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

..but there are all kinds of things being discussed here, aren't there?

None of which require us to talk about out pasts.

I am interested in why atheists pour so much energy into disbelieving and why they're always so bloody angry.

We don't and we're not.

Especially you, Pedro..you sound terribly bitter.

Bitter? About what? I'm terribly happy actually. Life is good! I am Pedro!

...in fact, Pedro, I think you are full of hate.

I love conversations which start like this. You always know it's going to lead to some good times! Share the love people!

...in fact, Pedro, I think you are full of hate

And this from someone who is glad another person is dead. Quite extraordinary.

Pedro is wonderful & clever. So do one.

(So is January).

Thanks Ellie

...are you glad Hitler is dead, Ellie?

By-the-way, it is disingenuous to claim our pasts are irrelevant to threads such as this. Our belief or non-belief is shaped by experience. I was asked several questions about the origins of my faith which required talking briefly about my past. I think it's a little unfair to try and squash me for that.

I love how you feel the need to assert that I have never been an atheist.

I asserted no such thing. I raised it as a question.

Blimey, you are easily affronted.

I said your unwarranted aggression made me slightly uncomfortable, not affronted. You might want to check that dictionary again.

I do remain curious about your vehement insistence that atheists hate gods though. You claim not to have arrived at your atheism through hatred and I shall take you at your word for that. Yet you seem convinced that all other atheists actively hate gods. I must admit I really don't see the world in such black and white terms. I no more hate the Abrahamic god than I hate any other myth. It would be like claiming to hate Finn McCool. Why waste all that emotional energy on such a pointless endeavour?

I am interested in why atheists pour so much energy into disbelieving and why they're always so bloody angry.

Bwahahahaha!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

A hint for you - whatever was the driving force behind your atheism it might be worth considering that other people arrived at theirs through very different paths.

Verses of the Rigveda refer to the cow as Devi (goddess), identified with Aditi (mother of the gods) herself.

In Hinduism cows are revered as sacred animals. They are not worshipped as gods. It's a little like the way that many Christians regard the cross as a sacred object but wouldn't think of actively worshipping it.

By-the-way, it is disingenuous to claim our pasts are irrelevant to threads such as this. Our belief or non-belief is shaped by experience.

That's true, to an extent, but I'm perfectly capable of of discussing gamma ray bursts without mentioning my childhood traumas.

Oh go on, Pedro, I'm dying to know how you coped with your attachment disorder when you were left at boarding school

Then you'll be disappointed.

Well, Jewcy, it sounds like you've had a hard time, which is a shame. This is not meant as an insult but: are you recieving some kind of professional mental health care? If not, I would advise you to seek some. It sounds to me as though you have suffered from mental illness and may still be suffering, and you need more support than a church group can give you.

Particularly as some religious organisations prey on the mentally ill.

lordy, you pop out for an evening...

Solid, define mental illness and I may just seek that cure.

This thread (and the previous one) have been absolutely fascinating. It would be such a pity for it to be derailed by one (rather needy) poster.

Indeed. So to get back on track - if you believe the Bible to be literally true, does that make the Abrahamic god either:

a) An immoral child-murdering terrorist,
b) A victim of quite atrociously inaccurate biography, or
c) An entity to which pedestrian human morality somehow does not apply in which case morality is therefore relative?

Can I pick all of the above?

Jewcy: substance abuse and self-harming are indications of mental illness. As is replacing one type of obsessive or compulsive behaviour (such as making a prat of yourself in churches) with another, particularly a straightforward opposite (insisting that churches are wonderful despite a lot of evidence to the contrary). Belief in gods is sometimes helpful to people who have had traumatic pasts if their belief is along the lines of there being this special, kind, comforting parental figure who loves them. It's more likely to be harmful if they develop a belief in an imaginary friend who is capricious, spiteful, egotistical and demands that they abase themselves and harm and harass other people.

"You've just demonstrated my point. The Bible doesn't explain altruism, it just tells you that you should be altruistic."

Hold up. Isn't that begging the question? You believe altruism evolved so you were expecting the Bible to give an evolutionary explanation for altruism. But if I could show you it did, you could rightly say that if altruism evolved, we don't need to postulate God to explain it and the Bible's mention of it is just a co-incidence.

I'm saying altruism did not evolve so the Bible gives a theological explanation, not an evolutionary one. There are other theists who might say it evolved but when asked why, they would say, "Goddidit!"

"you might not like Dawkins but his explanations are beautifully elegant and simple to understand if you make the effort."

I agree, Lizzy. Dawkins is an excellent writer (but a terrible philosopher, theologian, historian, logician and scholar). His books prior to The God Delusion are full of wild speculations couched in beautiful prose masquerading as science. He said in the book trailer to The Greatest Show on Earth that his previous books had just assumed evolution was true. Sadly, he didn't offer much in the way of evidence in TGSOE either.

videos.simonandschuster.com/video/46113418001

"But allegedly he can perform miracles such as walking on water. If it was not impossible for Jesus to walk on water, what makes it so miraculous?"

Funny, I had a long thread about this issue on FaceBook a few months ago with a guy (who incidentally was drunk most of the time). Let's not go too deep into it here.

Miracles temporarily suspend the laws of physics which God created and is not bound by. Walking on water is not "logically" impossible. It is only "physically" for us. But God cannot break the laws of logic. They are an expression of His nature. There is a fundamental difference between the laws of logic and the laws of physics. God also cannot make 2+2=5.

Think about it for a moment. Every one of you expects God not to be able to break the laws of logic when you say things like, "If God is all-loving, why does he command genocide? Why does he allow children to die of cancer? Why do bad things happen to good people?" Whenever you ask those questions you are tacitly confirming my point that you intuitively expect God to be rational and not violate the law of non-contradiction.

"Talking of that, is it logically impossible for your god to do something immoral?"

I would have to say yes to that, Snorbs. Whenever it appears to me that God has done (or has allowed) something immoral, I stop, humble myself, consider that God is omniscient and I am not and grant Him the benefit of the doubt that He knows what He is doing and everything will work out for good (Romans 8:28). This is the essence of faith (but not blind faith). Faith is trust based on evidence, not proof.

"Why is it logically inconsistent for atheists to condemn slavery?"

I say that, Sabrina, for several reasons. First, because an atheist believes (or should believe) there is no objective morality. So although they might object to something personally, they should not expect others to share their view - specially if they were raised in another culture or at another time in history.

Second, when they are object to slavery, they are saying, "You SHOULDN'T do that!" But you can't get an "ought" from an "is" in an atheist's universe. Things just are the way they are. That's why Dawkins admits good and evil do not exist - but then proceeds to decry the evils of religion. If he would even stop to listen to himself for a minute he would realize how full of poop he is.

Finally, most atheist admit believe we do not have free will. Thus, those slave keepers cannot do anything other than what their selfish genes drive them to do. So it's illogical to criticize someone for doing something when they are helpless to do otherwise. If someone bumps into you at the shopping mall and spills your latte, you might be cross with them until you discover they were pushed into you. Then it becomes silly to be angry with them.

We also don't blame the lion for killing the gazelle and we don't call it murder. He's just doing what lions do. Animals have no free will. They are driven by instinct. And in an atheist's universe, if keep a slave, commit rape or shoot up a school who are we to criticize. Such is the hell that is atheism. It is a worldview which cannot be lived consistently. That is true of virtually very other worldview but Christianity. And that is why I think it's true. (Hindus believe reality is an illusion but they still look both ways before crossing the street.)

"Best do you agree with gay marriage?"

I've recently had a change of heart on this issue - primarily after watching a debate on YouTube. (See below.) Yes, I support gay marriage. I was won over because the gay man, quite frankly, had better arguments. Interestingly enough, the Christian opponent of gay marriage had toured with Hitchens, and in my opinion, blew him away in debates (which is not small feat). Douglas Wilson has a keen mind so I went into this debate, expecting him to win. I came out a supporter of gay marriage. This was only about two months ago.

You might say I "evolved." ;^)

"If you think I get it Best, then you'll agree the bible is written by men for its own time, not for 'all' time. But by a bunch of bronze age tribespeople 3000 years ago. And is therefore not to be taken literally."

What are you saying, Infamous, that they didn't literally keep slaves? If not, there's no problem. If they did but morality is not objective then slavery is not wrong and there's still no problem. Kind of a Catch 22 for the atheist who wants to have his "no objective morality" cake and eat his "slavery is wrong" too. (Okay, yes, that was a slightly bizarre turn of phrase.)

"...can I also say I hate Christopher Hitchens and am glad he is dead? I reckon he (and his ilk) are the anti-Christ"

Welcome to the discussion, Jewcy. But if you're going to say things like that, please don't be on MY side (LOL!) and don't tell a lot of people you're a Christian. Or at least say you didn't mean it. Or that you meant it but you were wrong and you're sorry. Something. Anything but that.