When Atheists Tell The Truth...

[Mike Cl]

With regard to Christian sects and the near impossibility of making generic or blanket statements with regard to Christianity, I’m sympathetic.  But that’s why I gave those 5 core truths of the Christian faith, to which several others could be added.

1)   The authority of scripture
2)   The deity of Jesus Christ
3)   The sinfulness of man
4)   The substitutionary atonement
5)   Salvation by grace through faith (i.e. trust)

Those 5 were meant as a bare minimum.  But something like the triune nature of God could be added to that list, as well as the bodily or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If you’re talking to someone who doesn’t hold to those core doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’re probably not talking to someone who can rightly be called a Christian.  That is part of the difficulty these days.  Everyone uses the term Christian, whether they believe any of those things or not.  I know people and churches who either don’t believe in any of those, or they make those beliefs optional, in the sense of, “whatever works for you”.  If they’re optional, then they aren’t beliefs that are actually held to.  So right away, vast numbers of churches would be excluded, simply because they are no longer Christian but derive their existence from an extinct Christian tradition.  I mean the word extinct, as in extinct from their particular church sect or denomination.  And I would encourage interested parties to make these kinds of distinctions. 

This is the crux of the matter. This is where we disagree 100%. I'd like to touch upon each and every one of these points and see if we cannot express to the other exactly what we mean when we do discuss these matters.  If we can do that, then I think it will be very easy to understand why we each think as we do. 

This is your view of what Christianity is.  This is not shared by all Christians.  This is your view--and that is important to this discussion.  Your views of christianity cannot be held out as being the definitive definition of that religion.  These rules can be held out as being your beliefs.  And I'm sure they are shared by many who call themselves Christians as well.  But just because you sincerely believe these to be the definitive rules for being Christian, they cannot be held out as being the only rules that define that religion.  Otherwise there would not be so many sects calling themselves Christian and with as much sincerity as you.  Which leads us to jargon and semantics and vocabulary.  If we are to have a meaningful communication, we have to recognize that   jargon is very important.  The set of definitions you attach to various words colors your thoughts and expressions here--and me as well.  Each vocation has it's own set of specific words they use.  I'm sure you run across that all the time in police work.  In order to navigate quickly, efficiently, and accurately in their field a person in law enforcement must learn the correct jargon.   That is the same for education, medical occupations, well, any vocation.  These words with their specific meanings do not usually match the meanings when used by the general public.  For example, when you use the word faith, I'm sure you have a specific definition in mind when using it.  When I use it, I define it as not caring about the facts and simply believing something because you want to or are told to.  I am positive that does not match your definition.  So, when discussing subjects we should take pains to define key words so that we are not talking past each other.  English is famous for the multiple meanings words can have.  So, it will be easy for us to simply assume that we each agree on what a certain word means.  We need to guard against that assumption. 

[Savior2006]

You are being quite patient and considerate Mike. Kudos.

[Mike Cl]

You are being quite patient and considerate Mike. Kudos.

Thanks.  But from my past experience, strong (hard rock, extreme, fundamental--whatever) Christians just don't talk for very long without becoming angry.  To run across one who will at least attempt to answer questions about their beliefs is rather refreshing. 

[SGOS]

You are being quite patient and considerate Mike. Kudos.

Yes, as they say in the Bible, "He has the patience of Job."

[Odoital778412]

Thanks for your reply--and I fully understand the pull of real life, so visit as you can.  And I need to chop up your reply--it's easier for me to keep track. 
Why is regarding supernatural as being impossible a contradiction?  I really don't see what you mean.  Of course if something were supernatural and existed it would not be natural--it would be other than natural.  How would I know there are no invisible beings?  There is no evidence.  Not a smidgen.  None.  If there were a supernatural being which was invisible, and that being wanted me to know that it was real, it would be incumbent upon that being to show me.  I could, otherwise, spend my entire life looking for or even acknowledging all sorts of invisible beings--the tooth fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the easter bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill,--and on and on.  My world is actually littered with invisible beings inside my head.  But that does not mean I want to make a pilgrimage for find Harry Potter or Hogwarts.  Near death experiences.  Yes, they do seen real to those who profess to have experienced such things.  But science may yet provide us with an answer--our brain and its functions are just only now beginning to be understood.  My current hypothesis is that it is a brain function and not supernatural.  So, I don't consider that as being proof of an afterlife or some such. Understand that there really isn't anything in this universe that is invisible.  There are things in this universe that humans cannot see, but that is because our sensory organs are not all that good.  But we do have ways of demonstrating that they do exist even if we can't see them.  We know atoms exist, but I have yet to see them.  I am told my any number of scientists that study this that they do test for them all the time--and find them.  The term 'invisible' is mostly used as a convenience to indicate that we cannot see something, not that it does not exist.  However, all that does exist, the seen and the unseen (by humans) can be tested for--that's how theories are established.  If something is tested for and not found, then I'd say it does not exist.  God have not been found using any theories that I am aware of.  Nor any hypothesis, either. 

Moral laws are immaterial?  So, that makes them supernatural?  No, they came from somebodies thoughts and those thoughts were not supernatural.  Moral laws are regional and cultural.  And they evolve.  That makes them subjective.  There is not a single universal moral law--and if there were that would not change the fact they are subjective.  Why?  Because they are natural defense mechanisms designed for the survival of the group.  As the conditions of those groups evolve and change, so do the moral laws.  That is subjective.  Yes, each society develops personal obligations to each other and to that society or group.  That is what morality is--how we treat each other and ourselves.  But each society, culture, age has it's own set of obligations, which change with time.  Totally subjective.  Nothing divine is needed.

How would I know crooked if I did not know straight?  Easy.  I know blue because I was shown what it was.  It did not need to be contrasted with it's opposite.  What would that be, anyway?  We do use compare and contrast to make it easier to communicate--it's simply a convention. 

So, to wrap up--I see no evidence of anything supernatural.  No evidence of god--of any kind.  No evidence of invisible beings.  No objective moral laws (other than in a purely personal sense, I suppose)--all laws a subjective.  I see no evidence for any of that.  Whereas, you see the opposite.  And so, for you, what is proof of invisible beings? 
William Blake stated it well, I think:
Both read the Bible,
day and night,
but where I read black, you read white.

Well, you’d made the following comment:

… I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural. …

It’s possible that the term contradiction is too strong a word.  I was thinking in terms of things being natural, that they are open to confirmation by things like the scientific method.  But since we know things like the laws of logic exist and are not confirmable by things like the scientific method, as they must first be presupposed in order for science, reasoning, or anything else to even make sense or be intelligible; not everything would qualify as being natural, at least not in the same way.  In addition, if there is an immaterial being, He wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the material sciences in the way that most other things are.  So it wouldn’t make any sense to “look for” an immaterial or invisible man and conclude His nonexistence by the fact that He couldn’t be “sighted”.  You might have to look for evidence of His effects rather than direct evidence of Him.

Also, I should point out something I’m sure you already know.  The absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence.  So what you conclude is a lack of evidence, wouldn’t necessarily be a positive indicator for idea that an invisible being doesn’t exist.  And I think that it’s possible that such a being has declared Himself to humanity, but that humanity has increasingly chosen to ignore those declarations and rationalize Him away using the increase in their knowledge of the natural world as a tool in doing so.

I’d also point out that God probably isn’t on the level of Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill, etc... I can see how you might think so, since you probably regard them as equally false, but I would suggest that there are qualitative differences that you are ignoring.  Some of the qualitative differences:

1)   The claims made by God(s)
2)   The revelation(s) supposedly of or from God to mankind
3)   The sheer number and longevity of devout followers
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

And science may indeed provide some kind of natural explanation for some or all of near death experiences, but so far that is not the case.  I think near death experiences do provide a kind of evidence for their being an existence that goes beyond the current physical existence that we enjoy.  I don’t think it’s a knock down drag out, but I think it warrants much more study and currently points toward an immaterial existence after death but connected to our prior physical existence.  Is your current hypothesis based on the evidence available or based upon what you already believe?  For example, at least some of the near death experiences have taken place after medically verified brain death. 

With regard to your assertion that nothing invisible actually exists, I would simply say that you are making a statement that goes beyond what can actually be said truthfully.  I take your point that many things that have previously been thought apparently invisible can be detected in other ways.  However, it simply doesn’t follow that because some things that were once though invisible can be detected, nothing invisible actually exists.  Having said that, it’s a minor point, because I don’t think it actually detracts from the idea of God’s existence anyway.  I don’t think His immateriality is a substitute for saying that He cannot be detected.  I think He can be, but not in ways or by way of categories that don’t make sense (i.e. looking with your eyes for something invisible to the human eye).

I think that as time goes along, more and more will realize that fundamental mind or intelligence will be forced on them by the reality of what they discover with regard complex coded instruction that leads to purposeful functional processes of physical things.  I don’t think that will be able to be re-created by way of a naturalistic process.  I think our repeated common experience in reality will simply be too powerful for us to continue ignoring, and no amount of knowledge will give nature a power it doesn’t possess (i.e. being from non-being and functionally purposeful information from non-conscious material nature).

No, the moral law being immaterial in nature doesn’t make them supernatural, but it does demonstrate that physical nature is not all that exists.  There are immaterial things that are actually extant realities.  I don’t believe that moral laws are regional or cultural.  I think that there are things that are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone says or believes.  If I said that torturing handicapped babies for fun was wrong, I don’t think that I could ever be wrong in declaring that as a true fact.  And it wouldn’t matter if I were living in the midst of culture that believed the exact opposite.  Otherwise, there is no basis for genuine moral disagreement about anything.  Our disagreement with Hitler was akin to a difference of opinion over whether Chocolate or Vanilla is the superior ice cream flavor.  Moral facts are simply different, in their nature, than other facts of reality.

The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.  Be careful not to confuse the moral value itself with the changing understanding of how that moral value is applied over time.  There is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of that value.  For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses.  One’s factual understanding of a moral situation is relative or subjective, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.  Does that make sense?

Morality is not how we treat one another.  That’s just sociology or the reporting of facts.  Morality is about how we “ought” to treat one another.  Morality is about our obligations to others, in terms of treatment.

Is there an opposite of blue?  No, it’s a continuum.  Is there an opposite of crooked?  Yes.  It may be true that we use certain things as conventions of learning, but it doesn’t change the fact that you wouldn’t and couldn’t know one unless you had the other.  You could feel water’s wetness, but if you never knew the concept of dryness, the concept of wetness would never be fully understood.  It wouldn’t make sense to talk of wetness as if it were something in particular if it were the only thing and therefore couldn’t be particularized.

Proof for the kind of God you discuss has to do with the evidence for premises in an argument that make the existence of a creator much more probable than not.  Personally, I like the cosmological argument.  I also like the moral argument because I’m convinced that my moral faculties are giving me valid information rather than mere tastes or distastes.  But I think that there is plenty of evidence and proof for those willing to look at it…fairly that is.  When people uncritically treat the Tooth Fairy as being the same as God, given the obvious and stark differences; I do wonder if they’ll have trouble being fair in looking at the issue.  That certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t be fair.  It just gives me pause, as do other things like that.

[Solomon Zorn]

Mike! Why are you giving this rationalizing a soapbox as though he were making legitimate points somewhere along the way? These posts are becoming unreadable. If an atheist were to go through and correct this nonsense at every point, the theist will only come back with more rationalizing. The fact that he's being polite about it is keeping you in the conversation, but you are not making any progress that I can see. He is deep into the process of brainwashing himself, exactly like I was when I started Bible-college 30 years ago. It took schizophrenia, ironically, to wake me up to the difference between rationalizing and reasoning. This guy will probably never realize how empty his "cosmological" and most especially his "moral" arguments are. He wants the Christian God to be true, and since the whole myth is based on something "immaterial," which by definition  cannot be empirically disproven, he will go on rationalizing.

I hope this thread isn't setting a precedent.

[Termin]

 In a random mood

Is there an opposite of blue? 

  Actually yes, it's yellow.

Is t  Is there an opposite of crooked?  Yes.

Actually no, crooked is a term relative to the original shape.

Also, I should point out something I’m sure you already know.  The absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence.

It is however evidence for the lack of evidence.

The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.

   Actually this point is moot, it doesn't matter what you call the law, objective or subjective, heck you can call it frank if you want, but what truly defines it is how it's used, and since humans use laws, they will always be subjective.

I think that as time goes along, more and more will realize that fundamental mind or intelligence will be forced on them by the reality of what they discover with regard complex coded instruction that leads to purposeful functional processes of physical things.  I don’t think that will be able to be re-created by way of a naturalistic process.  I think our repeated common experience in reality will simply be too powerful for us to continue ignoring, and no amount of knowledge will give nature a power it doesn’t possess (i.e. being from non-being and functionally purposeful information from non-conscious material nature).

  This reminds me of the life cannot come from non life argument, which amuses me, because we are made of non living matter.

And btw, we are made from non-conscious material.

And stating a being from non being is non nonsensical, unless you are arguing in favour of something similar to reincarnation or that we are infinite in nature ?




 
   

[Mike Cl]

Mike! Why are you giving this rationalizing a soapbox as though he were making legitimate points somewhere along the way? These posts are becoming unreadable. If an atheist were to go through and correct this nonsense at every point, the theist will only come back with more rationalizing. The fact that he's being polite about it is keeping you in the conversation, but you are not making any progress that I can see. He is deep into the process of brainwashing himself, exactly like I was when I started Bible-college 30 years ago. It took schizophrenia, ironically, to wake me up to the difference between rationalizing and reasoning. This guy will probably never realize how empty his "cosmological" and most especially his "moral" arguments are. He wants the Christian God to be true, and since the whole myth is based on something "immaterial," which by definition  cannot be empirically disproven, he will go on rationalizing.

I hope this thread isn't setting a precedent.

Solomon, this type of rationalizing is alive and well around the world.  He will always think his points 'legitimate' points.  I don't expect to make head-way.  I simply wish to understand in more detail how a person of intelligence can take the positions he does.  To think all fundamental religious people are all stupid and irrational is to give their movement more power.  I think they are all misguided, and wrong.  But not all stupid; their movement ultimately causes more damage than good, so to face it best is to face it squarely and   try to figure out how they 'think'.  If reasoning is superior to believing, then one should encourage this type of exchange.  Besides, where better for this guy to be on a 'soapbox' than on this site??  Can he possibly do any damage here?  Do any of the members of this board think reasoning is not better than just believing???  I don't think so. 

[aitm]

when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

[Mike Cl]

when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

When a christian uses 5 words for any question someone is making shit up.

[SGOS]

when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

I agree, and I don't mean to heap shit on the theist in question, but long drawn out blather in logical arguments always seems unnecessary to me.  But it is a handy tool to obscure thoughts, meanings, and flawed logic.  When I encounter it, it sends up a huge red flag.  Someone is trying to fool himself or others or both.

[the_antithesis]

I’d also point out that God probably isn’t on the level of Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill, etc... I can see how you might think so, since you probably regard them as equally false, but I would suggest that there are qualitative differences that you are ignoring.  Some of the qualitative differences:

1)   The claims made by God(s)
2)   The revelation(s) supposedly of or from God to mankind
3)   The sheer number and longevity of devout followers
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

Those are not qualitative differences. Those are logic fallacies.

The number and longevity of devout followers is argumentum ad populum, "appeal to the population" which goes "because many believe it, it must be so." This is fallacious, that is the conclusion does not follow. Just because many believe a thing does not make it so. Many seem to think the Kardasians are interesting, but does that mean they are? Of course not. Likewise, that many believe in a god does not at all speak to the truth value of the existence of such a thing.

None of this speaks to the truth value of whether gods exist. It's mostly emotional manipulation, which we've come to expect from christians. It's all they have.

[PickelledEggs]

when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

Either that, or they don't understand the subject well enough to explain with less words.

[Mike Cl]

You----Well, you’d made the following comment:It’s possible that the term contradiction is too strong a word.  I was thinking in terms of things being natural, that they are open to confirmation by things like the scientific method.  But since we know things like the laws of logic exist and are not confirmable by things like the scientific method, as they must first be presupposed in order for science, reasoning, or anything else to even make sense or be intelligible; not everything would qualify as being natural, at least not in the same way.  In addition, if there is an immaterial being, He wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the material sciences in the way that most other things are.  So it wouldn’t make any sense to “look for” an immaterial or invisible man and conclude His nonexistence by the fact that He couldn’t be “sighted”.  You might have to look for evidence of His effects rather than direct evidence of Him.

Me----Laws of logic are not a material thing and have nothing to do with invisible beings.  But they are confirm-able  by other methods.  Invisible beings are not confirm-able by any means--except wishful thinking or blind belief.  I have seen more evidence for the tooth fairy than any invisible god--I got money under my pillow.   

You----Also, I should point out something I’m sure you already know.  The absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence.  So what you conclude is a lack of evidence, wouldn’t necessarily be a positive indicator for idea that an invisible being doesn’t exist.  And I think that it’s possible that such a being has declared Himself to humanity, but that humanity has increasingly chosen to ignore those declarations and rationalize Him away using the increase in their knowledge of the natural world as a tool in doing so.

Me----But absence of evidence is necessarily a strong suggestion that there is nothing there.  I have neither seen, heard, smelled, tasted or otherwise experienced any indication that an invisible or visible god exists.   That suggests strongly that there is nothing there.  Otherwise I could just make up beings left and right and simply insist that you are simply choosing not to see the signs.  You are allowing your 'belief' to shut yourself off from the reality of the fact that invisible beings just don't exist.  I find it compelling that your god, who declared himself some time well beyond the time he created humanity, did so (at least according to you--not me) in such an ineffectual way that the religions of the world are numbered in the 10's of 10's  of thousands, not in the single numbers.  And in such an ineffectual way the supposed scripture (for you) is not in a single edition, but in literally hundreds.  There is not a single autograph of it in existence.  It has been demonstrated that the bible is simply tales made up and cobbled together--that is quite a statement from your non-existent invisible being.  So, how can anybody rationalize something that has never existed????  You, on the other hand, are rationalizing your need to believe what it is you want to--and with no proof other than what you want to believe. 

You-----I’d also point out that God probably isn’t on the level of Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill, etc... I can see how you might think so, since you probably regard them as equally false, but I would suggest that there are qualitative differences that you are ignoring.  Some of the qualitative differences:

1)   The claims made by God(s)
2)   The revelation(s) supposedly of or from God to mankind
3)   The sheer number and longevity of devout followers
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

Me----In my eyes and experience, god is exactly the same as the tooth fairy and all other invisible beings.
    1--God has made no claims--not in any provable way.  People believe in many invisible gods.  All are purported to have made claims--all different all equally factious.  Why chose the Christian one above the others?  I suggest it is a geographic accident--if you were born in Iran, it would allah who would be the invisible god you'd claim.
    2---See #1.
    3---I see.  If a falsehood is believed by enough and for a long enough time, it turns into the truth????  Wow!  And if we can find follows of Mithra or Zoroaster still in existence, then their beliefs would then trump Christianity? 
     4---The good inspired?  Okay, that is on the plus side of the equation.  I see, however, the bad done by the name of this invisible being far outweighs the good.  They cancel each other out, with the remainder all on the bad side.


You----And science may indeed provide some kind of natural explanation for some or all of near death experiences, but so far that is not the case.  I think near death experiences do provide a kind of evidence for their being an existence that goes beyond the current physical existence that we enjoy.  I don’t think it’s a knock down drag out, but I think it warrants much more study and currently points toward an immaterial existence after death but connected to our prior physical existence.  Is your current hypothesis based on the evidence available or based upon what you already believe?  For example, at least some of the near death experiences have taken place after medically verified brain death. 

Me-----Of course you want to believe that near death experiences are real and prove some kind of point for you.  You asked if my current hypothesis is based on evidence or based on what I believe.  My beliefs are not important.  I think there is enough evidence to suggest that we know little of how the brain functions--but we are learning.  And the more that is learned in this area supports that the NDE's can be physical.  I think you already know what you want to believe and then believe it. 

You-----With regard to your assertion that nothing invisible actually exists, I would simply say that you are making a statement that goes beyond what can actually be said truthfully.  I take your point that many things that have previously been thought apparently invisible can be detected in other ways.  However, it simply doesn’t follow that because some things that were once though invisible can be detected, nothing invisible actually exists.  Having said that, it’s a minor point, because I don’t think it actually detracts from the idea of God’s existence anyway.  I don’t think His immateriality is a substitute for saying that He cannot be detected.  I think He can be, but not in ways or by way of categories that don’t make sense (i.e. looking with your eyes for something invisible to the human eye).

Me----do you know of some God detection meter?  You immaterial, invisible being creates a material race.  And this invisible being then leaves signs, but they can't be seen.  He gives his Word, yet not in one coherent, unified manner.  You say--"I think He can be, but not in ways or by way of categories that don’t make sense (i.e. looking with your eyes for something invisible to the human eye)."  What does that mean???  That this immaterial being creates humans in a material plane, yet does not allow that material creation the ability to experience the creator in a material way??? He's there--you just can't see him?????  What you are saying is what the hierarchy of your religion have been saying from the beginning.  And they have been saying it because only they can explain it--and this allows them to control and keep control of the flock.  This is the crux of organized religions destructive power.

You------I think that as time goes along, more and more will realize that fundamental mind or intelligence will be forced on them by the reality of what they discover with regard complex coded instruction that leads to purposeful functional processes of physical things.  I don’t think that will be able to be re-created by way of a naturalistic process.  I think our repeated common experience in reality will simply be too powerful for us to continue ignoring, and no amount of knowledge will give nature a power it doesn’t possess (i.e. being from non-being and functionally purposeful information from non-conscious material nature).

Me---I have no  idea what you mean in that paragraph. 

You-----No, the moral law being immaterial in nature doesn’t make them supernatural, but it does demonstrate that physical nature is not all that exists.  There are immaterial things that are actually extant realities.  I don’t believe that moral laws are regional or cultural.  I think that there are things that are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone says or believes.  If I said that torturing handicapped babies for fun was wrong, I don’t think that I could ever be wrong in declaring that as a true fact.  And it wouldn’t matter if I were living in the midst of culture that believed the exact opposite.  Otherwise, there is no basis for genuine moral disagreement about anything.  Our disagreement with Hitler was akin to a difference of opinion over whether Chocolate or Vanilla is the superior ice cream flavor.  Moral facts are simply different, in their nature, than other facts of reality.

Me----Your beliefs don't make your selection of morality god's law or some such.  The fact remains that each group agrees to what is moral, what the individual obligations to each other are, and those agreements evolve.  Study social anthropology to see that that is so.  What does ice cream flavors have to do with morals??  You simply want to believe that your morals gathered from an invisible being in a flawed bible are objective and are real.  For you, I suppose they are--because that is what you want to believe.

You----The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.  Be careful not to confuse the moral value itself with the changing understanding of how that moral value is applied over time.  There is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of that value.  For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses.  One’s factual understanding of a moral situation is relative or subjective, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.  Does that make sense?

Me----Does that make sense??? No, not at all.  You are simply saying--these moral laws, are the moral laws, are the moral laws--because I was told that is so by an invisible being in a flawed book.  Repeating a refrain does not make it so.

You----Morality is not how we treat one another.  That’s just sociology or the reporting of facts.  Morality is about how we “ought” to treat one another.  Morality is about our obligations to others, in terms of treatment.

Me----And???  These do not flow from an invisible being from a flawed book.  They come from each society.


You----Proof for the kind of God you discuss has to do with the evidence for premises in an argument that make the existence of a creator much more probable than not.  Personally, I like the cosmological argument.  I also like the moral argument because I’m convinced that my moral faculties are giving me valid information rather than mere tastes or distastes.  But I think that there is plenty of evidence and proof for those willing to look at it…fairly that is.  When people uncritically treat the Tooth Fairy as being the same as God, given the obvious and stark differences; I do wonder if they’ll have trouble being fair in looking at the issue.  That certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t be fair.  It just gives me pause, as do other things like that.

Me--And I have troubles thinking you can be fair and unbiased as well.  You suggest that an invisible being created all.  But in a material way.  And that material creation has to experience that creator in an immaterial way.  And all the signs and proofs come from non-provable sources or sources that are not material.  And you expect me to simply take that on 'faith'.  I would suggest that you give me pause , as things like that do, that you want to see what you want to see--and that is all you will see. 

[Jason78]

I don't want to de-rail the thread or pile on here but...

4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses. 

Probably something to do with a line in a book...

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.