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

"Jewry, if you read my posts you'll see that I regard theists as typically victims too. I don't hate them, I want to rescue them."

Sorry for butting in but that's the attitude most Christians have (or should have) toward non-believers. Penn Jillette endorses religious proselytizing which I respect him for. Watch this 5-minute video if you haven't seen it already. It's amazing.

"Best. You asked me some questions. I will give you a few answers and andwer the rest when I have more time if thats ok."

Of course it's okay. I love you, January.

"You asked me why I call GOD a he. I do this because of social and cultural indoctrination. Not because I have a positive belief that a deity is male."

Okay, fair enough.

"You asked if I believe in a single God. I believe in a greater power. Only a single God is necessary to satisfy that belief so that is how I choose to represent. I am not closed to the possibility of more than 1 greater power."

Yes. Occam's Razor.

"Do I believe in a personal God who can answer prayer? Probably not. If he can answer prayer and never tires then he is a lazy sod. Too many horrible things and acts in the world. For example. I, and many others screamed prayers at him to save a child we had never met, but knew only through words. The child died."

Did you mean "tries" instead of tires? I'm sorry about the child.

"The more I see about your God the less I want him to be mine. That saddens me because through my life I have known a LOT of genuine and good Christians."

That saddens me too to hear you say that. But I don't believe we can just invent a god of our own making. I take God the way He is - even the parts I don't understand. Let's face it - if we could completely understand God with our little 3-pound brain, He wouldn't be much worth worshipping.

"It is down to that locked box really. I think I smell lemons, i think there is a lemon in it. She is far more likely than I to be right. I just cant shake that lemony scent."

Maybe you're addicted to dish washing detergent. Honestly I really admire your honesty and almost wish I could relate. But I've never seen a miracle. I don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling that God exists. I don't smell lemons in a box. (I don't even see a box.) It's all about the scientific and logical evidence for me. I'm told I'm too cerebral. Teach me to be more like you, January. (Wait . . . that sounded like sarcasm but it wasn't)

"I have always instinctively believed in a God and I have tried to convince myself into Christianity for a long time."

Why would you do that, January?

"I can tell you the exact moment when I realised organised religion was probably not for me. Year 8 History class. Topic Pergatory. Sitting next to my very christian friend I asked her if she believed in pergatory. She told me that she would "have to ask". I could never accept having to ask someone what I believed in."

I would view that as more a function of the mind of a 14-year-old who is still accustomed to looking to her parents for guidance. Ask a 14-year-old atheist if she believes in the multi-verse and you might get a similar answer. Better yet, ask the same girl now that she's grown up and see if she knows what she believes.

"I am a strong supporter of independent thought. Being told what I must think was never going to be a path I could honestly follow."

Ironically, that's pretty much the same reason I reject Catholicism. Eureka! (Jumps out of the bath tub and runs down the street naked.) That's it, January! You're not an atheist-in-waiting. You're a Protestant! Problem solved.

"er right..... where were we. Tell me more about the gravitational time dialation model...."

LOL!

"are you also sparticus?"

Or Batman?

"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."

Welcome, Caoimhe. How about giving us your take on fresh lemony- scented multi-verses with mental health issues.

Best I tried to convince myself into Christianity because I had many many friends in various branches of the faith. I visited all sorts of churches and youth groups and found many more good people that bad. I would have loved to have fitted in. But I could never even convince myself to take communion because I I had enough respect for the faith to not make them, or God, promises I could not keep. I was never openly judged and I was always welcomed. Especially with the methodists.

I just dont believe too many of the fundimentals of religion to go along with any of it. But I repect people of any faith as much as I respect atheists.

If your faith is based on science I really think you are reading it wrong but thats up to you

On another note can I recommeend everyone the book "God Collar" by Marcus Bridgestock. Great book. Kind of unsatisfactory conclusion. But in all great and funny book.

As for the lemon in a box I always imagined lemon scented cleaning products to be the atheist argument

aw shucks Ellie Thanks

But I don't believe we can just invent a god of our own making.

Yet every single religion has done just that. So apparently it can be done. Imagine that!

what Pedro said. Why can't I look at all the evidence and judge by my own gut instinct what I do and dont believe. Especially since that is largely how I came by belief in the first place.

Best, atheism is non-belief in a deity. That is all. I'm finding that I don't really understand what you're trying to say - too many lion and gazelle analogies I guess- and you make the mistake in seeing atheism as the same as a 'religion' - with a moral doctrine - as though we all worship Dawkins who speaks from a pulpit or something. We don't. It is simply a state of non-belief.

If a christian god existed and has an objective morality - why would he/she be affected by the 'human morality of the time' 3000 years ago and be able to condone slavery in the bible? And let's not be silly- those links you posted were a white-washing exercise - the bible does condone slavery.

If the bible / a christian god simply reflects the morality of the 'time' - as you said -begs the question 'well, then what are you for?' If the bible was written for the morality of those times, thousands of years ago - why do you still follow it now and interpret it literally?

Best, I'm glad you have changed your mind about same-sex marriage too. Christian groups local to me in the UK keep putting 'anti' flyers through my letterbox about 'keeping the sanctity of marriage' or something. Makes me

I really don't understand. If the church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, then fine, don't perform them, that's the choice of the church. But don't go telling everyone else that gay people can't join themselves legally as heterosexuals can in the wider world. The church should not have any say on the legality of the union of two people, they can only refuse to perform the ceremony.

Unsurprisingly, I did not have a church wedding, religion has no impact on my marriage. So why should it have an impact on anyone else's?

I'm told I'm too cerebral Awww. Don't mums say the nicest things :)

I'm fascinated that you won't discuss fine-tuning with me, Best. I thought this was your slam dunk evidence.

"I'm fascinated that you won't discuss fine-tuning with me, Best. I thought this was your slam dunk evidence."

Sorry, Ellie, I forgot. I'll get back to you about he fine-tuning tomorrow night. It's 3:30am where I am and I'm headed to bed. Can I recommend Martin Rees' book "Just Six Numbers"?

Welcome to the discussion, Jewcy. But if you're going to say things like that, please don't be on MY side (LOL!)

Of course I don't hate Hitchens; I didn't even know him. But I am absolutely glad he is dead.

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.

The book that you believe to be literally true presents you with a dilemma - either the stories of your god deliberately murdering children as an act of terror are untrue, or your god is deeply immoral.

This, understandably, creates a state of cognitive dissonance within you. Your preferred way out of this is to not consider for a moment that either of the horns of that dilemma can possibly be true; instead you simply assume that there must be another, more rational explanation.

You don't have a clue what that explanation is, but you simply take it on trust that such an explanation exists.

That sounds as comprehensive a definition of "blind faith" as I have ever heard.

And no, the fine-tuning of the physical constants is not my slam-dunk evidence. I don't have a slam-dunk argument. It is a cumulative case. As you would have seen in my TV presentation:

From Argument #1 (Cosmological) God is:

• immaterial, non-spatial and timeless
• unimaginably powerful

From Argument #2 (Fine-Tuning) God is:

• supremely intelligent
• purposeful, orderly

From Argument #3 (Moral) God is:

• morally pure (i.e. infinitely loving and just)
• personal

We get even more knowledge about God if we add in the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. But I would think the fine-tuning of the universe is just the type of scientific evidence for God atheists should be looking for. Employing the weak anthropic principle is . . . well, just that: weak.

Imagine that a lottery is held with a 10 million dollar grand prize. Only one person plays and - guess what? They just happen to get the right numbers and they win the money. You would know the lottery was fixed. Now imagine they do the same thing where they are the only player and they win th money every week, week after week, for 100 years. The odds against our universe being able to support life (without a multi-verse) are much greater than that - and yet you believe it. It's really pretty silly in my opinion.

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.

Correct as far as it goes but the conclusion you draw from it is flawed.
People who used to own slaves believed it was a moral thing to do. I do not. Those facts do not stop be from believing that they were wrong to treat humans in that way and that humanity as a whole has improved since we have (largely) decided that slavery is wrong. I see no logical inconsistency there.

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.

Ah the old "Atheists cannot have morals" crap wrapped up in a coat of biological imperitive. That's beneath you Best. If we're going to descend to that level then I could mention that Christians could keep slaves, commit rape and shoot up schools but that their actions are not for us to criticise because Jesus is claimed to have said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." But I would prefer not to go down that route.

We are able, and should, criticise such abhorrent actions because the perpetrators lack empathy and make society as a whole worse. If you genuinely believe that atheists are somehow disallowed from making judgements about other people's actions then your world-view is so far distant from mine I'm not sure what the point in continuing this is.

I forgot to add that invoking the weak anthropic principle to explain the fine-tuning is like saying, "Well, if he hadn't played the lottery, he wouldn't have won the money" or "If there hadn't been a lottery in the first place, he couldn't have won the money." That is true but it does not address the problem of the impossible odds of him winning the money.

We get even more knowledge about God if we add in the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus

What evidence might that be, then?

I have read as much as I need about the fine-tuning fallacy, thanks. Why do assume you're better read than anyone else?

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.)

OK. Assume for the sake of the argument that we take this as accepted.

What is the BestValue and/or Bible literalist view of the morality of slavery?

a) Objectively immoral,
b) moral under certain conditions,
c) morally neutral,
d) totally moral,
e) something else?

"HorridColdCrass"? Are you going to start pulling pigtails next?