, some may say god tells them to do this or that but what if they were lying, you would not know this, better yet if god is so great why would he now reveals these lies. No one can be sure what this god of yours is ordering if his orders amongst people contradict themselves.
“Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before…”
Nice hymn but soliders are people who follow orders from someone they can see or here. There have been many cases when people thought they were hearing from god but were really lying or deluding themselves. Another issues is prophets and pastors claim to hear from god but what if they are lying, you would not know this and this is possible. Better yet if god is so important then why does he not tell everyone the true way rather than having us human biengs argue over such issues as the existance of god.
Again, a Christian has attempted to use the bible as proof of a god and their God’s superiority. When will they learn that Jesus was born, raised and died a Jew. He never renounced his faith. His teachings were Jewish. The Torah was never meant for non Jews. It was to be taught by word of mouth from a Jewish teacher to a Jewish student or students. The Torah was and is a collection of parables for remembering Jewish history and rules to guide daily life. It has deeper meanings, but that is off topic. Roman “Christians” usurped the Jewish teachings and traditions. Most non Jews don’t have the desire or education necessary to understand the Torah. The new testament is by Christians that don’t follow the hundreds of rules necessary to earn the Jewish covenant with a Jewish god. Why does this Christian feel entitled to use Jewish wisdom as his own. He hasn’t earned it. He doesn’t have the knowledge to carry on this discussion. What are the Jewish teachings of “raising the dead”? What is the Jewish meaning of “son of God”. Before he uses the Torah he should know Jesus isn’t the Jewish messiah. He should be aware that Jews accept that there are now “errors” of translation by non Jews in the Torah. This Christian appears to lack critical thinking and has just enough knowledge to be annoying. A trait found in too many people of faith today. I don’t have any problems with a person of any faith or their faith. I admire educated people of all faiths and atheists. I do have problems with those that show up to a battle of wits and knowledge, unarmed. I have no stake in this debate! I am just a humble, interested Roman Catholic observer. I do have one question of my own. If the Christian God or any god is so great, why does S/He need tax exempt status?
For not believing in God you atheists sure like to talk about it
jesus loves you all and does not reject anyone who will believe in him, God is judge. our pride makes us think that we can question him, but he does everything out of love even if we don’t understand it..i pray that he will touch your heart to understand his love.. God bless
Kenneth:
You seem to be confused over the authorship of the New Testament. It was written by Jews. Jews very familiar with Jewish tradition, law, and theology. With the exception of Luke, who was a gentile proselyte of the Jewish faith, the whole of the New Testament is Jewish in authorship. Paul, a Pharisee, would have known Jewish law and tradition better than most Jews before or since. In fact, he would have had to know the entire Torah by memory in order to even be a Pharisee. In the gospels and the epistles there are hundreds of references back to the old testament, betraying an in depth understanding of the law and Jewish history.
Your arguement seems to either deny or ignore this fact.
god never promise heaven to no man if you look at john 3: 13 you will see it say on man has ascend up to heaven unless he is from there.every one who dies go to the hell which is translated from 4 different words
god DOES exist. Atheists are sad to no see this. God does not exist because bible says he does but because you can FEEL him. I FEEl his prescence in my daily life. I do not believe in God just because of thebible but because of the RESULTS. God is good and i obey god because of morality, because he has proven that he will provide. i hear his voice and KNOW he is real. God bless you and may you hear his voice and know this. Atheists have no peace, no truth. With Jesus, KNOW Peace, KNOW truth. Thank you.
Okayy, Don. Have fun with your imaginary friend.
And I thought there was supposed to be rational discussion here. Christians being rational. Pssht. That’s a good one.
Prove it.
Sorry, I don’t.
Other people have claimed to feel other gods, spirits, beings. Why are you any more credible?
If results are what counts, you should rely on science rather than superstition.
Hearing voices is a sign of mental illness.
I didn’t read the comments made by others, so if I am repeating what has already been stated I apologize.
Your position is flawed from your first point. You state:
If God creates the rules by which behavior must be judged and if the rules do not bind their Creator, then there is nothing that is improper for God.
God doesn’t create the rules… he is the rules. Therefore he can not act improperly, because he can not operate outside his nature. Just as I can not decide to one day stop being human… he can not stop being those things that make him God. God is truth, righteous, just, faithful, holy, etc…. So, he expects us to be truthful, righteous, just, faithful, holy, etc….
You also assume that God breaks his promises:
In fact, it is just as likely that he will break his promise as it is that he will not.
God has shown through the bible that he keeps his promises. He promised a Messiah and he brought it to humanity through Jesus. He promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. All Semitic people according to the bible are descendants of Abraham. God promised the people Israel a home of their own. Israel still exists today. The numerous promises that were fulfilled by God is proof that God follows through. There’s no pattern of arbitrary decisions made by God. So, for you to say that God would act arbitrarily is wrong. The grounds that Christians have that God will maintain his word is through his interactions with humanity thought time which has been documented in the bible.
You also assume that God breaks his promises:
In fact, it is just as likely that he will break his promise as it is that he will not.
God has shown through the bible that he keeps his promises. He promised a Messiah and he brought it to humanity through Jesus. He promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. All Semitic people according to the bible are descendants of Abraham. God promised the people Israel a home of their own. Israel still exists today. The numerous promises that were fulfilled by God is proof that God follows through. There’s no pattern of arbitrary decisions made by God. So, for you to say that God would act arbitrarily is wrong. The grounds that Christians have that God will maintain his word is through his interactions with humanity thought time which has been documented in the bible.
Thanks.
So, God isn’t a person?
And that “nature” need not include what we traditionally consider “good.” It might include things we consider “evil.”
1. That’s a quote of the book’s author, not my own words.
2. It’s a conclusion that breaking promises is just as likely as keeping them. If you disagree with the conclusion, you need to demonstrate errors in the reasoning behind it.
Is God a person? No, God is a being who transcends personhood.
God’s nature does not include evil. Why do you say that God’s nature can include things we consider evil? If we consider something to be evil does that make it evil?
I believe I demonstrated that God does not break his promises through the examples that I gave of promises kept. Can you demonstrate to me how it is a conclusion that God is likely to break his promises just as he is likely to keep them?
This is really interesting thank for responding.
If your god is a being, it can’t be “rules.”
It wouldn’t be evil from the perspective of your god. But, either way you are free to support this claim if you can.
Since your god isn’t limited to our human notions of good and evil, there’s no reason why something we regard as evil wouldn’t be part of your god’s “good” nature.
Not if your god sets the standards.
Really? So you really think that examples of keeping promises in the past means, necessarily, that it’s impossible for promises to be broken in the future? I’d love to see you explain how one implies the other.
Simple: having done something in the past doesn’t guarantee that it cannot happen differently in the future. Yes, the Bible depicts your god as keeping promises, but this doesn’t mean that other promises can’t be broken in the future. Since this god is the arbiter to which no independent standards can be applied, there is nothing stopping it from breaking promises and calling that “good.” You can’t deny that it’s good because that would be judging this god.
In response to:
Really? So you really think that examples of keeping promises in the past means, necessarily, that it’s impossible for promises to be broken in the future? I’d love to see you explain how one implies the other.
If God has proven himself to keep promises then it is a fact not an opinion (judgment) that he keeps his promises.
God’s nature is what keeps him from breaking his promises. If his nature is to be faithful and true then how can he go against his nature? Can something or someone go against their nature? So when he says through the bible that “whoever believes in him (Jesus) shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” He has to hold to that promise, thus Christians are assured they will go to heaven and not hell.
No, it’s only proof that he is capable of keeping promises, not that he is incapable of breaking promises.
Feel free to demonstrate that this is the case.
If God has demonstrated a pattern of keeping promises, then there is no reason for us to assume, believe, fear, or conjecture that he won’t.
The definition of nature is: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing (Merriam Webster Dictionary). The definition of a pattern is: a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
Thus God’s pattern (observable characteristic) of keeping promises is a part of his nature.
So, I ask you again. Can someone or something go against his/her or its nature?
Maybe you don’t feel such a necessity, but that’s not a counter-argument to the point in question.
So you see a pattern and assume that this indicates an unchanging nature that can’t be broken — which means you’re assuming that something is absolutely impossible merely because you haven’t seen it before. If that’s all your argument amounts to, then you don’t really have an argument against the possibility of God not fulfilling promises.
Just to be clear: “X isn’t possible because I haven’t seen it” isn’t an argument against X being possible, and that is indeed your argument so long as you claim “X is God’s nature because that’s the tendency we’ve observed.”
There’s nothing whatsoever in the definition of “nature” which you cited which makes going against one’s nature impossible. Or even unlikely. A reliable sample of one’s behavior might show a strong tendency towards honesty, but that doesn’t exclude dishonest acts in the past or future.
You said, “Maybe you don’t feel such a necessity, but that’s not a counter-argument to the point in question.”
My point wasn’t based on feelings. It was a cognitive conclusion one comes to by observing God’s established pattern. Fear is the only emotion that I included in that statement.
My position hasn’t been that X isn’t possible because I haven’t seen it. The positions that I have been presenting is that God’s nature is the opposite of X, that X isn‘t possible for God because God can‘t be X, and finally that God’s nature is also constant.
I know that if I drop a ball outside my window that it‘s going to fall. As you and I know, not once will that ball fly or float, because there are constants in the universe (i.e. gravity). We can’t say just because we haven’t seen the ball fly or float that it isn’t a possibility. Gravity is unchanging, so the ball will always fall. God has shown himself to keep promises, thus he can not break a promise because he is unchanging (constant).
And as I already pointed out, it’s not logically valid to conclude that it’s impossible for a promise to be broken merely because it hasn’t happened yet.
Then stop offering that argument.
And the only basis for saying this is the fact that you haven’t seen X. This is why your argument reduces to “I haven’t seen it yet, therefore it can’t happen.”
And the reason why you know that is more than just “I haven’t seen it happen otherwise yet.”
Now you have introduced a new premise to your argument: God is unchanging. Feel free to support this premise, if you can.
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
Every once in a while when I’m reading something like this back and forth, as much as I respect Austin, he drives me crazy.
I know it is not his nature, which is to his credit and my failure, but I just want him to say “Because you’re a stupid as a brick and I can’t keep repeating myself, and everything you’re saying is sh*t for brains dumb anyway, and you’re stating the best case for atheism by simply existing.”
But that’s just me, once in a while.
O K Zayla. Steal my thunder again.
Once again. If these superstitious fairy story believers can tell this octogenarian, who has travelled the world, what their material, replicable, verifiable evidence is for their Gods existence I am more that willing to listen.
NOBODY has ever responded to this repeated request. Philosophical profundities and twisting terminology doesn’t shed any light on the plausibility, or otherwise, of the existence of any of the Gods including the multiple Judeo/Christian ones. Yep!! multiple. Genesis.
Nathaniel says: God doesn’t create the rules… he is the rules. Therefore he can not act improperly, because he can not operate outside his nature.
Condoleezza Rice says: When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal.
Nuff said!
Why does religious belief have such an extensive suppressive effect, on those infected, to limit engagement of the mental abilities that evolution has instilled in the species?
All human mental constructs should be judged, and those lacking merit (theism) promptly discarded.
Austin, again,theists beg the question! One commits that here in assuming that God’s nature is good in order to overcome the dilemma that the Euthyphro presents.
Notice that the media never talk about an atheist mass murderer or an atheist mother who kills her children!
And it doth no good to bleat that people need the rewards of Heaven or the wrath of God to be good! Such puerility about people! How many people think about Him when they act anyway?
Oh, if evolution be true, why are Ann Coulter and Duane Gish still around? Such atavistic thinkers!
Faith doth that to people!
Fr. Griggs rocks!
naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy, sceptique griggsy, esceptico griggsy world wide as Googling doth show.
‘Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”
It’s funny how atheists belittle the magnitude of God into just merely fairy tales. It makes it easier for you all to reject God when you make God satiric. I can point out the ridiculousness of evolution. What’s more ridiculous? To believe in a creator that created humanity or to believe we were created by rain and lighting? To believe everything we observe that has life comes from life, so how does something come from nothing? If reptiles evolved the ability to fly without feathers then why evolve feathers for flight? What came first the chicken or the egg? I mean come on. Don’t you see that you do believe in the one thing you reject… god. Your god is time, and with enough time anything is possible. It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution.
Here’s a fairy tale. Once upon a time there was nothing, then a by itself, nothing became something. Then a lot of time passed and there was more stuff. More time passed and these things we call planets formed. On this one planet water magically appeared (either by comets or some other reason) we’re not sure yet, but we’ll figure it out. It was so hot that the water didn’t totally evaporate, but it turned to rain. The rain fell and fell on this planet for a very long time. There was a lot of lighting and stuff in the air, so after a lot of time passed, there was life. A lot more time passed, and all praise be to time, we are here today. The end.
Feel free to demonstrate the difference.
First, I challenge you to demonstrate that you actually understand what evolution is — evolution as it’s studied by real scientists rather than the lies spread about evolution by Christians.
Because feathers make for better flight.
Prove it.
Evolution is the process by which life changes from simple to complex organisms. So, I understand the theory.
Evolution is not scientific, because you can’t reproduce it. The very fact that it can not be reproduced goes against the very scientific method itself (experimentation/testing). If it can not be reproduced then it is not science, and if it is not science then it is faith. Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. You can not see life evolve. Also, a big step of faith in evolution is spontaneous generation. To believe in the theory of evolution you also have to believe that life just happened to come into existence out of non life. That’s a big leap of faith.
I’ve noticed you have a favorite phrase “prove it.” It’s a shame you don’t practice what you preach. In our exchanges you never once provided proof that God is capable of breaking a promise. You never provided one example of a promise not kept. Yet you claim “It’s a conclusion that breaking promises is just as likely as keeping them.” It’s a conclusion based on what?
The development of more complex organisms is one of the consequences of evolution, not what evolution “is”. Your statement is rather like saying that “combustion is the production of smoke.” It’s true that combustion produces smoke (often), but that’s not what combustion “is.”
So no, you don’t understand either what the theory of evolution is or the process of evolution is. Indeed, you don’t even seem to understand that there is a distinction.
Evolution, the fact, is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Any change in allele frequency is evolution. How and why this happens is what the theory of evolution tries to explain.
Do you understand this? If not, don’t bother reading further because you won’t understand anything else either.
By that “logic,” plate tectonics is not scientific because we can’t reproduce the innards of the earth. By that “logic,” stellar astronomy isn’t scientific because we can’t reproduce innards of a star.
Even if we were to accept that “logic,” however, your conclusion is still wrong because evolution can be observed and reproduced.
You don’t understand science any better than you understand evolution. The scientific method does not require that one be able to reproduce everything in a lab; all that’s required is that the implications of one’s ideas be tested against observations. Sometimes those observations are produced in the lab. Sometimes those observations are made in the field. Observations used to test evolution occur in both contexts.
So, everything that isn’t science is “faith”? By what reasoning did you arrive at this nonsense?
Prove it.
This is another demonstration that you don’t “understand the theory” of evolution: the origin of life isn’t part of evolutionary theory.
That’s because Christians like yourself have a habit of making grandiose assertions which I know they cannot support.
For example, you’ve been challenged to support assertions and thus far you have refused. I don’t think you should bother commenting further unless and until you are able and willing to support your assertions; continued refusal to abide by such a basic and important principle will result in you losing your posting privileges.
Feel free to ask for proof of any empirical assertions I have made.
You have thus far repeated a number of popular lies about evolution and I have tried to assume that you have simply not known any better, rather than that you have engaged in deliberate deception. Here, however, you are deliberately misrepresenting me and that can’t be ignored.
The issue in question is not an assertion that your god is capable of breaking promises, but rather that your assumption that your god will not and cannot break promises is ill-founded. If you were to actually engage the position of the original author instead of deceitfully trying to attribute separate and new assertions to me, you might figure that out.
Did you forget the quoted position of the original author, or did you just never bother to read it?
Hit the “page up” key until you reach the top of the page. When you get there, look for the text in italics. That’s the material quoted from the original author’s book. This italicized text explains the basis for his conclusion.
After you’ve read it a couple of times, feel free to ask questions about the bits you don’t understand — but don’t waste time posting again unless and until you have actually read it and tried to think about it a little bit.
“Evolution is the process by which life changes from simple to complex organisms. So, I understand the theory.”
i doubt that.
“Evolution is not scientific, because you can’t reproduce it.”
If you want to reproduce evidence of evolution, reproduce. Each organism is an experiment in evolution. You might be a step backward.
You should look into what scientific method and what scientific theories are before you bandy the terms about.
“You can not see life evolve.”
Look at a house cat. There’s life evolving. The only way to “see” evolution in the way you describe is immortality, but even then you’d make up some excuse for it not being evolution. There’s plenty of evolution going on. It might help you to look up what evolution IS before talking about it.
“Also, a big step of faith in evolution is spontaneous generation.”
Evolution does not address abiogenesis. Pick a topic and stick with it. The phrase spontaneous generation does not mean what you think it means. It was a theory to explain why a pile of food “sprouts” mold and maggots. They didn’t know about microbes and spores and other things they couldn’t yet perceive. But that’s what science does… it keeps looking, it keeps asking. Faith does not. Creationism does not (attempt) to explain the facts. Evolution does a far better job of explaining things. It’s the basis of modern medicine! No more antibiotics for you until you catch up to the Age of Reason.
“To believe in the theory of evolution you also have to believe that life just happened to come into existence out of non life.”
i don’t believe that. i accept that as the most consistent and usefully predictive model of reality. Science isn’t about belief.
As for abiogenesis, you’re making a huge and baseless assumption. You’re assuming it’s impossible (without some divine spark). If you had a process that had a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of sparking life… and you had 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 places to try it over gibbijillions of years, the odds are actually pretty good. Experiments show that a “primordial soup” + lightning = amino acids.
Chemicals know what to do w/o instruction. Just as two magnets will try to meet and align. Carbon and Hydrogen will combine without intervention.
What baffles me about some Christians is that they reject evolution solely because the Bible said so. Evolution and your god are NOT mutually exclusive. Just pretend that it was your god that set the whole thing in motion. Your god invented valances that make elements form molecules. Just stop pretending that life is unchanging just because a book written by Bronze Age men who knew bugger all about science said so.
“That’s a big leap of faith.”
Is it a leap of faith when you get in a plane? Or do you attribute that to your god as well?
Steve J (3). I hope your teacher did not tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 is always true. Your about 10th grade physics teacher would say “Not if you are adding velocities.” Example: velocities are in miles/ second, and a and b represent the same number. The sum of 2a + 2b approaches 4ab, as 2b approaches 0. The sum of 2a + 2b approaches 2a, as 2b approaches 186,000.
My comment (55). I should have said, are adding velocities “of objects moving in a straight line at constant speed”. I should have edited more carefully!
I made an 8th grade algebra error in (55). Only a moron would say the sum of 2a + 2b approahes 4ab; everv high school student knows the sum of 2a + 2b is 2(a + b). The general equation is Aa + Bb = (A + B)/2 x (a + b), correct? The sum of 2a + 2b approaches 2(a + b)as 2b approaches 0.
AtheistGeophysicistBob;
I’m not understanding your general equation. When I multiply out the right side I get Aa + Bb =? (A + B)/2 x (a + b) = (Aa + Ab + Ba + Bb)/2. Unless I make some unstated assumptions, I don’t get the equality.
Please help.
Jim K (58). I was working late last night; what is your excuse? With no assumptions, your formula and mine are identical; I just simplified mine. Plug in the following numbers. A=5, B=8, a=3, b=2 The correct answer is 31. Your and my formula both give 32.5 as the answer. Both formulas only give the correct answer when A = B. I am going to try to determine what we are doing incorrectly. I like puzzles.
I was trying to simplify adding velocities of objects traveling in a straight line at constant velocit yrelativistically, and have failed miserably.
I won’t go through the derivation, but this is the adding of velocities from the Lawrence-FitzGerald Transformation
(u + v)/1 + uv/c^2 u and v are velocities, c is the velocity of light.
This equation gives the correct velocity when adding lowest to highest velocities. It is rather obvious that the relativistic correction is trivial for most purposes until the sum of the velocities approaches 1/2 the velocity of light.
Nathaniel very simply does not know what he’s talking about. More of the usual products of a sub-standard science knowledge.
sonord (61). I agree. Sub-standard or devoid of.
Austin, I think the christard above makes a good point, and one I agree with: you use “prove it” too much.
It’s valid. It’s appropriate. Yet it’s often ineffective, because the person you’re dealing with doesn’t know how to prove things, so the impossible is being asked for.
Bluntness is often miscontrued by the receiver as rudeness, so I’d also recommend sweetening the tone a bit. I know this because I’m too blunt too often, and it backfires.
If I may, I’d suggest instead that you ask the person to prove their assumption, but also give them a counter-example where doing so isn’t too time consuming. For example, above this was written:
Nathaniel: You can not see life evolve.
Austin: Prove it.
In this case, reference to an article which shows observable evolution might be a better reply, because it cannot be dismissed as easily. Or reference to the numerous animals and plants which humans have domesticated over the past several thousand years would also be useful. No, it won’t turn Nathaniel into an atheist. But it is only through increments, and only after he leaves this site, that he will modify any views.
I hope that I have made my point clearly. If harm reduction of theists is our goal, we have to accept that there are several different goals, which will be different depending on the person we are talking to. For those whose logic and debating skills are weak, overwhelming them will not create growth, but rejection of asking other questions in the future. It will probably also confirm any personal animus they have against atheists. I say this all in FULL awareness of how difficult it must be to retain patience in what you do. Cheers.
Frankly, I think it isn’t used often enough. People get away far too much with making claims they don’t understand and couldn’t possibly begin to support.
That’s only an explanation for why it’s ineffective if I actually expected to get proof in response to my request. In fact, I don’t because I know they can’t prove – or support – what they are saying. It is the recognition of this fact that I am seeking.
I frankly don’t have time to be more than blunt unless and until the other person demonstrates an ability to go beyond making claims they don’t understand, can’t explain, and don’t know how to support.
If anyone feels that their animus towards atheists is “confirmed” simply because they insist on support or proof for their claims, then there was never really any hope of reaching them in the first place. Saying “prove it” or “Please support this claim” to a person who chooses to come here chooses to post assertions isn’t rude. Blunt, but not rude.
I’ve tried that. Unfortunately, I rarely encounter anyone with enough knowledge to understand and appreciate the counterexample – at least where science is concerned. So the conversation becomes an effort to figure out where to start explaining basic biology, physics, and/or chemistry to them. And then I’d have to start with that explanation, going into detail about every step of a science necessary to explain and justify a counterexample which they were never going to accept anyway because nothing that challenges or disagrees with their religious ideology was ever going to be accepted no matter what the evidence.
So I have learned, through painful experience, that I just can’t waste my time that way. It’s easier to stick to the absolute bare minimum because that separates the wheat from the chaff — people who understand an argument from those who don’t; people who understand evidence from those who don’t; etc. That absolute minimum is requests for support, evidence, and/or proof. Those who try may be worth dealing with in more detail; those who don’t, even after many claims and requests, simply weren’t worth more effort. That’s my conclusion from my experiences dealing with such people online since 1998.
If you’ve had better luck, I’m envious.
Austin (64). I agree completely with you. That is why I made no attempt to correct the incredibly erroneous geology in “The Grand Canyon Proves Creationism”; just mentioned some comments that amused me.
Some people are in the category “He who knows not, and knows he knows not, is a student; teach him”. It seems like all the Xtians that comment on this site are in the category “He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; avoid him”; author Anonymous in both cases.
Nathaniel: You can not see life evolve.
Peter and Rosemary Grant, married Professors Emeritus at Princeton University, have been observing the evolution of Galapagos Finches since 1973, and publishing their finds.
Over their years of observation and reporting, these finches have adapted to changes in their food sources and environment. Depending on the availability and behavior of insects they eat, these finches beak’s have become longer, shorter, wider, deeper, etc, to adapt to the current feeding situation. Some have even been seen to revert back to earlier configurations, matching the changes in the food supply.
That’s almost 40 years of observed, repeated examples of evolution. For me, that offers a lot more truth than the claims of some 4 to 6 thousand year old book written by people with no understanding of science or the natural world.
I would also direct you to the Smithsonian Institution’s Natural History museum. There you can see for yourself the undeniable fact that giraffes (just a for instance, there’s plenty of others) didn’t always have long necks. When their food supply was threatened by competition, they adapted over a fairly short amount of time, they beat out their competition by being able to eat what the others couldn’t reach.
Human beings have an appendix which is “a derivative of the end of the phylogenetically primitive herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors. The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential function, namely cellulose digestion.” (Goodman et al. 1998; Shoshani 1996)
We also have a coccyx (you know, the “tail bone” it hurts so much to fall on), which is the remnant of a lost tail that helped with balance and mobility. As a matter of fact, “All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.” Saraga-Babić M, Lehtonen E, Svajger A, Wartiovaara J (1994). “Morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of axial structures in the transitory human tail”. Ann. Anat. 176 (3): 277–86. It doesn’t continue to grow (except in some rare cases) because we no longer need it.
The same goes for “wisdom” teeth. You can see in museums that humans used to have much larger and stronger jaws, used for chewing foliage and nuts. As our diets have changed (by things such as tool use and cooking), so have our jaws.
Please explain to me why (if “god” intelligently created us “as-is”, and we never change), “god” included these useless organs? Why did “He” design our bodies so UN-intelligently? Why would an intelligent designer put the drainage holes of our sinuses ON TOP?
mikec (66). It is my opinion that Creationists know as much about human (or any) biology, as they do about geology.
Mike(66) Its also my opinion when Cdesign Propentsists say you cant see evolution they specifically mean speciation where a Reptile on monday is a tree-dwelling mammal on wednesday. They will often tell you that micro-evolution is just fine but will not except that micro-evolution driven over millenia equals macro evolution.
And the default answer to your last question invariably is “We cannot possibly expect to understand God’s ways”
From what I observe by all these comments by refusing-to-support-their-assertions (for lack of a better word) creationists, is the lack of understanding of the article above. It took me several reads to fully understand the implications of saying “God can’t be judged” and not understanding the consequences by what was up there, so I’m sure it’s not exactly the easiest stuff to comprehend for others either. These theists pretty much wasted their and everyone elses time, except for the fact that discussing philosophy and religion is engaging; though for the atheist, not quite so, considering the ridiculousness.
Intellectual Masturbation has got to be sinful by any standard. I wish I had some paper towels for you to clean yourself up Austin. The question is: am I saying that because I believe in God and all those that believe in God must be irrational and make personal attacks on Atheists, or am I saying it because you truly are ridiculously ignorant, pedantic, immature, and possibly slightly retarded.
The measure of a man’s belief is tested at the moment of his impending death. My hope for you is that your intellectual pride won’t be as valuable to you then as the Truth.
Jesus Loves You!!!
Maybe you shouldn’t use them all up yourself, then.
Anyone saying the latter is guilty of the former; so either way you are saying the former. A significant sign of this are several clear facts: you refuse to address any of the points made above, you refuse to support any of your claims, and you refuse to even try to construct a clear, coherent argument.
Thus all you have available to you are personal attacks — and poor ones, at that.
No. A measure of a person’s belief is whether they are willing to live — i.e., actually act and behave — in accordance with what they say the believe. For example, many Christians claim to follow a religion of peace and love but refuse to express any peace or love to people who don’t agree with their religion; instead, they resort to pathetic, puerile attacks.
As opposed to Christians like yourself for whom the distinction between Pride and Truth has completely disappeared?
Hopefully Jesus’ love is nothing like Christians’ love, because I’d rather to the target of honest, open hatred than the lying, hypocritical “love” of Christians like yourself.
To answer Ronald’s very pertinent question (#14) about God’s shape and color, it was answered when a couple of astronauts met with God and found that she was black!
As for whether He/She can be judged, it was answered centuries ago by the Persian philosopher Omar Khayyam:
Oh, Thou who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the road I was to wander in
Thou shall not with Predestination round
Enmesh me and impute my fall to sin?
Oh, Thou who Man of baser earth didst make
And with Eden didst devise the snake
For all the sin wherewith the face of Man
Is blackened, Man’s forgiveness give – and take!
I find the line in your article “Because God is so much greater than we are, it’s inappropriate for us to try to use our puny human reason to evaluate.” kind of funny. How there can ever be the introduction of “reason” into a religious debate amuses me.
This is the trap that many atheists fall into.