351. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39609 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 9:34 am

SteveN,

Agreed!

352. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39601 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

Elfinabout,

Not to cast aspersions on you, but you would do well to rethink your definition of paedophile (and paedophilia). According to Oxford Concise paedophilia means "sexual desire directed towards children". I know this is not what you mean, according to your post above, but it could certainly be construed that way in accordance with dictionary definition and common usage.

353. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39590 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 8:21 am

SteveN,

Agree - that is why I put sin in quotation marks. It is generally understood that sin has religious connotations, but the Oxford Concise Dictionary also refers to breaking a moral law. Call them transgressions, offences, misdemeanors, rule-breaking, whatever...

But, I'm not sure that we, as a species, would not still feel guilt and require forgiveness, even if there were no religious precepts. If you believe we are capable of moral thought and behavior even without God and religion, couldn't we, wouldn't we, still fell guilt about doing something wrong?

354. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39577 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 7:36 am

Ah, the age old questions – What is the meaning of life? Why are we here and what 's life all about? Hasn't science answered them – isn't the purpose simply to propagate our species. So when you get right down to it, and to be brutally frank, it isn't about anything other than survival of the species! As someone else said on another thread, "Sane, non-deluded people live their lives convinced that it's the only one they're ever going to have so they make the most of it knowing how fortunate they are to be alive. They don't behave as if this life is a rehearsal for some heavenly stage show in which they will play a very minor bit part!"

In regards to the "we're all a bunch of confused, condemned guilty sinners" argument – BS! Atheists can't forgive, and are, by definition, confused? Nonsense. I'm sure even the earliest humans (hominids) had a concept of "sin", i.e., rules of survival that when broken, endangered or harmed the immediate family/clan group, which predates Christianity or other religion by thousands of years.

355. Sam's Flea!

Comment #39566 by SRWB on May 11, 2007 at 6:36 am

Rob,

You said...

The fact that they are 'evolving with the times' may well suggest that they haven't understood what the Scriptures teach with regard to God. There are numerous verses in the Bible which state that God is unchangeable and His law immutable.

That's what YOU believe; I don't, and obviously many other Christians don't buy it hook, line and sinker either. My question was "what makes you correct?" Obviously, I'm looking for something a little more definitive as proof than quotes from the Bible, which can easily be dismissed as an inerrant guide due to its many contradictions and inaccuracies. What else have you got that proves your interpretation is the correct one? Why are you so convinced that Paul, Peter and Jesus were so right? Didn't they have a vested interest in this new religion, i.e., could it have been about power and control of the flock?

Whenever anyone uses the word 'liberal' about the UK, I must say I struggle to suppress my laughter. It is not liberal (nothing at all like classical liberalism); it is anarchic. … By contrast the Bronze Age would have been a veritable haven of liberalism.

Are you kidding me? Check your history books and the archaeological evidence. The Bronze Age, and almost all of human history for that matter, has been one of brutish violence, short lives due to famine and disease, tribal conflict and expansionism, etc. (oh yeah, and much of it because of religious and cultural differences). Let's not pretend that the "good ole days" were so great, but you do admit that. I think you miss the obvious – the overall quality of life (and I'm not referring to the spiritual) is now much better for a majority of humans than it ever has been, even in Britain. Furthermore, how can Britain be so "anarchic", yet still have so many "curbs on freedoms"? I don't live in Britain, but I do visit quite often – it's not all doom and gloom, and probably better than most of the rest of the world!

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, 'we've already been judged'.

I think that is pretty clear. You wrote in an earlier post (# 279) "God has testified that 'the whole world lieth in wickedness'. That includes you and I, and this means that we are condemned already." In post #293 you stated, "the whole human race lies under condemnation, but God would rather forgive us than condemn us." Therefore, basic logic tells me that if I have been condemned, I must have already been judged. Clear now?

356. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38926 by SRWB on May 9, 2007 at 2:00 pm

"It is a tenet of evangelical Christianity that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ created a new covenant with the church, so they no longer believe that a man should stone his wife to death if she is not a virgin."

I'm with all the previous comments. This quote is just good old cherry-picking going by another name...

357. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38848 by SRWB on May 9, 2007 at 10:09 am

And I agree with you - essentially people should be free to think and believe anything they like. But once they begin to behave or act in a certain way, we can conceivably draw the line. My point was that this is what Harris implies with his statement "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others". I guess the problem of interpretation comes down to whether you place emphasis on "inspiring" or "commit". Once someone has gone beyond inspiration to committing, they are fair game, in my opinion. The next question that begs is what do you mean by "a specific plot"? Must we wait until a specific attack is completed, or may we act pre-emptively based upon previous acts committed by the same person/group?

PS - there are peaceful atheists as well!

358. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38832 by SRWB on May 9, 2007 at 9:17 am

Romin_Devourin,

Your comment # 95

The issue of Harris's "quote" has been addressed on another thread, but here's the quote in context...

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

As I stated there, the particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond just thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense. This is NOT the same thing as advocating killing people just for what they believe and think.

Are you suggesting that is not the case, now that you have seen the quote in context?

359. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38512 by SRWB on May 8, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I have had another look at Harris's quote. Here it is in context...

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

The particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense.

360. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38459 by SRWB on May 8, 2007 at 7:15 am

Russell (et al),

Well said. But in regards to freedom of thought and belief I think the issue comes down to the simple philosophy that it is OK for one to think and believe whatever one wants, but when one crosses over into action, especially action that is harmful to others, we have a different ball game. That is why most societies have limits on freedom of expression, such as laws against hate speech, etc. Of course, this is fine line, and one that democratic (and mostly secular) countries are increasingly wrestling with. But we all agree that religion and faith should not get a free pass just because they speak to faith. Nor should they be treated deferentially, especially when they spout misogyny, homophobia and death to those who have transgressed some bizarre rule. But even in such cases, I'm not sure I advocate "killing people for their beliefs."

361. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38158 by SRWB on May 7, 2007 at 6:25 am

As a native of Ottawa, I can assure you there are a number of people who think like this (and Ottawa is a great city). I wrote Gardner an e-mail and congratulated him on this article, which was a rejoinder to a two part series on faith written the week before. I responded unfavorably to the previous articles in a letter to the editor, but alas while it was considered, it was not published (however, two others taking atheistic positions were). So the fight continues....

362. The God Delusion

Comment #37375 by SRWB on May 4, 2007 at 9:30 am

Scot,

Essentially, I think we are violently agreeing here! My point is that the golden rule is objective, but only in theory, as it is impossible to comply with without some deviation. To make my point, you are correct in asserting that killing is not always wrong, i.e., in self defence of ourselves or of family. Where I would disagree with you is that deviation is only about morality - does justified killing make it right? Arguably yes, based upon morality, but the killer has violated the golden rule as an objective measure, and has now turned it into a subjective one because of the influence of personal choice, feeling and opinion.

363. The God Delusion

Comment #37364 by SRWB on May 4, 2007 at 7:41 am

Scot,

I don't disagree with you at all. I actually believe that the golden rule is about as objective
as we can get, since it is probably one of the oldest objective morals in existence. What could be simpler and more easily understood?

However, that doesn't mean it's an easy rule to adhere to, does it? We all know that. As an example, is killing always wrong? I think we could argue that it isn't, within certain narrow arcs. But then we would argue that we now have a subjective moral, and I would agree with you. But the point is that if it was possible to actually follow the golden rule without deviation, it would be very objective.

364. The God Delusion

Comment #37203 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Scot,

What about, as Briancoughlanworldcitizen alluded earlier, something as simple as the golden rule. Is that an objective method?

365. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37080 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 10:48 am

Fishpeddler, Bonzai,

I see how you may get the impression that oao's comments were meant in a negative light. I didn't (don't) see it that way - consider it from the first point made, "referring to Judaism is not as dangerous as to Islam" (this was later also alluded to in the thread). That is, any comments made against Jews and Judaism are not likely to result in death threats, effigy burning and physical attacks. And I am aware that merely criticizing Israel or Jews runs the risk of being labelled anti-semitic, but we should all be able to see through such obfuscation. Yes, I agree that Israel should be criticized when required, but that does not mean those doing the criticizing are anti-semites. Let's not forget the real issue being discussed here; that is the fallacious idea of God, Yahweh, Allah, Wotan, Amon Ra, whatever, regardless of whose religion/culture the deity belongs to.

366. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37047 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 9:04 am

Richard,

I think you may be overreacting. I cannot see anywhere in oao's posts where he has accused you of anti-semitism. Did I (we) miss something?

367. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #37019 by SRWB on May 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

Weefree said..

I notice on another thread that you claim my proofs are all about personal experience. Actually only one is.

What I actually said was "It goes without saying, that they are based mostly on his personal opinions and feelings – still no proof, in other words, just conjecture." Your use of the word experience is disingenuous as it conveys a stronger sense of proof, based on observation and acquaintance with facts and events than "opinions and feelings". I think you give yourself too much credit!

368. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36906 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Are we talking about the erudite and scholarly Doug Wilson who on this site provided fonts of literacy and clear thinking such as …

And when I have made that point, you bet I'm done, because the argument's done. Put a fork in it. And if there is no God, it is not a metaphor. Shake up two bottles of soda and put them on a table where everyone can see them. Let them both fizz over like crazy. Which one is winning the debate? Dawkins or me?

The cultured and learned Doug Wilson who has been accused on this site of espousing slavery and the exile or execution of homosexuals among other things?

Is that him?

369. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36853 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 pm

test

370. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36807 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

# 48 - Weefree's (David's) "proofs" are repeated, and addressed by me and others, on the "Shout your doubt out loud" thread. It goes without saying, that they are based mostly on his personal opinions and feelings – still no proof, in other words, just conjecture.

371. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36780 by SRWB on May 2, 2007 at 9:44 am

The flow chart is great - printed it off as well.

I think devolved should stay; if only, as someone on a another thread said, to keep the mind sharp like doing sudoku

372. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36605 by SRWB on May 1, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Rob,

How does it feel to be so superior in that you seem to be one of the few Christians who really knows what it is to be Christian? What makes you correct? Your reliance on interpreting scripture is hardly convincing, seeing that very large numbers of so-called Christians, relying on and believing the same writings, are not as fundamental as you. They apparently are evolving with the times, or perhaps they've been convinced that something may not be quite right.

Finally, your true colors show - what's with all the commentary about Tony Blair and others and 24-hour drinking, gambling, relaxed divorce laws, Civil Partnerships Act, a partial ban on the parental right to smack children, legislation which partially legalises brothels, and tax and nursery system that encourages mothers to abandon their children before they can even crawl? I'm beginning to think you don't like living in the UK as it's obviously too liberal for you. The Bronze Age would've been right up your alley. But didn't Jesus say something to the effect that you should not judge lest you be judged yourself?

And now despite all this iniquity and wickedness suddenly you are confident that more of us will go to heaven than to hell, "because God's desire to show mercy is greater than His desire to show justice". But in an earlier comment you said we are already condemned, even though God doesn't want to judge us, he just wants to forgive us. But if we are condemned, then we have already been judged, and we have automatically been earmarked for a one-way trip to hell.

So which is it?

373. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #36263 by SRWB on April 30, 2007 at 5:15 pm

David,
I can't resist responding (quiet night)

"Agreed. But the fact that we exist, and that the conditions for our existence are there, is a powerful indicator that someone or something created those conditions. "

Something? Then we agree that it might not have been your God?

"Why? Why is it just as likely? And who says we evolved that way? You are just posting your beliefs/faith without any evidence because it all has to fit in with your metanarrative that their cannot be a God.

There has been enough evidence posted on this site and in all the research done throughout the last few hundred years, and while it is not conclusive, the scales tip towards the conclusion that your God does not exist. Remember, we were discussing YOUR unsubstantiated "top ten" list.

"I see – we are evolving towards a better and more moral stance. This is not immediately obvious. Perhaps we don't like to get killed – but maybe we like to kill. How does the golden rule make sense in the world of the Selfish Gene?"

Maybe we do like to kill, but only when and if it's necessary, i.e., to eat, to defend our families, etc. I didn't say the rule was perfect, but your Bible is not the standard to emulate by any stretch!

"So good and evil are just 'concepts'. Just that means it's ok to regard Belsen as just the expression of a certain mode of behaviour. We can make no moral judgement on it? As for why human beings cannot be innately good – I live in the real world where what we observe is that human beings are clearly not innately good."

Prove to me that they are not just concepts. How do you decide what you like? We do make moral judgments all the time, and between you and me Belsen was an atrocity which most of the world recognizes. My point is that we humans obviously recognize that certain behaviors are good and that some are evil. So that doesn't change the fact that the word "good" and "evil" are labels we use. You must live in a pretty nasty world - I didn't think Scotland was that bad!

"Why strange? I hate Macdonalds but I love real food. I hate techno-pop but love real music. What's the problem?"

You didn't answer the question – real what? Religion? Faith? Observance of ritual? Don't go off on a tangent about food and music.

"I'm afraid most atheists on this site frequently cite their experience. Rightly so. However it is not absolute. Nonetheless experience is an essential part of being."

Again, I think you are being deliberately obtuse. You spoke of taste in regards to experiencing God. Explain that.

"History itself."

Absolute conjecture on your part. I too know a little bit about history, as do most of the people who frequent this site, seeing we all live it as well. How come my personal experiences have convinced me there is no God? Haven't we all experienced more or less the same history? So is it God or personal choice?

"why? Is there no scope for sinners in the Church? Is there no scope for freedom? Is there no scope for mistakes?"

Of course there is, but that wasn't your original point. You stated that the Church itself was one of the things that caused you to doubt because of the way Christians and preachers have sometimes behaved. You then concluded that the good behaviour is only explicable due to the "grace and love of God". Proof? What explains the bad behaviour?

"Agreed – not on its own, but in conjunction with the other stuff it works very well."

So you say, but many here would disagree, especially if all of your other points are in error.

"Amusing. Who says God 'needed a son'. God is triune, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I think this reflects more the nature of God as love than anything else. As for the masses not thinking for themselves – the very thing that the early church did was to encourage its followers (who were mostly slaves) to think for themselves. It is the same today. Sadly the atheist mindset is to control everyone and to force us all to come to 'the Higher Consiousness' or at least put us down as Untermenschen. The last thing most atheists seem to want is people to think for themselves – especially when they end up disagreeing with the atheist belief system."

It's not really amusing at all. It's delusional, especially when the majority of the world doesn't believe in your triune deity. You were the one who provided the quotes about Jesus the son and heir, through whom God made everything. So I guess YOU said he needed a son to help him. God is love? We've heard that little tidbit quite a bit lately. For me, love is love. I'm also not sure how true it is that Christianity freed all the Roman slaves. To me it appears they exchanged physical shackles for mental ones. Lastly, I, as an atheist, am not interested in controlling anyone, thereby forcing you to reach a higher consciousness or to be an "untermensch". Even if that was true, why on earth would we wish to pursue two such divergent outcomes? I'm interested in the truth, nothing more.

cheers

374. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35914 by SRWB on April 29, 2007 at 9:58 am

Burly Gates,

"All appeals to societal norms as a basis for morality are logically fallacious."

Not necessarily, but you are confusing issues. Argumentum ad populum merely holds that just because a majority believes something that it is correct – that is logically fallacious. A societal norm is just a predominant practice and it could be moral.

"It is invalid and improper to infer that God does not exist because some theists have done awful things."
I couldn't agree more, since one has nothing to do with the other. Theists and atheists alike are responsible for their own behaviour.

"The "6,000 year old" Problem of Evil (#298) is actually not a problem at all since it is an irrational question and, as such, it cannot lend any weight to arguments against God's existence."

I'm not sure how evil (and good) has anything to with God's existence? Aren't they just labels humans put on certain modes of behavior? I'm also pretty certain these concepts (behaviors) have been around for longer than 6000 years. They neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

375. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35690 by SRWB on April 28, 2007 at 10:30 am

You have to watch all three videos! Wow, some really amazing proofs, like asking ordinary people on the street for evidence (as if they are authoritative), like the claim that "Lucy" the Australopithecus was really a chimp, or the stunts which try to distort our relationships to the great apes by booking them on flights and taking them into restaurants! But the best part was the weird jumping from a plane, being saved by Jesus analogy.

What a couple of raving bullshit artists!

376. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35466 by SRWB on April 27, 2007 at 8:40 am

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, David's "proofs", such as they are (extracted from his website), are listed below. I have not posted them in their entirety, but have made comments concerning each in an attempt to draw him out and keep this thread interesting:

1. "The Creation."

You obviously take this as a given, even though creation may be putting too fine a point on it. The mere fact that the heavens, earth and we exist, does not necessarily mean we were created by God.

2. "The Human mind and spirit. Why are we conscious? Why are we special? And life. Where does it come from? How can we get life from non-life?"

We evolved that way. Who says we are special; we are probably just a more advanced life-form. Life from non-life is just as likely as being created from dust.

3. "The Moral Law. How do we know what good and evil is? Why do we have a sense of that at all?"

Because we don't like to get killed, hurt, cheated, lied to, stolen from, etc. The golden rule developed over thousands of years of evolution and the growth of human civilization.

4. "Evil."

Why can't humans be innately good? Christianity may have it wrong, as many other faiths do not ascribe to this theory. Besides good and evil are concepts to describe certain modes of behaviour, nothing more.

5. "Religion. Yes there is so much in religion that is wrong and in many ways I hate religion. Generally I think it is a human imitation that more often than not blocks the way to God rather than opens it. And yet it is an imitation of something that is real.…"

Strange comments about hating religion and being an imitation of the real! Real what? Isn't this kind of an admission that man created God? Besides, hearts were "made" to pump blood.

6. "Experience. I believe because I have tasted that God is good."

Wow, tasting God and a hippie poster! Hardly proof of God since ice cream tastes good and I've seen lots of inspirational posters (we have them hanging around the office).

7. "History."

Conjecture on your part that history makes more sense only in the context of God. Proof?

8. "The Church."

How do "beautiful people" behaving in the "most wonderful, inexplicable ways" have anything to do with the existence of God? There are "beautiful people" (and "ugly" ones) in all faiths, not just Christianity, and among atheists too. If the church represents God as you would have it do, it would be at its best all the time.

9. "The Bible."

There's nothing wrong with using the Bible as a source of "challenge, comfort, truth and renewal". But your assertions that it speaks to you, even without the loopyness and esoteric interpretations, still doesn't go anywhere near proving the existence of God or its inerrancy.

10. "Jesus."

One of the great enduring mysteries is why God, who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent actually needed a son "appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Furthermore, thinly veiled threats regarding being taken captive through "through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" are indicative of the need for the early church to control its flock. Clearly this is an attempt to keep the masses from thinking for themselves.

377. Reply to a Christian

Comment #35434 by SRWB on April 27, 2007 at 6:29 am

"Are you aware that it is generally accepted in academia that the gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death? If someone was to write a first-hand account of the Holocaust now, would you take it to be accurate? I suspect you would, and that was over 60 years ago. 50 years is not actually a long time for first-hand accounts of events."

I'm not sure that we can draw a valid comparison between accounts of Jesus' life and the holocaust as you have suggested. For one, those who wrote the gospels had an agenda (political, faith-driven, etc) to pursue, so might have succumbed to a little bit of propagandizing and deliberate distortion to further that agenda. Second, levels of literacy in the ancient world were unlikely to be as high as they are today. Spreading stories by word of mouth is notoriously inaccurate even within a small group (games like telephone or Chinese whispers) let alone over a relatively short span of 50 years. Coupled with high illiteracy rates was the almost total lack of media capabilities, i.e., newspapers, newsreels and radio, etc., to corroborate the details like with the holocaust.

378. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35239 by SRWB on April 26, 2007 at 4:51 pm

I think we are on the same wavelength. I was merely attempting to follow on your thought about arguing with believers.

Make sense now?

379. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35235 by SRWB on April 26, 2007 at 4:36 pm

krogercomplete said:

"...but it is quite another to argue that they make any sense."

Then what we must continue to do is to argue that their ideas are deluded and nonsensical.

In regards to the BBC, British government and newspapers, among other organizations, being atheistic, I will expand upon my earlier comment and say I think it is more accurate to say they are nonreligious, preferring to walk the fine line for fear of causing offence. Here in Canada, it is the same thing; everyone in a position of power is too politically correct to speak ill of religion or dare question it. To paraphrase Dawkins, everyone defers to it and affords it far too much respect. One of the key issues that is always overlooked is that constitutional or common law rights which grant or protect freedom of religion are designed to ensure no one is persecuted because of their beliefs. Such protection is not intended to shield believers from questioning, doubt and criticism.

380. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35182 by SRWB on April 26, 2007 at 1:51 pm

"I will try to explain. Of course He can judge us. But the point is that He doesn't actually want to judge us. 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked' (Ezekiel 33:11). In other words, the whole human race lies under condemnation, but God would rather forgive us than condemn us."

Ok, so you say we are already condemned, but God doesn't want to judge us, he just wants to forgive us. But if we are already condemned, then we have already been judged. Ezekiel also goes on to say (33:11) that essentially even the righteous will be condemned (killed?) for committing even one iniquity (mistake). Wow, pretty long odds for avoiding condemnation! And why wouldn't God just condemn those who were really wicked, as opposed to those of us who are just naughty from time to time? But that begs the question as to just how wicked does one have to be? I mean, is there a list of iniquities and wickedness that we should all strive to avoid (other than the obvious breaking of the 10 commandments)? Such a list would be very handy.

As for behaving abominably and then confessing, I happen to agree with you but not because I'm likely to be judged so I can get to heaven, but because I believe in treating people the way I like to be treated. And it makes getting along in life a little easier if we can cooperate and behave in a civilized manner.

We will continue to disagree with your assertion that atheism is an organised religion. I do not belong to any organized house of (un)worship nor do I have an (un)holy book that I refer to, quote endlessly and live by. I am reminded of the quote that "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

And I'm not sure where you get the evidence that the BBC, the British government and the newspapers are institutionally atheist? You'll have to convince me of that.

"… if evolution were true, it would in no way be evidence for the non-existence of God. Yes, it would prove the God of the Bible to be a falsehood, but it would have nothing whatsoever to say about the possible existence of a God behind the evolution of the world."

This is another non sequitur in that I assume you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. If that is true, then it must follow that if the Bible is false then the whole Christian God idea is also unlikely to be true. Remember there were all kinds of other gods before and there are still a few other varieties around today. Which one is true? Or are none of them true?

I don't direct any ire at God because I don't believe he exists. I do direct ire and indignation at the ideas floated by those who do believe. Moses et al are dead and gone. What's the point of arguing with and debating them?

381. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34952 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Bizarro,

Of course there is an element of faith in everything we believe, but you are confusing the issue. Faith can be further broken into degrees or levels. By this I mean, to follow on one of your examples, that I have great faith, even a great degree of certainty, that my neighbor across the street exists. In fact, I spoke with her today. Conversely, I did not see or speak with God today (or ever in my 40 plus years for that matter). See the difference?

However, you also said "there may not be any surefire way to prove God's existence, but there is certainly no lack of good reasons to believe it." Care to lay some of them out - I mean reasons based on evidence, not faith.

382. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34950 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm

A lucky guess, but wasn't the dog supposed to guess it?!

I need more proof!

383. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34864 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Rob, where to begin?

I see that a few of my fellow atheists have already responded, and correct they are that you have regurgitated back what you "learned" (and I use the term loosely) from the Bible. You are absolutely correct in that I personally do not believe in the inherent wickedness of people. You claim God "has testified that 'the whole world lieth in wickedness' and "that includes you and I, and this means that we are condemned already."
Whether that's true is open to a lot of conjecture and your interpretation may not be correct. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that you are correct, so I do not believe.

"He certainly does know. And knowing it, He will judge it. Which is why we need to confess it."

Please explain to me that logic of that series of statements. Can the omniscient God not judge you self-proclaimed wicked sinners without you confessing it? If you're automatically guilty and condemned (your words remember)anyway why bother confessing? Using that logic I might as well behave abominably my whole life and then confess.

Free will - I think it's a flawed concept that christians use to justify sin, nothing more. My point is that any creator who is omniscient would know that humans (supposedly made in his image) will err, but how would that be possible if they are made in his image? Or is this just nonsense too?

And yes, I would prefer that my friends and family love me because they want too rather than because they were coerced into it.

384. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34826 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 11:32 am

Burl,

Now you're having me on! Since when do ideas and concepts have DNA and weight?

385. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34811 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 10:27 am

That's where we would disagree. Just because a majority votes to repeal rights in no way means it was moral or correct to do so. The basic question is whether or not you believe that rights and freedoms are inherent to humans or are they granted (and revoked) arbitrarily. We are all aware of human attempts to deal with this issue in the last few hundred years (maybe all the way back to the Magna Carta) through the US Constitution, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and like documents. But the issue remains - did such rights exist before they were codified by astute persons (i.e., were they inherent) or were they created out of thin air?

386. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34768 by SRWB on April 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

Why wouldn't the "golden rule" make the cut? It is probably one of the oldest objective morals in existence. What could be simpler and more easily understood? Furthermore, why does an objective morality depend upon a higher authority in any event?

However, that doesn't mean it's an easy rule to adhere to, does it? We all know that. As an example, is killing always wrong? I think we could argue that it isn't, within certain narrow arcs. But now you will argue that we now have a subjective moral, and I would agree with you. But the point is that if it was possible to actually follow the golden rule without deviation, it would be very objective.

387. The Empty Wager

Comment #34611 by SRWB on April 24, 2007 at 4:49 pm

gmurphy (are you still there?)

Theologists like to suggest that religious groups can marshal logic and reason in the form of theology to corroborate their beliefs. Unfortunately, the mere existence of theology as a study of religion does not in itself provide any proof of God's existence or evidence of the validity of any one belief. Theology, after all, was created by humans, and has existed in one form or another since man first started belief in one or more Gods. To support such beliefs, Theologians have constructed very elaborate "knowledge" structures and oodles of literature about religious theory and belief, all based upon dubious interpretations. In contrast, science makes predictions, which can be tested and results in useful technology, whereas theology is only rhetoric. The major problem with theology as an "academic" discipline is that it takes the existence of God as a given (and that's why it's often referred to here as fairyology). If God does not exist, then theology is a lot of thought exercised and ink spilled over nothing; somewhat akin to the intellectual discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of pin. Such discussion is pointless if angels don't exist. Furthermore, the very rationale that theology exists could be used to support a belief in monotheism, polytheism or animism among other creeds. But that hardly proves the correctness of a belief, or the existence of God(s).

388. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34599 by SRWB on April 24, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Burl,

Yes, we are "importing modern sensibilities back onto the subjects at hand", as you stated. But there is a good reason. The "holy books" were clearly written in a different time, for a different society; remember the context of the period - lack of technical and scientific knowledge, disease, famine and rampant inter-tribal hostility all played more influential roles in the evolution of those societies. As a result, we have to import modern sensibilities, since we too have evolved as societies. The problem is not the ever changing rules of ethics and morals, but the insistence by certain segments of the population to abide by arguably outdated ideas. Even more repugnant is the continuous cherry-picking of the good bits, and the subterfuge, evasion and misinterpretation of the rest, that many theists engage in.

389. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34556 by SRWB on April 24, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"The difference between you and I Brian, is that my judgement has already taken place when Christ took my sins upon Him. Yours is yet to come, but surely will come, unless you too confess to God that you are a wicked sinner deserving of judgement."

Christ's death for "our" sins - what a great and convenient "get out of jail free" card! My first question, is why do any of us have to confess to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God in the first place. Wouldn't (s)he already know?! The other thing that's always confused me about this tale is why didn't God just go the extra mile and wipe out man's supposed innate predisposition to sin when we were created? Why allow sin in the first place? I know, I know, free will and all that crap. But doesn't it seem just a tad harsh to permit sin and then allow your own son to be killed as atonement, when all this bloodletting could have been avoided if it had been done correctly right from the get go?

390. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34491 by SRWB on April 24, 2007 at 8:15 am

"What is to prevent us from regressing or veering off into anything we please, just so long as we please to?"

The short answer is nothing, but our very own inherent belief/hope that there must be a better way. But that doesn't mean regression is an inevitable outcome. For proof, look at human history. For most of that history humans lived in extremely violent, brutish conditions; ironically, the predominant moral (and legal) systems tended to be based on religious doctrines. Arguably, we have made incredible strides forward in morality in the last 50-100 years through development of human rights and personal freedoms legislation and practices. It is also telling that many of these rights and freedoms are in contradiction to what is contained in the "holy books", i.e. rights for homosexuals, women, children, etc.

"And, further, why are you not willing to say that we make up standards of objective reason, logic, and validity as we go along also?"

Some of us aren't afraid to admit that we do make up standards, hopefully with the intent and effect of improving the lot of ALL humans. Why can't the believers also admit the standards they adhere to are sadly outdated, hypocritical at best, or murderous at worst?

391. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34241 by SRWB on April 23, 2007 at 3:39 pm

I said basically the same thing on the YouTube site yesterday.....

"The believers on this site must ask themselves some serious questions like:
- if God is omnipotent and omniscient, how could God possibly be "kicked out" of anywhere?
- why didn't God intervene to stop this nightmare from happening in the first place? Did all those people deserve to die? If you believe that, you might need psychiatric attention!"

392. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34173 by SRWB on April 23, 2007 at 12:46 pm

An excellent, cogent and intellectually coherent response to the original piece of mental tripe!

I posted some comments on Youtube as well, but as usual they are ignored or glossed over with some BS that atheists don't know what we are talking about.

Pieter - as a Canadian, I also noted the geographical misplacement of Taber. Are you surprised that it was wrong? After all, the guys who made this video have bigger problems than Canadian geography (they can find God who doesn't exist, but probably can't find their asses with both hands either)!

393. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33526 by SRWB on April 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Kingasaurus,

By Jove, I think you've got it (not that I actually believe in Jove!). I completely agree that I am significant only to myself and to my family and friends, but in the collection of humanity I am just one more member of a species which has 6 billion plus members and counting. I am content that I don't mean any more to the universe.

394. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33514 by SRWB on April 20, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Sinister Minister,

I see your point, but I think we are getting hung up on the word "significant". If you use the word as we humans do, i.e. important, having meaning, etc., you too would probably conclude that, as far as we are concerned, humans are more significant to ourselves. My point was, that in the grand scheme of the big bad universe (and I'm not suggesting there is a plan), maybe we aren't significant at all (barring the current heated debate about the damage we are doing to the environment and global warming) as we are just one more form of life which inhabits this wacky planet (universe?). Significance is a value we place on our existence, so it is very much a human construct.

395. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33490 by SRWB on April 20, 2007 at 11:15 am

Sinister Minister (et al),

Maybe the answer comes down to the issues of consciousness and the ability to feel and express emotions. Arguably, humans have more of such abilities than mosquitoes do. But in the big scheme of the impersonal and somewhat cruel universe, it probably doesn't matter a bit. After all, over umpteen millions of years many thousands of species, which previously existed, are now extinct. What do you make of that?

396. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33118 by SRWB on April 19, 2007 at 9:20 am

A good point. The joke is only funny because of the ludicrousness of the situation presented by Bob.

By the way, a little personal comment - I am not circimcised, but my younger brother was, without the permission of my parents I might add (that had to do with the fact that I was born in Europe and my brother was born in N America, where it was de rigeur). My mother is still pissed off about that to this day!

397. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33113 by SRWB on April 19, 2007 at 8:19 am

An old joke, but a good one!

398. Christians at Bible publishers have their throats cut

Comment #33095 by SRWB on April 19, 2007 at 6:50 am

Weefree,

I am not aware of any atheist book(s) that espouses killing non-believers. Are you? But I do know of a few books, supposedly written by God, proclaiming that killing non-believers is right and just.

What's your take on that? And don't bother trying to justify it by saying it's all about misinterpretation.

399. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32820 by SRWB on April 18, 2007 at 10:23 am

Conrad - well said.

Pun King - I'm not sure I would agree you that the basic precept of the golden rule is subjective. Why wouldn't any individual in any culture at any time not believe that? In its most basic form it is nothing more than a survival mechanism; one that doesn't require a God to introduce or enforce.

400. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32808 by SRWB on April 18, 2007 at 9:55 am

Objective morality - how about using the basic guideline that you should not do harm to others (physically, mentally or emotionally). That, of course, is where subjective morality falls apart.