YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

This is where I disagree. Until someone over-turns the paradigm (which will never happen in the case of a young earth) mainstream scientists will never understand the evidence the same way I do because it can be interpreted both ways. They think their presuppositions are more valid and I think mine are more valid. Predictive and explanatory power are what should matter most and my theory has them beat there hands down.

You continue to astonish me with your arrogance and catastrophic misunderstanding of science. I really don't know how to put it more clearly. If you genuinely had good evidence for a young earth, science would be listening, science is not some conspiracy, it doesn't seek to disprove religion, it seeks to find truth. Just like you, apparently. But there simply isn't any evidence which demonstrates a young earth which holds up when subjected to all the other factors and bodies of evidence.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, Pedro. I was just making the point that I think most people who believe in evolution believe in it based on the authority of science and the media. They haven't done a real investigation of the evidence. In fact, most of the things we believe, we believe not through experience but due to trust in an authority. This is inescapable.

You were actually suggesting that evolution isn't as solid a theory as people think because most people don't understand it.

But anyway, at least we agree on something. Part of the reason we have come to be such intelligent animals is because we have created an infrastructure to learn from as many other people as possible. From schools to the Internet. But sadly what's happened is that people have used these mediums to try to 'educate' people with bad information.

And this why I genuinely feel sorry for you, best, because, not being a scientist yourself, you have become a victim of bad science. I genuinely hope that one day you will be released from their stranglehold and come to realise your mistakes. I think most of us here would support me in wishing you the best of luck with your enlightenment

sieg, you brought purgatory into this, not me. I was asking the question: what is the "eternal punishment" referred to in the bible?

Christopher Hitchens was a genius, but I can understand that many religious people wouldn't like what he says - uncomfortable truths and all that.

Sabrina, I don't dislike his views on religion anything like as much as his views on Iraq. I also think his atheism is ultimately less convincing than that of - say - Marx, and Nietzsche, for example, or Ferber. Or even Russell or Freud. It's pasteboard stuff. I'm quite capable of admiring those with whom I disagree profoundly - it's actually my old atheist self that finds Dawk and Hitch a letdown.

Best, on the 'sale' of indulgences, the point is that this was never then and is not now licensed or agreed by the RC church.

It's true that some snake oil sellers, among them a guy called Johann Tetzel who was a pardoner in sixteenth-century Germany, are said to have connected in speeches the idea of donations with release of loved ones from Purgatory. This was explicitly condemned by successive popes, and Tetzel may not even have said it, but the fuss about it betrays a lack of knowledge of what an indulgence is. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article explaining.

Unfortunately every religion has had those eager simply to make money from it - Baptist preachers in big cars int he South, rich vicars in 19th century India....

On clerical abuse - I have two things to say regarding the RC clergy.

1. I am like most of us absolutely disgusted and horrified by the actions described, and by the laziness with which it was managed.

1. I am equally disgusted by the many, many cases of child sex abuse in other areas of life perpetrated by staff in care homes, clergy of other faiths, rock stars, children's tv presenters, children's authors, and anyone else with access to children - and they weren't acted on either.

I also worry far far more about the Vatican's role in aiding the perpetrators of the Holocaust and its assent to antisemitism than I do about this issue.

You don't have to like Hitch, sieg, he may not be your favourite atheist, but what says about the abolition of Limbo is awkward for the catholic church because it's true. They have spent hundreds of years telling people that their unbaptised babies went to Limbo (in actual fact, before the thirteenth century they said they went to Hell). Must have been a torment for many a parent of a newborn baby who died without being baptised - what loving god sends innocent babies to Limbo?

I also worry far far more about the Vatican's role in aiding the perpetrators of the Holocaust and its assent to antisemitism than I do about this issue.

Indeed. Another problematic fact that the catholic church should be ashamed of. There are many.

How can they pretend to believe in or represent god when they change their story like that. It's not as though god has abolished Limbo. They are saying "Yeah we just said about Limbo being true because it suited us and now it suits us to say it isn't"

How many times must they change the story before people realize that it IS a story.

It's not just Limbo. Everyone was a young earth creationist before it started to get too embarrassing. Most churches then decided that god created the world billions of years ago. Many of them went on to say that god invented evolution to populate it.

Every time a plot hole becomes too obvious the plot gets changed to fit. The believers who are slow to change become the fundamentalists (it could be argued that they are the most honest ones)

Perhaps in a 100 years there'll be a thread with the fundamentalists claiming that Jesus was a real person and the rest of the Christians saying "Don't be silly. We always knew Jesus & the disciples were a metaphor. Every scholar will tell you so. No one ever believed that he was actually there. That's just something atheists say to make us look stupid"

In Dante, Limbo is in Hell technically, but without suffering; I sincerley doubt therefore that anyone was ever told children went to hell in the sense of the fiery place.

In Herbert McCabe's catechism it says simply that we don't know what happens to unbaptised children, but we know that God loves them more than we ever could.

Happy to bang on more about the Holocaust, and about the abduction of Jewish children in the C19th. I am absolutely clear that RC does NOT always equal 'right. But nor does any other faith. Or no faith.

In Herbert McCabe's catechism it says simply that we don't know what happens to unbaptised children, but we know that God loves them more than we ever could.

That is a very distasteful statement to make. I'm glad it was McCabe that said it, and not you.

The RC church most certainly doesn't equal 'right' and yet it sets itself up as moral arbiter - it is an establishment of considerable wealth and power, whose petty moralistic 'rules' have caused untold suffering to untold numbers of human beings.

Harsh? I don't think so. The RC church could, like today, reverse it's ruling on condom use, if it wanted to do some good in the world. But they won't.

Magdelene Laundries, condemnation of homosexuals, covering up child rape by their priests, the list is a long and shameful one.

I sincerely doubt therefore that anyone was ever told children went to hell in the sense of the fiery place.

I think we can probably find lots of people now preaching that very thing now, let alone in the past when people took the bible seriously.

This one doesn't spell out the child's fate, but clearly not heaven.

the baptism must be carried out quickly, so that the child does not die without Baptism and is deprived from entry or sight of the Kingdom, according to the words of our beloved Savior (John 3)

After all, if they go directly to heaven then the best, most christian thing you can do is murder all the babies you see before they can commit a sin that messes up their chances. It makes nonsense of the whole thing. That was the problem St Augustine had in the 5th century and so he decided that infants went to hell. He did hope they were punished less, but couldn't show that was true. He was sure they went to hell.

Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. He appealed to the Lord's precept, John 3:5, and to the Church's liturgical practice. Why are little children brought to the baptismal font, especially infants in danger of death, if not to assure them entrance into the Kingdom of God? Why are they subjected to exorcisms and exsufflations if they do not have to be delivered from the devil? Why are they born again if they do not need to be made new?

I expect there were other opinions, but clearly some did believe and say that babies went to hell so while it may have been changed now it's a fair point to mention it.

Only point I'm making really is that the god's word can be and is edited in each generation to say what is currently believed by the church. Not eternal truths, but temporay conviednent ones

I sincerely doubt therefore that anyone was ever told children went to hell in the sense of the fiery place.

I think we can probably find lots of people now preaching that very thing now, let alone in the past when people took the bible seriously.

This one doesn't spell out the child's fate, but clearly not heaven.

the baptism must be carried out quickly, so that the child does not die without Baptism and is deprived from entry or sight of the Kingdom, according to the words of our beloved Savior (John 3)

After all, if they go directly to heaven then the best, most christian thing you can do is murder all the babies you see before they can commit a sin that messes up their chances. It makes nonsense of the whole thing. That was the problem St Augustine had in the 5th century and so he decided that infants went to hell. He did hope they were punished less, but couldn't show that was true. He was sure they went to hell.

Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. He appealed to the Lord's precept, John 3:5, and to the Church's liturgical practice. Why are little children brought to the baptismal font, especially infants in danger of death, if not to assure them entrance into the Kingdom of God? Why are they subjected to exorcisms and exsufflations if they do not have to be delivered from the devil? Why are they born again if they do not need to be made new?

I expect there were other opinions, but clearly some did believe and say that babies went to hell so while it may have been changed now it's a fair point to mention it.

Only point I'm making really is that the god's word can be and is edited in each generation to say what is currently believed by the church. Not eternal truths, but temporary convenient ones

sorry that first version wasn't supposed to go in. Am struggling with a browser here that isn't fit for purpose.

whoever says, ?You fool!? will be liable to the hell of fire
Bad news for MNetters!

And Jesus. He called various people fools. Ooops.

Islets Only just caught up. Nothing I said last week was aimed at you at all. It's mainly on your behalf that I'm outraged at the "I know evolution better than biologists" attitude.

Hi, Best. I realise that you're not speaking to me because of the naughty words I use, the lack of respect I've shown your "beliefs" and because of things I've said on previous threads. (I'm not a man, by the way - did your little search turn up my threads about my periods? Hmmm?)

But, as ever, these discussions are more beneficial for people lurking and reading (not just MNers, there are followers from all over t'internet) and I'm not dumb enough to think there's anything I can say that could penetrate the steel helmet of your faith.

But I would like to address your "evidences" for God.

Now, it seems to me that your position is thus: God exists, based on your "evidences", therefore the Bible is his word and must be true, therefore evolution & BB theory must be wrong. I think this is the standard creationist position, so worth talking about.

You have three evidences for God :

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
*Everything that begins to exist has a cause
*The universe began to exist
*The universe therefore had a cause
*Therefore God exists

(NB: This used to just be called the Cosmological Argument. It went: "Everything has a cause. The universe has a cause....." etc. But we pesky atheists kept saying, "Oh yeah - what caused God, then?", so they changed it to "...began to exist", so they could say, "God never BEGAN to exist, he's always been". Neat, huh? Still doesn't work, sadly).

The Teleological Argument
(Anthropic Principle)

• If the universe exhibits evidence for DESIGN, it requires a DESIGNER
• The universe exhibits evidence for DESIGN
• Therefore the universe had a DESIGNER
• We call that DESIGNER God

And lastly, but not leastly:

The Moral Argument

• If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist
• Objective moral values exist
• Therefore God exists

We dealt with Kalam in the last thread, but to reiterate:

1. At what point do we decide that something "begins" to exist? Everything we see around us is the reconfiguration of existing matter - including me. I am made of elements born in the heart of a star that died - which in turn was a reconfiguration of existing matter. Birth and death is the shaking up of "stuff" that disperses and goes on to be part of something new. In reality, we can really only follow the "beginnings" of matter back to the BB itself - and it's not clear even then that that represents the birth of new matter. Remember, we can only trace the beginnings of the universe back to within the fraction of a nanosecond after the BB happened, no further - so we have a big fat blank regarding "cause" and "beginning". Our universe, as it appears to us today, began with the BB - but what about some other form that it may have emerged from? Impossible to say at the moment. In order for your argument to hold water, you have to demonstrate an ex nihilo beginning - can you? Other than with your faith in the Bible? Nope.

2. Quantum Mechanics does not appear to support your blanket "everything has a cause". Indeed, one of the things that makes it so counter-intuitive is that it would appear that things do happen without a cause - NOT just that we don't know what the cause might be. The birth of the universe could have been a quantum event.

3. You still have to explain where God came from. Excluding him on the basis that he "is eternal" opens up yet another mystery. How on earth do you know that?

(In your YT clip, you quote mine scientists to make it look like they all think it's nonsensical to suggest things didn't have a cause. They lived before modern QM. I doubt they'd agree with you now. A good example of how science moves on but religion does not and cannot).

The Teleological Argument

Hmmm. Weird that you have phrased your argument in such a way. Most people try to pin this down to Watchmakers or painters...or even bananas. But you've left it open. This is bizarre.

The universe has the appearance of design? Really? To who? Not me. Your premise is therefore flawed. It appears designed TO YOU, but appearances can be deceptive. The most you'll ever hear a scientist say is that it has the "illusion" of design - clearly meaning that it simply looks that way, not that it actually is. Therefore, there's no need to posit a designer.

The Watchmaker analogy is highly flawed, as is the Painter one.

For anyone interested, Paley's Watchmaker analogy goes: If I was walking in the woods and happened upon a wristwatch (never having seen one before) I would immediately infer a Watchmaker, otherwise how could the watch exist? I infer, on this basis, a creator for the world.

Well, according to this argument, everything is designed - so why would I notice a watch in amongst an entire forest full of designed things? Why don't I pick up a mushroom and infer a mushroom designer? Or a leaf designer?

I don't because there's something DIFFERENT about a watch - it WAS designed, nothing else was, that's why it stands out. A watch has nothing whatsoever in common with naturally occurring things. It is complex, in the way that all living things are, but in an entirely different way. So the analogy does not work - it's not comparing like with like, just shakily comparing one complex thing with another and making a flawed assumption.

Likewise the Painter: A painting needs a painter. Yes, we know that - since there are NO examples of paintings painting themselves - which they would need to do in order to be compared with other complex, beautiful things (like roses and butterflies).

And the Anthropic Principle? Could we be discussing this in a universe that couldn't support life like us? No, we couldn't. We fit the universe, the universe does not fit us.

The Moral Argument.

I don't think objective morality exists - you seem to be asserting that as a fact. It's not.

Theft is wrong. A moral absolute? Really?

If I smashed a Tesco window to steal milk for a baby who was about to starve to death (and I had NO money to buy any) - would I be absolutely morally wrong to do so? Would the moral thing to do in that situation be to let the baby starve to death, within feet of milk that could save it?

We could make similar arguments about any moral position. There are too many ifs, buts and maybes to make the blanket assertion that objective morality exists. It's relative.

So, your "evidences" for God might be enough to convince you with your brain set to confirmation bias mode, but they don't work in the cold light of day, I'm afraid.

Incidentally folks, on a slightly different topic, I recall mentioning on the first thread a law of irreversibility of evolution that was recently challenged but I couldn't remember the name of it at the time. It just popped into my head: Dollo's Law. It's not important but I said I'd post it when I thought of it, so there you go.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2013/03/08/reversing-evolution-dust-mites-show-parasites-can-violate-dollos-law/#.UYWQWkrN6HM

Frankly, I was surprised no one named it when I brought it up the first time as you are all smart people and have probably heard of it before.

"Well the whole thing deals with different things and the bits which do cover the same topics contradict each other. So it's one 'source' of evidence and it's not in the slightest bit convincing."

I am aware of many alleged contradictions in the Bible but no actual ones. They always have simple explanations when taken in context.

The minor differences in the Gospels lend credence to their accuracy and reliability. If the police interviewed 4 witnesses to a crime and the witnesses all gave exactly the same story, the police would deduce that some collusion had gone on. What you want in eye-witness testimony is agreement on major events and slight disagreement on minor events. This is what we have in the Gospels.

The Bible deals with different things because it is recording nearly 4,000 years of human history. If it was one book by one author recording only one event, you could rightly complain that we don't have enough sources for it to be credible. To be clear, the resurrection of Jesus is one if the most well-attested events of all of ancient history. Throw out the Bible and be prepared to throw away everything we think we know about Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great, Caesar, etc. The only reason to deny it is if you reject miracles a priori. But if God exists (as I believe the scientific evidence demonstrates) then miracles are possible. (In fact, the biggest miracle of all is the big bang. It cannot have a natural explanation because the natural laws did not exist yet. Therefore, by definition, the big bang must have a SUPERnatural cause.

"I'd say they haven't. There is no evidence that the world is young which holds any weight. There's tons that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the world is old. Ergo, you are being unreasonable."

The world only looks old if you rule out a world-wide Flood. I think the world doesn't look old. It looks destroyed. Watch this short video (which I forgot to post earlier by accident). It describes a purely natural mechanism for the global Flood and it explains many anomalies left unexplained by current theories.

"You were actually suggesting that evolution isn't as solid a theory as people think because most people don't understand it."

No, that is not a claim that I would ever make. Truth is truth whether anyone believes it or not.

"But anyway, at least we agree on something."

I think there is plenty we can agree on. I believe in the scientific method as much as you do. Where we might part company, however, is that I do not believe it is the ONLY pathway to truth.

"Part of the reason we have come to be such intelligent animals is because we have created an infrastructure to learn from as many other people as possible. From schools to the Internet. But sadly what's happened is that people have used these mediums to try to 'educate' people with bad information."

Agreed and as mentioned on Thread #1, I do not endorse the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design in the science classroom.

"And this why I genuinely feel sorry for you, best, because, not being a scientist yourself, you have become a victim of bad science."

Don't feel too bad for me. It may be that I am, indeed, a victim of "bad science." But what I have so-often witnessed is that what is called bad science by mainstream scientists today when propounded by creationists is proclaimed to be a "prediction" and even "self-evident" when confirmed by science tomorrow. (See 'junk' DNA.)

"I genuinely hope that one day you will be released from their stranglehold and come to realise your mistakes. I think most of us here would support me in wishing you the best of luck with your enlightenment."

That sentiment I truly appreciate. I don't expect to ever know all the answers but I hope to always continue to scale the "mountain of truth."

"sieg, you brought purgatory into this, not me. I was asking the question: what is the "eternal punishment" referred to in the bible?"

Sabrina, I know you were asking Sieg and not me, and I realize my view differs from hers but I mentioned upthread that the Bible mentions eternal punishMENT, not eternal punishING. So in my annihilation view, I believe the Bible teaches that annihilation forever with no hope of future resurrection is the eternal punishment spoken of.

A similar analogy to punishment used here might be the word "judgment." A judge weighs the evidence during a trial. But that judging process does not go on forever. Once she makes her decision, that judgment is final and forever. That's how I see it. It is the results which are eternal, not the punishing.

By the way, I'd really be curious to know what the atheists here think of the annihilation view over the eternal torment view. If you came to be persuaded that the Bible really taught this, how would it change your view of God and Christianity?

"Christopher Hitchens was a genius, but I can understand that many religious people wouldn't like what he says - uncomfortable truths and all that."

I know many Christians who love Christopher Hitchens. He has a humility and honesty about him that is sorely lacking in Dawkins.

"Best, on the 'sale' of indulgences, the point is that this was never then and is not now licensed or agreed by the RC church."

Thank you, Sieg, for clearing that up for me. I would like to read up on it a bit more and I will stop making that claim. Can you post a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article please?

"How can they pretend to believe in or represent god when they change their story like that. It's not as though god has abolished Limbo."

I won't jump into the fray about Limbo and the Catholic Church because I certainly wouldn't want Sieg or my other Catholic brothers and sisters to feel ganged up on. But suffice it say that I concur with much of what BackOnlyBriefly said here and feel that this is one area where there is complete agreement between atheists and creationists.

What you want in eye-witness testimony is agreement on major events and slight disagreement on minor events. This is what we have in the Gospels

You think the gospels are "eye witness testimony"? Blimey.

"It's mainly on your behalf that I'm outraged at the "I know evolution better than biologists" attitude."

I certainly have never said anything like that and don't have that attitude.

"Hi, Best. I realise that you're not speaking to me because of the naughty words I use, the lack of respect I've shown your "beliefs" and because of things I've said on previous threads. (I'm not a man, by the way - did your little search turn up my threads about my periods? Hmmm?)"

Hi Ellie. Welcome back. I've missed you. I didn't say I wouldn't talk to you. Only that I wouldn't respond to abuse. I'm surprised you waited so long to come back.

I always figured you were a woman because of your name. And no I never came across your periods. (Wait . . . that just sounded s-o-o-o wrong! LOL!)

"I'm not dumb enough to think there's anything I can say that could penetrate the steel helmet of your faith."

Oh, but there is.

"But I would like to address your "evidences" for God. Now, it seems to me that your position is thus: God exists, based on your "evidences", therefore the Bible is his word and must be true, therefore evolution & BB theory must be wrong."

It's slightly more nuanced than that but I'll grant you it for the sake of he discussion.

"You have three evidences for God HERE:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Moral Argument"

I agree with much of your assessment of the three arguments and find your refutations to be well-thought out and logically sound. I feel that if I were an atheist, this is precisely the case I would make against the existence God.

I'll just make a few comments on parts I disagree with given my worldview.

"Our universe, as it appears to us today, began with the BB - but what about some other form that it may have emerged from?"

There is evidence that even a multi-verse would require an absolute beginning. See here:

www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

Alexander Vilinkin said:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

"2) Quantum Mechanics does not appear to support your blanket "everything has a cause". Indeed, one of the things that makes it so counter-intuitive is that it would appear that things do happen without a cause - NOT just that we don't know what the cause might be. The birth of the universe could have been a quantum event."

I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics but I just don't find it reasonable or credible to deny the law of causality upon which all science is based. If it can be demonstrated conclusively that matter can pop into existence without a cause, then I will have to believe it but for now it simply requires more faith than I've got. That's the closest I will ever get to making a God-of-the Gaps argument or an argument from personal incredulity. I just have not seen any good evidence that something can pop into existence from nothing uncaused.

"3) You still have to explain where God came from. Excluding him on the basis that he "is eternal" opens up yet another mystery."

What mystery is that? Something must be eternal and science shows it's not the universe. To invoke trillions of unseen, unknown, untestable universes to avoid one God violates Occam's Razor so I go with the simpler of the two hypotheses.

"(In your YT clip, you quote mine scientists to make it look like they all think it's nonsensical to suggest things didn't have a cause."

Quote-mining is to take someone out of context and to misrepresent their actual intent. Since I did not do that, it cannot be classified as quote-mining and frankly, I resent the implication. Remember that the one making the claim bears the burden of proof.

"Hmmm. Weird that you have phrased your argument in such a way. Most people try to pin this down to Watchmakers or painters...or even bananas. But you've left it open. This is bizarre."

I'm not a fan of Ray Comfort but the banana thing was clearly a parody that atheists have taken out of context. To claim otherwise is truly quote-mining. See the original here:

The Teleological Argument can take many forms and I simply find the fine-tuning the most interesting because a lot of people aren't aware of it.

"The universe has the appearance of design? Really? To who? Not me. Your premise is therefore flawed. It appears designed TO YOU, but appearances can be deceptive. The most you'll ever hear a scientist say is that it has the "illusion" of design - clearly meaning that it simply looks that way, not that it actually is. Therefore, there's no need to posit a designer."

Close but not quite. They say it has the appearance of design but that that design is an illusion. Dawkins' actual words were, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I think we actually agree here and the difference is one of semantics so let's not get hung up on technicalities.

"And the Anthropic Principle? Could we be discussing this in a universe that couldn't support life like us? No, we couldn't. We fit the universe, the universe does not fit us."

But that is only likely if there is a multi-verse which is itself highly unlikely and would still require a beginning. So it doesn't remove the need for a Beginner.

"I don't think objective morality exists - you seem to be asserting that as a fact. It's not."

I think we all intuitively know that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun - whether we admit it or not.

"If I smashed a Tesco window to steal milk for a baby who was about to starve to death (and I had NO money to buy any) - would I be absolutely morally wrong to do so? Would the moral thing to do in that situation be to let the baby starve to death, within feet of milk that could save it?"

Why save the baby at all? Given your worldview, if I chose to let the baby die you would think I committed a grave injustice and deserved punishment. But if you are a logically consistent atheist, I hope you would admit that I have done nothing wrong by letting the baby starve to death.

Further, if I choose to fly planes into buildings, gas 6 million Jews or slaughter millions of Christians, a logically consistent atheist should adopt the motto of Doris Day: Que sera sera.

"We could make similar arguments about any moral position. There are too many ifs, buts and maybes to make the blanket assertion that objective morality exists. It's relative."

So can you name me a place or a culture or a time in history where it would be morally permissible to torture babies for fun?

Just wondering what anyone's opinion is of this. Any chance the big bang will get overturned?

www.cosmologystatement.org/

Given your worldview, if I chose to let the baby die you would think I committed a grave injustice and deserved punishment. But if you are a logically consistent atheist, I hope you would admit that I have done nothing wrong by letting the baby starve to death.

Best, we've had this discussion before - and it looks like you weren't paying attention! You're very lucky there's no law against abuse of logic!

"Given my worldview" No! Given my morality! Believe it or not atheists have morals - and yes, I'm aware that you didn't come out and say exactly that. It is my morality that would inform me that your actions were wrong and deserving of punishment, morals that I learned from my parents, my society, and moral conclusions that I have reached on my own.

"logically consistent atheist" You have no idea how offensive I find this! Your thread of logic probably goes something like this...
A) Atheists don't believe in god(s) therefore,
B) they don't accept objective morality (not necessarily so), therefore,
C) since A is true, whatever morals Atheists claim to have, they are in
fact baseless. Moreover, they (atheists) forfeit any right to make moral
judgements about anyone else.

This is all sorts of wrong. Atheists do have a basis for their morality, the same basis as everyone else in fact! You've yet to show otherwise, despite your assertions.

So can you name me a place or a culture or a time in history where it would be morally permissible to torture babies for fun?

Well, in Sparta they used to kill babies that they deemed too weak or deformed - by throwing them over a cliff no less! And you've got it backwards by the way... you claim doesn't stand until someone can show where your wrong - your claim will stand when you can show evidence for it!

Que sera sera, my ass!!

Best, you have a very different interpretation of the christian hell than the one I was taught as a child - including teachings from the pulpit during the unfortunate instances I was made to go to church, and in religious studies at school. A dictionary definition of hell is 'a place of eternal torture and punishment in an afterlife.'

This is concept that may have been 'softened' by many christian leaders in recent years, in our far more socially liberal western society, as Best has just done above -'oh, it's not eternal punishment, it's eternal punishing Oh that's ok then. The concept of hell was invented by man to scare people into behaving themselves. Teaching children that hell is a real place, in the absence of any proof that it actually exists, frightens them.

on the sheer hypocrisy of the christian idea of heaven, hell and redemption. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

One quote that stays with me from his speech is: "Nine million children die every year before the age of five....Any god who would allow children, by the millions, to suffer and die in this way, and their parents to suffer and grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them, or doesn't care to. He is either impotent or evil."