51. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110038 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 11:10 am

Steve, you have asked me on another thread what I believe to be the core of Christian morality. I could not possibly summarise it better than Jesus himself did when he was asked a similar question.

"Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbour as yourself".

52. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109980 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 8:24 am

Steve, remind me of what the questions were and I'll do my best.

53. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109960 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 7:08 am

"Prof. Dawkins's enthusiasm is infectious."

Indeed! He is an atheist meme machine!

54. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109859 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 12:41 am

Says it all really. That's about the level that we're dealing with. Next thing we know there'll be Benny Hinn style atheist tele-evangelists. Though Dawkins and Hitchens are doing pretty nicely in that role already!

55. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108916 by ADH on January 8, 2008 at 12:24 am

"Last but not least, the fact that God corresponds so perfectly to our wishes that there is every reason to think he was invented to fulfill them, at least in fantasy; this makes religion an illusion in the Freudian sense of the term."

Maybe this could equally well be said of aheism. How many people become atheists because they DON'T WANT there to be a God. Christopher Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist rather than as a theist. He was driven to disbelief not because of evidence for God's non-existence, but because he did not like that he sees theism to involve believing in. Could this not also be a kind of "wishful thinking"? The same was true of CS Lewis before he was converted. He did not like the idea of a God who insisted on "interfering" with his own life plan, and became a theist on the strength of the evidence and very much "in the teeth of" his own deep-seated inclinations.

Many of you have described the sense of relief that atheism has brought you (à la Julien Huxley). This is perfectly comprehensible. It's an experience that could be likened to the image of a little boat being towed towards safety through very stormy seas. The crew on board the little boat would very much prefer to be in control of their own destinies and resent the fact that they are subject to the course being charted by the steamer. One of them takes a knife and cuts the rope. The sense of relief is enormous as they are set adrift. They cheerfully take the oars and start rowing. They are still rowing cheerfully when a gust of wind drives them against the rocks.

56. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108909 by ADH on January 8, 2008 at 12:04 am

Welcome on board PlagioChase. I was beginning to feel a bit lonely here!

57. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108658 by ADH on January 7, 2008 at 11:50 am

Thank you for that video link Brian. I agree with it 100%!

58. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108352 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Mark I am honestly not sure how open you are. In any case I'm going to be pretty busy from tomorrow on, so I might not have time for much interaction on this thread. I'm not crying off by the way. But I start work again tomorrow after the Christmas break. So if I appear to go silent for a while, that is the reason. I will be back though

59. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108346 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Seamus, you all expect me to believe that atheism is not a belief-system and is simply a condition of not believing in God, yet with the growing number of "atheist traits" you are coming up with what amounts to a creed.

60. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108343 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:18 pm

"Please everyone, don't waste so much time with ADH or any other Christian trolls. This "one-at-a-time approach" is spoiling my chances of seeing an atheist planet Earth in my lifetime, and this is very disappointing."

What would your preferred method be? Stick 'em all together in an ideological gas-chamber?

61. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108342 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm

"What's your problem or point?"

Go figure!

62. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108340 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"which are denied to us if we are theist daydreamers."


When I read post like the last one by Seamus reason I can't help wondering WHO is daydreaming!

63. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108337 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Reverend Dark, as it happens I have read quite a few Greek tragedies. The Gospel account of the crucifixion, I can assure you, reads very differently.

It is similar in the sense of the tragic inevitability I suppose. But in that sense it maybe reas¡ds more like a (then unknown) 19th century novel - realistic detail, fleshed out characters, conspiracy, inner conflict within the protagonist, the irony resulting from the protagonist knowing what the other characters do not (even his closest associates). But as I say, that was agenre that was unknown (as fiction) to writers in the first century. It makes more sense to believe that they were simply recording what they saw and experienced.

64. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108332 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Reply to Seamus Reason:

"7. Atheism helps us to see reality as it actually is, without the mental filters of superstition preventing us from directly experiencing it.

8. Atheism shows us that we can gain meaning by seeking to make our world a better place, for ourselves and our posterity.

9. Atheism teaches us to treasure this moment, this life, and this world — because we realize that it's all we have."

And then you would have us believe that atheism is only non-belief in God! That's a pretty big part for a non-belief to play!

65. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108328 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Mark, I "bailed out" as you put it because Albondigas was doing a fine job. I agreed with everything he said. There was no point in me repeating it. As regards the historical reliability of the Gospels, I could point you to a number of sources. All I want you to realise is that there is a lot of very serious historical scholarship which supports their reliability. But I know your mind is made up, so any evidence I could produce would make little impression on it.

66. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108324 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm

I wasn't referring to you peacebeuponme. I was referring to a request for more theist opinions just so as to keep people (one particular person) amused. That's nto why I join in these debates. Humour is fine, and I enjoy it a great deal. But this is a serious business. This is not a "let's bait the theist" circus-act. For many of you a theist is akin to a "village idiot". He or she is there just to be made sport of. I am as keen on serious debate, and even on banter and light-hearted repartee as any of you. But I'm not going to be involved in any debate on those terms.

67. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108315 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I will make a concession of sorts. Or rather it is a hypothesis which is consistent with Christian revelation. If reasoning faculties are present in animals maybe God has in some way been able to reach out to them in proportion to their capacity to perceive Him/Her (for want of a better pronoun). THe Bible is God's Word to humankind. Maybe other creatures are capable in their own way of receiving knowledge/expeience of the Divine. If so that "message" will be just as impenetrable to us, just as inscrutable as God's word to us is from their point of view. In any case I agree that cruelty to animals is wrong, absolutely wrong, whatever their status as creatures. I am also committed to the belief that humans are unique as God's image-bearers. But (other) animals may in some way participate in this - in ways that we cannot understand as things are now. Animals in the New Creation will probably interact with human beings in much more fascinating ways than at present.

68. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108303 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Paula, thank you for at least engaging with the points I have been making rather than just rubbishing them as some others have done. We are just going to have to agree to differ. I respect your opinion, though I do not agree with it. (You would hardly expect me to!). My opinion is that what animals display is not morality, as morality requires reason and both self and other-consciousness. You will not accept this view of course. I don't expect you to. Non-human species display some impressive cognitive abilities, and some amazing group dynamics and even some kind of emotion. I believe this does not amount to a moral sense. But we can leave it there. As I said I don't expect to be able to convince you.

Goldy, I will not engage in debate on this site for your or anyone's entertainment.

69. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108259 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 10:49 am

"Where is Henri Bergson when you need him (not that you do very often). My readings of Nietzsche are limited, but isn't this really what he was talking about when he accused Christians of having a "slave mentality"?"

Bergson was the epitome of wishful thinking which might have been impressive before WWI, but not very impressive thereafter.

As for Nietzsche. Yes he did say that about Christianity. So did Hitler. Neither of them had much admiration for a Christ who would let himself be crucified. Hitler's ambitions (in thrall to Nietzsche??) lay rather in the creation of a super-race, which would transcend good and evil and pour scorn on the weak. Not a very good recipe for the kind of compassionate, caring society that many of you (rightly) seem to aspire towards!

70. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108253 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 10:15 am

"I'll stick with Cthulhu, thanks, he's much more comforting."

Best of luck to you

71. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108236 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 9:45 am

Peacebeuponme, what would you say to the girl if she were your daughter? How would you console her?

72. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108235 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 9:43 am

"If you believe that to be true, your ideas about God are in serious trouble, as these all contradict each other; you will get no coherent message about what God is, or what He/She/It/They want(s)."

Not so, Steve. Paul outlines this in his letter to the Romans. He holds everyone everywhere responsible in so far as what He has created bears witness to His existence, and the presence of a moral conscience in everyone is a manifestation of the overarching moral order of which they are a part. The detail will vary from individual to individual. But these constitute the common core.

You will point out no doubt that different cultures have different codes. But the degree of consensus is actually much more astonishing than the degree of difference. And in every culture (including our own supposedly Christian culture) blatant violations of the moral order (Aquinas' Natural Law) can become encrusted into custom and can end up being accepted due to consensus, with hardly a murmer from our conscience. As Hamlet said: "conscience doth make fools of us all".

73. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108228 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 9:29 am

Peacebeuponme, I must say that I am with Francis Collins in that one. It is not a useless benefit. As for God permitting rape and murder, you say that a benevolent God would stop it. How? By suddenly making the aggressor impotent, by setting up a force-field, by turning bullets to butter before they hit their target? How does that stop evil? It does nothing about the evil intention on the part of the aggressor. That is something that God WILL do something about. He will judge every rape, every act of aggression. You might say that is cold comfort for the victim. There is also hope for the victim who cn see their suffering as having been permitted by a God whose ultimate purposes are for GOOD. One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.

74. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108221 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 9:18 am

Ian, the story of Jesus is our story. That is the one we have access to. That is how God has chosen to bring about the redemption of those who fall within its scope. As regards those who do not, I cannot answer that question because I am not one of them. God will have had his means of revealing himseld to the Innuit, the subjects of ancient Eastern, Persian, Roman and Greek rulers and emperors. He will also have had his own way of revealing himself to any other beings he might have created in his image in any other galaxy or universe. The story of the Incarnation is simply the one that we have to deal with.

75. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108217 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 9:09 am

Steve, I'm not saying that everything possible should not be done to alleviate suffering. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE MUST BE DONE. If what Hitchens says about Mother Teresa is true (which I doubt) I share his contempt. The Good Samaritan did not comfort the victim of the mugging by telling him to take comfort, in the midst of his suffering, in God's higher purposes. (and neither did Mother Teresa by the way). He healed his wounds and then saw to it that he was properly looked after. One thing does not rule out the other. We should do everything we cn - medically, technologically, politically, infrastructurally, to aleviate suffering and eradicate injustice. But when we have done all this we will not necessarily have removed the suffering. And even if we succeed, there will have been suffering prior to success. That suffering can prove redemptive. Have you read "War and Peace"? Tolstoy there portrays unspeakable suffering which, in some cases, yields positive results in certain characters which would not have occurred otherwise. He portrays suffering redemptively. So does George Elliot, T.S Elliot - and many others besides. I don't understand why you should have so much trouble with that.

76. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108207 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 8:52 am

"The problem for anyone who believes this is we first need to figure out what the bible makes it out to mean. For some it means "everyone even vaguely good gets a reward of some kind", and for others it means "Anyone who does not follow my rules is condemned to hell, so I need to impose my rules on others." "

Steve, you don't understand. It's not a matter of following rules. The best rule-keepers in the Gospels were the Pharisees, but it was for them that Jesus reserved his most stinging condemnation. God's rule-keepers were, by their perception of their own "virtue", placing themselves beyond the reach of God's intention to heal them, to flood their lives with His resorative love and forgiveness. Our problem is not about not keeping rules. It is about setting up obstacles in our minds (or "hearts" as the Bible puts it, referring to the inner recesses of the human psyche) against God's purpose to remake us in accordance with his absolutely GOOD will. The process will not be complete this side of death. The first, and absolutely crucial step is surrender, or submission if you prefer. But salvation is not about getting items ticked off on a checklist. It is a fundamental attitude of the "heart". It is that attitude that the Bible is referring to when it uses the term FAITH as being the key that unlocks the door. Likewise, "faith" is not about ticking off items on a list of things that have to be believed.

77. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108193 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 8:18 am

I would like to be able to answer all your questions one by one. In the presence of pain, the last thing anyone needs, in any case, is a pat answer. Job's comforters/"friends" were experts at delivering pat answers, and they got it hopelessly wrong. Yes, for some reason, God does allow people to endure sometimes the most unbearable suffering imaginable. Moreover, comedic "poetic justice" is usually conspicuous by its absence.

I would just like to say a few things about this though which I think have been overlooked in some of the putative "answers" that you have attributed, with a generous dose of caricature and parody, to Christians.

As has been hinted at (though in parodying mood), a God who inflicts suffering for the sake of causing his creatures to suffer is very different from a God who causes/permits suffering with a view to bringing about benefits for the sufferer at another, deeper, level. Of course, in the contingent, chaotic world in which we live, it is sometimes impossible to discern any reason for the suffering that is being endured: it's just a messy tangle of events, unbelevable bad luck, meaningless randomness where nature takes its course ineluctably, whether or not set in motion by human malice. An illustration that I have found helpful is that of a picture being embroidered on the surface of a cloth. From our perspective, underneath the cloth so to speak, all there is is a tangle of threads. We have no access (yet) to the picture that is emerging on the other side. I realise that this metaphor is problematic in some ways. All analogies are to some extent.

Another thing that needs saying is that assuming the absence of God, there is not only a PERCEPTION of meaninglessness, but the unmitigated reality of ultimate meaninglessness. Suffering leads to despair, in the long term. There is no one there who is allowing contingency to prevail temporarily, but whose ultimate purpose is benevolent. The best we can hope for is (as the bleakly funny film "Death at a Funeral" put it, is to scrabble together some fragments of meaning on this spinning ball of shit" (sorry if that's not quite accurate - I'm translating from memory). If the resurrection of Christ happened, and if it means what the Bible makes it out to mean, then whatever gets thrown at us on this "ball of shit", pain and despair will not have the last word. That resonates with me. And I'm actually sure that it would with many of you if you allowed the odd chink to open up in your armour of fidephobic prejudice.

But setting aside theological considerations for a moment, I'm sure that mose of you will realise that even from a humanistic viewpoint, suffering is not an unmitigated catastrophe. Take the experience of King Lear. How moving are his words uttered from the prison-cum-fortress of his insanity: a vulnerable human, king though he was, shaken to the core by the unspeakable evil wreaked by his own daughters. He achieves, at the end, though broken by his pain, a depth of wisdom that would have been inconceivable in the foolish Lear that we meet at the opening of the play. You will also concede that, though it might seem cold comfort to the victims of seemingly meaningless suffering, but it is also tru that some of the greatest art, poetry and music is born out of suffering. Maybe, of course, you feel that the price is too great.

But I am not a humanist. I am a Christian. I believe that suffering does not only give us great art. I believe that it can also be redemptive. And I also believe that, in the light of the Incarnation, "God is with us" (Emanuel) in the midst of our suffering. He suffers with suffering humanity and will, because the Resurrection happened, carry suffering humanity (and the rest of nature) through it to the other side. As Tolkein put is - katastrophe has become eukatasrophe.

78. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108072 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:07 am

"There are many arguments against what you say...."

I know there are Goldy. And there are many arguments which support it. Are you willing to explore them?

79. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108070 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:04 am

Goldy, I didn't expect you to be convinced :-)

I edited the comment about life originating from inert matter to "the implausibility of life originating SPONTANEOUSLY from inert matter". My other comments stand. As for Horus and Homer, given the quintessential nature of the truth of the Fall and Redemption, it would be surprising if hints of this were not scattered through pagan mythology. They echo the Fall, and they prefigure the Incarnation (echoes before rather than after the event?). Same goes for Mithras, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, Isis, etc.

80. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108063 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 12:45 am

"a reason which is there for all to see, a reason which explains all.
Damn, I sound way too religious"

You're right there Goldy. That is a very religious statement. Be careful what you drink!

81. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108061 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 12:41 am

Two compelling reasons for believing in God:

1. there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible: the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle, the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter (etc.)

2. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation. Most of the contributors on this site are, like Dawkins, "cultural Christians". You are tapping into the reservoir of purpose and meaning established through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Socratic rationalism whose aim was to gain access to the transcendent "Good" beyond nature. Though you will never admit it, purposeful rationalism flies in the face of thoroughgoing acceptance of natural selection.

Two reasons for being a Christian theist:
1. The stunning uniqueness of Jesus Christ as he comes across in the four gospels, the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation. God's life-affirming purposes for nature will prevail, whatever havoc human beings have wreaked or ever will wreak on the planet that they have been made custodians of.

82. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107877 by ADH on January 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I would like to know in what sense "Christianity" has been able to rewrite history


"It started straightaway, with the Gospels and Acts."

In what sense was the record of Acts and th Gospels a "rewriting" of history as opposed to a historical record? If you examine Luke's account you will find that it reflects 1st century Palestine rather well. The detail is meticulous. When you don't happen to like a historical record it's not good enough just to announce that the said account is a "rewriting" of history. You must be able to show that this is the case. You must be able to present documentary or archaelogical evidence of wilful distorion. Where's the evidence? Does this site not pride itself in priorising EVIDENCE over wishful thinking? Let's have some evidence that history has been rewritten by Christianity. Otherwise I might be forced to conclude that the wishful thinking is actually on your side!

83. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107816 by ADH on January 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm

"Once Christianity erased history"

That's quite a claim you're making for Christianity! If it succeeded in erasing it, how could you possibly know that it did? Which history did it erase? Have you got some kind of covert access to this putative history that has been denied to the rest of us? Maybe you could enlighten us! I'm sure there would be quite a lot of money to be made from its publication. Go for it! Of course, maybe you are bluffing and you have no such knowledge, in which case you are not really qualified to make a statement like this.

"That time it recovered because it was kept safe in the middle-east."

What recovered? History? Are you referring to Gnostic documents written from the second century onwards? What is it that gives these documents greater credibility?

I don't want to distract from the topic in hand of course. But I would like to know in what sense "Christianity" has been able to rewrite history - either in the Middle East or elsewhere.

84. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103030 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 8:08 am

I must call it a day chaps (or rather several days). Christmas events tocelebrate, presents to wrap and so on. I'll be back (for an occasional vist) once the festive season has passed.

Happy Christmas!

85. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103028 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 8:05 am

Lobdog, the quote you have provided would have suited my purpose admirably. My case rests.

86. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103026 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 8:01 am

"Perhaps you could remind us of your position on this matter, and why you believe it, if people don't feel that is too boring a thing to ask. Having reviewed your recent posts your main argument seems to be that you believe in dualism, and that atheism is nihilistic and nasty. Neither of these addresses the issue of the existence of God."

Steve, I'd be happy to oblige, but most people here would find it too boring for words. I am a dualist, I believe atheism is nihilistic, but it is not on that basis that I believe in God. What confirms me in my belief in God is the story (allow me to say history, even though I know you do not accept this) of the incarnation, the embodiment of God in Jesus Christ. I do not now want to get into arguments about the historicty of the gospels or their validity as historical documents - that matter has not been settled to your satisfaction, but it has to mine. After accepting the miracle of the incarnation, everything else begins to fit into place. I freely admit of course that there are still huge questions in my mind. "Credo ut intelligam"

87. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103023 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 7:53 am

"I, for my part, acknowledge another precept which says that man must deal the final blow to those whose downfall is destined by God."

For Hitler, destiny was God and God was destiny. That was his creed, not Christianity. He (like Nietzsche) despised the Christian God, supposedly embodied in a weakling who allowed himself to be crucified rather than asserting himself. That was why he came to despise Christianity, having (initially) emraced it or remained within it. His confronation with Christianity, and the religion he saw himself as "incarnating" was not unlike that of imperial Rome. His religion was that of Virgil and the Emperor that Virgil was commissioned by. It was the rewriting of history based on the principle of Aryan supremacy. Needless to say, Christianity, with its Christ who triumphed by being crushed, was a huge obstacle in his way.

88. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103019 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 7:44 am

Response to comment 55 by irate_atheist.

What do you mean when you ask if I agree with it? I agree that if Dahmer repented in his innermost being he was forgiven by God, which is the forgiveness that really matters at the end of the day. There is no wrongdoing which lies beyond the scope of God's forgieveness. The problem is that as, on the morality-from-natural selection principle, "unacceptable" anti-social behaviour on the part of an individual is due to some kind of genetic misfiring and is therefore not culpable. As it is not culpable, it is meaningless to talk about forgiveness. And yest people crave the knowledge of "being forgiven" by those they have wronged. Yet there is nothing for them to do with that craving for forgiveness, in the absense of God. Have you read "Atonement" by Ian McKewan? (a member of your fraternity by the way). It is a marvellous book which articulates movingly and poignantly this need, and this absense. Briony needed to be forgiven, but there was no one to forgive her.

But there is, and that is the whole point of Christmas!

Happy Christmas!

89. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103003 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 6:59 am

" I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.
[Quoted from Hitler's "Table Talks" with Bormann,
in "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" by Allan Bullock.]

This is taken from an atheist website, on which it is admitted that HItler prior to 1935 was sympatheitc towards Christianity (as he understood it) but after 1935 eschewed it virulently and viscerally.

90. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102996 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 6:29 am

Verylee,

A Einstein was not a theist
B Hitler was an atheist

91. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102990 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:53 am

Corylus, just popped in to stir things up a bit. :-)

92. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102989 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:50 am

"And anyone who professes to believe anything so patently absurd in the absence of empirical evidence is either a liar or an idiot."

There they go - almost 50% of the scientific community worldwide written off with a single devastating blow of ananswerable logic from irate_atheist, and 90% of the scientific community prior to the 20th century. Descartes, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, among many others. No matter. On a site like this they are hardly going to be missed are they?

93. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102985 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:33 am

Another flea for you to swipe at without a second thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1681002,00.html

94. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102979 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:16 am

Response to comment 44 by irate_atheist

95. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102976 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:13 am

"Some of the critiques (sic) of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work."

Did I say that? I don't remember. Sorry for my mutilation of the English language.

Anyone who insists, with Dawkins, that Christians must produce empirically verifiable evidence are obviously going to find the arguments of these "fleas" unconvincing. But Dawkins, like most of the rest of you, is trapped in a philosophical time-warp. This Logical Positivism paradigm à la Bertrand Russell has been superseded and is now regarded as old hat by most philosophers. That's why Alvin Plantinga (among others - not all of them Christians) regards Dawkins as a rather mediocre sophomore as regards his philosophical reasoning.

96. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102973 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:02 am

bitbutter, you could try this one:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

97. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #101662 by ADH on December 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I'm not surprised you have trouble with this question. It is actually a dificult question to answer on a materialist premise.

98. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #101658 by ADH on December 20, 2007 at 5:23 pm

"Once you accept monism* and a naturalistic/physicalist/materialist understanding of mind (you can argue about which term you like best, but you are pretty much in the same place with all three)... then the notion of a soul disappears, and with it, God."

I'm sorry but I am sure that I am not alone in seeing that this is a non-sequiter. We Christians are dualists, right. But I posit that ANYONE who really believes in the presence of a "self", a mind which in some way transcends the neurological "electrical discharges" which are the mechanics of the way in which it operates (of course this reasoning, feeling, conscious self expresses itself through these electical discharges, these biochemical impulses), is equally dualistic. Dualism, by the way, is not so simplistic and primitive a position as you might imagine. The "locus" of the self is our brain, which is part of our bodies. But that does not mean that our self can be defined in terms of the biochemical reactions through which it expresses itself. That kind of reductionism, apart from being lethal to human dignity, is (fortunately) unsubstantiated.

99. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #101278 by ADH on December 20, 2007 at 7:11 am

Here's some more youtube for those of you who think the sequence atheism > nihilism > destrucion of human life is not a real one:


Here's another in case the text isn't clear

100. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #101208 by ADH on December 20, 2007 at 5:10 am

I don't see what believers have to be disabused of. Our belief that God exists and the reality of His presence in our lives - comfort in the midst of suffering, hope in the midst of despair, an unshakeable conviction of His love towards us - may amount to knowledge and would be reflected as such on a scan (or at other times another scan made of the same person's brain might show uncertainty). So what? It seems a pretty pointless exercise to me if, as you admit, it cannot show these beliefs and/or knowledge to be delusional. What else can it show? That when we believe or doubt something happens in our brain? Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? If you were in a dark room at night on your own and could "hear" noises, your fear would show up on a scan. But the scan would not tell you anything about the noises. So why bother with the experiment? I must say I'm mystified.