I recently replied to a bunch of atheists in the combox of David French's article "It's Imperative that Christians Use Explicitly Biblical Arguments."
I'm reproducing all my comments in this post. They should be in chronological order, with the earliest at the top, and the latest reply at the bottom.
I'll update this post and add my replies to the bottom if I make further replies.
---
@Mike Williams
"1.) Stop portraying Christians as victims. It is ridiculous and just as bad as white men complaining about being discriminated against."
What's wrong with portraying Christians as victims if, indeed, they are being victimized? You don't offer a reason.
For that matter, what's so ridiculous about portraying white men as being discriminated against if, in fact, they are being discriminated against? I'm not a white male, but I've seen situations where white men have been discriminated against.
"You are instantly classified as an idiot and ignored."
This is just your prejudicial opinion.
Ironically, giving David French advice is quite contrary to ignoring him.
"Want to experience religious persecution? Walk into a room full of xtians and tell them you are an atheist!"
Let's say, ad arguendo, it's true Christians are "persecuting" you for being an atheist. What would this situation entail? Christians calling you names? Making fun of you? Unless you expect Christians to violently attack you, or do you bodily harm, or at least forcibly requisition your property, or damage your goods, or somesuch, you're evidently quite the dainty daisy and evidently ill accustomed to what real persecution would mean.
By the way, you say atheists can experience "religious persecution," which assumes atheism is a "religion." Otherwise why not leave off the qualifier and simply say "persecution"?
"2.) Stop insisting that everything good comes from your religion and god."
Given atheism, what grounds ultimate objective morality? What grounds ultimate objective good or bad? I'm speaking ontologically, not epistemologically or otherwise.
Is it the social contract? A particular society's laws or mores or other norms? If so, then morality would not be objective, but subject to society's standards. And one society can have a different morality than another (e.g. Nazi Germany vs the US).
Is it our biological underpinnings? Our genetics? That can change if our underlying genetics or biology changes, as it can and apparently has if we assume modern evolutionary theory is correct.
In other words, as Richard Dawkins put it: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
That's where atheism leads, according to Dawkins.
"It is not true and it is insulting. You are not morally superior."
Obviously you didn't learn much about Christianity when you were a professing "Christian." Christians don't believe they're "morally superior" to others. In fact, they believe in original sin. They believe they're sinners, just like everyone else. They believe they need salvation, which they believe is only available in Jesus Christ. You may disagree, but it only makes you appear ignorant when you can't even get basic tenets of Christianity correct.
"It is my long and hard experience (and that of most others) that the more someone talks abut Jesus the less they are to be trusted."
Interesting how you take it upon yourself to speak for others ("and that of most others"). As if you could know what "most others" in the world could believe about this.
What's more, I guess we should "trust" you on this, eh? The more you talk about this topic, the more you can be "trusted"?
"Democracy, laws, freedom, equality did not originate from the Bible."
If atheism is true, then what grounds "democracy, laws, freedom, equality"? Why not something like this instead?
"If you insist they did you are instantly classified as ignorant and ignored."
Yes, you keep saying how you will ignore people. But will you? Or will you simply keep talking? I await your ignoring me with bated breath!
"3.) Stop pushing your 'Christian morality' on everyone else."
Why don't you stop pushing your secular morality on everyone else?
"So your god doesn't like homosexuality? Nobody cares because your god does support slavery, genocide, murdering your bride if she is not a virgin, etc."
Regarding your allegations about what Christians believe, you don't even bother to substantiate them. At any rate, you'll have to excuse me if I take what Christians believe from actual Christians rather than from an apostate with an axe to grind.
And if "nobody cares," then why don't you ignore Christians? Instead, you seem to be doing your level best to interact with Christians.
"Face it, since your god/Bible got it wrong about slavery then it probably is wrong about a lot of other things."
This is just an assertion without an argument. What did it get "wrong about slavery"?
Besides, you've gotten several things wrong here. So I guess by your yardstick this means you're probably wrong about a lot of other things, too!
"At the very least admit that you are also pro slavery and for stoning people who wear clothes made of more than one fabric."
That's a highly tendentious interpretation of the Bible. Anyway, let me just ask you, what scholars have you read on the topic?
"4.) Try following Jesus core principles: kindness, love for fellow human beings, selflessness, instead of majoring on the minor."
Given atheism, why should we? Why not rather be selfish if you can get away with it?
Also, why don't you try reading something like Matt 23 to see what else Jesus said, or the Book of Revelation, which has a lot of direct quotes from Jesus, etc.
"Jesus never condemned anyone over sex"
Here's something Jesus said about sex: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28).
"but he condemned over and over for greed and selfishness, two vices that modern evangelicals have turned into virtues."
You admit Jesus condemns greed and selfishness. So if "modern evangelicals" or in fact any person is greedy or selfish, then they're not living according to how Jesus taught them to live.
"5.) Just because people want to live free of your dogma does not make them your enemy or make you persecuted."
You've been treating Christians like the enemy in your very remarks.
"If you think abortion and homosexuality are wrong then don't have gays sex or abortions. Leave the people who do alone."
How does this follow? How does this make sense? After all, you just as well could have said, If you think murder and rape are wrong, then don't murder or rape. Leave the people who do alone.
"You don't want us banning your Bibles and churches (and we are not trying to do that anyway!)."
Actually, you're trying to shout Christians down by your very words in this thread. And you're promoting secular morality. You think secular morality should be what people subscribe to. So you yourself aren't unbiased. Rather you're biased toward your own secular morals.
---
@DavidAppell
"Because it does not make for good and healthy relationships, whether personal or societal"
You're assuming it's desirable to have "good and healthy relationships." But that's far from a given on atheism (in its most popular form such as espoused by Richard Dawkins).
Also, it depends on whether a person wishes to have a "good and healthy" relationship. Some people don't care about having "good and healthy" "personal or societal" relationships. Take sociopaths. Take serial killers. They don't care. What makes them wrong given atheism?
"and ultimately does not make for a healthy life"
Once again, you're assuming "a healthy life" is desirable on atheism. But some people would prefer to live an unhealthy life if it means they can have more fun (however they might define the word).
Take the late atheist Christopher Hitchens. He believed his heavy drinking and smoking and so forth led to his ill health and ultimately his demise at a relatively younger age. Nevertheless, here's what he said about his choice to do so: "I always knew there was a risk in the bohemian lifestyle...I decided to take it because it helped my concentration, it stopped me being bored - it stopped other people being boring. It would make me want to prolong the conversation and enhance the moment. If you ask: would I do it again? I would probably say yes. But I would have quit earlier hoping to get away with the whole thing. I decided all of life is a wager and I'm going to wager on this bit...In a strange way I don't regret it. It's just impossible for me to picture life without wine, and other things, fueling the company, keeping me reading, energising me. It worked for me. It really did."
That said, there are some medical and scientific studies which purport things like religious affiliation, religious worship, prayer, and the like make for "a healthy life."
"Not being selfish is a personal choice, made with eyes wide open, and not because some book just tells you to do so. Thus it is a result of true freedom and true choice."
Au contraire! You obviously don't know more than a smidgen about atheism. For example, according to noted atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg, free will is an illusion. There is no real free will. Here's something he said in an interview: "Consciousness is extremely misleading. Most of the chapters [in The Atheist's Guide to Reality] are about neuroscience and theories, experiments in neuroscience that show that our belief in free will is an illusion, that our belief in a continuing identical self over a lifetime is an illusion, that we get the nature of cognitive thought fundamentally wrong, and when we do we're susceptible to the narratives of religion. A good chunk of the book is an attempt to explain what contemporary Nobel Prize-winning neuroscience tells us about the mind..."
In short, according to a leading atheist like Rosenberg, you're deluded that atheism offers "true freedom and true choice." It seems your genetic makeup, upbringing, environment, and so forth have conditioned and, indeed, predetermined you will act the way you act and make the choices you make. According to atheism, free will is a trick of the mind. You only think you have it, but you really don't.
By the by, here's a Q&A regarding what atheism ultimately entails, again according to Rosenberg:
Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it had any to begin with.
(Source)
---
@Bg_Rdish
"That's a lofty aspiration, but the Bible isn't analogous to the writings of Aristotle or even Aquinas; it's not a work of philosophy or formal theology."
John Scotus didn't claim the Bible is "analogous to the writings of Aristotle or even Aquinas" or that it's "a work of philosophy or formal theology."
Likewise, what you say doesn't logically follow from Scotus' bit about "Biblical arguments." You're changing the subject.
"Rather, it's a literary anthology that employs parable and metaphor in lieu of discursive deductive reasoning. If you doubt the Bible's divine imprimatur, it's nothing more than a collection of stories and aphorisms."
You're just asserting all this without argument or supporting evidence or the like. You're asserting the Bible is "a literary anthology," that it "employs parable and metaphor in lieu of discursive deductive reasoning," that "it's nothing more than a collection of stories and aphorisms," etc. But you offer no argument (let alone reasonable argument) for your claims. You state it, but don't show it. This makes for poor argumentation, to say the least.
While the Bible does contain stories and aphorisms, that's not all the Bible contains. You appear to have a reductionistic view of the Bible.
"I fail to see how stories and aphorisms, however compelling, can ever deductively establish divinity."
Christians don't claim "stories and aphorisms...deductively establish divinity." You have a tin ear when it comes to listening to Christians.
Why should "divinity" need to be "deductively established" in the first place? Not that it can't be deductively established. But why should this be the standard for establishing divinity?
Besides, you're attempting to foist your own interpretive criteria onto how Christians would establish "divinity." After all, Christians claim Christianity is revelatory for starters. You may disagree with their claim, but if you're going to make an internal critique against Christianity and judge Christianity on its own terms, then you have to start by looking at Christianity the way Christians look at Christianity.
"Empirical evidence could be introduced, but that would seemingly detract from the role of scripture."
Archaeological evidence is a form of empirical evidence. There's tremendous archaeological corroboration with the Bible when it speaks to various ancient cities, peoples, events, etc.
Same with ancient textual evidence (e.g. NT mss evidence).
There are other lines of empirical evidence for Christianity.
Point being, this already is enough to overturn your (once again unargued) point. Empirical evidence need not "detract from the role of scripture."
"And does anyone actually believe that empiricism is capable of proving, dispositively, Biblical truth?"
This is a red herring since far from all Christians subscribe to "empiricism" as their primary epistemological modus operandum in "proving...Biblical truth."
And what of the atheist? The same could be said to the atheist. But it wouldn't necessarily be fair to the atheist since not all atheists are empiricists.
"Such a possibility, it seems to me, would negate the concept of faith and transform man's ostensible relationship with God from one of trust to trust but verify."
That's because you're operating with a concept of faith that's quite impoverished insofar as Christianity is concerned. I can elaborate, but it looks like Jason Engwer has already corrected you on this.
And what's wrong with "trust but verify"? That's perfectly consistent with Christian faith.
---
@Bg_Rdish
"Scripture is only rhetorically useful when it expresses broadly accepted principles ("ye cannot serve God and mammon") or the intended audience is believers."
So you're looking for common ground between Christians and non-Christians. Fair enough. But this misses the point that Scripture isn't meant only to be "rhetorically useful." Re-read French's article.
"Aside from such instances, the image of an accepting, upstanding religious community devoted to service is probably more persuasive."
These aren't mutually exclusive. As French has already pointed out.
"You'll notice that Mormons are often admired by even those who find LDS theology absurd."
Perhaps you live on the planet Kolob, but I likewise notice Mormons are often ridiculed by those who find LDS theology absurd.
---
@I[heart]Rimbaud
How can I take the behavior of atheists and secularists seriously if atheism entails the following, per leading atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg:
Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it had any to begin with.
(Source)
---
@apotropoxy
The Old Testament is replete with God's mercy and love and so forth. And nowhere in the Bible is hell more clearly depicted than in the New Testament. So you're attempted internal critique fails. But that's to be expected given your village atheist level of argumentation involving facile dichotomies and ignorance of Roman history.
---
@AtheistConservative
"A creation story in which god curses an entire race of people and later commands his chosen people to exterminate them does not seem to contradict a racist worldview."
Given mainstream atheism (e.g. Richard Dawkins), what ultimately grounds objective morality? Given atheism, what makes it wrong for people to be racist or even to commit genocide?
---
@Televangelist
"As a secular Jew (which is a pretty influential demographic in America, actually), remind me how I'm supposed to be convinced by any of this?"
No use trying to convince you if you don't wish to be convinced. Although you may wish to read what Sefer Mishlei says about the fool (e.g. "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion").
---
@Jonathan Goodman
"It's telling that the biggest example David French gives, abortion, is not a biblical question at all. The ancients who wrote these texts (albeit with help from upstairs), had no concept of abortion."
Why is this "the biggest example"? French also talked about homosexual marriage. He also talked about race. But I don't see you taking issue with these. Why single out what he said about abortion as if it were "the biggest example"?
Why is this "telling"? It's not as if French is suggesting biblical arguments against abortion should substitute for other arguments against abortion. Nor are these mutually exclusive.
One need simply find common ground between disputants. If reason is such a common ground, then argue from reason.
Say I agree, ad arguendo, that "abortion is not a biblical question at all." Yet it's still possible someone could be affected by the Bible. For example, imagine a woman believes her 12 week fetus is indeed a person. She may or may not have good reason to believe this, but say she believes it. In that case, it's possible citing "thou shalt not murder" (or somesuch) could have an affect on her even if the Bible doesn't address abortion. So your point falls flat.
"They had no explicit opinion about when the fetus becomes a person."
What makes you think the ancients thought about a "fetus" in the same way we think of a "fetus"? What makes you think the ancients could have had the notion of a fetus "becoming" a person? Your own objection is, ironically, anachronistic.
"The Bible does tell us not to murder other people, but it does not say that a 12 week fetus is a person."
The Bible doesn't need to tell us "a 12 week fetus is a person" in order for us to conclude "a 12 week fetus is a person." If, for example, medical science, philosophy, and/or the dicates of reason compel us to deduce "a 12 week fetus is a person," then that's all the evidence we need.
"Anti abortion Christians often quote some ambiguous statement from somewhere, but it really is ambiguous."
By the way, your arguments have been fairly "ambiguous."
"The Bible is not at all ambiguous about what is important. There is no doubt about what Isaiah thinks about false gods or failure to help the poor."
You cast the issue in terms of what the Bible says. As if we can only be against abortion if the Bible explicitly commands against it. However, that's simplistic. The Bible isn't our only source of knowledge. God also created the universe including the planet we inhabit. God also created us including our minds. We can make use of the confluence of our God-given mental faculties for reasoning, our knowledge and understanding of the world around us such as we can see in medical science, and, of course, the Bible itself to arrive at truth.
As an aside, I happen to think there are implicit arguments against abortion in the Bible. But I'll save this for another time perhaps.
---
@Joe A
Joe A's original point was a hasty generalization, which he paid dearly for when Stephen P and Jason Engwer readily overturned it.
Also, Jefferson's quotation is simply his opinion. It has no political or social bearing in and of itself. What's more, there are plenty of colonial era leaders whose opinions about the truth or falsity of Christianity are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Christianity (e.g. Thomas Paine).
As for the Adams quotation, it's simply saying (in his view) that the federal government isn't founded on Christianity. So what? That's not the same thing as saying the Constitution *precludes* Christianity.
Besides, we could come up with all sorts of quotations from all sorts of politicians about their various informed or uninformed opinions about Christianity or other religions. But quotations aren't arguments - unless we're quoting a specific argument.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Humans do have free will because of our limited ability to predict and change the future. If we could know everything about the future than we would see all of our actions as predetermined, and if we knew nothing about the future all of our actions would be essentially random. Hence, from the perspective of mere mortals, we do have meaningful free will."
That's not meaningful free will. That's not free will at all. On atheism (following people like Richard Dawkins and Alex Rosenberg), our decisions have been "predetermined" by the confluence of our genetics, neurophysiology, socialization, and so forth.
"Good, bad, right and wrong are all meaningful words, even for a person with a subjective morality based on innate moral sentiments (a category that includes everyone)."
I didn't say they weren't "meaningful." Rather I'm saying they have no firm universal objective basis. After all, given atheism, what grounds morality? The social contract? Our genetic makeup? These are subjective, or at the least have no firm universal objective basis.
"Believers may feel that their morality comes from scripture, and this may be reassuring, but in choosing one interpretation out of many possible ones they are consciously excluding those that don't comply with their evolved sense of morality. As a thought experiment, try to think about how you would feel if your religion commanded you to do something that was unjust. Of course, this is absurd as you have freely chosen to hold your particular religious beliefs, and none of them contradict your preexisting sense of morality."
This doesn't only apply to "believers," but to atheists as well. Atheists likewise "choose one interpretation out of many possible ones" and in so doing "they are consciously excluding those that don't comply with their evolved sense of morality." You could similarly try to think about how you would feel if another atheist commanded you to do something that you believed was unjust. Say if an atheist serial killer commanded you to murder someone. Or say an atheist rapist commanded you to rape someone. Why are murder or rape universal objective wrongs? If they're not, if at best they're subjective based on our social contract with the society which we inhabit or based on our genetic makeup, then who's to say a social contract which invovles the murder of some people is wrong (e.g. Nazis murdering Jews) or that we can't someday evolve to think rape is morally justifiable such as when the males of our species are in heat (as some atheist scholars have, in fact, argued - see atheist Michael Ruse for example)?
"The answer about why should I be moral is too simple. Its not just that it feels better. It is also continuously reinforced by connections to loved ones and to a larger society. Society plays an important role in inculcating moral virtue, as does organized religion. This does not make the metaphysical claims of religion true. This does not mean society is your daddy or has interests that supersede those of individuals."
If morality is based on social roles or society, then morality is subject to changes in social roles or society. If our social roles or society changes, then it's possible our morality could change as well.
Muslim societies are perfectly within their moral bounds to oppress women or murder infidels since that's what makes them "feel" better, that's what makes "continuosuly reinforce[s]" their "connections to loved ones and to [their] larger society."
"History may not have a meaning and purpose, but it seems to have some interesting tendencies."
Interesting only from the perspective of an evolved hominid like ourselves. But who are we? We're utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We haven't even existed as long as dinosaurs so far. And we could go the way of the dinosaur, and the next evolved sentient species (assuming there will be future one) may study us the same way we study dinosaurs. So whether we're liberal or conservative, well, it doesn't really matter. We'll eventually be lnog forgotten.
"Natural history has tended to ascend from chaos and simplicity to order and complexity."
Given atheism, "natural history" which includes evolutionary processes have no teleology. They're not goal oriented. They don't select for "simplicity" or "order" or "complexity."
Plus, what's "simple" or "complex" is relative anyway. Relative to other organisms. Is our human camera-eye (which, among other things, is inverted) more simple or complex than the camera-eye of a cephalopod (which, among other things, is non-inverted)?
"So too has human history tended towards greater and accelerating levels of complexity in human society, which has been attended by greater levels of prosperity and individual autonomy."
That's banal, and false. It's relative to the time period we're talking about. Take the Medieval Ages aka Dark Ages. Was that period more "complex" and "attended by greater levels of prosperity and individual autonomy" than at the height of the Roman Empire?
Also, it's relative to where you happen to live. Much of the modern Muslim world does not have "individual autonomy" like we do in the US. Certainly not for many women. Much of Africa does not have "prosperity" like we do in the US.
And there's no guarantee in the future that we won't lose "complexity in human society" and have less "prosperity and individual autonomy."
"There are definitely lessons from the past, so this guy might be an idiot. Some of the best ones are the intellectuals who have always found brilliant ways to justify terrible ideas (Or in this case terrible ways to justify good ones)."
Pot, meet kettle.
---
@apotropoxy
"1. The OT is, indeed, replete with mercy and love. But that mercy and love is directed almost entirely toward his Jews. Their god's attitude toward non-Jews is quite aggressive and wrathful."
My, you're ignorant. God's wrath was likewise exercised against "Jews" such as with the Assyrians and Babylonians against Israel and Judah. And God commanded the "Jews" to treat resident aliens and foreigners well.
"Cannibalism as a punishment against those who would challenge the People of Israel is mentioned in several places."
So mention them. And exegete them while you're at it.
"Rape and annihilation of Israel's enemies is commonplace. All those ancient Middle Eastern societies shared this ethos."
"Commonplace"? Really? So, pray tell, how you would determine whether such things are "commonplace"? Are you a comparative Near Eastern scholar? Or are you judging by what you've read solely in the biblical text, which in turn is filtered through your armchair historical pronouncements?
"2. YHWY's attitude toward women would hardly be considered loving and merciful today."
First off, why judge by modern standards? What justifies modern standards?
More importantly, this is not the case given atheism, for atheism doesn't ground universal objective morality, as atheists like Richard Dawkins, Alex Rosenberg, and Michael Ruse would say. Sure, they treat women the way they do because of how it makes them feel and because of society's values. But this isn't the same as ontologically justifiying the enlightented treatment of women we possess in the US today.
"Hell is a theological construction that came to Christianism from the Persian-Greek tradition and was rejected by the traditional ancient Jews."
So now you're a Persian as well as Greek scholar? Not to mention Jewish scholar? Why don't you cite evidence for this rather than Googling for Wiki articles on Sheol or Hades or Gehenna or the like?
Besides, what I said doesn't necessitate the truth of hell. Only that Christians subscribe to hell, however hell happens to be envisaged. So demonstrating the "theological construction" and etiology of hell doesn't overturn the fact that you originally attempt to erect a false dichotomy between the OT and NT "gods."
"That's why you don't find it in their scriptures. They had a Day of Judgement which was to be the time it took for their god to separate the Jewish faithful from the lapsed. Following that 'day', the world was to have been awarded with a thousand years of godly paradise."
I think I'll trust the word of a scholar of Judaism over your unsubstantiated opinion, thankyouverymuch.
"Roman history: The reasons Rome finally fell are complicated and historians disagree on the weight particular reasons played. Given that I did not weigh in on this issue and you say that I did, it's reasonable to conclude that your bias has blinded you to your ideology."
Since you obviously can't follow your argument, perhaps due to deficient basic reading comprehension, I'll go ahead and relate what you originaly said back to you again. You alleged the "promise of a sublime afterlife tended to make the NT "god's" (i.e. Jesus') followers "accept whatever their leaders dished out." Then you went on to say some historians "think this was an important reason for ancient Rome's collapse." So, yes, you did "weigh in" on the issue of Rome's collapse. Given that you don't realize what you yourself said, it's reasonable conclude that you can't follow your own argument, and surmise this could be due to your poor ability to learn how to read a basic sentence or paragraph.
"Your ignorance of your own religious tradition and the history surrounding the rise of Christianity is typical of religionist partisans. Instead of getting your history from Sunday school, try reading some scholarly works written since the mid-1850's."
Your ignorance of your own words and what you yourself have said and the need for others to re-explain your own words to you is typical of kindergarteners who can't focus on a single task for more than a few moments. Instead of having others remember what you said for you, and convey it back to you again, because you couldn't concentrate well enough to read what you yourself wrote, try auditing a remedial reading class for adults, preferably one up to American educational standards in the year 2013.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Thankfully we evolved as social animals with an innate moral sense. Evolution also gave us instincts that make us tribal and territorial, but over history empathy and solidarity seem to be winning out over racism."
Yes, and evolution also can further evolve us in the future. It could be our current "innate moral sense" evolves to a different "innate moral sense." Humans may currently think raping women is wrong, but in the future raping women could be morally justifiable. Here's what atheist scholar Michael Ruse has said:
"There is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention—an invention of the genes rather than of humans, and we cannot change games at will, as one might baseball if one went to England and played cricket. Within the system, the human moral system, it is objectively true that rape is wrong. That follows from the principles of morality and from human nature. If our females came into heat, it would not necessarily be objectively wrong to rape—in fact, I doubt we would have the concept of rape at all. So, within the system, I can justify. But I deny that human morality at the highest level—love your neighbor as yourself, etc.—is justifiable. That is why I am not deriving 'is' from 'ought,' in the illicit sense of justification. I am deriving it in the sense of explaining *why we have* moral sentiments, but that is a different matter."
(Source)
"As for objective morality, I don't believe in it. I subscribe to Hume's dictum that, 'Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.'"
For one thing, you don't show why Hume's dictum is relevant to the case of objective morality.
In any case, if you don't believe in objetive morality, then you can't fundamentally speaking justify conserative values over liberal values, despite being an atheist conservative. According to you, it could be perfectly fine for Obama and other liberals to do the things the do according to their liberal moral and value system. Who are you to judge them if you don't believe in objective morality.
"Thus, I object to racism because my imperfectly evolved mammalian brain finds it repellent at a sub-rational level."
If your brain is "imperfectly evolved," then perhaps we should consult a more perfectly evolved brain! Just kidding.
Continuing, you may object to racism because you find it "repellent," but it doesn't therefore follow racism is morally wrong, according to what you just said.
In fact, for another person, say a neo-Nazi, racism may not be repellent. It may be pleasing. So if all you can say is you're against racism because you feel it is "repellent," then a neo-Nazi could say they are racist because they feel it is pleasing.
"To me nothing is right or wrong in a cosmic or theological sense. I can only say that I take pleasure in observing human flourishing, and that the rational side of my brain helps me discover the best means of attaining it."
Why the blatant speciesism in favor of humans? Why the "human flourishing"? You're so prejudiced, similar to racists, but against animals of other species!
There are other human beings who take pleasure in observing human degradation (e.g. sociopaths). Since you say "To me nothing is right or wrong in a cosmic or theological sense," then you can't say it's wrong for sociopaths to take pleasure in human degradation.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Not true. Free will can only be meaningfully understood from the perspective of beings with finite knowledge. From the perspective of an omniscient deity free will does not exist. I owe this incite to my fellow atheist Daniel Dennett from his book Freedom Evolves."
No, I'm not talking about "understanding" free will. I'm talking about whether it exists. You can "understand" free will all you want. Just like we can analyze and understand a work of literary fiction like Ender's Game. But it doesn't mean the Ender's Game universe exists in reality.
By the way, Dennett is wrong on a number of things. See his debate with philosopher Alvin Plantinga, for instance.
"I have a hard time understanding how you could read my post and come away thinking I subscribe to a universal objective morality."
I have a hard time understanding how you could read my replies and come away thinking I said you subscribe to universal objective morality. I didn't say that. Indeed, ad arguendo, I'm agreeing with you that universal objective morality doesn't exist, and then drawing out its logical implications.
"It simply doesn't exist. Morality is subjective and I embrace this. This does not make me any less resolute in my moral convictions."
Yes, you can be "resolute" all you want. So could anyone. The neo-Nazi racist can be as "resolutely" for racism as you are against it. Since you "embrace" subjective morality, the neo-Nazi is just as morally justified to be a racist as you are.
"If I use human happiness as a provisional starting point for moral reflection and then use reason to discover the best means of attaining this, I end up with a very strong basis for debating those who make different moral judgments."
Why should an atheist who also embraces moral subjectivity care about human happiness anyway? Take a serial killer who is an atheist and embraces moral subjectivity. Why should he care about what makes other humans happy? Why shouldn't he only care about himself? If the answer is because it's better for him socially and health-wise, why should he value social relationships or even his own health? I've already quoted what atheist Christopher Hitchens said about this in a previous comment, for example.
As I said to you earlier, why are such a proponent of speciesism in favor of humans? Why shouldn't the happiness of rodents be at least equally important?
Also, William Lane Craig debated Sam Harris on this issue. I don't agree with everything either person said, but you can check out their debate to decide for yourself.
As for reason, given atheism and modern evolutionary theory, how do you even know your mental faculties (e.g. reasoning abilities) have evolved in a reliable enough fashion for you to form true beliefs? It's not as if natural selection necessarily favors the formation of true beliefs. Natural selection could just as well favor forming false beliefs so long as these false beliefs adapt you as an organism to survive in your particular environment. Therefore, your reason could arguably be said to be unreliable.
"As long as my interlocutors agree that universal human happiness is the starting point of the discussion, then the debate will center entirely on rational and empirical issues of how to attain this."
There are many who would not agree. For example, as I've repeatedly said, a serial killer or sociopath wouldn't agree with you.
"If they reject universal human happiness in favor of special consideration for a particular race or the triumph of a particular messianic religious creed then rational communication becomes impossible."
Wrong, this isn't "special consideration," according to your stated beliefs. This is part and parcel of your stated beliefs.
And it need not be racists or the religious who "reject universal human happiness." It could easily be your fellow atheists such as sociopaths.
"I must seek solidarity with those you share my subjective moral sentiments and oppose those who do not; with violence if necessary."
Jihadists also seek "solidarity" with those who "share" their "moral sentiments" and "oppose those who do not," and do so "with violence if necessary." So you're no better than jihadists.
"I stand by my observation that history tends towards greater complexity."
Then you "stand by" against reason, since I proffered reasonable argumentation against your position. It's ironic someone who values reason isn't reasonable.
"The universe began as a cloud of sub atomic particles, then atoms and molecules formed, then galaxies, stars and planets. Life began with simple chains of nucleic acids, then prokaryotes, then eukaryotes, then plants and animals and most recently intelligent life which has given birth to a new level of complexity in the form of human civilizations."
Are you scientist? I have scientific education and training. Let's argue the science. What makes you think nucleic acids like DNA or RNA are "simple"? What makes you think eukaryotic cells are "simple"? Are you familiar with the molecular world?
Also, you're assuming a strong reductionism. Why?
"The first 200,000 years of human history were dominated by tiny bands of hunter gatherers. The last 10,000 have seen the growth of agriculture and the advent of feudal and mercantile civilizations. The last five hundred have seen the advancement of science and the introduction of civilizations based on individual liberty. The age of computing has been another profound leap forward in terms of the complexity of human social networks."
You're just repeating yourself without taking into consideration the problems I've already pointed out to you. Re-read what I've written.
"The is not a teleological statement, it is an empirical generalization."
I didn't say this was "a teleological statement." I used teleology in respect to modern evolutionary processes in light of atheism. You have to be able to accurately represent a position in order to argue against it in the first place. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.
---
@AtheistConservative
"I think your having trouble with my position because you are taking a god's eye view of morality. I'm not arguing moral relativism and nihilism, quite the contrary."
I think you're having trouble with my position because you can't follow basic reasoning and logic. You've said you're an atheist, that you subscribe to modern evolutionary theory, that you embrace moral subjectivity, etc. So, yes, the logical implications of your beliefs entail moral relativism, whether or not you care to admit it.
Speaking of which, I don't actually care if you admit it or not. I don't write for you. You're just a useful foil. I'm writing for reasonable people who are reading this. If they're reasonable, they can tell who has the more reasonable argument(s).
"It is very easy for me to debate liberals, because we do not disagree that human happiness is a good objective for public policy. What we disagree about is the best means of attaining this."
I'm not talking about whether or not you can "debate" liberals. Of course all sorts of people with all sorts of opinions can debate. I'm saying, given your beliefs, then, fundamentally speaking, you have no justifiable grounds by which to disagree with liberal moral values.
"As for a neo-Nazi who takes pleasure in racism, we may not be able to have a rational discussion about morality."
You keep talking about having discussions and so forth about morality. But that's not the point. The point is the logical implications of your beliefs. If you embrace atheism and moral subjectivism, which you say you do, then take your beliefs to their logical conclusion.
"I can appeal to non-rational moral sentiments concerning the common humanity of people of all races."
The atheist who also embraces moral subjectivity and is a neo-Nazi won't care. As you said earlier, you feel "repellent" against racism. But this neo-Nazi could very well feel "pleasure" by being racist. So "moral sentiments" won't get you anywhere.
"Or I can argue that, as a practical matter, non-racism may better serve the interests of whites than racism."
True, it may be "better" as a "practical matter," for a time. Just like it was more practical for Hitler to ally with Stalin until he defeated the others. Then Hitler turned on Stalin and Russians and other Slavic peoples due to his racism.
"But ultimately there may be an unbridgeable gap between our opposing views."
Given your atheism, moral subjectivism, and so forth, it's perfectly consistent for people to behave however they like.
"Fortunately I live in a country were non-racists vastly outnumber racists, so I really have no need to persuade every single neo-Nazi to give up their racist beliefs. This was not the case in 1939, and ultimately violence succeeded were reason could not."
Just because you "live in a country were [sic] non-racists vastly outnumber racists" doesn't mean there are no racists. In fact, there are some neo-Nazis in our country as well as other types of racists. But given your beliefs, which include atheism and moral subjectivity, you can't say racists are ultimately morally wrong to be racist. If true, your atheism and moral subjectivism can't justify why racism and other immoralities are, indeed, immoral or unethical, which is all the worse for you as an atheist. In short, if true, your atheism loses, or at best wins a Pyrrhic victory, in terms of objective morality and ethics.
"As for speciesism, I assume you are being a bit flippant."
No, I'm serious. It's a valid point against your beliefs and values.
"Just as I find racism repellent, so too do I find the cruel treatment of intelligent and empathic species animals objectionable. The slaughter of our primate cousins in Africa and Indonesia is terrible and it makes me really sad."
So what about non-intelligent and non-empathic species of animals? Too bad for them?
Also, are you only empathic toward those whom you have empathy for? Say you hate someone and wish they were dead. If they were on a lifeboat with you in the middle of an ocean, and you two were the only ones around because the rest of the ship had sunk, and you could easily get away with killing the other person since they're much weaker than you are, and no one would be any wiser, then since you don't feel empathic for them, and in fact hate their guts, too bad for them?
---
@tinkerblue
"When I say to a Christian, 'give me the evidence of your God', they inevitably say ...'well, the bible says'! I finally figured out what to tell them. I say 'using the bible to prove God, is like using the book 'Cinderella' to prove that a princess existed who wore glass slippers. They kinda get what I am saying...but then they try to tell me the two are not the same thing."
Yes, the Christians are correct. The two are not analogous to one another. Or at the very least, if they are analogous to one another, since you're the one drawing the comparison, the onus is on you to show how the Bible and Cinderella are analogous to one another. For example, there are scholars who do not accept the Bible as divine revelation, including some atheist scholars, but who accept the Bible as a source of historical and archaeological information. Whereas Cinderella is, by all reasonable accounts, a folk tale, which presumes its fictional etiology and status.
---
@AtheistConservative
"First of all, free will exists in the sense that human beings are able to make limited predictions about the future and how their actions will affect outcomes."
You keep repeating yourself despite what I've said. Most likely you're either unable to advance the state of the argument, or you're ignorant of the state of the argument. Neither bodes terribly well for you. You pay lip service to reason but your comments aren't, in fact, reasonable comments. It's entertaining to watch you at work though, I'll give you that.
Just because humans can "make limited predictions about the future and how their actions will affect outcomes" doesn't mean free will exists. As I said, it could be an illusion. A person could "think" they are making "predictions about the future" and taking into consideration "how their actions will affect outcomes" when the reality could be they are, say, just a robot pre-programmed to think they are making predictions about the future and weighing their actions and so forth. As such, their thought and behavior could be entirely explicable in terms of physical mechanisms and processes. They're just automatons who "think" they have free will when the truth is they don't.
And that's analogous to the confluence of your atheism and modern evolutionary theory. According to several prominent atheist scholars who are far more reasonable than you are, including Rosenberg, as I've already cited a number of times in this combox.
"Determinism is irrelevant in a world where everyone has incomplete knowledge."
Non sequitur. These are logically separable.
"It seems like you don't read my whole comment before you start writing responses to specific things I say. I'm not saying that you did this, but it seems that way from the disjointed way you write your responses."
I think it's rather than you can't follow the argumention and reasoning so far.
"Like I said in my comment, the ideal of universal human happiness in not an objective universal moral imperative. It is a simple statement of my own subjective morality. If other people do not share this, then from my perspective they are not moral individuals (just as from their perspective, I am not a moral individual)."
No, you keep missing the point. It's not a matter of "perspective." And it's not a matter of you thinking others aren't moral, or others thinking you're not moral. That's all besides the point.
Instead, the point is, given your embrace of atheism and subjective morality and so on, you have no universal objective morality. So you can't reasonably say a person or their action is immoral, except in a subjective sense, which is ultimately trivial. In short, your statement "they are not moral individuals" is fundamentally meaningless given your espoused beliefs.
"Fortunately, most people who are reared in a civilized community like the United States would not object to this simple provisional statement about morality; even if they do not accept that it is subjective and non-rational."
You are not "most people." And this statement is irrelevant to what I've said.
"Hence, I would not have anything to argue with a committed serial killer or sociopath; atheist or otherwise."
I appreciate you conceding my point.
"I live in a society where I don't have to debate such people. Our criminal justice system already agrees with me that they are immoral and when they are discovered we put them in jail."
So, for you, if it's out of sight, then it's out of mind. Such a reasonable stance to take.
Once again, you miss the point. What if our society's moral beliefs and values change such that they no longer agree sociopaths and serial killers are immoral?
What if society judges sociopaths to be "misunderstood" individuals who had a rough upbringing, and so we need to be compassionate toward them, and not imprison them, but rehabilitate them and then let them back into society?
"You also wrote, 'Jihadists also seek "solidarity" with those who "share" their "moral sentiments" and "oppose those who do not," and do so "with violence if necessary." So you're no better than jihadists.' I don't understand this. I said those things with jihadists specifically in mind. They are a great example of a group of people who I cannot have a rational debate with and who I'm am willing to use violence to oppose."
That's due to your poor logical reasoning abilities. Remember what you originally said: "I must seek solidarity with those you share my subjective moral sentiments and oppose those who do not; with violence if necessary." Well, the jihadist could say the exact same thing in opposition to you.
"Do you really want to get into a discussion about epistemology? I have some thoughts in this question but I find the topic kind of boring."
Go for it. Let's see what you got. Start by addressing the point I made.
"On the question of historical tendencies, I concede your counter examples. History does not move in a strait line. The tendencies I pointed out require a broad view of time and, yes, they are reversible. I am not scientifically educated so you have me at a disadvantage on the topic of natural history, but would you dispute the idea that a multicellular organism such as a dog is more complicated than an amoeba?"
Given atheism, "complex" in what sense? That's been my point all along.
"If you want to continue this conversation, you need to advance a viewpoint. So far, all you have done is criticize my position and propose vacuous counter examples. I'm done with this cross examination."
There's nothing wrong with criticizing a position and demonstrating its deficiencies and limitations, which is precisely what I've done with your position. Just because you find what I've said "vacuous" doesn't mean it is, in fact, vacuous. Reasonable readers can judge for themselves.
As I've said to you, you're just a useful foil. Sparring with you helps show others the unreasonableness of your position.
If you're done, then leave. No one is forcing you to stay.
"For starters, what are your answers to the questions in the Rosenberg text that you quoted?"
I agree with what Rosenberg said about what atheism entails.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Its a simple question. I didn't ask whether you agreed with what Rosenberg said about what atheism entails. I asked how YOU would answer those questions. Given your own opinions about morality and theology, how would you answer these questions?"
At the risk of stating the obvious, my position is irrelevant to demonstrating the weaknesses and limitations of your position. I don't need to put forward what I believe in order to criticize what you believe. Your arguments involving atheism, subjective morality, etc. stand or fall on their own merits or demerits, irrespective of what I happen to believe or disbelieve. I could be a fellow atheist and still find your position unreasonable.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Yeah, I know. I'm done arguing with you if you won't advance any position of your own. You're pretty arrogant for a guy who refuses to state his opinion."
As I've already pointed out repeatedly, the reason I won't "advance any position of [my] own" is simply due to the fact that what I say has no relevance to a critique of your own position. It'd be a red herring, and who wants to be sidetracked by red herrings? Stick to the argument. This is an eminently reasonable course to take.
Ironically, you're the one who claims to be reasonable, yet you apparently can't see this or don't care for it. What's more, you react emotionally by calling me arrogant, though whether I'm arrogant or not has nothing to do with whether an argument is reasonable or not. Again, the irony is palpable.
---
@DavidAppell
"THAT'S your argument. Oh jeez."
Since I was answering you on your own grounds, then so much the worse for what you originally said. Try not standing on such shaky ground next time.
"You'll have to do better -- much better."
Good thing I don't live for your approval, or I might be really torn up.
If you have a little kid or a pet dog, then perhaps you can try to take some comfort in disapproving of what Junior or Fido have done. At least you could ask them to pretend to hang their head in shame if it'll help improve your self-esteem.
---
@Ken_L
"We can care about moral behaviour as an act of free will, done out of moral principle"
According to many atheist scholars, free will is an illusion.
"philosophers have been discussing what it means to live a good life since long before the birth of Christ."
According to many atheist scholars, there is fundamentally speaking no universal objective morality.
"Mature moral thinkers can explain and defend their personal principles using reasoning."
According to many atheist scholars, our cognitive faculties (which includes our ability to reason) are not necessarily reliable or reliable enough to form true beliefs.
See the works of atheist scholars like Alex Rosenberg and Michael Ruse to substantiate what I've said.
---
@QBeamus
"Most of them are still selfish and primal (such as the genetic predisposition to propagate our DNA)"
Given atheism in its most oft-espoused incarnation, what's fundamentally morally wrong with rape to propagate our DNA?
For example, rape occurs in some organisms such as certain arachnids, dolphins, and primates. This helps propagate DNA. Arguably better than monogamous marriages. Why can't we do the same?
Sure, our society doesn't currently approve of rape. But who's to say society's moral beliefs and values are right?
Also, our moral sensibilities may be repulsed by rape. But who's to say our moral sensibilities are morally justifiable? We just "feel" this way due to our genetic makeup, our upbringing, socialization, etc. But there's nothing wrong about bypassing all this, given atheism, is there?
Or what if we evolved different moral sensibilities in the future which accept rape as morally justifiable? Say if the only people who reproduced were rapists.
---
@DavidAppell
"At least, Christians haven't been killing so many people lately. But their religion has been central to lives that justified slavery, crusades, racism, wars, and militarism, and in some cases continues to be."
At least atheists haven't been killing so many people lately. But their beliefs and values have been central to lives that justified genocide, rape, wars, racism, and militarism, and in some cases continues to be.
---
@Joe A
Atheism! What a wonderful philosophy to be governed by:
Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it had any to begin with.
(Source)
---
@Joe A
"I find it such a ridiculous stretch that same sex marriage is a war on the First Amendment. No one is forcing Christians to gay marry or Christian Churches to perform same sex ceremonies. But Christians on the other hand want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else by denying SSM."
Ironically, Joe A wants to push his secular morals onto the rest of the nation.
Also, given atheism and evolutionary theory, why not seek to eradicate homosexuality if it means the improved survival of our species?
"You are on the wrong side of history. And some day opposition to SSM will be viewed in the same light as opposition to integration."
That depends on who "wins" history. If Muslim jihadists win, then opposition to SSM will be viewed more favorably than support.
Besides, given atheism, history is ultimately meaningless. We live, we die. Just a speck of dust. Alive for maybe 100 years, give or take, and then gone. The human species may be gone in the next few hundred or thousand years for all we know. Perhaps a new sentient (or non-sentient like the dinosaurs as far as we know) species will replace us as Earth's predominant species. Someday Earth will be gone. If humanity is still around, hopefully we'll have made it to the stars. But even if we have made it to the stars, then the universe will eventually end. With the end of the universe, nothing will have ultimately mattered.
Atheists often talk about the immense size of the universe, and how this somehow means Earth and its inhabitants are nothing particularly special. If so, then the same or similar goes for our lives. We're just a drop in the bucket given the immensity of time and space. We don't matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, given atheism.
---
@Joe A
"Ah yes, the Bible. Let us be governed by Bible quotes such as:"
Ah yes, atheism. Let us be governed by atheist beliefs such as:
Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it had any to begin with.
(Source)
---
@Bg_Rdish
"No, I'm pointing out why "Scotus" is wrong to assume that the Bible can be used rhetorically in the same manner as the arguments of, say, John Duns Scotus."
Sounds like you need to re-read what Scotus said.
"Yeah, because it's obvious."
"Obvious" isn't an argument.
By your measure, I could say the existence of God is "obvious."
"If you don't see a difference between the Gospels and Summa Theologica, then present your argument."
That wasn't your original contention, and certainly not the one with which I was taking issue. You claimed the Bible is "a literary anthology," that it "employs parable and metaphor in lieu of discursive deductive reasoning," that "it's nothing more than a collection of stories and aphorisms," etc. I never said there's no difference between the Gospels and the Summa. It's evident you really need to bone up on basic reading comprehension.
"Because absent corroborating evidence, scripture is only capable of establishing its own truth deductively -- i.e., that chain of reasoning is persuasive."
The phrase "absent corroborating evidence" is a post hoc qualification. That wasn't part of what you originally said, and hence not part of my prior response to you. Nice try though.
"Which I challenge you to demonstrate, because I'm highly skeptical it can be done."
It'd be a red herring here since it didn't form the original objection. But maybe you're trying to avoid what you originally claimed, or trying to move the goalposts.
What's more, you could easily Google various philosophical arguments if you actually desired. For starters, read a philosopher like Alvin Plantinga, and try to find the illogicality in his arguments.
"There is, but it doesn't prove that the Bible is anything more than historical fiction."
It doesn't need to "prove that the Bible is anything more than historical fiction." It merely needs to prove you're wrong that the introduction of empirical evidence would "detract from the role of scripture" since one of the roles of Scripture could be to corroborate historical events mentioned elsewhere.
"Also, there are plenty of Biblical events that secular history and archaeology indicate probably didn't happen, such as the Roman census and the book of Exodus."
Irrelevant to my original point.
But since you bring it up, let's note, first of all, you're again simply making an assertion without supporting it with argumentation or evidence. It's your contention that "secular history and archaeology indicate probably didn't happen, such as the Roman census and the book of Exodus."
Next, what does your assertion amount to? Absent an actual argument with supporting evidence, at best, you're making an argument from silence. But the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That's all I really need to say to undercut your point.
However, I'll say more. Regarding the Roman census, I assume you're alluding to the Quirinius census noted in Luke. For one thing, you apparently exclude the Gospels including the Gospel of Luke as historical evidence for the census. But if Luke is historically reliable enough (note it need not be inspired), then we can cite it as historical textual evidence that the Roman census occurred.
Moreover, there are secular historians who do argue the Roman census occurred. Take militant atheist Richard Carrier who has argued for its historical plausibility in the past (e.g. here).
Check out these lines of evidence as well: here and here).
As for your point about the book of Exodus, you're just plain ignorant. It's ignorant to say "secular history and archaeology" indicate [the book of Exodus] probably didn't happen" simply because we possess manuscripts of the book of Exodus. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the book of Exodus - or at least a form of it, but it's nevertheless the book of Exodus. Anyway, you're just ignorant here.
By the way, this is far more than you've done. All you've done is make an assertion sans argumentation.
"But whereas you welcome corroborating evidence, conflicting evidence won't alter your beliefs in the slightest. Because your faith isn't grounded in empirical evidence."
I didn't know you could read my mind to know "conflicting evidence won't alter your beliefs in the slightest" and that "your faith isn't grounded in empirical evidence"! An amazing gift you got there. Perhaps there's more to the physical universe than meets the eye.
"'Verify' implies that it's possible to disprove something, which makes it incompatible with absolute trust (faith)."
In addition to your other multifaceted forms of ignorance, you're evidently likewise ignorant of the definitional usage of words like "faith" in Christianity as well as bereft of the elementary reasoning skills requisite to make simple distinctions and draw logical implications. However, what you lack in rudimentary knowledge and logic, you certainly make up for in confidence, especially given all your assertions thus far!
You keep setting faith in opposition to proof and, by implication, reason. On what basis? Certainly not on a Christian basis.
Indeed, at the most basic level, I could simply respond that's not how Christians conceive of faith, and if you want to consider what faith is to a Christian, then at a minimum you should consult appropriate Christian sources. After all, would it be fair if I defined, say, "atheism" (or the like) in whatever way happens to be inimical to me or my argument? No, that'd be unfair, and silly.
You can, of course, take to task the Christian conception of faith. But you first need to be able to accurately represent it before you can criticize it. However, you haven't even gotten off the ground with the former to be able to take on the latter.
Plus, as I alluded to above, you need to draw simple distinctions. For example, are you talking about the nature of faith, or the justifiability of faith? Also, in what terms are you framing faith - e.g. in terms of its psychological affect, in terms of volition, in terms of cognition? Some of the above, all of the above? In another sense?
At this point, the way you've envisaged faith might as well be a type of fideism.
Not to mention your definition of "proof" should be appropriate as well. What do you have in mind when you talk about proof? Is your standard for what should constitute proof appropriate to the inquiry at hand?
And why append the qualifier "absolute" onto trust? Why does trust need to be absolute for it to be faith? You don't say, or contend for it. You just assert it.
Anyway, I'd recommend you take some logic 101 classes, but you'd probably prefer a coloring book of some sort instead.
"It also eliminates the elective nature of belief: if Christianity can be dispositively proven, then I can no more deny it than I can deny the existence of the earth."
You're showing your ignorance again. It's probably tiresome for both of us if I keep pointing this out to you. Indeed, I'd generally prefer not to do so, but your ignorance occurs with such regularity and frequency that I'd be remiss if I didn't.
In any case, according to Christianity, people don't disbelieve primarily because Christianity can't be "proven." Rather, they're disinclined to believe even if "proof" were "certain" due to their desire to remain intellectually, morally, and volitionally autonomous to God. There may be no rational or logical or other intellectual impediments to belief in the God of the Bible, but a person could nevertheless persist in their disbelief due to non-intellectual reasons. For example, perhaps they wish to remain sexually promiscuous, or cut corners in terms of money and work, or otherwise be able to justify some immorality or immoralities in their lives.
By the by, given the atheism of someone like Richard Dawkins, it's quite possible solipsism is true. In which case you could, indeed, "deny the existence of the earth," except in your own mind.
Or perhaps you're trapped in a Matrix-like existence, where an advanced alien species has annihilated our planet, imprisoned and plugged you into a computer which simulates reality, so that you think you're safe and sound at home on Earth, when in reality you're on board an intergalactic alien spaceship suspended as a brain in a vat. Again, it's possible to deny Earth exists.
So even the existence of the Earth isn't a given on atheism. You don't know. You have no idea.
---
@Bg_Rdish
"Faith in God is not open to revision; if evidence leads you away from orthodoxy, then you're either a heretic or an apostate."
This is just your definition of "faith" and "orthodoxy" which you attempt to foist on Christians.
According to your standards, I could just as well say "non-belief in God is not open to revision; if evidence leads away from atheism, then you're either ignorant or arrogant."
Basically, I could pretty much make up whatever I want to say about atheism based on whatever I feel like saying at the time, if I were to do things the way Bg_Rdish does things when it comes to Christainity.
"Does the Bible encourage people to seek evidence in the event that it leads them to believe that the Bible is in error?"
See 1 Cor 15:14 for a start.
"And an angel led Joseph Smith to the golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon -- he said so himself. Of course, as the in the case of the Bible, to accept such testimony is accede to the very fact that remains to be proven."
You're making an argument from analogy minus the argument. You say the two are analogous to one another, but you don't explain how. Why should the testimonial evidence from Joseph Smith be analogous to, say, the testimonial of the NT. Another swing and a miss.
---
@Joe A
"If you are serious (which I doubt) in understanding the morality of atheists and where it derives from I suggest you read this NY Times piece which explains it quite nicely."
1. I read the article.
2. I'll bypass Louise Antony's arguments against theism simply because they're irrelevant to what I've been saying.
Besides, the Euthyphro dilemma is nothing new, including her take on it, and many others have interacted with it more reasonably. See here for a start.
3. What's relevant to me is her distinction between two kinds of atheists. On the one hand, Antony argues she is a "moralistic atheist." But on the other hand, Antony acknowledges there are also "nihilistic atheists."
4. Unfortunately, she doesn't spend too much time arguing why others should preference moralistic atheism over nihilistic atheism. The meat of her argument here is in the following two paragraphs:
"Admittedly, some atheists are nihilists. (Unfortunately, they're the ones who get the most press.) But such atheists' repudiation of morality stems more from an antecedent cynicism about ethics than from any philosophical view about the divine. According to these nihilistic atheists, 'morality' is just part of a fairy tale we tell each other in order to keep our innate, bestial selfishness (mostly) under control. Belief in objective 'oughts' and 'ought nots,' they say, must fall away once we realize that there is no universal enforcer to dish out rewards and punishments in the afterlife. We're left with pure self-interest, more or less enlightened."
"This is a Hobbesian view: in the state of nature '[t]he notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice.' But no atheist has to agree with this account of morality, and lots of us do not. We 'moralistic atheists' do not see right and wrong as artifacts of a divine protection racket. Rather, we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others."
a. However, these paragraphs don't proffer an argument against preferencing nihilistic atheism or favoring moralistic atheism so much as summarize nihilistic atheism's basic position. For example, "antecedent cynicism about ethics" and "no atheist has to agree with this account of morality [i.e. the Hobbesian view]" aren't arguments but observations.
b. Antony's main argument is: "Rather, we [moralistic atheists] find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others."
That's it. That's all she says. But that's hardly much at all. There's too little to go on.
c. Nevertheless, as it stands, her argument is, in essence, an appeal to evolutionary ethics.
However, a nihilistic atheist like Michael Ruse would agree with Antony, but take it even further than she does. Here's what Ruse says:
"There is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention - an invention of the genes rather than of humans, and we cannot change games at will, as one might baseball if one went to England and played cricket. Within the system, the human moral system, it is objectively true that rape is wrong. That follows from the principles of morality and from human nature. If our females came into heat, it would not necessarily be objectively wrong to rape - in fact, I doubt we would have the concept of rape at all. So, within the system, I can justify. But I deny that human morality at the highest level—love your neighbor as yourself, etc. - is justifiable. That is why I am not deriving 'is' from 'ought,' in the illicit sense of justification. I am deriving it in the sense of explaining *why we have* moral sentiments, but that is a different matter."
(Source)
d. So Antony doesn't make the case for moralistic atheism over nihilistic atheism. And, indeed, I think the nihilistic atheists have the better of the argument. They go further than the moralistic atheists. The moralistic atheists are soft atheists, whereas the nihilistic atheists are hard atheists. The ones that go all the way.
Nihilistic atheism is more honest with regard to the whole truth including the truths of science. They see reality as it is, and don't blink. To paraphrase Nietzsche, the nihilistic atheists gaze into the abyss, even as the abyss gazes back at them. Whereas the moralistic atheists can't bear to look too long into the abyss, and eventually have to avert their eyes.
In this sense, the nihilistic atheists are like the Vikings who believed the Norse gods would eventually lose on the last day of Ragnarok, but who still fought. Whereas the moralistic atheists likewise thought deep-down the Norse gods would lose on Ragnarok, but preferred not to think too much about the impending end, and instead remain in a sort of ignorant bliss.
"Do you really think atheists don't believe there is a right and wrong, good and bad?"
1. Are you seriously this daft when it comes to elementary reading comprehension? I never said that. That's a quote from atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg. Which I gave a source for in my original comment.
2. In fact, I take it for granted most atheists do believe there is right and wrong, good and bad. The question is whether this belief can be justified on atheism.
"I always find it amazing when I hear this argument. So you only know what is right and wrong because it is in the Bible? That you only behave in a moral way to your fellow man because you fear the penal system of Christianity?"
I always find it amusing when atheists try to deflect the argument away from atheism. It's cute. I can agree atheism is true, but the question is whether atheism can justify universal objective morality? No, and atheist scholars like Alex Rosenberg and Michael Ruse would agree.
"I truly find that amazing that religious people somehow feel they are morally superior because they believe in some invisible father in the sky that tells them what to do. And hey if they are bad maybe he'll just flood the entire planet and kill every living thing except those lucky enough to be on some very crowded boat. Such a loving and forgiving leader to get your moral compass from. Pure silliness."
This just keeps getting funnier. You're sparring with a fellow atheist. As I said, you evidently lack basic reading comprehension. Not to mention your huffing and puffing emotional reaction makes you irrational.
---
@tinkerblue
I agree a historical novel is a better comparison than Cinderella.
Although I'm afraid I'm too unfamiliar with Gone with the Wind (both book and movie) for the comparison to be meaningful to me.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, weren't Scarlett, Rhett, and Tara main characters in Gone with the Wind? If so, that's not analogous to the Bible, because, if they're main characters, then they would be comparable to, say, Jesus, who is a main character in the Bible. However, Scarlett, Rhett, and Tara are fictional, whereas Jesus is non-fictional or historical. In other words, Jesus existed, unlike Scarlett, Rhett, or Tara.
Not only is there evidence from the NT, for example, but even if we ignore the NT, there's independent evidence outside the NT that Jesus existed. For example, see the relevant works of Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, and even the Talmud which talks about Jesus as a magician and deceiver.
Most scholars including atheist scholars would likewise agree Jesus existed.
---
@tinkerblue
"Everything evolves...even marriage."
Perhaps in the future marriage will evolve to the point where it doesn't even exist or at least isn't necessary. Perhaps we're already close to this point.
Instead, men and women can live independently from one another without marriage, and meet when they want sex.
I can't speak for women since I'm not a woman, but I think many men would appreciate this arrangement. For example, no long-term commitment necessary; just short-term "commitments" when the urge for sex arises.
Also, no need to commit to one woman; multiple women are possible.
And children, if desired, can belong to either man or woman, depending on who wants them more; or both, such as already occurs among, say, the divorced, where children alternate between parents.
Anyway, I think many men would be content if marriage evolved to the point where it became unnecessary.
---
@tinkerblue
"First, learn the basics of argument. The person who makes the assertion is the one who must provide the evidence. If you assert a God, you must have evidence, and an extraordinary claim will require extraordinary evidence. The onus does not lie on the non believer as they are not making the positive assertion. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive if you have the evidence."
1. Regarding the onus bit:
a. You're simply asserting without argument that atheism (the negative position) is the default position. But that's an assumption in search of an argument. Why should the negative position be the default position? Why assume this to be the case?
b. Here's a positive claim: you have a real human body.
Now, if we agree with you that the negative claim is the default position, i.e., that you do not have a real human body, then we should presume you do not have a real human body until we can prove the positive claim that you have a real human body.
However, let's imagine the possibility that you're trapped in a Matrix-like existence, where an advanced alien species has captured you and plugged you into a machine which simulates reality, so that you think you're in a real human body, when in reality you're on board an intergalactic alien spaceship suspended as a brain in a vat hooked up to various electrodes to cause you to think you're a human being with a real human body.
Can you disprove this? How? By appealing to your sensory experience? But everything in your sensory experience is perfectly compatible with the possibility that you're a brain in a vat.
Since the default position is the negative position, then we should assume you do not have a real human body.
2. As for your Humean quip (which Sagan borrowed) about an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence:
a. This assumes the existence of God is an extraordinary claim. But why assume the existence of God is an extraordinary claim? What's your basis for this assumption? Why can't it be an ordinary claim? Some philosophers like Alvin Plantinga have argued belief in God is a properly basic belief. See his book Warranted Christian Belief, for example.
b. That God isn't visible or otherwise directly apparent to your senses? There are many things which aren't visible or directly apparent to our senses, but which don't require extraordinary evidence to substantiate. For instance, take past history. Past historical peoples, places, and events are not visible or directly apparent to our senses. Do they require extraordinary evidence to substantiate? What's wrong with using ordinary evidence like reliable testimonial evidence?
c. That God is a unique event? There are many unique events. For example, say you went hiking on your own without anyone around you. No one saw you go hiking. Only you know you went hiking. So this was a unique event that only you know about. If you tell a friend you went hiking, then should they immediately discount the fact that you went hiking because you do not have extraordinary evidence? You only have ordinary evidence, i.e., your testimonial evidence.
d. Besides, what's wrong with inferring the extraordinary from the ordinary? If I'm driving a brand new Ferrari, even though I don't see let alone know the engineer(s) who designed the Ferrari, I can nevertheless infer the car was designed by an engineer based on ordinary evidence.
"There is no evidence that the God of the bible exists, there is really no evidence that Jesus existed."
I've already responded to you about this, so I'll simply repeat what I've said. Not only is there evidence from the NT, but even if we ignore the NT, there's independent evidence outside the NT that Jesus existed. For example, see the relevant works of Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, and even the Talmud which talks about Jesus as a magician and deceiver.
"You, on the other hand do believe in spite of the lack of evidence. Belief in things without evidence is not a virtue, no matter what Paul wrote. Without evidence, why should anyone believe? We don't believe precisely because there is no evidence."
Do you have extraordinary evidence you have a mind with thoughts and ideas and dreams and so forth? If we open up your brain, we can't physically see your thoughts or dreams. At best, we can infer you have thoughts or dreams based on various studies like MRI scans or EEGs for instance. But these are ordinary evidences for an extraordinary event, i.e., your mind. According to your dictum, we would need extraordinary evidence to prove the existence of your mind.
---
@AtheistConservative
"You are such an arrogant douche"
1. You're substituting ad hominem for your failed arguments. But as I've already pointed out to you earlier, i.e. the first time you called me "arrogant," let's say for the sake of argument I am indeed "arrogant." If so, my moral or immoral status in your eyes has little if anything to do with whether your arguments work or don't work.
2. As I likewise already pointed out to you, it's ironic you espouse "reason," but often react so unreasonably, and in fact so emotionally.
3. Finally, you yourself have said more than once you subscribe to subjective morality. If so, then, at the risk of stating the obvious, taking issue with someone morally by calling them "an arrogant douche" is at best, well, a subjective moral judgment.
---
@tinkerblue
"There is no evidence that jesus ever existed outside of the bible."
1. Sure there is. I gave you some. If you want more, you can simply read former Christian turned atheist Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?. Not to mention many other books by scholars of the period (e.g. James Dunn, Robert Van Voorst).
2. A moonbat like Richard Carrier disagrees, but people can compare his arguments with the arguments of the vast majority of relevant scholars in the field who agree Jesus existed, even though many are not at all religious.
"The passages in Josephus are known interpolations, meaning they were added long after the work was originally written."
1. Are you alluding to the Testimonium Flavianum? Actually, that's not the primary line of evidence in Josephus I'm considering. But let's consider it for a brief moment. For one thing, why throw out the baby with the bath water? Much of the rest of passage could be genuine even if the controversial bit is an interpolation.
2. However, as I said, I'm not referencing the Testimonium Flavianum. Rather, I'm referencing another part of Josephus. That is, Josephus also talks about other NT individuals like John the Baptist, John the apostle, and James who was a leading figure in the early church and whom Josephus calls "the brother of Jesus called Christ" in the same passage where Josephus talks about the high priest Ananus. And most scholars believe this passage is authentic.
"Tacitus mentions 'the Chrestians' in his area that followed someone called 'Chrestus', but Tacitus was writing about the followers, not Jesus, who he did not know existed or not."
1. Actually, while Tacitus does misspell "Chrestians," he has correctly spelled "Christus" or Christ. Some scholars have argued Tacitus was using the correctly spelled "Christ" to correct the commonly misspelled "Chrestians." If so, it'd be a reflection of his historical attention to detail and accuracy.
2. What you say doesn't follow. Given what Tacitus wrote, his presumption was Jesus did exist. That's clear if we read the passage honestly.
3. Most the relevant scholars don't dispute this. Of course, and as I mentioned earlier, there are always a few crazies that do. But crazies are always around. Such as certain conspiracy theorists, people against vaccination, etc.
4. Also, we could get into a debate over the likelihood of the existence of the earliest Christian communities concurrent with eyewitnesses to Jesus as well as testimonial evidence. But the point is, while people may not agree Jesus is what the NT claims about him, most scholars agree he existed.
"Thallus is even more problematic, as we have none of his works, only references to it from 2nd century writers."
1. What's wrong with 2nd century witnesses? We'd have to throw out a fair chunk of Greco-Roman history if we use the same standard you're using now.
2. Let's say you're right (ad arguendo). Nevertheless, at the very least, we can still argue for a tradition about Jesus' death in existence in Thallus, which in turn would imply Jesus' existence.
"In any effect, the only thing Thallus supposedly referred to was the darkness that descended (supposedly) at the death of Jesus. This darkness falling was again, nothing new, it was often claimed darkness fell at the death of a king or ruler. In any case, it does not make any proof that Jesus actually existed, as he incorporates a common mythology of the time and attributes it to Jesus' Kingship."
It sounds like you got your facts wrong. Thallus was attempting to refute the darkness that descended at Jesus' death. He cites the belief among Christians that the darkness occurred in order to say it wasn't any sort of a miracle or the like, but instead that it was a natural eclipse. As such, Thallus was a hostile witness attempting to nip Christian belief in the bud.
"As far as the Talmud goes I refer you to this site...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in..."
Really? You're referring me to a Wiki article? It'd be better to reference the works of relevant scholars in the field.
"Oh, and let me not leave out the others in your list. Pliny the younger in no way references christ, only the Christians he had living in his district. He was born in 62? and died in 113 and was governor of Bithynia. He wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan about putting these Christians to death. He does not believe that their 'god man' actually existed or have any such knowledge that he did. He just states that the christians 'died for their faith'. At the most this letter proves there were Christians at the time, but not in the actual existence of a real person named Jesus."
I'm afraid that's likewise mistaken. Pliny the Younger does "reference" Christ (as well as Christians). See Letter 96, which was his letter to the emperor, Trajan. By my count, Pliny mentions Christ three times, including in his phrase (Latin) carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, which when translated refers to the Christians singing hymns to Christ as if he were some sort of a God. Anyway, sorry to say but you're simply wrong on this score.
"And as for the Roman historian Suetonius, he refers to Nero blaming the Christians for the great fire in Rome in 64, but he explicitly states he believes the Christian religion is one based on superstition, as did Nero and Pliny."
1. Actually, you leave out important bits including where Suetonius says (Latin), "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit." Here Suetonius refers to the Emperor Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome, because of their "instigator" Christ. That is, Christ as an instigator, an agitator, which places significant emphasis or stress on Christ.
2. I don't know why you mention the fact that they "explicitly" state they believe "the Christian religion is one based on superstition." I take that for granted. All of the sources I've cited could be said to be hostile witnesses. But hostile witnesses are still witnesses. Let's say 1000 years from now, after the US is long gone, a future historian discovers some writings that say something like, "I, John Smith, cannot stand Obama and the Democrats! Not only are they a bunch of idiots, but they are immoral and evil! They are ruining our country with their ill-conceived policies." Well, sure, the writings indicate Obama and the Democrats are horrible people and so on, but this then presumes John Smith believes Obama and the Democrats existed in order for him to be able to criticize Obama and the Democrats in the first place.
"So again, no real evidence that Jesus actually existed."
1. I've already overturned your points above.
2. I've also cited scholars you can reference including hostile scholars like atheist Bart Ehrman who nevertheless argues, along with the vast majority of relevant scholars, that Jesus existed (even though people like Ehrman obviously don't believe Jesus is God incarnate).
3. I could mention other sources outside the NT besides the ones I've already mentioned. For example, Celsus, Lucian, Mara bar Serapion, the Toledot Yeshu, etc.
4. The New Testament (NT) manuscripts themselves form another line of evidence for the existence of Jesus, even if we do not think they are God's inspired revelation, etc. The NT are nevertheless a source of historical information.
5. There's also the NT apocryphal gospels, which Christians obviously do not accept, but which are likewise a source of historical information.
6. Quite apart from the written literature, we could also look at the archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus (e.g. inscriptions, artifacts). For example, I don't subscribe to this theory myself, but some people have argued the James ossuary which states, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" refers to the James of the NT, who of course was according to the NT the brother of Jesus Christ.
More importantly, see NT scholar Craig Evans' book Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence for starters.
"At most we have reference to the FOLLOWERS' of the new religion, mentioned long after the fact of Jesus supposed death. Where are the contemperary writings...like say, a report from Palestine to Rome that reports on dead people getting up and walking around? Or that a man named Joshua is feeding multitudes with two fish? They don't exist. So until there pops up some real evidence, Jesus' existence will only be a supposition."
1. Who says we don't have these reports? Who says they don't exist? I've already given you plenty.
Plus, take the NT. You may not believe what the NT recounts. But as I've already mentioned, the NT does not need to be inspired revelation or Scripture or God's word for it to be a reliable source of historical information.
2. Prior to the NT being written, there's a significant oral tradition attesting to Jesus Christ (among others). See the book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham.
3. Anwyay, so far your "arguments" (such as they are) have been sorely lacking. It sounds like they're based more on Google and Wikipedia than they are on familiarity with the primary sources and academic scholarship.
As such, ironically, and regrettably, you're getting your information about Jesus from secondhand, thirdhand, and perhaps further sources as well as information that's been interpreted and re-interpreted and then re-interpreted some more while you parrot it all back.
Instead, you should look at the primary source material as well as the relevant scholars I've referenced.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Its not a subjective moral judgement. Its an empirical generalization."
1. You're assuming it can't be both.
2. At any rate, you yourself said you subscribe to subjective morality. I'm just taking you at your word.
3. Of course, if you wish to change what you originally said, then you're tacitly conceding my point. Which, if you do, I appreciate!
"As if more than a trickle of people are reading the comment thread on a five day old blog post"
Evidently you only care about large quantitues. You don't caer too much for "a trickle of people." A small number of people aren't as important to you as a large number of people. So much for caring about the minority. So much for caring about each individual person. I suppose this is the ethical calculus your atheism can afford.
"much less going to your blog to read the compendium of inane blather that you call a reasoned refutation of atheism. Get your head out of your ass."
1. How interesting! I didn't realize I was forcing you to go to my blog. I didn't realize I had such control over you that I could actually cause you to click on a link to read what I've written. I guess this means I must be a Jedi because my Jedi mind tricks work on you! Of course, you might not like to know Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak-minded. Sorry.
2. In any case, this isn't a counter-argument. It's just another one of your emotional tirades.
3. By the way, I never purported to refute "atheism." At best, I purported to refute your "arguments" (such as they are). In fact, I could be an atheist and still find your "arguments" sorely deficient.
"I actually never 'claimed to be reasonable' but demonstrated my reasoning abilities with logical arguments."
You're hardly objective about your own performance. It'd be better to leave it to others to judge. As I've already noted to you, people can see what you said vs. what I said, and see who has the more reasonable argumentation.
"You demonstrated your unreasonableness with the following fallacious arguments."
OK, let's see how you do.
"Me: 'would you dispute the idea that a multicellular organism such as a dog is more complicated than an amoeba?' You: 'Given atheism, 'complex' in what sense? That's been my point all along."
1. Selective quoting. You left out the rest of my words on the topic.
2. That said, my point is still perfectly adequate. It depends on what aspect or characteristic or the like we're comparing.
a. Let's compare DNA or genetic material. The amoeba (or amoeboid) Polychaos dubium has approximately 670 billion base pairs of DNA. Amoeba proteus has approximately 290 billion base pairs. (Source.) Whereas a dog's genome contains approximately 2.5 billion base pairs. (Source.) Thus, both Polychaos dubium and Amoeba proteus have far more genetic material than a dog.
It's often believed amoeba have so much genetic material in part because they're phagocytosing and intergrating so much foreign genetic material. If so, then this speaks to potential genetic diversity as well.
b. Also, amoeba are able to survive in more diverse and harsh environments than dogs.
c. Amoeba can reproduce far more quickly and abundantly than dogs, and would therefore have an evolutionary advantage in terms of reproductive efficiency.
d. Speaking of small cells, is a zygote more or less "complex" than a dog? Again, that depends on what we're talking about. A zygote is totipotent cell. That means the zygote has the potential to differentiate into all sorts of cell types (e.g. neurons, heart cells, muscle cells). We also have pluripotent stem cells which can differentiate into a variety of cells as well. But considered as a single organism, a dog cannot differentiate further. So in terms of cellular potency, a totipotent or pluripotent cell is more "complex" than a dog.
e. All this is barely scratching the surface too. There are so many other examples.
f. Plus, we haven't even begun to talk about related and relevant concepts to complexity like the debate over integrative levels of organization, reductionism, etc.
"Here are some definitions from freedictionary.com"
You're seriously citing definitions from freedictionary.com to substantiate your point? This is another reason why you're such a simpleton with simple-minded thoughts and "arguments." You're basing scientific and philosophical concepts like biological complexity on online dictionaries. This is the level you're arguing at.
"Your suggestion that 'given atheism' simple words must lose their meaning is absurd."
1. You should seriously consider taking some remedial reading comprehension classes. It'd do you a world of good.
2. Since I never claimed "simple words must lose their meaning," you're tilting at windmills.
3. I said "given atheism" merely because I'm arguing from atheism's premises.
"This makes me think that you really aren’t capable of drawing out the logical implications of anything."
Interesting how you're now parroting phrases I originally used. On the plus side, I suppose imitation is the sincerest or highest form of flattery! So thank you. I appreciate it. :-)
"You say 'special consideration' as if I suggested there is something special about a racist or theocratic worldview (especially in error, you might assume)."
I didn't append "special consideration" as if you "suggested there is something special about a racist or theocratic worldview."
I said "special consideration" simply because I was rejecting it in light of your atheistic worldview.
I can't but help feel so badly for you. Honestly, did you have any difficulty with basic reading comprehension when you were in school?
"I clearly did not. The plain meaning of my sentence is that racism necessarily implies special consideration for a particular race, just as christianity necessarily implies special consideration for a particular book."
That's not "the plain meaning" of your sentence. But be that as it may. It's neither here nor there at this point.
"You say this as if it were a profound refutation of my argument. It isn’t."
I don't need it to be a "profound refutation." Just a refutation will do.
"It is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum and it fails because the implications are not absurd."
Actually, it was a question. If you had a reasonable response to the question, then there'd be no problem. But you didn't answer it.
"If I lived in a society that saw wanton murder as morally agreeable than I would see myself as a moral minority within an immoral society."
Given your atheism and self-avowed subscription to subjective morality, morality is basically a personal preference. You might as well just say, "I prefer the color red, whereas everyone else prefers the color blue, but everyone else is immoral for preferring blue, while I'm moral for preferring red!" So you don't have firm ground to stand on to say you're the one that's the "moral minority" while others are "immoral." Again, based on what you believe, morality is just a personal preference like preferring red over blue or blue over red.
"If I was raised in this society and accepted its morality, then I would be a fundamentally different person. A person that the current me could only regard as a depraved monster."
This simply illustrates your subjective morality. It supports what I've already pointed out to you numerous times.
Say you were raised among the Taliban and accepted their morality. Then you would believe in strict Sharia law, hate infidels like America, etc.
Of course, as you say, current-you would regard Taliban-you as a "depraved monster." But the flipside is Taliban-you would regard current-you as a "depraved monster" too.
So how can you tell who truly is the "depraved monster"? What criteria will help distinguish whether Taliban-you or current-you is the "depraved monster"? Given your atheism and subjective morality, insofar as you've argued thus far, we can't distinguish which is which. We can't tell who is truly the "depraved monster." In fact, it could be neither or both are the "depraved monster," depending on one's preferences. It just depends on how we feel, and feelings can change.
"You may think this is trivial but I think it is deadly serious."
You're so slow-witted. What you may think or not think isn't the point. The point is what your beliefs in atheism and subjective morality logically entail.
"To support your assertion that it is trivial you would have to advance an untrivial justification for morality."
No, I wouldn't. That'd be like saying, to support your assertion that you having a human body is obvious, you would have to advance a non-obvious justification for you having a human body.
Besides, if I wanted to "support [my] assertion that it is trivial," I would mainly need to show that it is, well, trivial. And I've done that, and have been doing that.
"You refrain from doing this because you know I would eviscerate whatever argument you put forward."
How'd you know? Yes, I'm quaking in my boots since your arguments so far have been so utterly terrible and terrifying!
"So you rely on the tired old argument that without religion, we humans can never justify our morality."
You only think it's "tired" because you're wearing yourself out burning a strawman.
On a serious, albeit regrettable note: you have a poor grasp of basic reading comprehension as well as elementary logic. Perhaps you're living proof of how education can fail some people.
I never argued "without religion, we humans can never justify our morality." In fact, many people justify their morality without religion.
Rather, since you were the one who said you're an atheist and that you hold to subjective morality, the pertinent question is how you can justify morality fundamentally, objectively, universally, etc. given your beliefs.
So far, you keep flailing around like a fish out water, out of its element, unable to breathe.
"Again. Arrogant. Douche."
Your knowledgeable, experienced, and frequent citation of the word "douche" implies your intimate familiarity with its use.
---
@AtheistConservative
As I've repeatedly pointed out, if they're interested, people can read our exchange and decide for themselves. I don't know why you feel the need to come to conclusions for others.
Also, I'll simply point out you're the one who has been calling me an "arrogant douche" (to quote your own words) this entire time.
---
@AtheistConservative
By the way, regarding tu quoque arguments, see philosopher and logician Peter Geach's book Reason and Argument (pp 26-27).
Ad hominem arguments. This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man - in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent's present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere. This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating: bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play.
Let us consider a kind of dispute that might easily arise:
A. Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.
B. But you eat meat; and I'll bet you've never worried about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.
No umpire is entitled at this point to call out 'Ad hominem! Foul!' It is true that B's remark does nothing to settle the substantive question of whether foxhunting should be abolished; but then B was not pretending to do this; B was challengingly asking how A could consistently condemn foxhunting without also condemning something A clearly does not wish to condemn. Perhaps A could meet the challenge, perhaps not; anyhow the challenge is a fair one - as we saw, you cannot just brush aside a challenge to your consistency, or say inconsistency doesn't matter.
Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.
---
@AtheistConservative
"Anyone who reads this will see that you have continuously lied and misrepresented your own positions when confronted by how stupid some of them are. They might also notice that you respond to counter arguments with high handed and obnoxious aspersions about my intelligence. They might come away thinking that you are completely craven and unworthy of debating, which is exactly how I feel given this latest demonstration of your dishonesty and your failure to understand rudimentary syntax."
Your latest round of allegations is that I've "lied" and that I'm "dishonest." Obviously I wouldn't agree. But who would take my word for it? People can simply read our exchanges and see if I've "lied" and been "dishonest" toward you.
That said, I'd like to point out these allegations are unintentionally funny. On the one hand, you obviously think lying is immoral. But on the other hand, you've said you think morality is subjective. But if morality is subjective, then what does your disapproval of my alleged lying and dishonesty amount to apart from a disapproval? It'd be like getting totally worked up and upset over someone for liking steak when you think everyone should like chicken instead. Yet the vein in your forehead is throbbing with so much anger over the fact that I like steak more than chicken! Grrr! you grate and grind, piss and moan. But liking steak or chicken is basically a personal preference or choice.
---
@AtheistConservative
On the one hand, you say: "Anyone who reads this will see that you have continuously lied and misrepresented your own positions when confronted by how stupid some of them are."
On the other hand, you say: "I'm done arguing with you if you won't advance any position of your own. You're pretty arrogant for a guy who refuses to state his opinion."
---
@Diogenes
"Boy, I know plenty of religious people, Christian and otherwise, who behave themselves for 'fear of god'. Compassion doesn't stem from love. Compassion is genetic. I can't drive by a broken-down car without offering help, yet I have zero belief in a god. http://www.livescience.com/170..."
1. I read the article.
2. For what it's worth, I'm a medical student so I have some relevant knowledge here.
3. Here's a quotation from the beginning of the article, and upon which much the rest of the article builds: "The gene in question is the 'love hormone,' or oxytocin, receptor." This is mistaken. The oxytocin receptor is not a gene. It's a protein. Sure, it's encoded by a gene, but it itself is not a gene.
4. You're coming to the conclusion that "Compassion is genetic" based on a single study which you haven't even bothered to evaluate. Anyone who knows how scientific and medical research works will know that a single study doesn't necessarily prove anything. It might, but it depends on the study, and you'd have to evaluate the study to make sure it's a sound study for starters. This would involving asking questions like: what type of study is this, what's the design of the study, what were the participants like, what interventions were used, what were the outcomes, how was sample size determined, does the study have generalizeability, were the participants and investigators blinded so the study is less likely to have bias, etc. So the fact that you draw the conclusion "Compassion is genetic" without so much as attempting to consider or evaluate the study is highly naive to say the very least.
5. What's more, the article in fact admits there's a fair bit of mystery between a change in the oxytocin receptor and how this change would "cause" behavioral changes like increased empathy or compassion. So even the article isn't as confident as you are that "Compassion is genetic."
6. There's also a tremendous difference between "cause" with "correlation." Just because there's correlation between oxytocin receptors and increased empathy does not mean there is a causal relationship between the two where a change in oxytocin receptors definitely means we will have increased empathy.
7. Plus, you're trying to simplify a single study to some catchphrase like "Compassion is genetic." For one thing, there's so much more involved than seemingly simple genetic changes, which aren't even all that simple, as if changing nucleotides in our DNA would have no other significant repercussions apart from what's in question. Anyway, besides the fact that genetic changes aren't exactly simple, there's also the endocrine system to consider which obviously includes hormones to consider, which may differ from person to person, or between men and women (e.g. the same changes in oxytocin receptors wouldn't necessarily affect men and women in the same ways), as well as how all this would impact on our psychological state, etc. All this is just the tip of the iceberg too. As one of the researchers said: "We as individuals don't wear our 'social genotype' on the sleeve...One of these single variants will neither make us sick nor decide whether we act like 'saints or satans' toward fellow human beings."
8. Despite all this, let's say (ad arguendo) we agree with you that "Compassion is genetic." If compassion is genetic, then that means compassion is susceptible to genetic changes. If compassion is susceptible to genetic changes, then if modern evolutionary theory is true, then if there are genetic changes, then our compassion can evolve. For example, we currently may feel compassion for all sorts of peoples, but given what you say it's quite possible we could evolve to no longer feel compassion toward others or only to feel compassion toward certain groups of people such as toward people of lighter skin color and not toward people of darker skin color. So if your statement is true, then it can be used to justify all sorts of immoralities like racism.
9. Indeed, that's the very issue at stake. No one is saying atheists or the irreligious cannot do what's right and good, or that theists or the religious cannot do what's wrong and bad. That's about moral knowledge (e.g. how a person knows what's right or wrong) and moral behavior (e.g. how a person morally behaves), and no one is arguing about moral knowledge or moral behavior. Rather, the argument is over moral ontology, that is, how do we ground morality. That's where the real debate is.
