Atheist Nexus removed the story, but the Secular Coalition of America has a PDF copy of the story that you can download. Kudos to the Ethical Focus Blog for the link.

I need to start using LemonChiffon

“I wish there was a way to know how many of the non-religious gains were from people “losing” their religion.”

I know i can speak for at least one… I came to the realization just earlier this year that I had been raised to believe that a barbaric myth was the absolute truth… To be frank, I want the last 25 years of my life and my foreskin back damnit!

*edit* i guess technically it was the middle of last year… forgot it was 2009 for a second lol…

“FreeThought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma”

Have you ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? A is non-A.

When one states “I don’t speak a word of English” this is a contradictory statement.

When one states “All married people are bachelors” this is a contradictory statement.

When one states “I own a square circle” this is a contradictory statement.

Your mission statement is much like the above contradictions. You see when you say our institution is a free thought society that is not “comprised by authority, tradition, or dogma” this is prima facie false.

Your entire organization is a “tradition”. Englightenment principles are an “authority”. And of course your mission statement is “dogma”.

Unfortunately you cannot live up to your own standards of what you are trying to disprove or remove yourselves from.

You’re right Reasontrumpsstupidity, because a mission statement like this would be more appropriate to not setting any rigid standards for a group:

“We don’t meet at a structured time because that would constitute a traditional group and adherence to nominal beliefs that we may or may not hold in common along with beliefs of different scientific facts that lead to building a dogmatic view of reality as natural facts of life.”

You are muddling terms into an epistemological pretzel. Our organization by no means implies a “tradition” in any normative sense of the word unless there are other freethought organizations in Fort Wayne that have preceded us, and whose beliefs and practices we continue to propagate due to a respect for their belief system.

The term “authority” is simply meant as obeying an individual or group just because they are in a position of control and power. Perhaps our definition is a little vague, but your interpretation of the word is purposefully done to give the impression that we are somehow slaves to rigid ideals that we all must confess to hold in order to be included in our group. Your definition is misleading and dishonest.

Our mission statement is “dogmatic” in the sense that we define our principles and group beliefs for a common group identity so that people can easily decide if our group is of interest to them.

The definition I suppose you are shooting for is more of “A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.” (see dictionary.com for the different definitions)

The funny thing is, even if we use your purposefully misguided definitions, we still would not be a walking contradiction.

Just because we are “not comprised by authority, tradition, or dogma” this doesn’t automatically imply we are anti-tradition, anti-authority, or anti-dogma. It is a mere statement as to how we direct and govern the group. One of the beauties of this group is that we are quite diverse in our beliefs and backgrounds. This is a strength most groups fail to utilize and appreciate.

Jake D-

I am not shooting for any definition of “dogma”, “tradition”, or “authority” whether by church group or not. I haven’t claimed anything yet, so I hold no burden of proof to defend any definitive statements. I only seek to read your mission statement and find prima facie contradictions, much like “square circle” type statements.

Quite simply then it seems easy that you guys are in need of a new mission statement. Or at least one that adds the definition of “church authority”.

You see what I read is this is “relativism feet firmly planted in mid-air”.

Here’s my point… What would you say to the person then who would disagree with you by saying that we should have an organization entitled The Real Free Thought Society of Fort Wayne and our mission statement is that “We hold to a group shouldn’t have any mission statements, no authority, no dogma, no tradition whatsoever.”

When you cash out that type of “The Real Free Thought Society of Fort Wayne” type thinking, then your group seems quite rigid, biased, authoritarian, and lacks any type of diverse thinking.

This type of relativistic thinking is bankrupt and lacks zero substance.

“I am not shooting for any definition of ‘dogma’, ‘tradition’, or ‘authority’ whether by church group or not. I haven’t claimed anything yet, so I hold no burden of proof to defend any definitive statements. I only seek to read your mission statement and find prima facie contradictions, much like ’square circle’ type statements.

Quite simply then it seems easy that you guys are in need of a new mission statement. Or at least one that adds the definition of ‘church authority’.”

You’ve claimed quite clearly that our mission statement is a contradiction that we cannot live up to, much like a “square circle”. I’ve shown you quite clearly why this is not so. No matter what you may think of our mission statement, it is quite serviceable for our needs. I also pointed you to dictionary.com to make the explicit point that your definition of dogma is different from our use of the word; and that it certainly doesn’t need to use a definition requiring a “church authority”, as that is not our use of the term “dogma”. Like I said, the only point I agree with you on is that perhaps our statement could be a little better defined to eliminate any confusion, but then that is always a problem with predisposed interpretations of words. For instance, ask 10 different people to define “god”. Obviously, you’ll get 10 different definitions.

“Here’s my point… What would you say to the person then who would disagree with you by saying that we should have an organization entitled The Real Free Thought Society of Fort Wayne and our mission statement is that ‘We hold to a group shouldn’t have any mission statements, no authority, no dogma, no tradition whatsoever.’”

Anyone who advocates a position like this would be considered an anarchist in my opinion; which is kind of a self-defeating view-point. It’s like someone who wants law and order without a governing body to make and enforce the order. We actually have an anarchist or two in our group. Interestingly, they have tacitly agreed to conform to our mission statement by the mere act of not adding their input while we adopted it, and by so far conforming to what it entails, which, admittedly is purposefully easy to get along with. If for some reason they no longer could conform to our rules, they are free to set up their “Real Free Thought Society of Fort Wayne”. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, as it would by no means invalidate what we are about. I had to chuckle because this reminded me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian, with the whole Jewish Liberation Front gag.

Of course our group would be rigid in comparison to a group such as your fictional example. Any group would be rigid compared to a group like that. I don’t see how, even if your hypothetical group existed, it would show that we lack “any type of diverse thinking” among everything else you believe it would entail. This isn’t relativism. It is a simple fact we are quite diverse, no matter what other groups, real or imagined, promote.

You seem stuck on dogging relativism. I get the feeling you are advocating a more rigid, authoritative, and dogmatic viewpoint such as Christianity. Just a guess. Am I right? At least tell me what you do believe so I can understand more who I am talking to.

As of right now, it appears you are beating the air, trying to trip me up in defining this group. I am questioning your motives, but haven’t yet labeled you as a troll. Give me reason not to do just that.

reasontrumpsstupidity,

I’m sorry you find that our mission statement to be an example of “relativistic thinking” that “lacks zero substance.” However, you’ve made some critical mistakes that I’d like to help you correct. Hopefully, this will allow you to continue your mission-statement-policing unencumbered, here or elsewhere.

First of all, this statement:

“FreeThought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised* by authority, tradition, or any other dogma”

is not our mission statement. It is a generally accepted definition of freethought, used solely as a point of reference. Perhaps you overlooked our actual mission statement, which follows directly.

Nonetheless, notice the asterisk I’ve placed by the word “comprised.” In your haste to point out our prima facie contradictions, you’ve erroneously copied the word, which should actually be “compromised.” (Go back and have a look.)

Change the word appropriately, and the definition makes much more sense. Instead of tradition strictly for tradition’s sake, authority strictly for authority’s sake, or dogma strictly for dogma’s sake (all more commonly known as the logical fallacies “appeal to tradition,” etc.), the word “compromise” indicates that our beliefs are first and foremost “comprised” of reason and logic, and may be, coincidentally, consistent with tradition, authority, or even dogma. As Jake pointed out, we’re not anti-tradition, anti-authority, or anti-dogma. It’s just that reason trumps tradition, authority, and dogma. I don’t see what’s relativistic about that.

Example: Algebra technically has a long tradition. However, we appreciate and use algebra not because of its tradition, but because it reasonably and logically works.

Similarly, the concept of like-minded individuals creating a group to advance their interests is both traditional and consistent with reason. Reason is typically a driving factor in the acceptance and eventual tradition of a concept, though I can think of some glaring exceptions…

To the founder of your hypothetical “The Real Free Thought Society of Fort Wayne,” I would probably say, “Check your definitions and try again.”

@reasontrumpsstupidity: You said:

I am not shooting for any definition of “dogma”, “tradition”, or “authority” whether by church group or not.

If your words have no definitions it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

You also said:

You see what I read is this is “relativism feet firmly planted in mid-air”.

…and…

This type of relativistic thinking is bankrupt and lacks zero substance.

Now, if you could nail down exactly what type of relativism you mean then we might be able to begin to talk.

But I’m not sure you actually want to talk. Your end seems to be simply to condemn our group as nonsensical solely on the basis of your perception of our mission statement. You seem to be the one engaging in “relativistic thinking”, although based on your brief appearances here I would say your attitude is more akin to Pyrrhonism. It’s true. We’re not those sorts of skeptics.

If you want to see that as authoritarian or dogmatic (whatever those words mean in your clouded mind since you refuse to define them), then you’re certainly welcome to your opinion no matter how far from being factual it may be.

One last thought… If you had participated in the meetings in which we shaped our constitution and bylaws you would realize how nonsensical your charges of authoritarianism and dogmatism are. There were times when I thought a couple of our members heads were going to explode or fistfights would break out for all the arguing of process and minutia. And then when our baby was first presented to the full group after, literally, weeks of haggling it was rejected and it required more even more collaboration to get into its final form.

So believe what you want to believe, but you can believe me too when I say that none of us is losing any sleep over your misguided condemnation.

“Freethought” implies not being a priori bound by tradition or authority, but it’s free to alight on them if they’re examined and found worthy.

“If they are examined and found worthy…”

That’s a mouthful statement. There’s a lot to unpack in just 7 simple words.

Can a diverse viewpoint that includes such a word as ‘God’ even be examined by the Free Thought Society? Or is such a viewpoint dismissed out of hand?

Back to mission statements… I see a binding to ‘a priori’ thinking, where words are so dag-gone important.

Can a diverse viewpoint that includes such a word as ‘God’ even be examined by the Free Thought Society?

Not sure what the point of the word “diverse” is in that sentence, unless as a euphemism for “dissenting”. The answer, though, is yes, of course it can be, but any person making an assertion with that word better define the damn thing, so we know what they’re talking about, and so that we’re assured they’re not just using it to obfuscate and waste our time.

Or is such a viewpoint dismissed out of hand?

Of course not. Where’d you get that idea? Watch last October’s Freethinker’s Toolkit segment of the Enlightenment Show. At 36:00 a very handsome young guy invites any viewers with evidence for a god to send it in so we can discuss it. Additionally, our monthly meetings are open to all, and the presiding officer will usually let you schedule a presentation on some topic that interests you; our entire last meeting was filled with these. If someone thinks they’ve got something supporting a god, and they can convince the moderator that they can explain it rationally and coherently, they’re welcome to bring it.

Back to mission statements… I see a binding to ‘a priori’ thinking, where words are so dag-gone important.

If that phrase in quotes is referencing my usage of it, then I don’t know why you’d do so, since I never disclaimed a priori thinking in general.

But to the point: If the mapping from word to referent violates free thinking in your book, because it’s contingent on cultural linguistic “traditions”, then you nailed us, dadgummit.

Where did I get that idea?

First look at the two pictures above which seem to be slight ad-hominem attacks against anything related to ‘God’. I did a simple 15-minute scroll through your website and found various attacks (implicit and/or explicit) against anything ‘religious’.

Your mission statement also attacks religion by saying science and logical principles are mutually exclusive of anything related to authority, dogma, and tradition (ecclesiastical).

From Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason, “Religion and Science?” 2005 Stand to Reason

The view that “religious” theories should not intrude in science is guilty of at least three logical errors.

First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models have some evidential support. We see the blending, for example, in the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology a beginning of the universe.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of scientific evidence for their view, if they’re allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have religious significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

A bright line between religion and science just isn’t possible. Instead, they should work compatibly, drawing on the strength of each to give us a total picture of reality.

“Your mission statement also attacks religion by saying science and logical principles are mutually exclusive of anything related to authority, dogma, and tradition (ecclesiastical).”

???

Read my previous comment please. Acknowledge your mistake and try again.

Michael B-

My last response was not directed towards your first post. Frankly, there are too many posts coming at me to respond to each individually.

My last statement that said “Your mission statement also attacks religion by saying science and logical principles are mutually exclusive of anything related to authority, dogma, and tradition (ecclesiastical).”, is directed towards your mission statement (see context) because I still do not see in your mission statement all of the so-called qualifiers of ‘authority’, ‘dogma’, and ‘tradition’ that you seem to advocate in your posts.

Once again your mission statement is vague and misleading, especially to outsiders of the Free Thought organization, by committing the 3 logical errors that I referenced in the above Gregory Koukl article.

One more question on your mission statement…

How can it be that there is such a thing as philosophical viewpoint ‘being formed’ on the basis of science?

How do philosophical viewpoints undergo the scientific method?

Sorry, reasontrumps, I sincerely want to clear up your confusion here. We have a tendency to pile on – but it looks like it’s just you and me now, so let me explain.

You use the term “mutually exclusive.” The definition of freethought – which, by the way, you still erroneously refer to as our mission statement – says that beliefs “should not BE COMPROMISED BY tradition, authority, or dogma. BE COMPROMISED is the qualifier – tradition, authority, even dogma are OK until they come into conflict with – hence compromise – logic and reason. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.

Once you understand that about us, you will see how your Koukl “3 failures” utterly fall apart.

1 – Talk about straw men…we never make the either/or religion/science fallacy. Am I wrong? Show me where we did.

2 – Creationists are allowed, nay ENCOURAGED to present scientific evidence. Anyone who presents scientific evidence, from the elementary student to Albert Einstein, must allow for that evidence to be scientifically scrutinized – and that’s where their claims fall apart.

3 – It should be rather telling to you that every time a scientific advancement is made, your God gets a little smaller. Regardless, we don’t assume that “the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance.” We understand completely.

First look at the two pictures above which seem to be slight ad-hominem attacks against anything related to ‘God’. I did a simple 15-minute scroll through your website and found various attacks (implicit and/or explicit) against anything ‘religious’.

There are (at least) a couple different types of things you might be referring to as “attacks” against religion. There’s attacks against religious methodology, i.e., assertions that being bound to tradition and authority—letting them “compromise” our inquiry into the world around us, to use Michael’s term—is a bad thing that we wish to avoid. Then there’s criticism against specific things that religious people and religious institutions do—things that are (sometimes) wicked, dumb, counterproductive, mean, and just inane.

Members of this group can and will continue to make both types of assertions when we feel they’re warranted. Being open to new evidence is consonant with this attitude; nothing I said before about being open to being demonstrated to be mistaken imposes any restriction on speaking out passionately about what we feel is wrong with religion based on what we know now.

Speaking for myself, I think Christianity is often a crutch people use when they become too lazy or cowardly to continue thinking, and moreover, that it contains within its corpus of memes many moral prescriptions that are downright wicked: besides the laughable Levitical code, there’s the Jesus character’s exhortations to love him more that one’s own family (Luke 12:53, and more clearly in Matthew 10:35-37); the repugnant instruction to be meek and turn the other cheek, which is stupid and downright immoral when one is confronted with actual wickedness; the idea of being responsible for the sins of one’s ancestors; the idea of laying one’s transgressions on a scapegoat who won’t even stay “scaped” (an indispensable part of the Xtian narrative); the general implication that might makes right (YHWH wants it, so that makes it good); and, perhaps most disgustingly of all, the idea that anyone, for any finite “sin”, deserves eternal damnation–let alone for something as petty as saying nasty things about a ghost (Mark 3:29).

Oh, and convincing people that their bodies and thoughts are evil. There’s that, too.

This garbage has been entwined with the governments in the Western world for the past 1650 years or so, and it needs to stop. As well, people born into a culture where this muddle-headedness and gullibility is the norm (Oklahoma, say), need to be exposed to people who have overcome these blocks against human moral and cognitive development.

You will find such views expressed here. You are free to express others.

Reasontrumps,

I assume by your interest in Greg Koukl that you are a creationist of one stripe or another, since you have failed to answer my initial question of your beliefs directly. Your time would be better spent critiquing your beliefs in creationism than questioning the philosophical nuances of mission statements by groups such as ours.

Ofcourse, creationists have nothing to offer in the way of evidence, so I see why you must resort to attacking everything that doesn’t jive with creationism; which is pretty much all of reality. This also explains the persecution complex tactic regularly deployed by people like you. The “slight ad-hominem attacks” and “various attacks (implicit and/or explicit) against anything ‘religious’” charges leveled at us by you are simply attempts to make our site seem less credible. You’ll invariably disagree, but I think we’ve treated you with respect and patience.

I expect tactics like this because, after all, science explains your religion. Your religion only explains why you shouldn’t listen to science. Creationism doesn’t have any positive foundation for you to study, so attempting to debunk other belief systems is the only alternative to legitimizing yours.

Perhaps if you spent as much energy and enthusiasm studying science and the natural world as you do studying apologetics and regurgitating the same recycled dogma of creationism, you might break free from the endless cycle of guilt, shame and fear that are so prevalent in Christianity and religion in general.

I sincerely hope you find the courage to question your religion with the same fervor you’ve displayed here. Really, sit down and question the basic assumptions of your religion with the same skepticism you’ve used here to question our skepticism. It’s obvious you’re not stupid. Your writing and the arguments you’ve employed show you are quite capable of reason. I just fear you are unable to apply your reason and logic to your religious beliefs.

Michael B-

Truthfully, I cannot keep up with other the other postings from Butter and Jake D, so I’ll just relagate my comments to you from now on.

Once again, the either/or and straw-man fallacies are implicit in your mission statement:

FreeThought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

In my opinion, this statement (from an outsider looking in) says that FreeThought uses logic and reason not compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

The clear converse of this statement says that anyone who holds a viewpoint that are ‘compromised’ by authority, tradition, or any other dogma is not using good science and logic.

This is just not so. That’s why I have recommended to you and others that your mission statement is in need of an update.

The language of the mission statement is fallacious.

First your authority, tradition, and dogma needs to be defined as church authority, tradition, and dogma.

Secondly, I object to the word ’science’ as this needs to be fleshed out. There are vast limitations of science, especially when it comes to forming philosophical viewpoints.

Thirdly, there needs to be a way falsify your claim, by inserting a phrase such as ‘unless the opposing viewpoint of authority, dogma, and tradition proves our logic and science incorrect’.

Lastly, I am not and enemy of science and logic. As a follower of Jesus Christ and a person who’s vocation is in the scientific and medical field, I look to great scientists such as Mendel, Copernicus, Newton, and numerous others, who saw their faith in Jesus Christ and love of science as being compatible.

In the history of Western Civilization it is relatively new phenomenon (arguably the last 100-150 years) that ‘faith and science’ are incompatible with each other.

What a shame.

Butter-

Regarding the Christianity as a crutch comment….

There it is. Christians, you say, are those people who are lazy and cannot think for themselves.

Could it be that atheism and philosophical naturalism is a crutch too?

Could it be the atheism is an emotional crutch too? Does the knife butter both sides of the bread?

Has atheism been promoted because the moral and eternal implications of belief in God are too great to fathom?

Christianity IS a ‘crutch’ to a certain degree.

Jesus taught that people are sinful, fallen, broken, and eternally separated from God.

He then said that only by accepting God’s terms of forgiveness, which is unconditional surrender and trust in Him based upon his resurrection from the dead, will that person be made right again with God.

So if by crutch you mean dependance, then yes Jesus is a ‘Crutch’. I frankly will depend upon this ‘Crutch’ for every day of my existence.

Contrary to popular belief, Oklahoma is not the epicenter of Christianity.

I do not have a proof-source for this comment, but most statistics tell us that greatest numbers of Christian converts are in China, the Soviet Union, and other non Western countries.

Reasontrumps,

I’m afraid this conversation is going nowhere fast. What is becoming clearer is that FreeThought Fort Wayne is just not a good fit for you as a philosophical group.

FreeThought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

In my opinion, this statement (from an outsider looking in) says that FreeThought uses logic and reason not compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.

The clear converse of this statement says that anyone who holds a viewpoint that are ‘compromised’ by authority, tradition, or any other dogma is not using good science and logic.

This is just not so. That’s why I have recommended to you and others that your mission statement is in need of an update.

You’ve said, “In my opinion,” and that is a mouthful. Every claim you’ve made so far is nothing if not completely subjective.

Your “clear converse” is not so clear – “being compromised by tradition, authority, or dogma” doesn’t mean “is not using good science or logic.” It just means the person in question is cannot be defined as a “freethinker.” That’s the purpose of a definition – to define, to separate from the larger aggregate. And the idea that not being defined as a freethinker is somehow pejorative is ENTIRELY your construct, not ours. If you’re not, you’re not, and there are other philosophical communities where you may feel more at home. It also doesn’t mean we think you’re stupid – obviously you’re pretty intelligent – it just means that, respectfully, we think you’re wrong. And you probably think we’re wrong. It happens a lot in this age of information.

First your authority, tradition, and dogma needs to be defined as church authority, tradition, and dogma.

No, actually, it doesn’t, and here’s why. The authority, tradition, and dogma in question could come from ANY source. Right now, science and logic have shown themselves to be the best, most transferable, most reliable methods of acquiring information. However, if something better came along, we would adapt it and not continue to use science and logic solely because we “always have,” aka tradition. Now, what that new way would look like and how we would evaluate it, I have no idea. However, we’ve tried your way – revelation – and unless it duplicates the information rendered by logic, it fails every time. So, unless you’ve got some other additional way, we’ll stick with logic and reason for now.

Again, I don’t see where this conversation can go constructively, and, yet again, that’s fine for both of us. I appreciate your comments and your stopping by, but I don’t think we’re a good fit for your philosophy. We’re just getting started as a community, but, fortunately for you, you have a number of established churches in which you may find (or, more accurately, probably have found) a home.

Michael B-

OK. We agree to disagree on the mission statement. I have always stated to those who hold differing viewpoints as myself that I could be wrong? I don’t see it, but I’ll concede for sake of time.

I don’t have any interest in joining your organization, but it doesn’t keep me from joining your forums does it?

Don’t be exhaustive.. but please show me one or two counterexamples where the syllogism (rendered by William Lane Craig, in the Kalam Cosmological Argument) of Big Bang Cosmology and a logical first cause of the origin of the universe has ‘failed every time’.

1. Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Please show me how this syllogism would then be incompatible with the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts of creation ex nihilo by the God of the Old Covenant and New Covenant?

If this Cosmological syllogism holds true, both from logic and science, then is it more logical to hold that the origin of the universe can best be explained by an uncaused and non-personal agent (like natural selection) or by a personal, immaterial, first cause, like God or another intelligent designer?

Further, isn’t my philosophical viewpoint of Intelligent Design being formed by science and logic as well?

Oh boy.

I’ve tried to offer an olive branch, and now you are holding the pointed end of it dangerously close to your own eye.

You are welcome to join our forums. They are located here. Where you are now is our blog. It is comprised of articles and related comments. You have already gone wildly off-topic once, and now you’re trying to do it again with the oft-debunked Kalam’s Cosmological Argument. Neither I nor anyone else on this blog wishes to explain for the umpteenth time that no, 2+2 does not equal 5, no matter how badly you wish it so. I’m sure there are nice people at talkorigins or infidels.org who would be more than happy to set you straight if you wish to pursue this argument.

Again, sincerely, thank you for stopping by. Unless you have a comment related to the original article, please move your discussion to our forums or elsewhere.

Nah, don’t ban him; I’m enjoying this. It’s not particularly off-topic, really: if Xtianity is super-fantastic and true and all, the “Rise of the Godless” would be a bad thing for society, so it fits.

Granted that he s/he has a worsening habit of never acknowledging points that were made, which may make this futile eventually, but I don’t think we’re there yet.

@Reasontrumps, Skeptigator, Mike, etc.

Starting tomorrow, we’re going to have a weekly (or regular) “open comments post” where we can indeed get off on tangents, etc. It’s like a mini forum, ‘cept in the blog. Tell you what, let’s move this discussion over there.

I really do appreciate Reasontrumps for his/her being polite, grammatically coherent, and to be honest, continuing to engage discussion. It can be overwhelming, because we do sort of gang up on people. Mostly it’s because we are dedicated to this blog.

Skep, this is your post, so I leave it up to you. But if you want to close comments after telling commenters to head over to the open post tomorrow, that seems perfectly reasonable.

If comment threads are still open tomorrow, I’ll post a link, and please, everyone, continue this discussion over there!

-Andy W.

There it is. Christians, you say, are those people who are lazy and cannot think for themselves.

Within the compartment of their lives where Christian dogma rules—yeah, pretty much.
 

Could it be that atheism and philosophical naturalism is a crutch too?

Mebbe. But I don’t think it happens too often. Completely irrelevant, though, since atheism is allowed to be more than one thing. It could be a crutch for some people (e.g., people who haven’t come to their atheism rationally, but rather through social pressures or ignorance of the gamut of religious alternatives), and still be the only consistent position on god-belief justified by the available evidence. Which it is.
 

Has atheism been promoted because the moral and eternal implications of belief in God are too great to fathom?

Dillweed, did you not read that paragraph where I denigrated many aspects of Christian moral ideas, the most reprehensible of which is the idea of eternal torment? Yes, it’s too great to fathom; it’s also immoral and repugnant on its face. That’s so whether the thing is true or not, and whether any given Christian really believes in it or not; by analogy, if I encountered a space-alien cult that thought that if I didn’t appease some galactic overlord that I would be sent to a miserable penal colony on the planet Rura Penthe and kept alive and conscious for all eternity, but most of its members were half-assed about the thing and kind of knew they were play-acting, I would still judge them harshly for coming up with the damn idea and declaring me, or anyone, deserving of such treatment. That there’s no such place doesn’t matter to my judgment of them.*

Believe it or not, many of us see your Christian narrative and its characters as just as silly.

But, and it’s sad that this has to be explained—again—it’s not the consequences, or the judgment of their wickedness, that lead to the unbelief itself. It’s the lack of evidence that any of it is true, coupled (at least for me) with the evidence that false religious beliefs crop up in human societies all the frickin’ time.

Read up on the distinction between an is and an ought, learn to apply it in your beliefs about the world, and your outlook on your fellow humans will—and I’m serious here—probably be much rosier.
 

Jesus taught that people are sinful, fallen, broken, and eternally separated from God.

He then said that only by accepting God’s terms of forgiveness, which is unconditional surrender and trust in Him based upon his resurrection from the dead, will that person be made right again with God.

Did it ever occur to you to question whether those terms are just?
 

So if by crutch you mean dependance, then yes Jesus is a ‘Crutch’. I frankly will depend upon this ‘Crutch’ for every day of my existence.

And one of the consequences of that decision is enduring mockery from those of us who care whether our beliefs are true, and whether they’re harmful to those around us. Yes, I know, the big guy said you’d have to expect that (Matthew 10 and all that), and that there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if you’d just trudge on in faith and service. And if that pot of gold is worth it to you, then by all means, carry on, Christian soldier.

But know that none of that changes the fact of the matter that that gold is a fantasy. When you step out of that fantasy and interact here in the real world with those who don’t share it, you’ll get called on every silly thing you say. Them’s the breaks.
 

_______________
* Thanks to Jeff Dee of the Atheist Community of Austin for this handy example, though the change from Jupiter to Rura Penthe was mine.

Mockery…

Christian soldier, dillweed, crutch, lazy, stupid, can’t think for themselves– those are not quite friendly terms.

That’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Except I haven’t mocked (at least I don’t think so, and apologize to you if I did).

Yes, gold at the end of the rainbow is a fantasy, but death is at the end of your life’s rainbow.

Could it possibly be that you are dying, not because of Darwinism, but because the person who created you has sentenced you to death for moral crimes against him?

Could it be that the fact that you feel guilty (when you lay down your head at night and nobody is around) because you are guilty? How do I know you are guilty? We all do, it’s one thing all humans share.

Perhaps the fact that you think you don’t need God should be a sign to you that you are more lost than you may realize. Hell will only serve to be the actualization of the choice that you have made here on Earth.

God will only be giving you what you want (eternal separation from him) when you threw off the pardon of forgiveness that maybe He is willing to extend to you.

I’ll keep checking on your blogs.

Okay, so the shift from a sort-of interesting discussion on the logical consistency of uniting a group of freethinkers around an articulated mission (however general) to insipid godbotting is complete.

So I take it back: this guy/gal deserves the boot for adding nothing of substance to the conversation.

Certainly, Reasontrumps, you know that you’re not responding to the specific points that have been made. It may be that that’s because you don’t understand them, or don’t care to try, because it might make you feel uncomfortable. But you can’t reasonably feel that people getting perturbed with you, or wishing you gone, on that basis is unjust.

I’ll cash in the last nickel’s worth of chance that something can be salvaged from this by asking you to acknowledge and respond cogently to at least one of these points that’s been made in this thread:

(1) The degree to which the mission of our organization constrains free thought is trivial, and probably unavoidable if we are to have a community of people who value reason and free inquiry at all.

(2) It’s possible to evaluate the moral prescriptions found in Christian scripture by an external standard, e.g., how much suffering they cause.

(3) When so evaluated, many of the prescriptions in the Christian Bible are found to be wicked. A moral person is constrained to not follow these prescriptions or worship their author.

(4) A difference exists between an is statement and an ought statement. For example, even if it were true that us nasty sinners deserved eternal punishment according to some designated standard, that would say nothing about whether it actually happens. Claims of that sort would require physical evidence.

(5) Freethought Fort Wayne is open to persons bringing evidence of the existence of a god, but requires that that evidence adhere to reasonable standards of objectivity. We distinguish between such attempts and the sloppy buckets of unsupported assertions that comprise proselytizing.

Remember to show your work.

I’m afraid I’ve just been..

Expelled

LOLZ Are you sure you’re not one of our regulars just yanking our chain?

Physical evidence..

Jesus was born as a baby.
Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.
Jesus wept human tears.
Jesus ate real fish.
Jesus went to temple.
Jesus acted in space-time history.
Jesus was beaten.
Jesus was nailed to a cross.
Jesus said he would prove his authority by rising from the dead.
Jesus had a spear thrust in his side to prove that he was physically dead.
Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

I’d say that’s alot of physical evidence. The God of the universe became a man and dwelt among us.

“Could it possibly be that you are dying, not because of Darwinism, but because the person who created you has sentenced you to death for moral crimes against him?”

Assertions and assumptions much like this question, among a few other select problems, will be the unraveling of Christianity as you know it. Hell and damnation are already no longer fashionable. People are wising up to this unfair and ludicrous threat. Original Sin, punishing this and every generation for something we had ZERO control over, is ridiculously unfair and maniacally evil. If I were ever stigmatized for something my great-grandfather did, let alone the first man (oh, I’m sorry, WOMAN- he’s a sexist god as well) on earth did, I would lend it no credibility.

Also, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Infinite, blissful existence without strife exchanged for short, often miserable, lives surrounded by suffering, sadness, insanity, and hatred, just because Eve bit a forbidden fruit planted there by god while he was certain she would take it.

The apple, of course, is a metaphor for knowledge. As Galileo put it: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” God gives us the capacity, curiosity and desire for knowledge and then forbids it. That’s like a cat toying with its wounded prey.

Whatever “moral crimes” I could possibly commit, no matter how heinous and premeditated, would pale in comparison to the punishment awaiting me. That’s like stoning your kid to death for talking back to you (hmmm, where did I hear that before?).

And finally, what kind of hyper-sensitive, ultra self-conscious, neurotic, ego-centric, masochistic god is this Yahweh anyway? Why does he need our devotion and love returned? Those are human desires. I expect a little more out of an all-knowing creator of everything, and I am not alone.

He created us all the way we are in full knowledge of how we will act, even if endowed with free will, every minute of our lives. Then he condemns us for whatever shortcomings we inevitably will have.

It’s time we condemn HIM for his shortcomings. Evil is unacceptable and far short of perfection. Suffering is sadistic if One has the power to prevent it. His communication skills suck. Miracles abounded 2000 years ago when there was no TV, no radio, no internet, no newspapers, no morse code (all man-made, scientific inventions, btw), nothing but ignorance and the vane interests of barbaric men.

The more of that apple we bite, the more civilized we become, and the less likely and less necessary god becomes.

Okay, I’ll play.

Physical evidence..

Jesus was born as a baby.
Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.
Jesus wept human tears.
Jesus ate real fish.
Jesus went to temple.
Jesus acted in space-time history.
Jesus was beaten.
Jesus was nailed to a cross.
Jesus said he would prove his authority by rising from the dead.
Jesus had a spear thrust in his side to prove that he was physically dead.
Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

I’d say that’s alot of physical evidence. The God of the universe became a man and dwelt among us.

Actually, every item you listed is a claim. You see, how it works is, you make a claim, THEN you present supporting evidence. So, where is your supporting evidence for any one of these claims?

Where do you think I find this evidence?

You know where its found.

“Could it be that the fact that you feel guilty (when you lay down your head at night and nobody is around) because you are guilty? How do I know you are guilty? We all do, it’s one thing all humans share.”

I work every day of my life to be as honest and good as I can. It takes constant effort to live life the best you can and as morally positive as you can. Any guilt I feel from my lack of emotional control, or whatever reason, is directly proportional to the severity of the offense I know I committed. A clean conscience is hard work, and I sleep well from working hard. That is not a luxury everyone has, I know. But none of us are born cursed in sin and have automatic guilt from simply being born. Just putting it that way sounds absolutely absurd.

Religion magnifies mundane issues into huge moral dilemmas. I can’t imagine the sexual repression and guilt created by believing masturbation to be sinful. I’ve heard too often about homosexuals that hide their sexuality, their sexual orientation, and indeed their lives, because they are filled with shame for sinning in the (not-so-intelligently-designed) eyes of god. I can’t imagine feeling guilty about using a condom. On top of all this, imagine how much worse all of these problems and more must have been in the Dark Ages, when religious guilt reigned supreme.

“Perhaps the fact that you think you don’t need God should be a sign to you that you are more lost than you may realize. Hell will only serve to be the actualization of the choice that you have made here on Earth.”

It’s not a question of not needing or wanting god. I like the idea of living forever, knowing everything, basking in overwhelming beauty and love, rivers of milk and honey, whatever turns you on, really.

It’s just there is no god of any organized religion that is plausible. And if an omnipotent, creator god is not plausable, there’s not much left to bother about. When you factor in the histories of all of the other previous religions and their extreme similarities, the many incompatible religions everywhere, the numerous fractured sects in each religion, the psychology and sociology of religion, continued enlightenment from the sciences, and the contortions you have to do to get the bible to look even remotely coherent, let alone an awe-inspiring autobiography of a loving god, a Cartesian demon is perhaps the only logical conclusion other than a self-realized universe.

I’d be more inclined to say Earth is the actualization of the choices we make concerning heaven and hell. Our attitudes will contribute to making everyone’s lives here and now hell on earth or a heavenly utopia.

Where do you think I find this evidence?

You know where its found.

So, the Bible is evidence of your claims. And how do we know the Bible is true? Because God said so. And how do we know God said so? Because it’s in the Bible. And how do we know the Bible is true? Because God said so. And so on and so on.

You see, Reasontrumps (which doesn’t seem like it is trumping anything lately), this is circular reasoning. We need something verifiable, something objective, to prove these claims true. Otherwise, the paragraph above would go on forever.

Are you able to provide non-biblical evidence of these claims? If so, please lay them out for us.

Jesus was born as a baby.
Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.
Jesus wept human tears.
Jesus ate real fish.
Jesus went to temple.
Jesus acted in space-time history.
Jesus was beaten.
Jesus was nailed to a cross.
Jesus said he would prove his authority by rising from the dead.
Jesus had a spear thrust in his side to prove that he was physically dead.
Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

And the child brings another bukkit ofit. Seriously, what kind of nitwits are you used to hanging out with that you think this sort of list would impress actual thinking adults?

“He ate fish”? SRSLY?

I have for you, sir/ma’am, physical evidence that train cars can be made to levitate and disappear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=876hUnS-ym8&fmt=18

That this nice lady can talk to dead people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-6LHwo79U&fmt=18

That chupacabras stalk the desert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYemBLuou90&fmt=18

And that reptile demons are no match for the innocence of a child:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkNLdo3qtg0&NR=1&fmt=18

NARRATIVES—I HAZ DEM TOO

The common argument for using the Bible to defend its own claims is circular reasoning as you suggest.

However, that is just false. You are now entering an area at which I am extremely familiar, New Testament (NT) reliability.

The New Testament is composed of 27 different books and/or epistles (letters). These 27 different books have to be studied historically like any other document of ancient history, like Homer’s Illiad.

The 27 documents of the NT were composed by 8 different, independent authors who claim to have eye witness testimony of the events of Jesus of Nazareth. If each author is viewed as an independent, eye-witness, and not some group colloboration as you seem to suggest, then they can and should be allowed to be put on the witness stand. Quite simply they stand up to the rigors of the biographical test, the internal test, and external test, which is how any work of antiquity should be judged. (See Josh McDowell Evidence that Demands a Verdict).

This is not circular reasoning. The New Testament canon, as we know it, was completed (or put in book form) in response to a 2nd century heretic named Marcion. But the book or Bible form was not the original intention of the authors of the NT.

Taken at face value, we have reliable eye-witness evidence of the man Jesus. Please see F.F. Bruce’s book entitled The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?

F.F. Bruce argues in the same book that the NT is the most historically reliable text of antiquity that we have based on number of Manuscripts, textual purity, copy gap, etc.

If one denies the historical reliability of the NT, then one would easily have to dismiss Homer’s Iliad, Tacitus works, Josephus, biographies of Alexander the Great, Plato, etc.

There are in excess of > 25,000 current MSS of the NT, which date within 50-300 years, whereas the Iliad only has appx 900, with a copy gap of some 900 years, which is the next closest work of antiquity.

This doesn’t make the NT true I know, it only serves to show that it is historically reliable.

As far as extra-biblical sources… suffice it to say that we have a ton of information here, but I can save that for a later post.

Therefore, circular reasoning cannot be invoked here.

A good book for you to read here is (besides the ones mentioned above) is: Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ.

The 27 documents of the NT were composed by 8 different, independent authors who claim to have eye witness testimony of the events of Jesus of Nazareth.

Names and supporting evidence please – paraphrase if need be. Or just name one.

A good book for you to read here is (besides the ones mentioned above) is: Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ.

Thanks. You’re the first person ever to mention that book to us. Maybe we’ll read it.

???

The New Testament is composed of 27 different books and/or epistles (letters). These 27 different books have to be studied historically like any other document of ancient history, like Homer’s Illiad.

Congrats, that’s the first intelligent thing you’ve said since the discussion turned in this direction. Good on ya. Now, keep in mind for the rest of this: How exactly do we judge the Iliad? Do we really believe in the supernatural elements, e.g., Apollo fighting in the battles? Achilles being born of a nymph? Does the excavation of a Bronze Age city in Anatolia that was probably Troy make any of those more likely?

Please answer this cogently, so we know whether the lens through which you view historical narratives is stupid or not.
 

There are in excess of > 25,000 current MSS of the NT, which date within 50-300 years, whereas the Iliad only has appx 900, with a copy gap of some 900 years, which is the next closest work of antiquity.

I think you might be inflating a bit: Hector Avalos quotes some fundamentalist biblical scholars as giving 5366 MSS for the NT (in Greek at least) and 643 for the Iliad. Regardless, I’m not sure it matters that much. Here is a first edition Book of Mormon from 1830. In English, even, so there’s no translational issues. I assume you’ll be converting to Mormonism now.
 

Taken at face value, we have reliable eye-witness evidence of the man Jesus.

Leaving aside the transparent equivocation between a historical teacher named Jesus and the supernatural character portrayed in the Gospels: Please justify why these should be taken at face value, while other claims of remarkable, even paranormal, events throughout history and in modern times should not.

Remember that I gave you a video of a frickin’ chupacabra.
 

Therefore, circular reasoning cannot be invoked here.

This is correct, though, at least within in the context of the defense you’re trying to mount. When doing this kind of analysis on the sources of the NT, one is implicitly referring to an external source of information: what we know from experience about the relationship between the properties of historical texts and their accuracy.

Unfortunately for you, you’re replacing it with willful credulity and confirmation bias. So, that’s a shame.
 

A good book for you to read here is (besides the ones mentioned above) is: Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ.

No, I don’t think that would be good for me, since I don’t appreciate being lied to. Strobel is well-known for claiming the mantle of neutrality and scientific rigor yet only interviewing people who already agree with him. Keep in mind, too, that he was trained as a journalist, not a historian.

If his claims were true, historians and scientists would be interested. Has he published anything in the peer-reviewed literature on these topics that we should know about?

Michael B-

I recommend that you pick up the “NIV Study Bible”. Look at the introduction to each book detailing the author of each book (Matthew – Revelation).

These comprise the 27 books the NT.

Butter- then don’t read Strobel. Read F.F. Bruce. Pick up Norman Geisler and Nix- General Introduction to the Bible. Read McDowell.

Let’s say your 5,433 MSS are accurate. Fine. I’ll take it. That is still more than any work of antiquity.

I think the 5,433 are complete MSS, whereas we have >25,000 include portions, but I’ll have to check on the accuracy of that statement.

You have to remember then that the 5,433 then have survived via intense persecution of the Church. Remember there were 10 major persecutions that faced the early 1st and 2nd century church. Many more MSS were burned.

As far as your myth examples… Well that’s just plain silly. Read the first 4 gospels. They reflect real, historical persons: Pontus Pilate governor, the reign of various Herods and Caesars. They name historical places: Pool of Siloam, Bethesda, etc. They name historical events: Passover, Pentecost, Crucifixions, etc. Time and time again, archealogical discoveries have confirmed these events, people, and places. (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, McDowell, Chapter 2).

If you’ve ever read the NT, you’ll see they don’t read like your aforementioned mythology examples.

This only shows your true ignorance of the NT Gospels and Epistles. Maybe you could start by picking up the NT and reading it. That might be a good place to start.

Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon can’t say the same. Read the chapter from Walter Martin’s “The Kingdom of the Cults” on the Book of Mormon.

My point in bringing up the NT vs. The Iliad is to show its textual purity, not so much the historical accuracy, although it can be argued for the latter.

If you don’t like the comparison vs The Iliad, then you can compare it to the biographies of Alexander the Great or Sutoenius (sp?) Annals, where we only have a handful of copies of those MSS.

Michael B-

Please pay special attention to the Book of John (Ch.1), the Book of Luke (Ch.1), The Book of Acts (Ch.1) and the Books of 1 John (Ch.1).

Also the Book of Galatians (Ch. 1 and 2) argue for the eye-witness events of the Apostle Paul and the Resurrected Christ.

1 Corinthians 15 also gives a detailed account of the post-mortem or resurrected appearances to various individuals by the Resurrected Christ.

No. That’s not what I asked. You said:

The 27 documents of the NT were composed by 8 different, independent authors who claim to have eye witness testimony of the events of Jesus of Nazareth.

I asked you to name these 8 authors, or even just one of them, and provide supporting evidence. Don’t tell me to go read an entire book when all I asked was for one of eight names. Please. Just one name – or even a description that excludes the person being confused with anyone else – of a writer who claims to be an eyewitness to Jesus Christ. I’m telling you exactly what it would take to move this argument forward. PLEASE.

Yeah, so there’s some broader issues here:

(1) Credibility. Imagine this scenario: Wide-smiled used-car salesman says, “I’ve got three great cars for ya! They’re reliable and fast. Boy howdy, any of ‘em would look great on ya, kid.”

Kid kicks the tires on Car A. Engine falls out; tires come off rims; glass shatters.

Used-car salesman sez: “Awright, partner, don’t buy that one. Those other two I bet are right up your alley, though!”

Mebbe they are. I’m not gonna bet on it without further evidence, though.
 
(2) Textual purity. The point of the Book of Mormon example zoomed right over your head. The point is that textual purity isn’t all that important in determining whether a text describes the truth or not. If ya want textual purity, we’ve got us a real live new religion, founded right here in the USofA, with its first-edition founding document available online for anyone to read, in English. It doesn’t get any purer than that. If the Book of Mormon doesn’t convince you, then that suggests that textual purity isn’t as important to you as you’re implying it is. Acknowledge the point in some fashion or you’ll likely be regarded as dishonest. Which brings us to:
 

(3) Goalpost shifting. When presented with evidence that there’s purer religious texts than the NT that you nonetheless don’t regard as sacred, you change the focus of the argument to “yeah, but it doesn’t talk about REAL PEOPLE AND PLACES, like Herod and Jerusalem and stuff.” Perhaps it would be clearer for all if you just stated upfront the main reasons to believe, instead of coming up with a new one every time a previously mentioned one is demonstrated to be faulty.

To that point of real people, places, and events as the backdrop for the Gospel narratives, though: Imagine an archaeologist 2000 years from now digging up a glossy yellow piece of ancient (to her) literature. It mentions Antarctica and New York, the Vietnam War, and Richard Nixon. She knows those were all real. Should she conclude that Dr. Manhattan was real? Should she accede to any morals presented by Nite Owl?

And to this:

If you’ve ever read the NT, you’ll see they don’t read like your aforementioned mythology examples.

HAHAHA Yes. They. Do. At least in the sense of having supernatural events layered on top of more prosaic narratives. Except that they’re much lamer and preachier. Now Gilgamesh, that’s a hero.

I asked you to name these 8 authors, or even just one of them, and provide supporting evidence. Don’t tell me to go read an entire book when all I asked was for one of eight names.

Presumably he’s just referring to the traditional authors of the books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul of Tarsus, James, Peter, and Jude. There were likely other authors: for example, of some of the Pauline epistles, 2 Peter, and Revelations (John of Patmos may have been somebody else).

Regardless, I assume that he’s just imparting to them the claim of knowing eyewitnesses based on the fact that they wrote their narratives and epistles at all. Whether any author in the NT says anything as unambiguous as “I, the author of this gospel/letter, talked to so-and-so, who saw Jesus, that Jew who’s the Son of God, do such and such” I don’t know, since I haven’t read all the epistles between the Gospels and Revelation, but I kind of doubt it. Anyone?

Butter- I will answer this one, but I’m not going to stand for your ad-hominem attacks. This is a pursuit of truth, not a grade school name calling exercise.

One last chance for you. Frankly, I’m not going to take my time if your going to play games. Your call.

Those are the traditional 8 authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul (or Saul of Tarsus), James, Peter and Jude.

1 John 1:1 (written by John)- “That which was from the beginning, which we have hears, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched– this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

Luke 1:1-3 (Luke) – “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning..”

Acts 1:1 (Luke) – “In my former book , Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven..”

1 Corinthians 15:3 (Paul or Saul of Tarsus)- “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance…”

1 Corinthians 15:5-7 “…he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time…..he then appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also…”

These are just a few examples of eye witness testimony. Others can be found in Matthew, Mark, Galatians, Revelation, etc., to name just a few.

Thank you, Reasontrumps. That was very illuminating.

I don’t know what else to say at this point – other than, if that’s your idea of “eye witness testimony,” may you never, ever serve on a jury of any consequence.

I’m sorry if you take that as ad-hominem, which seems to be your first defense against any reasonable claim. As I’ve stated before, this conversation has no hope of going anywhere, because we have vastly different definitions for the same terms. I believe, provisionally, of course, ours are correct and yours are incorrect, because yours assume an absolute conclusion and work backwards to try to shoehorn the evidence into place. Ours our guided by the evidence toward the most reasonable approximation of a conclusion.

You started out, however off-topic, trying to use reason to find fault with our mission statement. You’ve now spiraled into a flailing attempt at amateur apologetics. You are beyond any hope of establishing credibility, at least on this site. Any further comment you make will be met with the response suggested by Thomas Jefferson,

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” ~ letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816

Good day, sir. (or ma’am)

No Michael B-

I don’t take your response as ad hominem, just the guy/gal named Butter. Thanks though.

Based upon what historical criteria would you suggest that this is not fair, eye-witness testimony?

Remember I am only given you snippets of passages, thus isolating a small text to make a general point. If you read the Book of John, for example, in its context then it tells a much larger story historically, thematically, and theologically.

How does the NT documents differ in their eye-witness testimony than the person who says via written testimony that I was there say .. on the day Peyton Manning set the NFL touchdown record? Or one who witnessed a bank heist? A car accident?

Is this then how you read the works of Tacitus (The Annals of Tacitus), which is roughly authored in and around the time of Christ?

Remember your own rule throughout this thread… He who claims, must show his work.

Sorry you think I am an amateur. Frankly, I never claimed to be a professional.

I did find interest in the “Free Thought of Fort Wayne” site based upon your name alone.

Sadly to say I think I lost credibility the minute “I was proven to be found unworthy”, ie called myself a Christian.

Furthermore, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, despite my being an ‘amateur’ apologist, I have made some very careful, thoughtful, clear, rational arguments.

This is probably something your not accustomed to hearing from someone claiming to be a ‘Christian’.

Thanks for the letter from Jefferson. I’ll have to look that one up and see how this snippet of a quote relates to the larger context of the letter.

But then again… How do we know that Thomas Jefferson really penned that letter? Hmmmmm….

Reasontrumps –

Not sure if you have already addressed this, but just curious as to how you became a Christian.

Were you raised and indoctrinated into a Christian belief system, or did you seek out Christianity on your own ?

Raised Roman Catholic. Or what I would call “Churchianity”, or the system of doing church, like the majority of Americans.

Ventured into an “agnostic” state, I suppose for 5-6 years. Although not sure quite how to define it.

At the age of 28 (2001), I pursued the case for Christianity.

Then after studying the truth claims of Christianity, I became a follower of Jesus Christ in 2002.

Thanks for asking, however I hate testimonials. Since you asked, I shared.

Testimonials are the sacred cow of ‘Evangelical Christianity’, whatever that terms means, Evangelical Christianity I mean. My testimonial simply means nothing in the larger truth claims of the Gospel.

Case in point..I saw a testimonial of a guy on your site who was once a Roman Catholic, who converted to ‘Atheism’. Simply too many testimonials in both directions.

Nice of you to ask though. What about you?

I don’t take your response as ad hominem, just the guy/gal named Butter. Thanks though.

Guy. And you do understand that an ad hominem is distinct from an insult, right? If you demonstrate through your attempts at rhetoric that you’re stupid and dishonest, it’s not an ad hominem if I demonstrate where they’re stupid and dishonest, then call you stupid and dishonest. It’s just an insult.

Treating your make-believe fairy land, stitched together out of Bronze Age tribal myths, Roman paganism, and 1st-century BC Jewish apocalism as the real and ultimate order of the universe, is stupid. Deliberately misreading English sentences, when you probably wouldn’t do so in any other circumstance, is dishonest. (C’mon, read those NT quotations you gave us. Most of them don’t even claim to be eyewitness accounts. The second one from 1 Corinthians 15 is the only one that would seem to qualify.)

Hey Butter-

Peace out man. Go take your ’spread’ to someone other than me.

I wish you well.

*Sigh* At least I was able to spread the news of the chupacabra. Maybe he’ll see the light.

Reasontrumps-

Thanks for sharing.

I myself was also in the “raised Christian” loop. I think its fair to say the majority of kids who grew up in NE Indiana probably fell into a similar category.

As a kid I didn’t really understand or get the “connection” I thought I was supposed to be getting from the Christian religion. I attended a Methodist church, haphazardly, while in my elementary school years. The church I attended seemed very archaic, detached, and rigid. Over the years, I attended services with other churches of different Christian denominations. Ultimately, I arrived at the same conclusion: the Christian religion was not for me.

However, the real connection I experienced was and continues to be through nature. Growing up in the country and having a woods behind my house certainly helped the cause.

Today, I still feel an affinity for our environment and natural world. I value this connection very much. To me it is tangible, accessible and represents the harmony and balance I need to keep me grounded in an otherwise chaotic and crazy world.

To add to the quotes which have already been posted, here’s one that speaks to me:

“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

Chief Seattle, 1855

Andy S-

Cool. Yeah, I haven’t met too many Hoosiers who haven’t been raised in some type of ‘Christian loop’ or religiousity.

Today, there are approximately 25,000 denominations of Christianity: whether Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

The question that I often ask myself is this: Would Jesus be pleased with this type of unity, or lack thereof amongst his ‘people’?

One of the things that struck me as I read the Gospels was the people who Jesus was the most upset with were those who called themselves ‘God’s Chosen People’, the Jews. He often labeled the ‘religious’ as hypocrites, white-washed tombs, liars, and deceivers.

Conversely, the ones Jesus was most willing to engage were the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, ’spiritually unclean’ and Gentiles (non Jews).

It is my strong opinion that the conduct you see amongst the so-called ‘Visible Modern Christian Church’, as I like to label it, is not an good representation of the conduct of followers of Jesus Christ.

Frankly, according to famed Christian apologist Josh McDowell, about 98% of most ‘Christians’ cannot give a logical, reasonable, and accurate defense of the reasons why they are Christians.

I don’t know if that helps or not.

What do you think?

One more point is that the majority of non-Christians judge us ‘Christians’ based upon the conduct of the people that Jesus could potentially be upset with?

In my opinion, this is tragic.

Of course, implicit in my language is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

I know you don’t hold that view.

But for the sake of argument bear with my belief.

Obvious troll is obvious. When he graces your presence with his words, your forum becomes his home, and from then on anything you say to him is as if you were at his dinner table with his young children.

You know, there could’ve been a substantive discussion here about what exactly non-religion means–it’s not atheism, or refuses to be labeled as such–but instead y’all birthed “Christian nails self to cross cuz the internet is srs bizness” episode 4525853.

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

I know it’s hard to control your impulses, gentlemen, because you’re all so goddamn right, but there is no progress to be made here, this dainty weed of a troll is not here to discuss, but to snipe and run and trip and feign injury and just to waste your time while he masturbates. Would it were that some of you weren’t mentally masturbating, too.

As it is it’s painful to read, and I only did at the urging of a friend. Also on an iPhone. You’ll notice I’m not addressing the troll–learn from this!

Dave,

So you see no value in trying to find common ground, or even being able to establish a common viewpoint from which to move forward? I know the interwebz are a rough place, especially in these types of blogs, but it’s not like we’re all singing Kumbaya here.

Maybe my troll-sensors aren’t as find tuned as yours (the deflector dish was destroyed while opening up the wormhole), but I’m intrigued by the discussions between Andy S. and Reasontrumps. (Nor will I try to silence your phraseology like other Andys ’round these parts.)

I just like to see this communication happen. Honestly, I don’t expect us to change Reasontrumps mind, and I don’t expect him to change ours (Reasontrumps, I apologize if I just pre-supposed your gender). It’s just nice to see his viewpoint.

Please, tell us why this is just an exercise in mental masturbation — he’s not being rude, he’s not actively avoiding questions, and if he is a troll, he’s one of the more coherent ones we’ve seen for a while.

I’m not trying to condemn your comments by any means, I’m just not having the same reactions as you, and I’m interested in finding out why.

Oh, and Wired magazine just had a great review of netbooks. If I can find a link online I will email them to you. Did you write the above comment on the iPod? If so, I’m impressed!

Andy-

Nice comments. See it just goes to show you that don’t have to believe in God to be good. Although to make sense of goodness apart from God is quite another topic.

One thing I always respected about various atheists, like Antony Flew (before he became a theist), was the gentlemanly (is that a word) character they portrayed.

@reasontrumps: Most of us are pretty nice in person. Even Butter (when he takes his meds). I’m wondering if we shouldn’t have a “Meet An Atheist” event.

Dude, I read Butter’s F-bomb marathon on the front page link. I’m not so sure.

I was an angry young man once upon a time. The one thing that helped was when I moved out of my parents basement and quit watching WWF. You might want to tell that to Butter. Ouch, now that was an insult.

It was also a joke too. Who says Christians don’t have a sense of humor?

@reasontrumps Meh, I don’t know — since you read that bevy of comments, you would have seen that he makes some pretty good points — I’m not a fan of censorship by any means, and although he is more vociferous than I, I find him extremely compelling. And sometimes it takes actual mocking to point how just how absurd some of the Christian doctrines are.

Oye, it’s 11:30, and I gotta go to bed. I’ll see many of you at the coffee klatch tomorrow!

Reasontrumps –

“He (Jesus) often labeled the ‘religious’ as hypocrites, white-washed tombs, liars, and deceivers.

Conversely, the ones Jesus was most willing to engage were the sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, ’spiritually unclean’ and Gentiles (non Jews).”

This description of Jesus is appealing to me. Often times I have thought my problem is not with Jesus but with many of the Christians I have encountered.

Which leads me to your next statement:

“It is my strong opinion that the conduct you see amongst the so-called ‘Visible Modern Christian Church’, as I like to label it, is not an good representation of the conduct of followers of Jesus Christ.”

This is a difficult pill to swallow. If the vast majority of folks who are involved in Christianity are not a good representation of Christ’s message then something seems to be amiss. I believe it was Ghandi who said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ.”

I do have to say one of my favorite parts of attending Catholic mass is the

Sorry – accidentally hit the “submit comment” button.

Regarding Catholic mass, the sign of peace is a part of mass I always thought was pertinent and real. If human beings would implement this sort of altruistic behavior to others on a more frequent basis, we would hopefully have a better world to show for it.

But back to the ‘Visable Modern Christian Church’. I hate to say it but the Rod Parsleys, Benny Hinns, John Hagees, Pat Robertsons, Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggertys are the iconic “Christian” ministers who get the most airtime and visability. These are the people who have been thrust into the spotlight and continue to have huge followings, huge egos and receive massive amounts of financial contributions to keep their “ministries” afloat.

It appears to be a bit sad and twisted to me that the very folks who are supposedly preaching the ideals of Christ seem to be living a life that is anything but.

@awelfle yeah I’m on an iPod it sucks. You’re presupposition is that this guy being a troll requires him to be rude or outright false. I think he’s been rather ignorant of the points made against hm and hit the offended button a couple more than non troll.

Interesting; if you have no qualms about changing his mind, WTF is the point of engaging him?you really think this bit of forum will be prop preserved for future gens?

I call it musturbation because it’s so obviously a bunch of egomaniacs who can’t resist hitting a reply button. I’m one of them. But are you really going to tell me substantive discussion–worthy of the public and/or mind changing has occurred?

iPod typing sucks I’m going bed.

Andy-

I couldn’t agree more with you. It seems that the Christians who are the most visible, like the ones you named, are the ones who are doing the most harm.

I have to get going to church service, however the larger question is: Has Jesus weighed in on this kind of conduct?

I think he has. The people you named above are what I call “Channel 63″ people. You know Channel 63… the really weird religious channel where Christianity is a Three Ringed Circus.

This is why I said I hate ‘personal testimonies’. My testimony quite simply means nothing compared to the truth claims of Jesus.

Here’s a thought and I gotta run…. Jesus said “By their fruit, you will be able to recognize them.” (paraphrase). Who’s he speaking about?

In the context of the passage, it is obvious he is speaking about His professed followers. Those who bear bad fruit are potentially bad followers, and possibly no followers at all, and they will be judged for such conduct.

Conversely, those who bear good fruit are potentially good followers and will be rewarded for such conduct.

Jesus has called every follower an Ambassador for Christ. What needs to be determined is whether that means I am Good Ambassador or Bad Ambassador.

Francis Schaeffer, in my opinion one of the greatest Christian philosophers of the 20th century, has called the Christian’s love for the world the final apologetic.

Unfortunately the ‘apologetic’ of certain individuals is a big stench in the nostrils of people like yourself. It is to me too.

Dave:

Heavens, get thee to a public library, where keyboards and Dells with Internet Explorer abound!
 

Interesting; if you have no qualms about changing his mind, WTF is the point of engaging him?you really think this bit of forum will be prop preserved for future gens?

I call it musturbation because it’s so obviously a bunch of egomaniacs who can’t resist hitting a reply button. I’m one of them. But are you really going to tell me substantive discussion–worthy of the public and/or mind changing has occurred?

Yahbut who doesn’t like a good wank? Playing with a cat toy (those metaphors don’t go together, I know) is fun for its own sake, especially when the cat toy has ample opportunity to leave.

There are several points to it that I can see:

(1) Good sport. This, in and of itself, ought to be enough in an informal setting.

(2) The odd chance that you might inform your opponent of something they didn’t already know, and get them to eventually think about it.

(3) To demonstrate to your opponent that they cannot count on deference and respect simply because the institution they represent occupies an undue position of social hegemony.

Taking into account that the primary target audience is entertained people lurking and not participating, we also have:

(4) To give them the experience of seeing a person in a position which they had been brought up to automatically give deference to lampooned. Breaking the spell is a powerful rhetorical technique, and, when it results in unshackling minds from orthodoxy and dogma, the moral thing to do.

(5) Give them the opportunity to see the apologist wither when taken out into the wild. In their own bubbles, apologists are like Bush at a “town-hall meeting” of pre-screened sycophants. Seeing them unable to defend their supposedly respectable (and moral!) positions, when confronted by those who don’t share their presuppositions, is eye-opening and just entertaining.

Reasontrumps [whatever happened to the direct object in your name?]:

A question that I’m honestly curious about the answer to: Have you ever considered the possibility that, even if everything you say about Christ and the Gospels is true and accurate, following Christ might not be the moral thing to do, given the full range of moral ideas that he and his father seem to stand for?

First I got rid of the ’stupidity’ in my name because I didn’t think it was very nice.

I’m not sure what the “full range of moral ideas that he and his father seem to stand for?” means to you. Please explain.

However yeah, I think I’ve thought about everything, including that which Jesus stood for, when I was seeking out the truth claims of Christianity. GREAT QUESTION!!

One thing that helped me was the Trilemma argument that Pascal, C.S. Lewis, and McDowell espoused.

When you look at the all of the claims of Jesus quite simply Jesus was either 1) A Liar 2) A Lunatic or 3) Lord. There are only these three options.

If what he said was True, and he Truly was God in the flesh, then he is to be followed.

If he was just some good moral teacher, then he is NOT someone to be listened to because he was either a diabolical liar or someone who belongs in the funny farm.

For someone who 1) claimed to be God and 2) predicted his own death and resurrection to validate that claim is someone unlike anyone human history has ever seen. Remember Jesus Christ is the only founder of any major wprld religion who ever claimed to be God. So if you take Buddha out of Buddhism and the Prophet out of Islam you still have the system of Buddhism and Islam respectively. But if you take Jesus and the Resurrection out of Christianity you have no Christianity.

So if the events in question (the New Testament documents) are true, and they really happened as explained, then a man named Jesus of Nazareth really resurrected from a brutal crucifixion 2,000 years ago.

Conversely if there was no Resurrection, then Christianity is a farce, Jesus was a liar, and Christianity belongs in the trash can.

Probably the best and well-known passage of Scripture to assist this line of thinking is 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 says:

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

According to the Bible, if the Resurrection of Jesus never happened then Christianity is a joke. You’d be better to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

First I got rid of the ’stupidity’ in my name because I didn’t think it was very nice.

But it was accurate. Reason does trump stupidity. You shouldn’t disclaim accurate statements just because they’re “not nice.” This is Honesty 101.
 

I’m not sure what the “full range of moral ideas that he and his father seem to stand for?” means to you. Please explain.

Already explained in this thread (and ignored by you). See my comment of 17 March 6:21 pm.

The rest of your reply bore no relation to the question asked.

I read your reply and you said alot in the blog on 17 March 6:21pm. I frankly couldn’t find a question.

Rather than shotgun me to death, why don’t you spell out one objection or question and we’ll start there. Cool?

Sorry you thought my last post bore no relation. I thought it did.

If Jesus was God then he is one to be followed, if not then he is to be forgotten.

That is essentially how I reasoned out putting my faith and trust in Him.

If Jesus was God then he is one to be followed

Why? Maybe he was God, but shouldn’t be followed.

“Why? Maybe he was God, but shouldn’t be followed.”

Wow. I gotta say in all my years of studying, I’ve never heard that one.

Can you imagine the person with Type II diabetes rejecting the insulin orders his doctor has prescribed? Or the cancer patient who would reject his chemotherapy?

Jesus doesn’t claim to be a flavor of ice cream, like chocolate or strawberry. Christ doesn’t say, just pick one flavor you like and that which tastes good.

Rather he claims to be like the insulin that can fix your broken condition, which is sin that leads to death. These are Jesus’ words not mine. I am just simply passing along what he has said.

Is it possible that Jesus, the one who claimed to be God and the Creator of the universe, knows more than you and I?

“Why? Maybe he was God, but shouldn’t be followed.”

Wow. I gotta say in all my years of studying, I’ve never heard that one.

I bet. Do you know why it is that you’ve never heard it (or recognized it when you have)? Because the corpus of thought you’re defending doesn’t permit that sort of inquiry. It doesn’t permit you to come to moral decisions on your own. It demands blind obedience, and punishes any honest inquiry into its claims to superiority. It’s a leech on your brain that preys on your (and my) natural human desire to take the easy path and leave the Big Questions to someone else. Do you think it’s a good thing that you hadn’t heard this question before? Or are you glad that now you’re heard it?

Can you imagine the person with Type II diabetes rejecting the insulin orders his doctor has prescribed? Or the cancer patient who would reject his chemotherapy?

You’re assuming that you and I have some “disease” for which Christ is the “cure”. I utterly reject the notion that I have any such intrinsic fault. The possibility that you, too, have no such fault has also been hidden from you by your religion.

Reasontrumps -

One of the things you said earlier was:

“Of course, implicit in my language is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.”

The claim Jesus is the Messiah is one I do not believe. For that matter, I have a difficult time believing in the term Messiah, in general. Many different cultures, religions, cults, etc. throughtout the history of civilization have talked of different gods or messiahs returning to Earth. The Aztecs believed the Conquistador Cortes to be the return of their god and look it where it got them.

My question(s) is:

Why do we need a Messiah ?

Or why do we need religion ?

Religion seems to me to be the “middle man” in the equation here. Human beings are capable of love, compassion, hope, empathy, and other altruistic behaviors without some “religious or central authority” dictating how we need to treat one another. By the way, this same religious authority also has a track record of distributing not-so loving attributes such as the discrimination of homosexuals, avocation of slavery, suppression of women, the inquisition, denial of science, and many, many other highly questionable “moral” actions and stances.

Butter makes a good point when he states:

“It doesn’t permit you to come to moral decisions on your own. It demands blind obedience, and punishes any honest inquiry into its claims to superiority.”

Often times when “believers” or “followers” start to give up their own individual ability to think for themselves and follow blindly the orders of a person, organization or religion, bad things tend to happen. Jim Jones and David Koresh are names that come to mind.

As I stated before, I do not have a problem with Christ. Whether he was everything the Bible claims he was is a different story. But, through my perspective, the IDEALS Christ represented is the meat and potatoes and shoudl be the focus of our lives.

He is someone who garners my respect, not the church or religion in general. Buddha also falls into this category for me. Gandhi. Dr. Martin Luther King. Galileo. John Lennon and probably even Dorothy Stang. These are people who inspire me. People who have pushed the limits as to what human beings are capable of, and what we stand for as a people.

For some reason, I feel the need to leave this post with another quote. Here goes:

“What we know is not much. What we do not know is immense.”

-Pierre Simon Laplace

Andy S.:

Religion seems to me to be the “middle man” in the equation here. Human beings are capable of love, compassion, hope, empathy, and other altruistic behaviors without some “religious or central authority” dictating how we need to treat one another. By the way, this same religious authority also has a track record of distributing not-so loving attributes such as the discrimination of homosexuals, avocation of slavery, suppression of women, the inquisition, denial of science, and many, many other highly questionable “moral” actions and stances.

Well said, but with these:

Why do we need a Messiah ?

Or why do we need religion ?

Good luck getting a response out of him. He’s been so conditioned to turn his thoughts away from such questions—by something like the Somebody Else’s Problem Field in Douglas Adams—that his neurons just don’t fire in that pattern anymore. It’s this intentional effect of Christianity that makes me regard it not just as something silly but as a pernicious social force to be fought.

Personally, I go even farther than this:

As I stated before, I do not have a problem with Christ. Whether he was everything the Bible claims he was is a different story. But, through my perspective, the IDEALS Christ represented is the meat and potatoes and shoudl be the focus of our lives.

Yes, you can cherry pick out of the Gospels nice things that the Jesus character did. But Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he isn’t here to make everyone put aside their differences and sing Kumbayah. Rather, he’s here to establish the kingdom of his father, and everyone’s first duty is to follow him, loyalties to family and friends be damned:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [Matthew 10:34–35]

And I’ve said before how turning the other cheek (at least in the way the phrase is usually interpreted, barring any era-and-place pecularities about right-cheek–left-cheek customs that I’ve heard asserted ought to be read into those lines) is a cowardly, wicked invition to submit to bullying, aggression, and outright tyrrany. The “render unto Caesar” bit doesn’t really help in this regard, since Caesar might not deserve to be rendered unto.

Even the whole overarching narrative is wicked, since it encourages believers to offload their transgressions (however defined) onto a scapegoat. Sorry, if you wrong someone (and I’m talking about an actual offense causing actual harm to an actual person, not some inherited vitalistic gobbledegook derived from something “Original” in a mythical garden, or a legal transgression against the Levitical code), then you do what you can to make it right. Mystically transferring its essence onto a dead guy is not the right thing to do, and it doesn’t make the transgression go away. To be fair, Christ did tell the prostitute to “Go, and sin no more”, but really (ignoring the incorrect definition of “sin”), that’s all he needed to say. The exhortations to “Believe in me” add nothing.

Also in Matthew, we have Jesus as Big Brother:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. [Matthew 12:31]

Murder, rape, theft, even the Levitical stuff, is all sweep-under-the-ruggable, but Crimespeak is forever. I can’t admire as any sort of moral leader any character who threatens dissenters with torture.

@Reasontrumps

Can you imagine the person with Type II diabetes rejecting the insulin orders his doctor has prescribed? Or the cancer patient who would reject his chemotherapy?

Funny you should use this metaphor, because very similar real-life situations have occured, in the name of religion, and Christianity, specifically. Faith healers, like the Church of the Firstborn who rejects medicine and healthcare for the power of prayer, and has been responsible for dozens of avoidable deaths.

It isn’t just little sects like this. The Jehovah’s Witnesses reject blood transfusions and other “sharing of lifebloods”.

To wander my way back to the discussion topic, I agree with Butter. It saddens me that Christians feel like they are intrinsically terrible creatures, for which Christ is the one and only cure. It’s domestic abuse on a global scale.

Jesus doesn’t claim to be a flavor of ice cream, like chocolate or strawberry. Christ doesn’t say, just pick one flavor you like and that which tastes good.

Doesn’t he?

Matthew 7:13-14 says “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
John 3:36 says “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
And maybe most famously, John 14:16 says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

That sounds to me like Jesus is asking me to pick my ice cream flavor very carefully. It’s Strawberry Banana or eternal damnation.

Butter-

I’m glad I heard the question you posed. Believe me when I tell you, I’ve heard about everything. Mostly, I’ve heard all kind of people say they reject Christ because they don’t believe he is God.

I just have never heard somebody say, “Well maybe he’s God, but doesn’t deserve to be followed. There’s quite a difference.

So what follows from the thought that the corpus of thought that I am advocating doesn’t demand inquiry? Have I strayed from any inquiry? Have I shyed away from any conversation? This is a straw-man and totally unrelated to the argument at hand. Frankly, the same could be said about atheism too. Prior to my joining your blog, have you heard some of my arguments before from people claiming to be Christians? I’ll bet you no.

Did Jesus ever tell us to take a Kierkigardian ‘leap of faith’? Isn’t he the one, rather, who told us ‘Seek and Ye will find.’? Isn’t he the one who provided evidence of miraculous healings to prove his authority?

In John 5 (paraphrase), Jesus told the man who was paralyzed for 38-years that his sins were forgiven. The Jews were angry and said ‘Who can forgive sins, but God alone? This man is a blaspheming God in saying his sins are forgiven.’ He then said to prove that he had authority to forgive sins, he healed the man and then told him to pick up his mat and go home.

He provided evidence, and then asked the people to believe, contrary to popular belief (post Enlightenment thinking).

You are simply mistaken in saying that Christianity is not rational. You are once again comparing the bad actions of certain individuals claiming to be Christian and then applying that fault to the entire body of Christendom.

Frankly, this same argument could be used against atheism at-large, much like your ‘Christianity is a crutch’ argument. I’m just not going to make the straw-man argument in reverse.

What’s entirely ironic and self-defeating about the topic of sin and immorality in the world, of which you claim that you do not have, is that many times throughout this forum you have attributed and ascribed various ‘immoralities and wrongs to Jesus and his Father.

When you use this type of language it seems to me that you are invoking some moral standard of what is right and what is wrong. You are using language that posits moral absolutes.

You even said in your forum that Jesus is ‘immoral’ (your words, not mine) for commanding that his creatures love him more than his or her own family.

So before we can get to the question of whether or not you have violated some moral commands, what the Bible would call sin, I need to know whether you believe in moral absolutes, that which is objectively right or objectively wrong.

Once again, your language leans towards moral absolutes. However I’m not going to put words in your mouth. I will give you a chance to defend yourself.

Butter –

You bring up some good points. The quotes from the Bible speak volumes.

I should not have painted Christ with such a broad brush stroke. It is this “ruthless” Christ that I find to be distasteful and unappealing. I can’t imagine the thought of damning someone to a place such as hell for eternity because they committed such a sin.

You are right. I am “cherry picking” when I find qualities in Christ I admire. Something I feel passionately about is sticking up for the oppressed, the less fortunate, and the outcasts of society. The Christ who socialized with the lepers, the Christ who befriended the prostitutes, the Christ who denounced greed and excess, the Christ who shunned violence, these are the ideals which appeal to me.

But there are many individuals who have come and gone throughout history which have also stood for these same principles. It is the ideals which matter to me, regardless of who embodies or expresses them.

Andy-

I too find the thought of hell distasteful and unappealing. However when has truth ever been “True” because it doesn’t fit our tastes or preferences.

I find maximum security prisons and death row cells distasteful and unappealing too, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, right? Chemotherapy sounds distasteful and unappealing, but it is the right course of treatment for the one who has cancer?

Frankly, if it were up to me all you would have to do is be a real nice guy and smile and I’d let you into my heaven. However, its not my heaven.

This Jesus you admire and respect, for socializing with the lepers and showing them love and respect, is only half of the picture. You have to take all or none of him.

He also had really, really bad news to say about the moral depravity of the human being or condition.

He said in John 8:23-25: I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”

Yikes.

As C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

I for one didn’t put my hope and trust in Jesus because he ‘tastes good’ or ‘makes me feel better’. Rather I put my faith in Christ because I believe it is true, and there are good reasons for believing it as such (especially his Resurrection from the dead).

Frankly, much of what Jesus said has caused my life to be more difficult.

If you don’t think that is true, then I can’t tell you how hard it is as a man not to live in this permissive society and not be able to look at a woman lustfully, as Christ commanded in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

Hopefully that makes sense and is at least intelligible.

Peace.

Andy-

I made a mistake in my first statement..

I should have said… When has something been declared false because it doesn’t fit our tastes or preferences.

Sorry for the mistake.

Just goes to show how unreliable and prone to error that I am.

Andy Welfle-

I wanted to mention this earlier but forgot.

I enjoyed reading your question/thought you asked of Dave:

“So you see no value in trying to find common ground, or even being able to establish a common viewpoint from which to move forward?”

I believe its commendable for you to reach out in an honest attempt to establish some common ground. I’m sure you have had some individuals who use this blog as a way to pull your chain or push some buttons. The reality is, I do not see religion going away anytime soon. In fact the more atheists/agnostics/secular humanists make a concerted effort to find a common viewpoint with people of faith, the greater the chance some of these individuals will have in questioning the very foundations on which their faith was built. A side benefit would be to demolish the negative preconceptions some in the religious community have of nonbelievers.

Reasontrumps –

You seem like a decent human being. We can more than likely agree on some of the positive things Christ accomplished with his somewhat short life here on Earth. What we probably won’t agree upon is the concept of heaven/hell , Christ being the Messiah or the Christian definition of God. This doesn’t mean I don’t respect your right to explore/debate/and believe in Christ’s teachings.

Take care -

Andy-

Cool. You seem like a nice guy too. Hey, I didn’t come to Christianity all in one fell swoop, so I guess I shouldn’t expect you to be floored by all of my arguments.

The one thing it seems both of us have in common is our unhappiness for certain people who claim to be followers of Christ. Now that’s what I call progress between a Christian and an Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic or whatever you label yourself!

Hopefully I’ve at least “put a stone in your shoe” and made you think about things you’ve never thought of before.

One of my favorite websites is Stand to Reason, http://www.str.org

You should check it out. It’s right up any good thinkers alley, of which you seem to be one. STR’s slogan for STR is “Christianity Worth Thinking About”. Lots of good links to organizations who would even oppose his Christian worldview.

It’s been good chattin with you as I’ve tried my hand at this amateur “peer review” thing.

I’m out.

Have I strayed from any inquiry?

You’ve done little else. Among the topics ignored by you in this thread so far:

(1) Barbarism and cruelty in the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus.

(2) Various Christian presuppositions about how morality works. For example: heritable sin; the possibility of transferring sin onto a sacrificial animal or onto the ultimate sacrificial lamb, Christ; the idea that honest speech (e.g., blaspheming the Holy Spirit) ever deserves punishment.

(3) The notion that a “need” for Christ may not in fact exist.

(4) The existence of testimony of many other paranormal phenomena in ancient and modern times, which you don’t take at face value the way you do many New Testament verses.

(5) The idea that textual purity may not be particularly important in determining whether a book with supernatural claims accurately reflects historic events.

(6) The justification for why the NT verses you gave us ought to be regarded as eyewitness testimony, when on first reading they appear to be only declarative sentences in a story.

That’s off the top of my head. I (perhaps foolishly) frankly believe you when you say you don’t think you’ve avoided inquiry. These are topics you’ve been trained to avoid. I imagine a sense of guilt has been installed in you that jolts you back into more comfortable territory whenever you start to examine the words in your Holy Book the way you would the words in any other piece of literature. You’ve been led to believe that what’s recounted in the pages of apologetics manuals is an any way similar to what actual historians and scientists do. That’s unfortunate. The world, even the world of Biblical scholarship, is so much richer than this.
 

you have attributed and ascribed various ‘immoralities and wrongs to Jesus and his Father.

Yes.
 

When you use this type of language it seems to me that you are invoking some moral standard of what is right and what is wrong.

Yes, because I’m not a sociopath. I know right from wrong. The judgments are derived by purely secular, natural means from simple concepts, like the Golden Rule, fairness, and avoiding doing harm to others. The ultimate origins of my feelings that make me want to act in this way probably lie in the social circumstances that led to certain survival strategies in my mammalian ancestors. (The simple math of how inheritance works—specifically, the fact that I share many genes with my close family members—makes it pretty much inevitable anyway. Look up “kin selection.”)
 

You are using language that posits moral absolutes.

No. Simply making moral judgments does not entail using moral absolutes, any more than preferring a certain ice cream flavor entails using universal ice-cream-flavor absolutes. First, moral “truths” (or aesthetic ones) aren’t out there in the world waiting to be discovered in the same way that the laws of arithmetic or logic are. Instead they reflect our preferences, such as “fairness is a virtue” or “lactose on my tongue feels nice”. (Obviously, some of these preferences are more important and consequential than others.)

Second, I’m open to being convinced that my moral judgments have been invalidly deduced, or that the preferences they rest on are inconsistent or unwise. It’d better be a damned good argument, though, to convince me that eternal torment is a just punishment for anything.
 

You even said in your forum that Jesus is ‘immoral’ (your words, not mine) for commanding that his creatures love him more than his or her own family.

Yes. I imagine you would too, if the word “Jesus” were stricken and replaced with “Muhammad”, “Zoroaster”, or “Our Glorious Leader Kim Jong Il.”

Though we sometimes had a rocky time of it when I was growing up, I love my parents very much. Any preacher, politician, deity, or galactic overlord who tries to force us apart better be prepared to be opposed to the end.

Well for one I am finite and I don’t have time to take every argument and argue for each specifically in detail.

That is totally unrealistic in any debate, ie exhaustive argumentation.

Since Barbarism and Cruelty in the OT, especially the book of Leviticus, was #1 on your list, let’s look at it.

The OT is 39 books long and Leviticus is quite a big book with many chapters.

So why don’t you find a specific event of supposed cruelty and barbarism in the OT and ask me a question?

In philosophy they call that a ‘clear-case example’, which is designed to get the discussion ball rolling.

That might be a little easier than trying to eat the entire massive elephant, which is the OT, in one bite, don’t you think?

Lastly, one question for you, regarding the discussion on hell and eternal torment…

In your opinion, is life in prison with no chance for parole a just societal punishment for moral crimes against another individual, like murder?

No. Simply making moral judgments does not entail using moral absolutes, any more than preferring a certain ice cream flavor entails using universal ice-cream-flavor absolutes. First, moral “truths” (or aesthetic ones) aren’t out there in the world waiting to be discovered in the same way that the laws of arithmetic or logic are. Instead they reflect our preferences, such as “fairness is a virtue” or “lactose on my tongue feels nice”. (Obviously, some of these preferences are more important and consequential than others.)

Moral absolutes reflect our preferences?

“Fairness is a virtue” is not a moral truth per se. This is a neutal statement. This is very vague. What kind of fairness are you talking about? What kind of virtue, good or bad?

Let’s look at a question that is a little more specific and unsettling than “fairness is a virtue”.

Can I torture babies for fun?

Please answer that question according to your understanding of morals.

Well for one I am finite

A greater understatement has not yet been made on this blog.
 

That is totally unrealistic in any debate, ie exhaustive argumentation.

It was six things. Six, not 100. And they were enumerated in that context not to elicit immediate answers for all of them (that’s been tried and failed), but to serve as evidence for the assertion that yes, your faith leads you to “avoid inquiry.”

 
So why don’t you find a specific event of supposed cruelty and barbarism in the OT and ask me a question?

The Flood. The big man killed (almost) everyone. You agree it was just?
 

Moral absolutes

Referential failure. These words point to nothing. I already stated this.
 

Can I torture babies for fun?

I already covered “not harming others” in listing guiding principles of moral behavior. This is not difficult to grasp. But if you need Jesus to tell you not to do this, then for all our sakes, please keep believing in Jesus.

Anyway, us atheists will stick to eating them, thanks.

Moral absolutes:

How can morals be based on preferences alone? The fact the we “shouldn’t harm others” or “torture babies for fun” is not solely preferential. Once again, “harming others” is up for debate, as this could be invoked in self-defense. Sometimes it is right to “harm others” (despite it being my preference), if my baby, for example, is going to be tortured for fun.

The seemingly universal principle that we shouldn’t torture babies for the mere pleasure it brings cannot be invoked solely by preferences. Rather it is in our deepest moral intuitions not to do such a thing. There is no culture, no civilization where torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable.

I don’t know how anyone can argue differently, unless they are a sociopath. This seems to argue strongly for moral intuitions as the basis for moral absolutes.

As far The Flood and the hell and eternal damnation questions, there are 8 points I would like to bring up:

–Hell is an emotional problem for the atheist – Quite simply the argument that most atheists cannot fathom the thought of hell and it being unjust is simply too much emotionally. Nobody ever says, “How could God send all those people to heaven? It’s just not fair or just!”

– The Flood – It can be found it Genesis Chs 6 and 7 One cannot read Genesis Chs 6 and 7 without reading Genesis 1-5. Prior to God instructing Noah to build the ark, mankind has already disobeyed God is thus judged as a sinner. The perfectness of the world which God has created has already been tainted by sin and disease. Cain has already killed his brother Abel, etc. People are doing bad things, and God is angry.

– Man is Already Condemned to Die because of his sin –

To further expand the last point, God is angry because of all of the innocent bloodshed on this earth, ie the universal, moral absolute that it is wrong to murder. Man is simply judged by God to be a “sinner on death-row, with a stay of execution”. Through the flood God withdraws his grace, and simply allows the judgment of sin to actualized.

– Why not me?

Implicit in your accusation against God of being immoral is still a tactic admission that you are OK. Rather than be shocked and awed that God has allowed you to remain alive, you say I have no intrinsic fault or sin. Frankly, when I read these accounts of apparent ‘Biblical Barbarism’, I can only say, “Why not me?”

– What has God done about it?

Enter Jesus Christ. He claimed to God and rose from the dead. He said he paid the price for your sin and mine. If you really want to see ‘barbarism and cruelty’ look at the cross. If you’ve ever seen the movie the Passion of the Christ, you’ll know that crucifixion is and still remains one of the most painful ways to die. The only problem Jesus was without sin. A simple rule to use is: If you are getting old and dying, then you are not reliable. You say I’m dying because of Darwinism, but the Bible speaks of your dying because of sin.

– God is grieved by the flood!

God says in Ezekiel 33:11 – Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die..’

According to the Bible, God is a person. Can you imagine the grief that it must’ve caused him to destroy his planet?

The NT shows Christ weeping over the city of Jerusalem because they rejected him.

– Sovereignity over his creation

God is sovereign and is able to create life and take away life. He owes nothing to nobody. Actually, if the Bible is true and man’s guilt and sin, then the only thing he owes you and me is punishment. Just as you could take a vacation to some tropical Island like Tahiti, and sit in your hotel room and stare at the wall for seven days straight, so too God is king over his dom or dominion.

– Therefore, God is not unjust. You and I are.

Justice is a judicial term. Justice can only be “true justice” if people are held accountable for their crimes. God is a God of Love, but true love demands justice. Are you married and have kids? Imagine a thief breaking in to your house raping your wife, tying up your kids, and stealing all of your stuff. The police find the guy and you go down to the station to testify of what happened. You walk into the police station and say, “Where is he? I want justice.” The police tell you, “Oh we let him go.” You say “What?!?”

The policeman says “Yeah we let him go because we’re a government of love and justice.”

The police, along with the criminal, would then be the ones who were unjust.

I find it very hard to believe that you have never, ever committed a moral crime against another. I don’t know you or where you come from, so I can’t say for sure.

But I’ll tell you this… The Bible says every idle word you speak is being recorded. Every action is being written down.

If there is such a judgment, and I believe there is, God will simply have to open the books and your every deed will be in the court case. If you have never committed a moral crime against another, then you have nothing to worry about.

If not, and you have committed moral crimes, then your in big trouble.

Christ has simply offered to stand in your place now and take the punishment that will be due you on that day.

I for one do not want to neglect such a great salvation.

God is sovereign and is able to create life and take away life. He owes nothing to nobody. Actually, if the Bible is true and man’s guilt and sin, then the only thing he owes you and me is punishment.

To all you newborns out there, I have only this to say: how dare you be born. You mutha f#@&*!$.

Wait–

God is sovereign and is able to create life and take away life. He owes nothing to nobody.

Isn’t that, more or less, the ultimate amoral attitude of the sociopath?

No because the sociopath has no conscience, no emotion, no understanding of morals.

I clearly showed God does, ie he was grieved, moved, commanded and warned them to obey, and has done something about it.

Read my summary in context, rather than pull out the snippet that you want to attack.

Reasontrumps,

Did you seriously just complain that I didn’t respond to your entire message, and then turn around to only respond to half mine?

(RE: God didn’t warn or command the newborns before condemning them to a watery grave–and if you’re about to cite original sin, then it doesn’t matter how bad the adults were or weren’t if a baby can be righteously condemned to death just for sin by default. In that case we’re all screwed and no matter good we are God can continually flood and punish us for all eternity, and it is moral.)

Anyway. Hypocrite. And that’s not an ad hominem attack, just an observation.

On another note, why all this need to establish God as sympathetic? If it’s an omnipotent, omniscient being, it’s silly to say he is slave to emotion, the flawed mechanism he designed for us to be able to see morality in more than a 2-D list of “good” and “bad”, but rather a 3-D, in-stereo system shock that forms the physical pull of the temptations for our desires, both good and bad, and the regret or satisfaction of the consequences of our actions. It is this pull that we temper with reason to make our daily decisions.

God had to create emotions, right? So why is he subject to them? Or is he just dipping into our psyches for the fun of it?

And before you say he created us in his own image–well, yes, but that still doesn’t explain how there is anything God doesn’t choose to do. He would’ve had to choose to experience grief, and grief is by definition an involuntary action.

Where did I ever argue that all babies or newborns did anything wrong?

I never said such a thing, so I bear no burden of proof to defend such a statement. I have said nothing about ‘original sin’.

While original sin may be possible, I’m not convinced that this is the best argument.

I would say rather, because of the disobedience of various individuals who knew right from wrong (adults who live in the age of accountability), there was a judgment of The Flood.

This ‘collateral damage’ is seen in various wars like World War II, where I am sure there were many German babies who perished as a result of an Allied bombing. Were the Americans or Britains evil in what they did?
Of course not.

It IS an ad hominem attack because you haven’t showed that logically I am a hypocrite. Frankly, hypocrite is kind of a weird name to call me in the context of trying to expose a logical fallacy.

Aren’t hypocrites those who say one thing and do another, like those who say stealing is wrong, but then turn around and steal?

An ad hominem attack means “to the man”. Calling me a hypocrite adds nothing of value to your argument.

Lastly, God has said that in the end the books of justice will be balanced. Therefore God can physically resurrect that baby who perished in the flood to have everlasting, eternal life with Him in heaven.

All of the crooked paths will be made straight, meaning He will be the righteous judge to bring about the proper vindication of His people.

I called you a hypocrite because you accused me of not addressing the rest of your argument, and then you went and ignored half my argument.

You’re right, it had nothing to do with my argument, which is why it IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM. It was not part of my argument, which I made clear. You copypasta’ed from Chad’s post I see, but you obviously misunderstood it.

I was calling you out for selectively responding, which is what you’ve done again here. You again ignored the latter half of my post–how God can experience an involuntary emotion like grief when he is all-powerful, and why he would be subject to human emotions.

And I’ve got nothing to say to your response about original sin and newborns. You made it okay for God to kill newborns as collateral damage. A God who, because of his omnipotence, has the power to only punish the wicked. It’s not like God’s facing gather force that could actually take over his universe (like we faced Nazis taking over the world).

Look, if God isn’t powerful enough to be a true moral authority and act kindly and just, then he’s not all-powerful, or he’s chosen to take actions that we can argue are flat immoral.

You can make excuses all you want but the fact is your God resembles a jealous tyrant.

Copy pastae’d from Chad’s post I see…

What in the world are you talking about? I don’t even understand your language. Who the heck is Chad?

So tell me something…as a finite individual sitting here in the 21st century.. how would you have handled it?

Better yet, tell me how God should have handled it?

Do you have any proof to show to show counterfactually that your way would have turned out any more productive?

Have you ever considered that God doesn’t mettle in people’s affairs? If he was a mettler and zapped them like some Star Wars movie, then he could possibly interrupt people’s freewill, libertarian choices? Where would the dignity and respect be in a God like that?

I can hear the outcry now. “God has made us a bunch of robots, we have no choices of our own. He has taken over our minds. It’s just not fair or just.”

You cannot have it both ways.

He’s not a mettler. He has allowed you to make choices and not interrupt your libertarian freewill.

Your last comment is just plain absurd. I have not made excuses. I have made arguments.

Last comment…

I never argued that he has human emotions or human grief or involuntary emotions. I am speaking anthropomorphically, not literally.

Example- The Bible speaks anthropomorphically in saying ‘God’s right hand created such and such’.

The Bible is not claiming God literally has a right hand, but rather it is using a human characteristic to speak of an attribute of God in order to help the reader better understand.

God is a person, not a human. There is a big difference. He is a person in that he has will and volition, not that he is literally 6′6″ with a full head of hair.

God doesn’t have a body, He is a Spirit. Once again a big difference.

You are mistakenly and habitually reading and placing words into my dialogue.

This putting words in my mouth that I didn’t speak is just plain wrong. For the edification of the readers on the blog, I would much rather you ignore my posts than assigning me words of which I have not spoken.

So why don’t you find a specific event of supposed cruelty and barbarism in the OT and ask me a question?

You’re joking right? Please tell me you’re joking. Have you actually read the thing? If you’ve read the entire Old Testament and truly can’t find a single thing that could be classified as ‘cruelty and barbarism’, I’m pretty sure you’re going to Hell when you die. Sorry to break it to you.

Can I torture babies for fun?

Well, I don’t know if you can, but the bible seems to endorse it.

Psalm 137:7 “Remember, O Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”

Psalm 137:8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

BTW, this is from the Old Testament.

Reasontrumps,

You do not get to claim that God grieved over the flood and then claim I’m putting words in your mouth when I point out that doesn’t make any sense.

Have you ever considered that God doesn’t mettle in people’s affairs? If he was a mettler and zapped them like some Star Wars movie, then he could possibly interrupt people’s freewill, libertarian choices? Where would the dignity and respect be in a God like that?

But God did mettle in human affairs. We were talking about the flood that killed off 99% of humanity, for all sakes! That’s about as zappy as you can get before the invention of lasers! C’mon, man!

BTW, a couple of idiotic notions I have to point out. If I were a robot, I could not cry something unjust. So that was pretty silly. Second, libertarianism does not own the notion of free will, so your modifier is unnecessary.

I’m sorry about the confusion–Chad is Butter, and you copied a direct sentence from his post on logical fallacies. Not plagiarism, just something I found funny.

Copypasta is an internet meme short for copy/paste. Sorry ’bout that. It does involve a few other things.

Finally, the literal vs. metaphor thing is silly because how do you experience an emotion metaphorically? God expressing grief was a point you made for us to sympathize with him and give him moral credit. He either has emotion or doesn’t, there is no metaphor for that.

I did not put words in your mouth, you just don’t understand the logical conclusions of the arguments you make. Or you don’t care. Or I’m wrong, I suppose, but I haven’t been shown that. (After the false dichotomy reminder from Butter I keep having to delete the “either” “or” parts of my arguments, even if there’s an argument for a dichotomy to be made.)

I wouldn’t worry about the “edification” of your comments; I’m sure you’ve done much more damage to your position with your own words.

As for how I would’ve done things differently were I God; well, I would’ve started by not killing off the planet. I can’t say for sure that would’ve put us better off, but I’d be willing to give it a try.

The second set of italics in that post shouldn’t be there, I meant only to italicize “did”. Oops. Is there an edit comment function?

Dave:

IM IN UR POSTS, CLOSIN UR TAGS

 
I’m sorry about the confusion–Chad is Butter, and you copied a direct sentence from his post on logical fallacies. Not plagiarism, just something I found funny.

Nice goin’, Commissioner Gordon; just put my signature on the Goose Signal, why dontcha? ;-p

ReasonTrumps,

Don’t be exhaustive.. but please show me one or two counterexamples where the syllogism (rendered by William Lane Craig, in the Kalam Cosmological Argument) of Big Bang Cosmology and a logical first cause of the origin of the universe has ‘failed every time’.

1. Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

This is a tired, old argument. If you have not found a refutation of it, I suspect you are new to the Internet or are willfully blind. Here are a few reasons it doesn’t hold:

1) You are stopping your ‘First Mover’ argument at an arbitrary point. I could continue it. (God exists, therefore, he must have been created by an uber-god. That uber-god was created from an unwanted pregnancy after the Norse gods gang-raped Mrs. Claus. And, you’re going to Hell because you’re worshiping the wrong god.)

2) Or I could stop it one step short. Instead of saying ‘God existed and He created the universe.’, I could say ‘The universe exists (in whatever state I choose); no gods were necessary.’ Both cases are exactly logically equivalent in the sense that I am simply asserting that something exists. You should note that, except for the exclusion of gods, this is the argument that Young Earth Creationists use. e.g. Light from a star billions of light-years away was pre-formed and didn’t originate from the star, itself.

3) Even if a super-powerful force did create the universe, you still have to show that the super-powerful force is the Christian God. And that the Christian God authored/inspired the bible *and* that no other texts exist which might modify or nullify the bible. (Many Christians claim that when Jesus arrived, he brought a new covenant which nullified the rules laid down by God in the Old Testament. Or some such nonsense. So we must be sure that there are no undiscovered texts that nullify the New Testament.)

Thank you, Butter. I for one welcome our blog overlords.

Once again..looking at the Genesis account, God is not a mettler.

His judgment came after the disobedience, much like the police arresting the man who committed the crime of bank robbery.

If God is all-knowing, then it follows that He knew prior to the disobedience that they would disobey. Therefore it then follows that He permitted them to disobey, and once the disobedience happened he then acted ‘on that day’ to judge, never tampering with their freewill choices.

He then even went the next step and warned the people to stop disobeying by giving them evidence and proof of the coming judgment, thru Noah building a big boat.

Therefore there is no logical proof that he destroyed their individual freewill by zapping their minds to obey him or disobey him. This is what is meant by mettling.

So God did try not to kill of the planet (as you stated), but rather gave the people plenty of warnings and evidence to obey. But once again, as stated above, God judged.

You still have not shown what is so immoral about this.

You definitely have not shown that your finite counterfactuals would’ve made it any better or worse.

One last point.. God didn’t kill off the entire planet.

He saved Noah, his wife, and his children, as well as many animals. I guess you and I should be thankful that God saved a small remnant of people and animals, because if he didn’t, then you and I wouldn’t even be here.

Time and time again the god of the old testament is said to have hardened the hearts of men. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the exodus myth by god directly led to the suffering of the Egyptian people and the death of what was likely at least hundreds of thousands of children.

According to the myth the Pharaoh was ready to send the Jews on their way many times, but each time his heart was hardened BY GOD leading to more suffering. This from a god that in numerous places endorses slavery, I guess it’s only ok when it’s not his people…

He also endorses genocide and mass rape, and considers men who give their daughters up to be gang raped or offered as a burnt offering to be righteous. Forgive me if i don’t find that to be a being deserving of worship.

Stupidity (going back to your name from your first post, i have a hard time attributing the name reason to you…),

I’d like to comment on your “Trilemma” argument earlier. This argument rests on the supposition that the biblical Jesus was either A) a liar, B) Insane, or C) god…. Unfortunately this leaves out two even more probably options D) the biblical Jesus never existed, or E) the biblical Jesus was one of many eschatological ‘prophets’ during those days, who’s tale was exaggerated by those who followed after him.

I tend to think that E is slightly more likely than D and both are substantially more viable than A, B, and C… While a historical Jesus is not necessary for the religion of christianity to have formed it is slightly more likely that a religion would form around a charismatic leader who’s claims and actions would be exaggerated as time passes. It’s important to note here that according to the best accounts we have found the earliest gospels were written around 70AD, decades after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion and resurrection. These accounts are also contradictory in numerous places, then you have Paul come along and change the whole thing around again. If you read closely and pay attention it’s like there are two very different religions, the religion of the gospel writers (which btw, there is no evidence which can reasonably attribute them to the persons name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and based on the language and descriptive terms it’s unlikely that they were even written by those who followed Jesus while he taught) and the religion of Paul.

The most likely scenario here is that yes a rabbi named Jesus walked the earth, he taught what were common teachings at the time (most of the moral teachings attributed to Jesus can be found in earlier rabbinical writings), and for some reason or other later writers chose to deify him.

Oh, and don’t forget… your car is an affront to god! The engineering that made your car relied on the notation pi and that it equated to 3.14159 (continuing on…) whereas in the Old Testament it is clearly shown that pi is an even 3! (never mind that earlier cultures had already found pi to 3.14)…. Ergo your car stands in abject defiance of Gods word and must be the work of the devil!

And if you’re the literal bible type… According to literal creationists the world is somewhere between 6000 and 8000 years old… Yes boys and girls that means that God created the universe AFTER the Sumerians invented glue…. (not to mention the evidence that Homo neanderthalensis had discovered how to use a derivative of birch bark as an adhesive as early as 80,000 years ago…)

Another point… does it show I’m catching up to the discussion?? lol

You said that the bible speaks anthropomorphically about gods physical body, however a close reading of the old testament and an understanding of the original language shows that the early writers clearly thought that god DID have a physical body, it’s only in later writings after the Jewish culture had been exposed to other schools of thought that god became more of a disembodied spiritual being.

Should i consider it sad that I know more about your holy book than you do??

Joel-

Regarding the Exodus account one only has to read the account of Pharoah to understand the hardening of heart issue. A valid question, but is easily cleared up in the text.

This is why we never read a Bible verse. Reading in context is one the first rules of hermeneutics. Anyone can take one verse out of its context and make God look foolish.

Unfortunately, you are about to look the foolish one. Let me explain…

According to the account, there are 10 plagues total.

Prior to each plague God instructs Moses to say “let my people go.” After Pharaoh says “No” the first time, what does the text say?

Exodus 7:10-13 then says: 13 Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

This goes on 9 more times. Moses says “Let my people go”. Pharaoh says “No”. The text then goes on to say Pharaoh hardened his own heart and then another evidential sign to stop the foolishness (frogs, gnats, cattle, boils, hail, etc.)

Finally, after the last plague, God sends the plague of the firstborn, the Passover, and Pharaoh finally lets the people go.

Then what happens next… Pharaoh, after having time to think about it more, then hitches up his chariots and goes after the Israelites one last time, but is proved unsuccessful at the edge of the Red Sea. His last act of disobedience proves to be disastrous as his entire army is drowned in the Sea.

Simply reading the text shows you that Pharaoh hardened his own heart not once, but 10 times!! God was only responsible for giving Pharaoh what he himself wanted, a hardened heart.

As far as your last comment about rape and burnt offerings you haven’t provided a proof source as to which text you are talking about, so I will punt.

I would suggest you go back and read the account to see if what I am telling you is true.

Disclaimer – I’m an ex-Catholic, so the Bible naturally isn’t my bread and butter.

However, what I do understand is context, which, ironically reasontrumps has touted only to ignore it himself. The verses you quoted:

Exodus 7:10-13 then says: 13 Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

are preceded by the following:

1Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.

Continuing, and this is the important part –

3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.

In between this important quote and yours, there is nothing that negates…

Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”

6 Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD commanded them. 7 Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three when they spoke to Pharaoh.
Aaron’s Staff Becomes a Snake
8 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9 “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Perform a miracle,’ then say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,’ and it will become a snake.”

10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.

“I will harden” is undeniably quite different from, “He wants his heart to harden, so I will just give him what he wants.” I don’t see where the Pharoah’s heart-hardening desires were discussed. You may enlighten me.

Thank you Michael for saving me having to make that point myself, you also made it clear exactly who was reading out of context…

As to offering your child as a burnt offering… I hate having to look up verse numbers… I never can remember where i dropped my bible last…. Judges 11:30,31 and 11:34-39. Jephthah promised god that if he were granted victory in battle he would sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house to greet him, it was his daughter, ergo he sacrificed her as a burnt offering. The text is clear on what happened and the original language supports a literal physical sacrifice of a girl probably in her early teens based on an understanding of the culture at the time. An all powerful deity could have made a chicken run out of the house first, but it was the daughter, and instead of releasing Jephthah from his vow the lord sat idly by as a young girl was murdered in his name… Great morality there! Oh, and let’s not forget that from earlier in the chapter we know that Jephthah didn’t want to win this fight for any noble purpose, but because the brothers who had cast him out promised that he could rule over them if he secured them a victory… Amazing moral example that man… *rolls eyes*

Here’s how god deals with the Israelite conquests…

Deuteronomy 20:10-16

If they go to attack a city that isn’t part of “the nations the Lord your God is giving you” they should make an offer of ‘peace’, peace here means that if they don’t want to die they have to become the Israelis slaves. If they don’t accept the offer of slavery, then all the men in it are to be put to the sword, the women and children can be taken as plunder (aka slaves and concubines).

It’s a little harsher for the cities in the nations meant for Israel’s inheritance. “do not leave alive anything that breathes” is the command for them… Last time i checked that was called Genocide, and the only crime recorded for these people was being in gods way…

Also consider the etiquette for marrying a captive woman spelled out in Deut. 21:10-14… If you notice a beautiful woman among the captives, you may take her as your wife. Take her home, make her shave her head and trim her nails (huh?). Give her a month to mourn her family, then you can take her into your bed, then if you’re not pleased with her you can just throw her out. On the upside god does say that you can’t make her a slave after you rape her…

Joshua 6:21 Genocide

Joshua 7:24-25 A man’s entire family, and his possessions were stoned and burned because he grabbed some loot from that fight… Why were his sons and daughters killed too? Why was that necessary to appease the lords anger? oh yeah, in the next fight it’s fine if they keep the loot too… sucks for the guy who looted a battle early right?

Joshua 8:25-27 12000 men and women killed, all the people (i guess they didn’t take the children into the account of the number… I wonder how many babies died that day…) but they spared the livestock and plunder at least… Such a merciful god…

Joshua 10:28,29,32,34,37,39 Each verse recounts another Genocide

Joshua 11:19-20 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wave war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses. Not only did god command genocide, but he made sure that it would happen by hardening the hearts of the people so they wouldn’t seek peace… this is a being deserving worship???

All the barbarity of this wretched book is giving me a headache and heartache… I’m done citing the blood and violence that your worldview is founded upon…

hmm…. I ended my italics wrong… they should have ended right after “as the lord had commanded Moses.”

Michael B-

So what God says “I will harden Pharoah’s heart” before the rest of the text.

God is all-knowing. Part of being all-knowing, entails what is called divine foreknowledge. Moses, as a prophet, is speaking accurately because God did harden Pharaoh’s heart, but only after Pharaoh hardened his own heart, which is obvious from the text.

There is nothing in the text to demonstrate that God or Moses tampered with his freewill choices.

Lastly Moses penned Exodus much later than when the events occured. It’s not like he was sitting down on his MacIntosh or iPhone recording the events as they occured.

I’m pretty confident Moses penned the Pentateuch (the 1st five books of the OT) after the event at Kadesh and before Joshua and Caleb took the Israelites into the Promised Land.

So your counterpoint of chronology is really a non-issue. This divine foreknowledge and prophecy is rampant throughout both the OT and NT. See Jesus predicting the betrayal by Peter, etc.

Reasontrumps,

You’re missing the main point concerning god wiping out all of humanity (minus Noah and fam), god bringing plagues upon civilizations, genocide, sacrifice, scape-goating, slavery and all other acts deemed horrendous by today’s standards. The point is that a god that knowingly and willingly tortures and murders his creations is sadistic- no matter what excuse you use to rationalize his actions.

Haven’t you ever heard a father exclaim to his son “I brought you in to this world and I can take you out”? This is usually said in jest, but if he were to actually “take out” his son, he would be tried for murder and removed from society or even be put to death himself. Obviously, giving life to his son does not entitle him to end his son’s life.

God is no different. In fact, it is completely unforgivable considering he set the standards with the decalogues and bible, which he then refuses to follow himself. He is not exempt from judgment, and he has been found guilty of breaking his own commandments.

No matter how many circles you must run around in to rationalize your Monster, there really is no excuse to look up to him, let alone dedicate your one and only life to him. All this makes me glad he’s only a figment of our collective imaginations.

What you call divine foreknowledge I call putting your slant on what happened after the fact :p

Revisionist history ftl…

Especially when you consider the remarkable lack of evidence that the Jews were ever in captivity in Egypt, or that they wandered the desert for 40 years… Archeology even shows the book of Joshua to be an abject falsehood as the cities of Canaan clearly did not fall to conquest…

Bible = Epic Fail

So what God says “I will harden Pharoah’s heart” before the rest of the text.

God is all-knowing. Part of being all-knowing, entails what is called divine foreknowledge. Moses, as a prophet, is speaking accurately because God did harden Pharaoh’s heart, but only after Pharaoh hardened his own heart, which is obvious from the text.

Seriously.

Michael, I’ve actually heard much more convoluted arguments, one especially amusing one was an effort to explain away the sacrifice of Jephthahs daughter by using the English version of the bible to claim that the phrase “as a burnt offering” was a metaphor due to the word ‘as’… I got to break out the concordance to school him lol… If there’s one thing being ‘educated’ at a christian high school taught me, it’s how to research the bible lul…

Thanks Joel. Actually, that “Seriously” was half-directed at me personally. I washed my handsof this over a week ago, then I just had to jump back in today, as if suddenly this guy/gal was gonna start being reasonable. Damn you, oversized ego! *shakes fists*

LMAO, I myself have a tendency to feed the trolls… I choose to look at it as an opportunity to strengthen my arguments and educate myself in how to better counter the myriad arguments presented by the religious. By feeding the trolls and using them to hone my ability to argue these points, it will leave me better prepared to make the best case possible when i meet someone who’s in a similar place to where I was not long ago, willing to listen and seeking truth in the arguments for and against religion. When discussing these topics with someone like that, we truly do have the stronger case in all branches of argument.

However when you’re dealing with someone enslaved to dogma who thinks that the argument “God said it so it must be right” can cover a multitude of atrocities, fallacious information, and specious arguments, well in that case you’ll never get your point across because they’ll never be willing to truly listen to it…

I choose to take heart even when arguing with someone like this fellow though, even John Loftus, Dan Barker, and myself once believed that there was good evidence for the god of christianity. It took that moment when our minds finally opened to critically evaluating the cases for and against said deity for the arguments to finally start to hit home…

It took me 26 years to be open to the possiblity that I had been indoctrinated with lies and myths from childhood… Others take less time, and some take more. However I never lose hope for anyone because all humans are capable of rational and critical thought regardless of whether or not they ever exercise it.

Good points and well said, Joel.

Did i scare off the troll?? *peeks under the bridge*

Did i scare off the troll??

It’s hard to say. Maybe the admins blocked him/her. Maybe he gave up or lost interest. Maybe, after all the excellent points that other posters made, he finally saw the light. (I can dream, can’t I?)

Whatever the case, I found the responses to the troll’s posts to be informative and entertaining, so the troll gets a smidgen of thanks from me for that.