After seeing a few atheists debating on this site, I feel compelled to make a few points about the atheistic world view. I have respect for your views, these are just the problems I have with it.

Firstly let's take a look at the "dogma of atheism" as follows:
1. There is no God
2. There is no objective Truth
3. There is no ground for Reason
4. There are no absolute Morals
5. There is no ultimate Value
6. There is no ultimate Meaning
7. There is no eternal Hope

The statement "there is no Truth" is in itself, a confusing one, for if it is true then it is false for there would be no Truth... including the statement itself, as it says. Rather absurd I believe, so therefore we can discount this statement and at least say there must be truth.

Now we can deal with the big issue, the atheists belief there is no God. Remember we're not discussing what form God takes, just the problem with the atheists ideas.

The question could be asked of an atheist, "are you absolutely sure there is no God?" To which the reply would have to be "yes" or they would not be an atheist. The next question could then be asked "do you have absolute knowledge to be absolutely sure there is no God?" The answer of course would be "no", because if they did contain absolute knowledge they would be the God they are trying to refute. So we can conclude that an atheist cannot be absolutely sure there is no God, THEY CAN'T BE WITHOUT ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE!

So it must be said that if they cannot be absolutely sure there is no God, then there arguements can't be based on full logic and reasoning, they must be based on a type of faith (blindly believing as they like to put it), the very thing many of them say is they downfall of a belief in God.

God can never be truly disproven (take that as you will), therefore there can never be an open minded person who absolutely believes there is no God, unless they have FAITH in this ASSUMPTION.

Another problem is that anyone who rejects the existence of God must also believe the following:
1. Matter is eternal
2. Matter without life created life
3. Matter without mind created mind
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence
5. Matter without morals created morals
6. Matter without conscience created conscience
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order
SIMPLY HARD TO BELIEVE!

Atheism especially saddens me when I read the philosphies of so many adherents to this way of thinking, they express a life with no meaning or purpose, where all of mankinds efforts are an utter waste of time, acheiving nothing. It saddens me that anyone could live without true meaning. Who want want to live purely for the purpose of dying.

Remember this isn't about how God exists and Gods relation to us, it's questioning if atheism is a viable belief system. If so, prove it beyond reasonable doubt since it is supposedly based on FULL logic and reasoning.

Looking forward to replies...

I never said it had to be the God from the Bible, you assumed that. The questioning is purely about the atheistic flaws about there absolutely being NO God.

Good on ya!

Uh...are you ok? Sheesh...and I thought i was the crazy one who talked to myself...


Francis Ritchie...please step away from the Flaming hot Doritos.


[This message has been edited by Infinity (edited July 21, 2000).]

That's an interesting dogma of atheism; where'd you find it? (I'd like to give the whole of it a gander.)

That there is or is not a God, however, is as subjective as it gets. It depends on what qualifies as God, and what standard of proof there is. As a metaphor: If we were researching cancer treatments, the atheist would be searching for new ideas; the theist would be recombining old, failed treatments. Rather, if I hold out my hand and say, what is there? If we discount the smarmy, "Air", or "Sweat" or "Dead skin" answers and limit it to the question at hand, you're left with two primary possibilities:

* There is "nothing" in my hand, for I cannot see, feel, smell, taste, or hear anything but the components of your hand, or
* There is God in my hand, and I will believe it despite the fact that I cannot sense it in any way but through my primary assumption that God is in my hand.

Regarding, "There is no truth", what standard would set an absolute truth? Yours, mine? Those of a god contained in a book written by socially withdrawn monks and political insurgents?

God can never be truly disproven (take that as you will), therefore there can never be an open minded person who absolutely believes there is no God, unless they have FAITH in this ASSUMPTION.

Another problem is that anyone who rejects the existence of God must also believe the following:
1. Matter is eternal
2. Matter without life created life
3. Matter without mind created mind
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence
5. Matter without morals created morals
6. Matter without conscience created conscience
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order
SIMPLY HARD TO BELIEVE!


Faith, as well, is nothing more than an assumption.

Now then, of your summary of problems with rejecting the existence of God:

1. Believe that necessity if you must. Matter is not eternal, and every atheist knows it. You forget that atheists are often compelled to learn about things like atomic decay of matter.

2. Yes, matter without life created life. We'll do it again soon when we develop an artificial computer with enough attached capabilities to perform the functions required for life. (Somewhere in here, though I can't recall well, Boris and DaveW went through those requirements.)

3, 4, 5, 6, 7--Do you see the difficulty you're having? Every atheist who considers these issues recognizes either the possibility or the reality of these things.

It seems to me that, aside from that goofy #1 about matter being eternal, which I can't imagine any atheist who's ever read the characters E=mc^2 thinking matter to be eternal.

And I noticed your need for absolutes in your summary of the "dogma of atheism". See, that's part of it, too. Atheists know that very little, if anything, in this Universe, is eternal.

Remember this isn't about how God exists and Gods relation to us, it's questioning if atheism is a viable belief system. If so, prove it beyond reasonable doubt since it is supposedly based on FULL logic and reasoning.

So you're questioning atheism as a viable belief system? Are you denying, then, the need for the theists to "prove ... beyond a reasonable doubt" that their God, who always reflects their own subjective interpretation of any situation, is real?

My biggest question is why engage the atheists? Trust me, as long as you don't force atheists' kids to pray, or tell them they don't have authority over their selves, their voices, or their minds, you generally won't run into trouble. As a person who must, technically, qualify myself as a theist in this debate, I can tell you that it's very easy to accept atheism in the world, and it's very easy to get along in an atheist-inclusive world. But one thing I love about atheism, and one thing I would love to inject into the theist camp, is innovation of knowledge and the need to discover the answers to those difficult questions that theistic philosophies generally prefer you don't ask.

But in the long run, no atheist is going to bother proving conclusively his own philosophy. God doesn't justify His ways to those who believe in him. Why should an atheist do for the theists what they won't even ask of their God?

Show an atheist God, and then ask him to disprove it. Until then, there is no way to disprove what isn't there.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I would like to post a few quotes from "First You Build A Cloud, and Other Reflections On Physics As A Way Of Life" by K.C. Cole regarding right, wrong, and truth. I think it fits right in.

Or as Sir James Jeans put it "In real science, a hypothesis can never be proved true. If it is negatived by future observations we shall know it is wrong, but if future observations confirm it we shall never be able to say it is right, since it will always be at the mercy of still further observations."

This is why there is no truth. Our current truths are always subject to what we learn in the future.

Even in science, of course, some ideas are righter than others. But how do you tell which is which? Right ideas seem to be those that lead to further investigation, to whole new catigories of questions, to an even more passionate quest for knoledge. Right tends to open our eyes, wrong tends to close them. In this, Newton was right, but someone like Aristoltle was wrong, because his ideas concerning the motion of terrestrial obejects and celestial bodies did probably more harm than service to the progress of science.

Beliefs systems really can't be considered wrong or right as long as they enhance and further exploration. Once they stifle further progress they become wrong.

And now for my favorite quote. It is from Max Born.

"This loosening of the rules of thinking seems to me the greatest blessing which modern science has given us... The belief the there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all the evil that is in the world."

Originally posted by Francis Ritchie:
[B]After seeing a few atheists debating on this site, I feel compelled to make a few points about the atheistic world view. I have respect for your views, these are just the problems I have with it.

Firstly let's take a look at the "dogma of atheism" as follows:


First of all, there is no "dogma". You get off on a bad start. By YOUR own assertion, atheism has no objective truth, and that's what "dogma" is based upon-- the idea that there is an eternal unchanging truth, therefore dogma is an unchanging viewpoint, one that can't be altered if new
information is discovered. So how can atheism, which has no objective truth, have a dogma???

"DOGMA" does not characterize my viewpoint at all, although it DOES represent the religious view.

2. There is no objective Truth

There is objective truth (but not with a capital "T"). Objective truth is determined by the scientific method. In some cases, we can only get close to the truth about the natural world.

The christians claim that objective truth can be found in the bible, and yet they are the first ones to twist bible verses to mean something other than what they say.

3. There is no ground for Reason



Of course there is a ground for reason... human intelligence. I don't need a commandment from a supernatural spirit to tell me that killing someone else is wrong.


4. There are no absolute Morals


And there are absolute morals in Christianity???? I don't think so. Morals is not the best word here. Ethical behavior is better. One's behavior is alterable on the conditions. Ask a Christian if he would steal to feed his children (provided that there were no other option). Ask a Christian if he would kill someone who was about to kill his children. No, I absolutely do not agree that there are absolute morals. Should there be?


5. There is no ultimate Value

What is all this talk of "ultimate"?

I have a tremendous amount of value in my life...my family,my business, my relationship with my family and friends,
my writing, my art.

We attach value to our OWN lives. I feel sorry for someone who has such little value in their life that they have to look to 4000-year-old stories to feel value and self-worth.

6. There is no ultimate Meaning


The same as above. I have much meaning in my life, and *I alone* have the responsibility to find it and develop it.

7. There is no eternal Hope


Why are people who don't know me constantly telling me that I have no
hope???

I have a far better life (more stable, organized, prosperous and happy) than the vast majority of christians I know. Most of them are confused, divorced, depressed, addicted, and strung out on a *false* hope that there is some invisible man in the sky watching them all the time and taking care
of them. They need to take more care of themselves! Don't wait for someone to save you, save yourself... As Benjamin Franklin said: "In this world, men are not saved by faith, but by the lack of it."

The statement "there is no Truth" is in itself, a confusing one, for if it is true then it is false for there would be no Truth... including the statement itself, as it says. Rather absurd I believe, so therefore we can discount this statement and at least say there must be truth.


Bravo, top-notch reasoning!

Now we can deal with the big issue, the atheists belief there is no God. Remember we're not discussing what form God takes, just the problem with the atheists ideas.

I disagree. The word itself means "without theism". (Just as amoral means
without morality and asexual means without sexual reproduction). I have no
theism, or no belief, in a god.

I am without belief in a god.
I am unconvinced of claims that there is a god.
I am an atheist.

We are all atheists in some sense. Do the christians believe in Zeus, or Brahma, or Shiva? No, so they are atheists in respect to all those gods. I just believe in one less god than they do.
Now, I am absolutely sure that certain gods do NOT exist... including the christian god. This can be proved with logical arguments. If you said that you had a square circle, I would absolutely know that you were lying, because there is no such thing. In a similar way, when claims are made for the christian god that are self-contradictory, then we can say with
confidence that no such being could exist.


[This message has been edited by Infinity (edited July 22, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Infinity (edited July 22, 2000).]

Wow! I'm blown away by the level of all your answers.

Firstly, your question Tiassa "why engage the atheists?" My aim here was not to "engage" them, but to put forward the problems or better put, the queries I have with their view, to which I have received an adequate reply. I did this after seeing Christians here being told their view is both illogical and irrational as it cannot be proven. My point was that neither can atheism. I wonder why though you would argue in favour of a view you yourself do not hold, does this not make your statements invalid? (no offense meant) especially since you yourself have stated on another topic that you believe in an infinite God.

Infinity, in regard to the last paragraph in your post... so do you or do you not believe in a God, i'm not just talking about the Christian God, I'm asking about a God of any sorts, if so then you are not truly an atheist. Well not as I understand them anyway, maybe you could clear that up. As for coming across a little crazy and maybe hot headed, I don't mean to, I guess we all get a little crazy sometimes. And as for the "hot doritos" what is it?

Thanks for all your replies, it's great fun. Good for stretching the mind and it's so good to see other peoples views.

Keep charging!!!

Oh and as for my "dogma of atheism" I'll explain how I came to that conclusion some other time. Pushed for time at the moment, wanna go to Church... Ha Ha Ha!!!!

Francis--

Firstly, your question Tiassa "why engage the atheists?" My aim here was not to "engage" them, but to put forward the problems or better put, the queries I have with their view, to which I have received an adequate reply. I did this after seeing Christians here being told their view is both illogical and irrational as it cannot be proven. My point was that neither can atheism. I wonder why though you would argue in favour of a view you yourself do not hold, does this not make your statements invalid? (no offense meant) especially since you yourself have stated on another topic that you believe in an infinite God.

Of engaging the atheists, I thus recant. It's a fair perspective.

Of the illogic of Christianity, it's an ongoing thing here that has essentially reduced itself to the notion of people in a lab arguing over a beaker. The Christian might say it's water, the Jew might say it's rubbing alcohol, and the Muslim might insist it's ammonia, but the atheist is having a hard time seeing any liquid in the beaker at all, and says it's empty, which would be fine but for the Zen master in the corner who insists there is no beaker at all.

I'm fond of atheism, actually. I like it, except that by the time it begins explaining, scientifically, some of the spookier things people have witnessed in the world, I think that my version of God will be unfolding itself in that scientific mystery. In that sense, an atheistic universe generally suffices in my personal view; the sense of "God" that is so infinite is something I have a hard time describing for the simple reason that to describe it is to limit it. It writes no holy books in the way Christian faith compels the faithful to believe. Don't get me wrong, part of Universal Truth exists in many holy books, but I'm more inclined to the idea of Crowley's Liber al vel Legis being dictated by the being Aiwaz, but largely because Crowley used hallcinogens extensively--thus, that some of it actually makes sense almost frightens me. In my own universal view (anyone with a better word than the universal degree of "worldview"--uniview?--let me know, please :D ), atheism works just fine. God refers to the entire Universe, and all of its delicious mysteries. Thus far, notions of God I've experienced in the world leave far too many important questions to be answered. The search for the reasons of Good and Evil have led philosophers along a tortuous road for generations; the Devil persists, even though his role is unnecessary to the actual ideas at work. Yet rarely do we see that humans define evil. Murder? Evil. Many murders? Call it War and have a parade. As we learn more about the natural universe that God, as such, gave us, we are constantly revising our perception of what God finds evil. Thus it seems that these things were never evil, per se, but that we, as human beings, had looked at things wrong for ages, perhaps because we could not help it. In an atheistic universe, I believe that many things I find to be "spiritual" will be discovered to be of natural--perhaps obscure, but natural nonetheless--events in the universe. But even if something such as Love could be quantified, does that really mean that it doesn't exist, or is false? That we experience it makes it more real than a host of encyclopaedias. Perhaps we haven't learned enough about why nature compels us to love. Thus, I'm not particularly worried about what an atheistic universe will show me; it only stands to teach me more about my own view of a universe that does bear some divine purpose. Because knowing that universe is its own divine purpose, and if the universe is all there is, then I'm happy, anyway.

I don't recall how long ago I wrote this down, but I'm pretty sure I was high:
We are products of the universe. We exist and behave according to the laws of the universe and the laws of nature as we have learned them. We are the eyes, ears, voice, and memory of the universe. What we touch, it also touches. What we experience, it also knows. There is nothing more important to the universal whole than to understand its meaning. All sentient life must therefore strive toward this goal.
But that's about it in a nutshell. God, when taken to its purest sense, seems to lose religious significance, and becomes the living Everything.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hah!

I just noticed why you thought I was talking to myself! I was sure there was a reply from you (Infinity) to my first post about wishing Boris were here (whoever that is). must've been imagining things or I was looking at another topic, or maybe I AM going crazy... cool!

I'm wondering what sort of ages you people are. You are giving some really good replies that could not have come in a short time, or you're all really deep thinkers. I'm 23 and, wait for it..... a Bible College student (to which is received a few moans and groans from the audience).

I must say it is a pleasure to "engage" with such able minds, even though I am aware that none of us is going to sway the thinking of another. It's just so much fun. The pointless amusement of the mind. Much like a good game of Chess really.

OK back to the topic. Firstly my dogma of atheism is a compounded theory of my own reached after reading the writings of a few atheists. I guess it's a bit of a summary.
As for atheism not having a dogma, I believe this to be false. The Collins English Dictionary defines dogma as an "article of belief." Now for arguement's sake, even if my dogma is incorrect, it must still be concluded that most atheists hold to an article of belief-

quote-
I am without belief in a god.
I am unconvinced of claims that there is a god.
I am an atheist.

While brief this is an article of belief and therefore a dogma. It has nothing to do with what may be true or not, it is a word relating to ones belief. In regards to dogma being unchanging, this is false. Sure I have a basic article of belief which I believe is unchanging, but because I am human and on a continuous journey of learning and development often some of my concepts, opinions, ideas and beliefs (usually relating to God's interaction with mankind) are changing as God expands my ideology and continues to unravel his Truth to my humble being.

I Also believe that objective Truth CAN be found in the Bible. Just because the weaknesses of humanity give many people the tendency to twist scriptures does not in any way reflect on the Truth contained in them. The arguement should not be on the wrongfulness that man has injected into Christianity,as is so often the focus, but more on what it truly says. I do not deny that far to many Christians have commited crimes and sins in the name of God and I in no way excuse or condone that. But as an atheist you must remember this is no reflection on the fundamentals of Christianity, it is a reflection of the weaknesses and failings of human nature.

In relation to reason, you do not need some supernatural spirit to tell you that killing another person is wrong because he already imprinted that in your heart!! HA HA, dig dig, jab jab!!!

"Are there absolute morals in Christianity?"
Yep, there certainly are! Once again, the Dictionary defines morals as right and wrong conduct. It interests me how often the arguement is brought up these days about killing someone in the defence of their family. I will state for the record that I am not a Pacifist (rather controversial and highly debatable I know). While I would like to believe that pacifist ideals could be upheld, I am also a realist in the sense that I believe that justice and the rights of the oppressed must be upheld (reminiscent of Camelot, I'm sure). Now you're probably saying "but isn't the 6th commandment do not commit murder?" and yes it is. The Hebrew word used here for murder is ratsach, which is in reference to the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The killing of an attacker with the sole intent of defence of ones family is justifiable and I believe in no way contradicts the absolute morals of Christianity. War I believe can be justified when it is used to defend the rights of the innocent oppressed. So I still believe there are absolute morals, imprinted by an absolute God.

Ultimate Value- I also place value in things such as family and friends etc, but in my eyes God gives a true reason for really valueing these things. That value is linked to an eternal hope. Ultimate meaning is pretty much the same.

Eternal Hope- I wasn't saying you have no hope, and I don't doubt that you are far more stable than a lot of weak Christians. What I am talking about though is not the hope we carry around for our daily lives and our mortal future, you probably have an abundance of that. I am refferoing to the hope that when we die we will be rewarded for the choices we have made and that in our death we will find the fulfilment of our lives,a hope that the atheist has to lack.

You also stated, Infinity, that the Christian God can be could be disproven with logical arguements. What about the fact that it was logical arguements that drew me to accept the Christian belief system as the Truth? To use a Post-Modern train of thought- does this make your logic better than mine?

As for claims being made for the Christian God being "self contradictory", peoples statements may be contradictory, just as my ideas on pacifism are contradictory to the thoughts of most christians, but God is not. But I would like examples of these self contradictory claims about God.

Thanks heaps for the brain teasing.
Oh and my use of capitals sometimes is merely being antagonistic.

About the dogma's of atheism.
I hate the word dogma, it seems so definite and absolute, I prefer to talk about a working hypothesis.
I used to think it would be no problem to go around and say "Ok, I don't know god exists so I won't do any statement about it" but this limits one ability to argue and that is what I love so much.
Therefor one must actually choose in order to start from there. I choose not to accept a god and thus far no contradictions have risen because of that. There are a lot of open problems like the ones that Tiassa is talking about, but I am still confident logical explanations can be found for each and every one of them.

Now, I find it hard to talk about something as vague as "some god one way or the other" in other to be able to disprove a thing one must first define a thing.
So please Francis could you give me a definition of "some god" ?

A very nice contradiction for the Christian god is his omnipotence and his grant of free will to us mortals, these two are incompatible.
Further more it seems the universe doesn't allow absolute knowledge about everything because of the Heisenberg principle. In the newest String theory it becomes even worse since it seems that incorporating gravity into the theory the is an additional uncertainly about spacetime itself...
Of course these are all theories of mere mortals ;)

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

Firstly my dogma of atheism is a compounded theory of my own reached after reading the writings of a few atheists. I guess it's a bit of a summary.
As for atheism not having a dogma, I believe this to be false. The Collins English Dictionary defines dogma as an "article of belief." Now for arguement's sake, even if my dogma is incorrect, it must still be concluded that most atheists hold to an article of belief-

quote-
I am without belief in a god.
I am unconvinced of claims that there is a god.
I am an atheist.

While brief this is an article of belief and therefore a dogma. It has nothing to do with what may be true or not, it is a word relating to ones belief. In regards to dogma being unchanging, this is false. Sure I have a basic article of belief which I believe is unchanging, but because I am human and on a continuous journey of learning and development often some of my concepts, opinions, ideas and beliefs (usually relating to God's interaction with mankind) are changing as God expands my ideology and continues to unravel his Truth to my humble being.

What you are doing is called equivocating-- quibbling over the definitions of words in order to assert his opinion.
Here is the definition of "dogma" from the Britannica World dictionary:

1. A doctrine or system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the Christian Church or any portion of it; hence, a statement of religious faith
or duty formulated by a body possessing or claiming authority to decree or decide.

2.Doctrine asserted and adopted on authority, as distinguished from that which is the result of one's own reasoning or experience; a dictum.

Now that's quite a bit more full than what you supplied. Also, consider the word "Dogmatic": adhering to a system of beliefs dispite all evidence to the contrary, or refusing to admit or consider evidence to the contrary.

However you choose to use the words, consider the following:

I used the phrase- "I am unconvinced of claims that there is a god." This implies, quite correctly, that I CAN be convinced of claims of a god, if the evidence is strong enough. Now, can this guy say as much? Are you willing to say that you might be completely WRONG, and that there is NO GOD
at all, and the bible is all MADE-UP?

I would be impressed. So far, no Christian has EVER been willing to admit that there might be no god. That's because "doubt" has always been considered a bad thing, harming your chances of getting into heaven (and
God's always an eaves-dropper inside your own brain... not allowing you to even think for yourself and to have honest doubts).

Who then is dogmatic? Him, who (probably) cannot admit that there might be no god? Or me? I am willing to change my position completely, if the evidence is good enough. If God comes down and taps me on the shoulder, and levitates me through the air, then how could I disbelieve? But then, it
would not be a matter of belief any longer, would it? I would KNOW. I would not NEED to believe.

Also believe that objective Truth CAN be found in the Bible. Just because the weaknesses of humanity give many people the tendency to twist scriptures does not in any way reflect on the Truth contained in them.



The only people I have ever encountered who twist scripture around are those who seek to defend it. It is *I* who use scripture word for word, omitting or changing nothing, giving the complete context, and it is the biblical defender who tries to change the verse into something it does not say.


The arguement should not be on the wrongfulness that man has injected into Christianity,as is so often the focus, but more on what it truly says. I do not deny that far to many Christians have commited crimes and sins in the name of God and I in no way excuse or condone that. But as an atheist you must remember this is no reflection on the fundamentals of Christianity, it is a reflection of the weaknesses and failings of human nature.


In part I will agree with YOU. But not in whole. If the BIBLE itself is the source of the evil, how can we blame humanity?

When it says in Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", shall we blame the men who have killed thousands of people as witches, simply because those men believed the bible? Or should we blame the bible that
told them to kill thousands of people because of a harmless and make-believe
practice?

Shall we blame those men who have killed homosexuals-- (remember Matthew Sheppard who was killed a couple of years ago, and tied up to a fencepost)-- shall we blame the men who have read Lev. 20:13 "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they
shall surely be put to death."? Or the book in which they read it?

Or when men have read (from their true and flawless bible):
Ex. 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Lev. 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death." Shall we blame the men who conducted the Crusades, killing countless thousands of 'infidels'? Or the book that told them to?

Should we blame the slave owners who cited Levitucus 25:45-46 as proof that slavery was given to them by God: "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy... and they shall be your possession... they shall be your bondmen forever." Shall we blame the men, or the book in which they believe... a book that not once condemned slavery?

Whoever read these verses and carried them out:
Ex. 31:15 Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex. 21:15 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be
surely put to death.
Ex. 21:17 He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Ex. 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's
wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

...shall we blame "the weaknesses and failings of human nature", or the book from which the instructions for killing were taken?

If there had been no book, there would have been no killings.

In relation to reason, you do not need some supernatural spirit to tell you that killing another person is wrong because he already imprinted that in your heart!! HA HA, dig dig, jab jab!!!


You are pathetic.

God imprinted it in my heart (an atheist), but he FAILED to imprint it on countless Christians thoughout history who have killed millions in His name? Give me a break.

He imprinted it in me, but not in David, who killed who knows how many innocent people in his raids, He failed to imprint Moses, Joshua, Saul, and dozens of other biblical figures.


"Are there absolute morals in Christianity?"
Yep, there certainly are! Once again, the Dictionary defines morals as right and wrong conduct. It interests me how often the arguement is brought up these days about killing someone in the defence of their family. I will state for the record that I am not a Pacifist (rather controversial and highly debatable I know). While I would like to believe that pacifist ideals could be upheld, I am also a realist in the sense that I believe that justice and the rights of the oppressed must be upheld (reminiscent of Camelot, I'm sure).

You wish. What you are really doing is saying that your moral behavior changes with the situation... in fact you is arguing for moral relativism, not moral absolutes.

He is "not a pacifist"? Then how can he be a follower of Jesus, he who said "Resist not evil"?

Love thine enemies. (What Christian ever did this? Is this even possible?) (Matthew 5:44)
Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew
5:42).
"Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men to do so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19


Now you're probably saying "but isn't the 6th commandment do not commit murder?" and yes it is. The Hebrew word used here for murder is ratsach, which is in reference to the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.


You have this part wrong too.

The Hebrew word for kill in EX 20:13 (Thou shalt not kill) is indeed RATSACH. In the KJV the word RATSACH is translated as "slay" 23 times, "murder" 17 times, "kill" 6 times, and 'be put to death' once.

In Numbers 35:22-24, ratsach is used to describe an *accidental killing*, and in verse 27 it is used to describe a *justified killing*.

In Proverbs 22:13 it is used in reference to *being killed by an animal*: "The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain (RATSACH) in the streets." Can an animal be guilty of murder? Of course not!

In Leviticus 24:17 it says "And he that killeth (nakah) any man shall surely be put to death (muth)." Also, in Exodus 21:12, just twenty one verses after the 10 Commandments, it says "He that smiteth (nakah) a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death." BUT Joshua nakah'ed the people of Ai (Joshua 8:21), and David nakah'ed Goliath (1 Sam 19:5), even though nakah was expressly forbidden. If Joshua and David are not criminals, then the bible is once again proved contradictory.

Christians nowdays say RATSACH means murder just to justify all the bloody killing of innocent men, women and children that fill the pages of the bible.

The killing of an attacker with the sole intent of defence of ones family is justifiable and I believe in no way contradicts the absolute morals of Christianity. War I believe can be justified when it is used to defend the rights of the innocent oppressed. So I still believe there are absolute morals, imprinted by an absolute God.

You're tapdancing, trying to justify two ideas.

There is no such universal moral standard within the minds of all humans.
The concept of Human Rights, something that we cherish and protect in our time, is a very modern idea-- embraced only in this century. Even today, in many countries the idea of Human Rights is still being resisted. Consider a few points that support this:

Only a couple hundred years ago, slavery was a well-established, institutionalized tradition. It was supported by both governments and religions all over the world. The bible certainly condoned it, and nowhere condemned it. Virtually no one questioned it-- it was just a part of life
for thousands of years. All humans were not viewed as equal beings: some were less than human, and fit only for slavery. Only through the brave efforts of a few individuals, acting on their *own personal conscience*, were the opinions of the masses changed. Now, most of us are appalled at
the injustice and inhumanity of enslaving another person. Think about this: if you were born 300 years ago, you wouldn't think there was anything at all wrong with slavery! This is evidence against the absolute morals imprinted on us.

There are other examples which you can think of yourself. Here are more: Women have been traditionally denied the same rights as men for thousands of years. This is easy to see. Many reasons are given for this inequality, but basically it boils down to the fact that men have the physical strength
to subjugate them. It is a simple case of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Only in the last few decades have we realized that it is not fair to deny women equality just because we can.

The same goes for racial equality. Most of us realize that it is unfair to deny rights and fair treatment to someone based solely on the amount of pigment in their skin. But there is still a large percentage of people in this country and around the world who truly believe that it is not only fair
to discriminate and hate, but that it is absolutely the right thing to do.
Nazi Germany is a classic example of this- where people did horrendous things and believed completely that they were acting correctly. More evidence against the universal moral compass.

For thousands of years, the idea of divinely-chosen kings and queens was the way people allowed themselves to be ruled. But over the past few centuries, we have realized that there is no such thing. People in countries all over the world realized that they should have a say in how they are governed. (The first example of democratic rule that I have ever heard of is Native
American inter-tribal councils.)

Nowdays, we would be appalled to learn that our military forces routinely kill large numbers of defenseless women and children as a matter of policy. But history is filled with examples of warfare being conducted in just this way. The bible contains dozens of instances where the Israellites, under
Moses and Joshua, coldly butchered defenseless citizens, not soldiers, in
their conquests. Their instructions, straight from Jehovah, frequently contained the command to execute women, the elderly, children and babies.

Consider this: if you were born in a different time and place, you would have engaged in the butchering of women and children right along with your fellow soldiers, and you would have thought that there was nothing wrong with it. More evidence against absolute moral standards.

At one time, hundreds of thousands of people were hanged and burned alive for being accused of practicing witchcraft. Now, practicing witchcraft is a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I should pause at this point to say that I think if it weren't for the U.S. Constitution, the idea Human Rights and personal freedoms would probably not
exist. It was not universal justice that brought about the Age of Enlightenment, it was the personal conscience of certain individuals like the writers of the Constitution.

Another way to measure the truth of a concept is to follow it through to its
logical conclusions. If there really was a universal human moral standard, then there would be no wars, no crimes against humanity, no need for handguns, no need for police-- you would live in a safe world. But the world is filled with people who think they have the right to take what is
yours because they feel that they deserve it (or they have decided that you've been too lucky and you have more than them), or they feel that they have the right to take their anger out on anyone who gets in their way, or that they have the right to attack or kill you because you think differently than
they do.

The inevitable conclusion is that human moral standards are shaped by the current beliefs of the community, and that the reason they are different today is that a few individuals took steps to change them. And they aren't finished changing. It is up to you to establish correct personal ethics for yourself-- you're not born with them.

Ultimate Value- I also place value in things such as family and friends etc, but in my eyes God gives a true reason for really valueing these things. That value is linked to an eternal hope. Ultimate meaning is pretty much the same.


This means nothing to me.... I'm happy for you.


Eternal Hope- I wasn't saying you have no hope, and I don't doubt that you are far more stable than a lot of weak Christians. What I am talking about though is not the hope we carry around for our daily lives and our mortal future, you probably have an abundance of that. I am refferoing to the hope that when we die we will be rewarded for the choices we have made and that in our death we will find the fulfilment of our lives,a hope that the atheist has to lack.

And a Hindu has a hope that YOU lack-- that he will be reincarnated in his next life into a better situation. And a muslim has a hope that you lack-- to be in Allah's heaven with 17 virgin brides. Each religion has their big payoffs, their ultimate carrot on a stick... but what is the basis of it
all, besides wishful thinking and fear???

I base my understandings on evidence; therefore I cannot accept as true those things for which I have no evidence. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever for heaven, hell, afterlife, reincarnation, or anything else that implies that our existence continues on in some form after death.

How then, do I describe the process of death?

A light bulb emits light, for as long as the filament endures. The filament has a limited duration. When it is burned out, the light bulb no longer shines. The bulb continues to exist, but the light is gone. It has dissipated, it's source is nonfunctional. The light that had been emitted was a product of the bulb.

I have every reason to think that life is the same way. Our lives and our consciousness are products of biological processes, and nothing more. When our bodies die, our existence ceases. Our bodies are still here, for a while, but the process that was our lives has vanished forever. I have never heard of any compelling evidence that suggests otherwise.

If we have these things called souls, where do they reside in the body? Of what are they comprised? If you say to me that a soul is made of "spirit", then I must ask you what is spirit made of? And since biological evolution is a certainty, how then did "souls" evolve in the first place? Where do they go to fulfill eternity-- where is this place? How could souls continue to exist, and presumably contain the sum of memory and personality? What makes them indestructible? Until these questions can be adequately answered (not with the vague religious stamp of "unknowable mystery"), then I cannot even begin to regard the issue as true.

Certainly, this way of thinking is not as "pleasant" as taking comfort in thoughts of eternal life and blissful heaven. But do these things exist in fact? I can't simply believe something to make me feel good. Why should I? How could I? And why should you?

These beliefs do not bring about any sadness, fear or feelings of smallness. With the unlikelihood of life on earth, and the chances against the particular egg/sperm combination that resulted in "me", I am quite happy that I had an opportunity to be alive for a while, brief though it is, and
experience this wonderful existence, and had a chance to learn, grow and find joy. The odds against my existence were astronomical.

I do not believe in souls, for no one has ever been able to say of what they are made, nor in what part of the body they reside, nor in what way they continue after death, nor how they could have evolved. Nor has anyone ever provided any believable evidence for souls. All accounts of so-called "near
death experiences" are better explained through what we know about brain chemistry, and accounts "ghosts" are simply unsubstantiated and unverifiable. There is no real evidence in favor of these things.

I find that the vast majority of people simply cannot imagine their own non-existence, cannot bear the thought that their lives must someday reach an end, and therefore to cushion their emotions, they embrace this idea of the eternal afterlife. Because of this emotional need, rational inquiry into religous matters is quenched at an early age. All inquiries into the reality
of the religious creeds is viewed by them as, ultimately, an attempt to rob them of the comfort of a joyous and unending afterlife.

So what will dying be like?

"An endless sleep may close our eyes,
A sleep with neither dreams nor sighs."
--Robert G. Ingersoll

Sometimes when we sleep we have dreams, and when we wake up, we remember the dreams, and so we can account for the passage of time since we laid ourselves down. Other times, however, we sleep and, upon waking, can
remember no dreams at all. It seems to us that we just laid down to bed a brief moment ago, and yet it was really eight hours. Dreamless sleep is, in the words of Edgar Allan Poe, "little slices of death". Death is no more painful, no more terrifying, than a sleep without dreams.

We know from an early age that our lives are limited in duration. This is no surprise to us. We have our whole lives to acclimate to the fact that at some point, we will cease to experience our existence. All of us, great and small, must face this fact.

"But, you must know, your father lost a father; that father lost, lost his."
Hamlet, Act One, Scene Two

What is important is that knowing we have a limited lifetime, we should spend our valuable time in the pursuit of happiness, and the betterment of our condition and that of our fellows-- not in vain preparation for some mythical other life, and sowing the religious seeds of dissention and of
division.

"There may be a hereafter and there may not be. I am wholly indifferent about it. If annihilation is to follow death, I shall not be aware of the annihilation and therefore shall not care a straw about it."
--Mark Twain

YOU also stated, Infinity, that the Christian God can be could be disproven with logical arguements. What about the fact that it was logical arguements that drew me to accept the Christian belief system as the Truth? To use a Post-Modern train of thought- does this make your logic better than mine?


There is one way to find out... let's hear them. I should warn you beforehand, I have never lost.

As for claims being made for the Christian God being "self contradictory", peoples statements may be contradictory, just as my ideas on pacifism are contradictory to the thoughts of most christians, but God is not. But I would like examples of these self contradictory claims about God.


The bible tells us that god does not change his mind:

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will
do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning."

In fact, God CANNOT change his mind. The bible also says that god knows all things from the beginning unto the end... if this is the case, then there can NOT be a situation where god changes his mind. For if God changed his mind, that can ONLY mean that he did not know the future-- that some event or circumstance altered his knowledge and caused him to change his plan...but this would be impossible.

If God is omnicient (knows all things), then he cannot change his mind, for there could be no unknown circumstance or event. Plus, the bible clearly tells us in "absolute" terms that God DOES NOT change his mind, or repent.

Firstly, this situation implies that God is not "all powerful", or omnipotent. If he was all powerful, then nothing-- nothing at all-- would be impossible for him. But clearly, he cannot change his mind if he knows the future. (In another passage, we learn again that God is NOT all-powerful-- Judges 1:19 we read: "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." So, if you want to triumph over God, get yourselves some chariots of iron-- that's the way. Can God destroy the Devil? Then why doesn't He?)


In other words, the terms "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" are contradictory
terms. They both can't be true at the same time. Here is another example: Is God powerful enough to create something that He Himself cannot understand? If yes, then he is not all-knowing. If no, then he is not
all-powerful. God, as described as both all-knowing and all-powerful, is a contradictory entity and cannot exist.

Secondly, the bible is FULL of accounts of God changing his mind, in direct contradiction to the verses listed above that say he doesn't.

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
Jeremiah 15:6 "Thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary of repenting."

Of course, the most spectacular instance of God flip-flopping on an issue is when He changed His mind about Humanity, and killed every man, woman, child and animal on the planet with a Great Flood (with the exception of Noah and his family, of course). If He was all powerful, why didn't He just make the wicked people vanish off the face of the earth? Wasn't He powerful enough to do that? That would have been much more impressive than rain.

Genesis 6:6,7-- "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."

Didn't He know 'the beginning from the end', as we are led to believe? Didn't He know when he made them that Humanity would become so utterly evil that all men, women and children, millions of them, would have to be
drowned? Of course. How then, could He "repent" that He had made them, if He knew perfectly well from the beginning that He would have to destroy them?

Someone who knows the future CANNOT regret something he did. If he regrets something, that means he did not know the future in the first place.

Was He being less than truthful? He can't have been, for Proverbs 30:5 tell us that "Every word of God proves true." Also, Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

Wait a minute... if He CANNOT lie, is He still "ALL-POWERFUL"?

Hold on... he "hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." (1 Kings, 22:23) And "for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie." (2 Thess. 2:11)

Well then, He does lie after all... that sounds like the bible is contradicting itself again. Does He or doesn't He?

Anyway-- does God change his mind or not? If He does, why does the bible say He doesn't? If He doesn't, why does He admit that He does?

Saying that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is like saying there are such things as square circles-- such a thing cannot exist: it is a contradiction.


Okay, let's see you start twisting them verses, and show us why they mean something other than what they really say...


Here is another case. This one is not mine, it is by Dan Barker, a former evangelical minister turned atheist:


The Freewill Argument Against the Existence of God by Dan Barker

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to
have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.
Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his
nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our
nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans.
But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without
desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.

No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound
reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.

Okay, let's see you answer these...

As much as I like reading your post Onslaught I would like to point to this Americo centric dillusion :
I should pause at this point to say that I think if it weren't for the U.S. Constitution, the idea Human Rights and personal freedoms would probably not
exist. It was not universal justice that brought about the Age of Enlightenment, it was the personal conscience of certain individuals like the writers of the Constitution.

This is total bs since the Age of Enlightenment was a European construct and everything that is put in the U.S. constitution comes from, mostly, French 18th century philosophers like Rousseau, Voltaire, Descartes. What is true is that the US served as the first country to experiment with these new idea. This pioniering roll was soon followed by the French themselves in 1789. There is indead no question the American document served as a draft for the french's "declaration des droits de l'homme".

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

Holy toledo Batman!!!

Wow that was whopper!I am impressed.

Infinity, Onslaught or whatever your name is,

You must have a very high regard for yourself if you're so willing to call me pathetic and state that you never lose. This may be so but it would be foolish to think that because of that, you're always right. I like your arguement, but judging from the tone you seem to have heated up a little. I hope I didn't say anything you took personally, if so I apologise. I don't want to offend anyone, that's not my aim, any cheeky comments are purely made in fun. :)

But I'm also not one to back down from a good debate. This one will take a while to process though. I'll do my best, but please tell me straight up if I've angered you, ASAP.

I'll be back! :)

Plato,


I know perfectly well that the Age of Enlightenment was a European construct... constructed by infidels and heretics, most notably Voltaire, the man who did more harm to the church than any man before or since.

Perhaps my statement was too strong. How about:If it weren't for the U.S. Constitution, the idea of human rights AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY would not be as far reaching and universal. Is that better? You see, I am flexible!


As you pointed out, the ideas that the power of the government is granted by those who are governed-- not from divine providence, and that all people have inherent equal rights, that all people have equal protection under the law regardless of beliefs or property, these ideas and more were first instituted by the U.S., through the efforts of enlightened men. Those notions had been around for nearly a century, but what other country showed
signs of implementing them? None. (Yes, I am a patriot. But like Thomas Paine, I also consider that the world is my country.)

Thomas Paine, whom some say did more to cause the Declaration of Independence than any other man, went to France after the success of the American Revolution. In 1792, Paine was elected by the department of Calais as their representative in the national Assembly. So great was his popularity in France that he was selected about the same time by the people of no less than four departments. Upon taking his place in the Assembly he was appointed as one of a committee to draft a constitution for France.



[This message has been edited by Onslaught (edited July 25, 2000).]

You must have a very high regard for yourself if you're so willing to call me pathetic and state that you never lose.


I never have.


This may be so but it would be foolish to think that because of that, you're always right.


I never said I am always right.


But I'm also not one to back down from a good debate. This one will take a while to process though. I'll do my best, but please tell me straight up if I've angered you, ASAP.


I'm not angered. But I do come across strongly. I do not hate Christians. Only their creeds.

I'll be back...and this time, I won't lose. I can't lose, and I never will lose. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!


Hmmm... who just said it is foolish to think you're always right?




[This message has been edited by Onslaught (edited July 25, 2000).]

Onslaught,

I never said "I can't lose, I won't lose and I never lose." Don't misquote me please. I don't know where you got that idea. :)