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 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!"

Obviously Christianity believes it hasn't done that and backs up their claim with evidence and not just blind faith. For example, Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life than a religion. If it turned out that Siddhārtha Gautama didn't actually exist (there's not much evidence he did) Buddhists could still follow the teachings written in his name.

But Christianity is an historical religion. If Jesus Christ didn't actually die and rise from the dead (much less exist) Christianity is nothing.

"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."

In my opinion, (and don't take this personally) it would be irrational (not to mention extremely arrogant) to believe that the musings of my brain alone comport with a reality that everyone else must adhere to. I assume you're not a relativist, January? Is it possible that the earth could be round for me but flat for you? If your concept of God exists, does it not exist for everyone? Wouldn't you want some confirmation from external evidence to give you confidence that you are right?

"Best, atheism is non-belief in a deity. That is all."

Yes, Sabrina, I've repeatedly acknowledged that.

" . . . 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."

No. I use the term "atheist" in talk of morality because it's easier than saying "materialist" or "naturalist." Those words have alternate meanings and so can be confusing as well. I'm referring to someone who does not accept the supernatural and so the universe can be explained through purely material and natural causes. If you have a better word for me to substitute, let me know as I am always striving for clarity.

"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."

He doesn't and they weren't.

"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?"

Because it was written for the morality of all times.

"Best, I'm glad you have changed your mind about same-sex marriage too."

I'd rather not open up this can of worms but I should also point out that the debate over same sex marriage has changed my view on a few other issues as well. To be logically consistent, I should also now accept polygamy and marriage between close relatives (like brothers and sisters). I know for most of you your immediate reaction will be to strongly disagree but I predict you won't once you think about it. I can elaborate if anyone is interested.

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

How did you know it was my mom?

Yes, she and other Christians I know have said I rely too much on logic and evidence rather than on emotion and intuition. I can't relate to those theists on here who just feel it in their heart that God exists. I'm more like "doubting Thomas" I guess. I would have needed to touch the nail marks in Jesus' hands.

Tamil Tigers are not killing in the name of anti-theism.

The Tigers ? which include 5,000 to 10,000 guerillas ? are fighting to secede from the the island country of Sri Lanka. Tamils originally immigrated to Sri Lanka from southern India and make up 10 to 15% of the population, compared to the majority Sinhalese, who constitute about 75%. In 1972, the Sinhalese-controlled Sri Lankan government declared Sinhala and Buddhism the official language and religion. The Tamils, who practice Hinduism and have their own language, took this action as an affront, and Vellupillai Prabhakaran founded the Tigers soon after. The group is formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Source

"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 is a false dilemma.

"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."

Yes, that is always the correct way to deal with a false dilemma. Perhaps there is a choice you haven't considered. In Ellie's case, this kind of thinking lead her to either steal milk or allow a baby to die. I would go to the food bank, offer to work for it or ask someone to buy the milk for me and pay them back.

"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."

Not at all. We all live by faith but blind faith is dumb and dangerous. As I was reading this I was thinking of Ellie's faith that a solution will be found to the beginning of the universe or that it will be discovered that things can arise without a cause. Her faith in science might be justifiable because it has a good track record for success. But nevertheless, she puts her faith in science which is limited and men who are fallible whereas I put my faith in God who is unlimited and infallible.

It has been argued that Tamils are more 'willing' to be suicide bombers because of their beliefs in reincarnation - although this is disputed. They do, in fact, have a non-religious indoctrination - but are isolated and brainwashed for a year before their mission.

The LTTE ?does not regard itself as even a "civil" or "secular religion"?. ?The selfunderstanding of the LTTE is that it is beyond religion, not for and not against religion, even though we, as outsiders, can see that LTTE concepts are de facto heavily influenced by Hindu and Christian terms.?

Source

"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 is a false dilemma.

Mmm. Good argument Why is it a false dilemma? From where I'm sitting, it's pretty much a problem for people that want to interpret the bible literally.

"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."

Fair enough, Snorbs. So you feel our morality is more, shall we say enlightened. So why have we had more war and bloodshed in the past 100 years than in all of human history? I'd say our morality is degenerating - and any improvement is largely due to Christianity. If that positive influence ever disappears (and it won't except by force - which is coming) we will have hell on earth.

"Ah the old "Atheists cannot have morals" crap wrapped up in a coat of biological imperitive. That's beneath you Best."

Will everyone please stop saying that. How many times do I have to make it clear that I believe atheists can have morals. I must have said it at least 5 times (and linked to me saying it on TV probably twice.) Atheists really need to understand this argument so they can stop claiming things that theists don't say.

"We are able, and should, criticise such abhorrent actions because the perpetrators lack empathy and make society as a whole worse."

What if actions such as this could make society better? Is eugenics objectively wrong, Snorbs? And why is making society better a rule I should follow in the first place? What if I want to make it better for me but worse for others? The lion wants to make life better for himself and worse for the gazelle.

" . . . 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."

Best: No. I use the term "atheist" in talk of morality because it's easier than saying "materialist" or "naturalist." Those words have alternate meanings and so can be confusing as well. I'm referring to someone who does not accept the supernatural and so the universe can be explained through purely material and natural causes. If you have a better word for me to substitute, let me know as I am always striving for clarity.

You keep conflating atheism - a lack of belief in a supernatural omnipotent being - with a lack of morality though. When this is not the case.

"We get even more knowledge about God if we add in the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. What evidence might that be, then?"

Read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel or see this short video by him:

Or for a more in-depth treatment of the subject, watch this by William Lane Craig:

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

I don't but you kept asking me what constants are fine-tuned and this book is about that. Why do ask questions you don't want the answer to? . ("Fine-tuning fallacy"? Sounds to me like you've read just one book about it - "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning" by Victor Stenger. Good book. Borrowed it from an ex-Jehovah's-Witness-turned-agnostic friend a few years back.)

"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?

I would say f) all of the above because it depends on how you define slavery. Owning another person is biblically always a).

"Something I have newly come across in various church denominations is the concept of tithing. To me it is another check in the box of things I dont believe in but I would really like to hear others views on it."

I have no problem with tithing but I have read it's not biblical. If that's true, then I am against it.

I'd say our morality is degenerating - and any improvement is largely due to Christianity. If that positive influence ever disappears (and it won't except by force - which is coming) we will have hell on earth.

What "force" is coming - is Dawkins raising an army?

"A truly omnipotent god could do anything and wouldn't need to be bound by any laws of physics or logic."

Okay, fine then. God is all-loving, good and just and endorses slavery and commands genocide. Those are seemingly contradictory things but you don't mind a god who is logically contradictory.

"The bible: Great reading - especially the OT - very bloodthirsty."

Books about the holocaust are bloodthirsty too. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean God endorses it. People think the Bible is a book all about how to live but Christianity is not a philosophy like Buddhism. It is rooted in history. That is strong evidence that it is true.

"Not a code of morality that one should live their life by."

Certainly not the bad parts. Only the good parts.

"not getting yourpoint Best. You seem to think athiest cant be moral. I disagree."

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!! (Runs out of room screaming to pound head against wall.) (Calmly) Uh . . . yes, I do too.

I have no problem with tithing but I have read it's not biblical. If that's true, then I am against it.

There we have it - it's like the year 8 girl having 'to ask' if she believes in purgatory, isn't it?

"Jewcy while you are waiting I can tell you that I am not 'glad' Hitler is dead. Not in the sense of gloating which you seemed to imply. If he was going to go on ordering the deaths of other people then I approve of him being dead, but there isn't any pleasure in it as such."

Totally agree, BoB.

Morality is improving in much of the world, in many ways. Mind you, the countries with the best moralities (ie they prohibit slave-owning and consider women - along with members of all ethnic groups rather than the dominant one - to be full human beings) are generally the ones with the lowest levels of superstition.

Okay, fine then. God is all-loving, good and just and endorses slavery and commands genocide. Those are seemingly contradictory things but you don't mind a god who is logically contradictory.

Yes, they are indeed contradictory. That's what we've been saying all along. But I can't agree that I 'don't mind' a god that is logically contradictory, as I don't believe in any god.

If there was an all-powerful, supernatural god, though, surely he would be able to defy logic as well as the laws of physics?

"You must think there are an awful lot of anti-christs in the world. Thats a whole lot of hate."

Just a point of clarification in Jewcy's favour. Jesus said, "If you are not for me, you are against me." I believe technically all non-believers would be considered anti-Christs. But I don't use that term.

To her credit at least Jewcy is honest about her feelings. I suppose you could say that "what Jewcy is what you get."

Just trying to lighten the mood here, folks.

Sabrina, by the current definition of atheism, if the Tamil Tigers lack a belief in God, they are atheists. Everyone wants to have it both ways when it suits them but it doesn't work like that.

As I already explained, they are not anti-theists. They believe they are beyond religion. Their battle is political. Tamils are predominantly Hindu.

But I can have a guess at your agenda in bringing up the Tamil Tigers as 'atheist suicide bombers,' rather than concentrating on, say, islamic jihadist suicide bombers - who genuinely are doing it in the name of their religion.

I don't think the Tamil Tigers are coming to Canada any time soon - whereas the Islamic jihadists are already there.

But thankfully foiled.

I probably don't need to remind you that they were not similarly thwarted on 9/11 or 7/7.