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

Explanation of Personal God here

Another quote from the man himself:

I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere?childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world?as far as we can grasp it. And that is all.

He often described himself as agnostic because he didn't like the atheist movement of the time. But that he was an atheist is without doubt.

In private, Hitler mocked Christianity and called it a "drug," a "disease" and likened it to Communism. He said Christianity would "die a natural death . . . before the advances of science" and eventually "the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

There are several quotes here, each of which could easily have been taken out of context. If these are actually words he said then it is quite clear to me that these are his predictions of what would happen rather than his personal opinions on the religion. It is obvious that Hitler was a Catholic.

But of course you go on to mention other things he said of the faith. But perhaps you also forgot that you said he lied a lot. So actually I'm inclined not to believe his attacks on Christianity are genuine.

But in attempting to breed the master race, he was being completely consistent with his believe in survival of the fittest and the laws on nature.

I think you'll find that everything in the world is consistent with survival of the fittest. That's how the world works.

But to suggest that because Hitler wanted to create a master race made him an atheist or consistent with atheism is bollocks. It's far more consistent with the idea of a religion with an all partly powerful leader who commands the actions of his flock.

Hitler's regime (and in fact any dictatorship which has ever existed) has more parallels with religion than with atheism. The people under control of the dictatorship do what they are commanded, often without question (sound familiar?). They are fed ideals from a book (spooky). They perform atrocious acts because they are told it's for the greater good (3 out of 3).

In the case of countries like North Korea, they even have a ruler who's not alive any more and they are contained in a little bubble of lies from which they cannot escape.

The rulers themselves don't need to be religious for the regimes to mirror major organised religion, but they take a lot of their methods straight out of religious texts.

So regardless of whether Hitler was Catholic or not (he was, but you're so concerned with this idea that you simply cannot admit it and move on) is irrelevant. He created a 'religion' to achieve his goals (which were not and logically could not be atheistically motivated) and took the teachings of Catholicism and used their ideas to control a nation of Christian murderers.

Incidentally, the founding of the nation of Israel was a big prediction made in the Bible that came true in 1948.

Did the bible give you a date and time? No. It's not a prediction. Seriously, you do talk some rubbish.

"Atheism motivates people to do what is best for them. Survival-of-the-fittest and all that."

"Yes, I think that's what you want to believe. I think that's your justification for your beliefs, right down to young earth creationism."

There is really nothing in this world that I WANT to believe. I believe something or I don't based on the evidence. I can think of some things I'd rather not believe but believe because they seem true to me.

But I would venture to say that my statement, "Atheism motivates people to do what is best for them" is something an atheist MUST believe in order to be logically consistent (my favourite phrase. SGB's is "imaginary friend.")

"Best, do you believe that people can do bad things in the name of religion?"

Of course. But I think it gets over-emphasized. Certainly the good that Christianity does far outweighs the bad. On the contrary, atheism has little redeeming value.

"Do you think that religion holds power for organisations and individuals?"

Not sure what you mean. Do some religious people and individuals sometimes abuse their power? Sure. (And I can say that is objectively wrong.) Probably not nearly as much as atheists do, though. But hey, I love them anyway.

Of course. But I think it gets over-emphasized. Certainly the good that Christianity does far outweighs the bad. On the contrary, atheism has little redeeming value.

I'd far rather have a world with no religious atrocities and merely cope with the non religious charity work (top 9 charities for starters).

Of course atheism has little redeeming value because it's not really a thing, it's a non thing. You can't keep expecting people to do good or bad in the name of atheism, it can't happen.

But what you will find is that there's a whole ton of people who will do good regardless of whether they are religious or not. I like to call it humanity. And that is a real thing, not an imaginary one.

Best it is not just the musings of my brain. It is the conclusion I have reached from the data given.

Do I think a loving God who is never weary (one of the things you say God cannot do is get weary) and capable of intervention and answering prayer would let so many natural disasters and atrocities happen. No I don't.

Do I think a good and loving God would punish children for the crimes of their parents? no I don't.

Do I think God would create a sky full of light that appears to be older than the universe. No I don't

Do I think God would create diamonds and peat bogs and oil and fossils and rocks and bones That make the universe look older than it is. No I don't. There would be no purpose.

Do I think God, knowing the scientific progress that would happen, would bestow a begotten child on the earth at a time there was no way of backing that assertion up or properly recording it? No I don't

Do I undertand how we got from being all Gods children to "father forgive them" meaning Jesus was his only actual child? Nope

I have one personal for Jewcy but I dont think it would be fair to comment cross thread without her permission.

It appears I think more of my God than you do yours.

www.lighthouseprophecy.com/prophecy/ExposingTheTitheLie.html

biblical arguments for and against Tithing

This is a false dilemma.

Why? How do you know?

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.

Those are not equivalent positions. Ellie (and I) have a reasonable confidence that, at some point, there will be a solid scientific explanation of how the universe was formed. Maybe that explanation will entirely replace the current Big Bang theory; it's possible.

The key difference between this and the religious view is that the scientific method is one that continually strives to find better and better explanations for why things are the way they are.

By contrast, your religious view is inevitably limiting and limited to one that ends up with "I don't understand why my particular god did what he/she/it did, but I'm sure it was for a very good reason." It's circular reasoning - If god did it, it must have been for a good reason and I know it was for a good reason because god did it.

Crucially, your religion teaches you to be satisified with that.

Will everyone please stop saying that. How many times do I have to make it clear that I believe atheists can have morals.

Yes, I know you have repeatedly said that you believe atheists have morals. But at the same time you keep coming out with arguments that suggest otherwise.

What if actions such as this could make society better? Is eugenics objectively wrong, Snorbs?

I wouldn't like to say if eugenics is objectively wrong as I am not arguing that morality is objective. It violates my own morality as it lacks empathy.

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?

Making society better is generally a good thing because it increases the total sum of human happiness and helps us all. If you choose to go against that - as many do, of course, many of whom using their religious books as justification while they do so - then to my mind you'd be a selfish arsehole whose morality does not match my own.

What's stopping you from doing that now? A deep sense of right and wrong or because of what you've read in a book?

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

So according to you the Bible's view of acceptable slavery is one that does not include owning another person.

Fair enough. Shame, then, that the Bible doesn't seem to agree. Eg Leviticus 25:44-46 says:

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Does your understanding of this passage depend on some unusual interpretation of the phrases "buy slaves" "become your property" and "slaves for life" of which I was previously unaware?

"William Dembski the theologian?"

No, William Dembski the mathematician. Silly girl.

"Er...yes. So what? You need to compare this with something naturally occurring for the analogy to make sense."

No, that would be begging the question. You're always trying to stack the argument in your favour but it won't work with me, Missy.

"So - you have decided from all of this, have you, that we ought to pick up a leaf and automatically know it was designed?"

Who said I thought a leaf was designed? Many leaves have evolved. Natural selection can mimic design. Don't you know that?

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).

"You've quote mined again. And it's not even you doing it - it's William Lane Craig. You're quoting him quote mining. Don't you have any arguments of your own?"

How is the complete quote you cite evidence for my quote-mining? Because he doesn't believe in God? That's why I'm quoting him in the first place. You need to learn what quote-mining is. I cite that quote because it indicates that the universe, whether multi-verse, rebounding universe, or whatever, still must have had a beginning. That's all.

"Aside from the fact that the paper (a serious academic one) is not addressing "everything has a cause" - which is a stupid argument that has been refuted completely on this thread - but something called the BGV singularity theorem, and this is not accepted as fact across the physics community."

It wasn't meant to address that everything has a cause.

"And a quick Google has shown me that Alexander II was killed by a suicide bomber, so I'm not sure why you think the Tamil Tigers invented it."

I was told by a university professor who was a guest on my talk show that they invented it but I clarified upthread that they may not have invented suicide bombing itself but only invented the vest.

"No, I didn't. I said it's wrong to do it for any reason - and doing it to save the world from annihilation doesn't suddenly make it "right". It becomes a necessary wrong when all considerations are taken into account."

Oh, now you're starting to sound like me. So torturing babies is always wrong. Sounds like an objective moral to me.

"Morality is evident across the animal kingdom - and they don't have "culture".

They also have rape and murder in the animal kingdom. Did you know a group of male dolphins will gang-rape a female dolphin? Those sweet creatures. (Now you know why they're always smiling.)

We are pack animals, we need to cooperate. The more cooperative an individual is, the more likely they are to survive within a pack & pass on their cooperative nature. I don't think rebels do that well. Add in our intelligence, reasoning & culture and you have morality as we know it.

"Kill means "murder" in this context. Murder is the killing of an innocent person by a guilty person. God never killed anyone who was innocent"

"God told you this, did he?"

No, the text in the Hebrew language told me this. You can't go by the King James Version only.

"God never killed anyone who was innocent"

"Unlike the American Justice System. (And the British one when we had CP)."

Right. That's a tragedy. If you haven't seen the movie "The Life of David Gale," check it out. It's the one thing that almost made me change my position on capital punishment.

"Something is either "all powerful" or it is not. The clue is in the use of the word "all".

No. It doesn't imply the logically impossible. This is a bad example because it deals with the laws of physics and not the laws of logic but the Bible says in the Flood 'all' the high hills were covered. That doesn't mean the water rose up to the height of the moon.

"I realise that the paradoxes formed by having a god who is both omniscient & omnipotent is desperately embarrassing (in other words, that's logically contradictory & impossible) - but you can't worm your way out of it by subtly changing the definitions of words."

LOL! Once again - pot meet kettle. The Bible never actually uses any of the omnis so if you press me, I'll say God is not omnipotent. (Some Christians, called Open Theists believe God is not omniscient either.)

Atheist-turned-Chrsitian CS Lewis said:

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

"Hey.....maybe I'm God? I have long suspected as much"

Hey, now that's probably the most honest thing you've said yet.

"Can't you think for yourself? How sad."

It apparently isn't working for you, is it Pedro.

Note the key words "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest . . ." A Jesuit priest would probably consider a YEC Protestant like me an atheist. (Yet they would likely consider someone baptised Catholic but not practicing as Catholic.) People used to hurl "atheist" as an epithet if they believed in God but were a different religion.

God never killed anyone who was innocent

But as according to you even babies sin that would suggest that no-one is innocent and so your god can happily kill everyone without violating its own very unique morality. Is this the kind of justification you use to be able to palate the story of your god killing off Egypt's first-born?

But hang on a minute - your Bible says that Jesus had no sin. So he was presumably innocent. Yet your god nevertheless arranged to have even him killed.

My poor little atheist mind is struggling to understand these massive contradictions conundrums.

"Atheism motivates people to do what is best for them".

Is this what you imagine Atheism must lead to?

"Hunger!"
"Take!"
"Eat!"
"Take!"
"Rape!"

Doing what's best for me includes performing altruistic acts. This has the effect of encouraging others to do the same. In the long run this benefits me. At its simplest you help an old person across the road because you will be old one day.

I do what's best for me when I obey laws because I want others to get in the habit of obeying laws which protect me.

Cooperating with others to achieve things I can't do alone is in my best interest.

If you are brought up by parents who are being altruistic, law abiding etc in their own interest then you also develop the habit of acting that way.

So that means evolution pushes me in the general direction of altruism. Self interest pushes me that way too and so does upbringing/habit.

As far as I can see religion pushes you in the direction of getting on god's best side so you can get a seat close to his.

"The "My position concerning God is that of an AGNOSTIC" is a COMPLETE INVENTION by you and does not form part of the quote. What on earth are you doing?"

I think this will put the Einstein issue to rest once and for all. Unless I have underestimated your stubbornness. (He signed it himself but I'm sure you can always claim that because it is typed he didn't write it and someone forged his signature.)

www.lettersofnote.com/2010/04/my-position-concerning-god-is-that-of.html

I found this on the omnipotence issue and like it so much, I'm posting it here. It's a hypothetical conversation but not unlike one we had. Hopefully this will end that issue too. Einstein was agnostic, Hitler was pagan and God can do all things that are logically possible to do:

How to debate with heathens

Heathen: "Christians say God is omnipotent, but that's impossible. Let me illustrate with a question: Can God create a rock so big He cannot move it? If you say yes then He can't be omnipotent because He can't move it, and if you say no then He can't be omnipotent because He can't make a rock that big."

Christian: "That question doesn't really make sense. The rock you described is a nonsensical object. The size of a rock doesn't change God's ability to move it. That's like asking if God can make a ball so green that He can't roll it; the color of a ball doesn't impact God's ability to roll it anymore than the size of a rock impacts God's ability to move it."

Heathen: "My point is, if God is omnipotent then He should have the power to do anything, but does He have the power to make a contradiction? Can He create a square circle? Does He have the power to limit His power?"

Christian: "You are confused about the meaning of the word omnipotent when it is used by Christians. We use that word to refer to God's ability to do whatever He wants to do. Your example is equivalent to asking if God has the power to not be God. Not only is that nonsensical, but it would require God to act contrary to His nature, which He cannot do."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent?"

Christian: "God is almighty and does whatever He pleases. There are things He cannot do, such as lie, so if your definition of "omnipotent" includes the capacity and ability to do anything man can think up, then He would not be "omnipotent" according to your definition."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent. In that case He can't be God."

Christian: "You are using heathen definitions and heathen criteria for classifying a being as 'God' to show that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist. Not only is this arrogant and insane (since the human brain is far too small to draw such a conclusion), but your method presupposes your conclusion that there is no God. If God were real, He would be the only one qualified to explain His attributes and nature, and it would be our job to learn from Him. Christians believe He has done this in Scripture. If you wanted to see if the Christian view were internally consistent, you would have to look at Scripture, and according to Scripture, you would need to know Him in order to understand His ways. So if you are interested in knowing the truth, start by seeking God in prayer and reading Scripture. Once He begins to open up your eyes to the truth, these things will begin to make more sense to you. If you are not interested in knowing the truth, feel free to continue scoffing at God, but these arguments only 'disprove the possibility of God's existence' from a perspective which presupposes His non-existence. This is what the Bible refers to when it says 'the wisdom of this world is foolish to God'."

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8242/what-is-meant-by-god-is-omnipotent

It certainly does :) You do realise it says he doesn't believe in god.

"It certainly does You do realise it says he doesn't believe in god."

You're messing with me, right? I've said he didn't believe in God from the beginning. And did you see the post above where I spoke about any sentence that begins with, "You do realize . . ."? You proved my point. You do realize that, right?

But of course you go on to mention other things he said of the faith. But perhaps you also forgot that you said he lied a lot. So actually I'm inclined not to believe his attacks on Christianity are genuine.

This reeks of desperation.

Anyone with half a brain can tell you that Hitler was full of hate. A true Christian is one who loves God and strives to love his neighbour as himself.

Ah, I've not been debating/following this point with you, BestValue, but if you are saying he wasn't that is fine then.

Most religious people try to claim that all good things come from religious people and bad things from atheists. People are always saying to me that Einstein was religious and that Hitler wasn't.

January, of course you can comment about me cross thread. I have nothing to hide. But please don't deliberately provoke me so that you can report me like you did yesterday. I didn't report any of the frightful sneering or spite that was directed my way and I contacted mumsnet to delete a spiteful post of mine.

Please be careful and aware of how you speak to others, as I have had to. The rattled and frustrated among you are proving to be completely without tolerance in your posts to BestValue, who continues to conduct himself impeccably in the face of some of the bile and ridicule spat at him.

We immediately recognize the four faces of the U.S. Presidents on Mount Rushmore were done by a sculpture and not the product of natural processes like erosion.

Not strictly relevant perhaps, but it just struck me that when you see Jesus' image on a slice of toast you know that was put there by god's hand.

After all it looks just like him. :)

BestValue, are you famous? How have you been on telly? How do you manage to win all your arguments? How do you remain peaceful and tolerant when faced with this lot (you don't have to answer that, it is because your mission is to love God and others. I wish the atheists on here were as loving as tolerant). How do you explain the difference between you and them?

*loving and tolerant