Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Atheists Want
The Washington Post ^ | Chris Mooney

Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian

Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.

What Atheists Want

By Chris Mooney

....

Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.

....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: atheists; pledge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-455 next last
To: Zack Nguyen
Your dislike is not a fit opposition to Nazism I am afraid. The reason for this is simple: your dislike is your opinion only. No one else need share it. Certainly Hitler did not share it.

I already explained this. Apparently you didn't like that I've thought things through so much that you decided to ignore it and pretend that I've still got a problem. I told you, if I were the only one with the "dislike" of Hitler's actions, then he would not have very strong opposition -- at least, not in the Jew-killing area (there would still be his ambitions of conquest that could raise a few hackles). I could jump up and down and shout, "What's wrong with you, can't you see that $DEITY doesn't want this to happen!?", but I doubt that would be very effective.

Is his "like" of killing Jews any morally better than your "dislike"?

From a universal standpoint? No, and I never claimed as much.

You must call on something higher.

Nonsense. Just because you want there to be a standard by which you can universally define Hitler's actions as "wrong" does not mean that such a standard exists. You're arguing from wishful thinking.

What led you to believe that?

Oh, I don't know. Things that I've read.. In fact an enormous number of Bible scholars believe that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, John wrote the Gospel of John and 1, 2, and 3 John Epistles, and so on.

References?

In the orthodox community there is in fact very little disagreement about this.

References?

That's why I said you "speculated." An outright denial on your part is a bit misleading, though.

I speculated among three possbilities. You then asked "which was it". If I present three possibilities of what "might" have happened, don't call me a liar when I can't tell you what I claim to know for certain happened. If you want to know what I'm most likely to believe, it's the "mistaken" one, since everything that I have read has concluded that the original authors of the Gospels (note: not the entirety of the New Testament -- I'm not about to dispute writings attributed to Paul) were not the Apostles themselves, especially since the first of the Gospels is estimated to have been put to paper (or whatever ancient equivalent applies) forty years after the fact.

I have no idea where you got the notion that no scholar of note believes that the books of the Bible are written by those who claim to have written them. Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle. Mark and Luke were not, but there accopunts correlate very closely with Matthew's and John's.

I'll ignore the known discrepencies among the various Gospels for now.
Except that there's no claim of authorship to the Gospels. The title of Matthew is The Gospel According to Matthew, not The Gospel as Written by Matthew. This title could be accurate even if it were transcribed from what had for many years earlier been oral tradition. Maybe Matthew's Gospel did originate with Matthew, but several years of word of mouth being passed down can change a few details. As for the consistency that is there, I suspect that sections of a tale that too blatantly contradicted the other Gospels would have found themselves tossed out of the compilation.

Therefore the only logical inference that can be drawn is: where they lying, insane or telling the truth?

Putting aside the fact that I've not seen a credible source (as in, a source that uses more than "because I said so" as reasoning) that claims that Matthew, Mark, John or Luke were the actual writers of the Gospels named for them, you still leave out the "mistaken" possibility, since you seem to be stuck on the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" false trichotomy made popular by C.S. Lewis. Ancient Greeks believed that they received messages from the gods through various signs. Were they lying, insane or telling the truth?
421 posted on 10/25/2003 4:14:31 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Well. You argued that atheists did not kill most people percentage-wise. I gave you evidence that atheists historicaly are the worst butchers of all absolutely and relatively. You said "And..."??? Next, I asked for more undrestanding for the religious expression of Christians, the religion that made us what we are. I did it the way you like it - giving historic arguments and asking for understanding, not by invoking any inherent rights. You said that "The US government would then endorse a specific religion. Sorry, no." So??? Looks like you think of this endorsement thing as some kind of heresy (hint, hint)? But it is NOT. The Gov is prohibited from making a law that establishes a religion or forbids religious expression. Your reasons are touchy-feely... Religion for us is not some little game we play for fun, it 's a most serious matter. People DO have the right to have religion in their kid's education if they pay taxes. Taxes that are then given to schools by the Gov. It's their own money! I would not mind if the Gov drops entirely this education thing. But many atheists want it - atheistic, with other people's money. O, the hypocracy.

BTW, if we tried to remove from the pledge everything that discomforts someone there would be just... silence.
422 posted on 10/25/2003 4:33:55 PM PDT by singsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: singsong
You argued that atheists did not kill most people percentage-wise.

I didn't play the percentages game with atheists. I'm just contesting the notion that Stalin was as brutal as he was specifically because he lacked belief in gods.

I gave you evidence that atheists historicaly are the worst butchers of all absolutely and relatively.

No, you didn't. Your only example has been Stalin. That's a very small sample size, and you've yet to demonstrate a connection between his atheism and his brutality. As I said, it's not hard for a theist to invent justifications for similar actions. True, the God that you believe exists wouldn't allow it, but the one that you worship is not the only god construct out there.

Looks like you think of this endorsement thing as some kind of heresy (hint, hint)? But it is NOT. The Gov is prohibited from making a law that establishes a religion or forbids religious expression.

I would argue that endorsing the Lord's Prayer is an establishment of religion.

Religion for us is not some little game we play for fun, it 's a most serious matter.

I never claimed that it wasn't. Of course, I wonder why you wouldn want the government involved in something so sacred...

People DO have the right to have religion in their kid's education if they pay taxes.

I fail to see the logic in justifying tax-supported religious education..

Taxes that are then given to schools by the Gov. It's their own money!

So taxpaying Muslims therefore have a right to tax-funded Islamic religious education for their children. Okay.

I would not mind if the Gov drops entirely this education thing.

I'm not entirely opposed to that either.

But many atheists want it - atheistic, with other people's money. O, the hypocracy.

Huh? Atheistic what?

BTW, if we tried to remove from the pledge everything that discomforts someone there would be just... silence.

My objection is not based upon "discomfort", it is based upon government entanglement with religion. Not everyone who opposes "under God" in the pledge is an atheist, just like not everyone who opposed teacher-led school prayer was an atheist.
423 posted on 10/25/2003 4:44:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Sure you do, you're a Naturalist. Your god is the Universe.
424 posted on 10/25/2003 4:45:53 PM PDT by RichardMoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I would argue that endorsing the Lord's Prayer is an establishment of religion.

There was never a Congressional law that mandated the prayer. It should be up to the parents and the local school boards. Majority should prevail - answers your Mulsim argument too. Now there is court-created ban on the prayer. Double wrong.

Of course, I wonder why you wouldn want the government involved in something so sacred...

Right. Why does the Gov forbid the kid's envolvement with religion?... after spending their parents money and going OVER the will of the majority... Let every local school district vote!
425 posted on 10/25/2003 5:02:12 PM PDT by singsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
I think #3 is mostly false.

It is true or it is false. You have repeatedly said you think it false. That leads to an absurdity as I have twice illustrated. Your hang-up is thinking that this obvious fact, which you and everyone else observes regularly, somehow contradicts your deeply held values. It doesn't, or if it does, then your deeply held values need to be rethought.

Rights for an individual are those individual's values for which another individual is willing to alter his behavior in order to avoid conflict.

Your definition is not an absolute statement, thus by your definition human rights are not absolute.

Wrong. My whole point is that these are FACTS of nature. As such, they are the universal absolute aspects of the universe that we are privy to through observation. They are a necessary product of the traits human beings possess. If creatures in another era on another planet possess these natural traits, then rights would develop for them as well. The facts are independent of any human opinion, emotional decision, or stipulated dogma. They are unchangeable as gravity and time.

There are certain people (I needn't go back over the history) who will not alter their behavior

Then they are as commonplace as the trees, the wind, or the wild animals. At any rate, it has no bearing on anything I've said. If they can never or will never change their behavior upon request to avoid conflict, then they are not a part of a relationship relevant to rights.

So if in a given culture the government will not alter it's behavior to avoid conflict over human life, do these people not have a right to life?

There you go again. If you haven't read my past posts, I refer to them now.

YOU: I believe that without God the case for human rights collpases completely. Why? Because if human rights are truly "rights" then they must be based on a set of universal values that are always true, in all places and at all times.

ME: Like 2+2=4 is always true in all places and at all times?

That's right!

So you believe that without god the case for 2+2=4 "collapses completely"?

No, I mean that without the validation of a higher law your judgments mean nothing more than his. So you cannot tell whether someone else is right or wrong without calling on a higher law.

This is easily demonstrated to be false. If someone else tells me, "I am Fred and I am not Fred", then I can tell that he is wrong without calling on an elevated law. The absurdity that my judgements mean nothing more than his ought to be obvious. If his judgement is that I must die, then I gaurantee you my judgement that I should live means a heck of lot more to me than his judgement. I need no higher law for that. I know that I want to live, even without anyone's help.

Sure, you could settle the dispute yourselves, but you would appeal to a higher law than just your opinion - to whit, the property boundary. You could just fight it out, but in that case the person who wins is the strongest, not the most just. Or you could bring in a third party to mediate and agree to go by his judgement - i.e. a higher law.

The property boundary is a higher law? The third party is a higher law? How do you know they are not lower laws? Or laws that are kind of at the same elevation? So you are saying that it is your opinion that the third party is a higher law than my opinion. Well excuse me if I value more of my opinion than your opinion.

Funny that no matter how emotional you get about something, your utterances remain your opinion. Unless you can convey to me through a common observation, something that, for my eyes, I cannot deny, your claim of absolute truth is nothing more to me than "just your opinion".

Sure you can - but you can't be consistent without a law higher than yourself.

I'm glad you used the word "consistent". Maybe you can show me the syllogism that proves that a moral judgement "without a law higher" than the judger is necessarily inconsistent. It is by no means obvious.

426 posted on 10/25/2003 5:20:11 PM PDT by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: beavus
Your hang-up is thinking that this obvious fact, which you and everyone else observes regularly, somehow contradicts your deeply held values.

I'm sorry, it's not that simple. Sometimes people are able to be peacefully persuaded. Often they are not. I explained my exceptions. I believe they are consistent. I've presented very compelling evidence that people sometimes allow themselves to be peacefully persuaded, and sometimes they require raw force to conform them.

If his judgement is that I must die, then I gaurantee you my judgement that I should live means a heck of lot more to me than his judgement.

Of course you do, and I'm glad to hear it. But your opinion in that instance really means no more than your attackers unless you can call on a higher law to claim that his acts are wrong.

Maybe you can show me the syllogism that proves that a moral judgement "without a law higher" than the judger is necessarily inconsistent.

When a case to trial and a judge renders a judgement, he does so (hopefully) in accordance with a law. He does not offer his "observations" disconnected from a higher law - he follows the law and renders justice accordingly. The judge must call upon the law for his judgments to have any moral meaning at all. Otherwise he is just exercising raw force without any moral judgment to back him up. And that is inconsistent.

427 posted on 10/25/2003 5:59:49 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
I'm sorry, it's not that simple. Sometimes people are able to be peacefully persuaded. Often they are not. I explained my exceptions.

It is precisely that simple. It doesn't matter how many exceptions you find, FACT#3 holds. Rights do not apply to those exceptions, it only applies to things with the said properties. The exceptions are irrelevent to rights and they certainly do not contradict the statement of FACT#3.

But your opinion in that instance really means no more than your attackers unless you can call on a higher law

No, my opinion in that instance really means MUCH more to me than my attackers, regardless of any law of any elevation.

ME: Maybe you can show me the syllogism that proves that a moral judgement "without a law higher" than the judger is necessarily inconsistent.

YOU: When a case to trial and a judge renders a judgement, he does so (hopefully) in accordance with a law. He does not offer his "observations" disconnected from a higher law - he follows the law and renders justice accordingly. The judge must call upon the law for his judgments to have any moral meaning at all. Otherwise he is just exercising raw force without any moral judgment to back him up. And that is inconsistent.

It would be better if you would lay this out clearly as a syllogism, because I don't follow you. Your proof of necessity somehow refers to a judge on the bench during a trial? You think that somehow legality sets the standard for morality? Judgement that opposes a law is the same as raw force? And what specifically is the inconsistency?

428 posted on 10/25/2003 6:25:21 PM PDT by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: beavus
No, my opinion in that instance really means MUCH more to me than my attackers, regardless of any law of any elevation.

To you of course it does. But logically and morally it doesn't, because without some outside validation of your opinion it has no more moral legitimacy that your attackers.

Look, fact #3 is not an absolute. I presented evidence of this fact. I continue to maintain that you cannot come to a sense of human rights by simply observing how people interact, and assuming that because some people tend to respect others in certain areas that this constitutes a "right." This changes from culture to culture and from country to country. Thus it is not an absolute.

I mean, in the morning I tiptoe around my wife to keep from waking her up. I am "altering my behavior" to avoid a conflict. Does that mean my wife has an "absolute right" to sleep? No, of course not.

My long-winded analogy of the courtroom was to show that in order to pass moral judgment you need something higher than your own opinions and intellect to be consistent. That was all I was trying to say.

429 posted on 10/25/2003 7:10:42 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
From a universal standpoint? No, and I never claimed as much.

So you cannot condemn as abolutely wrong (the "universal standpoint") the massacring of innocent Jews by Hitler? Please correct me if I am mistaken here.

Just because you want there to be a standard by which you can universally define Hitler's actions as "wrong" does not mean that such a standard exists.

No, you are well aware that such a standard exists. You can't universally condemn mass murder, but you can't bring yourself to shrug it off either.

I could jump up and down and shout, "What's wrong with you, can't you see that $DEITY doesn't want this to happen!?", but I doubt that would be very effective.

Whether it is effective or not has absolutely nothing to do with the question, as you well know. Whether your moral construct allows you to stand on firm moral, logical ground is the issue.

References?

I would daresay that there are countless examples of evangelicals who believe that the Bible is authored by those it claims to be. I would go so far as to say that it is difficult to find someone in conservative evangelical/Catholic circles who does not believe it. All six Southern Baptist seminaries, which are among the largest in the world, a full of professors who believe it. But here are a few references to get you started.

http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm

http://www.equip.org/free/DW035.htm

http://www.equip.org/free/DJ028.htm

I hope that you'll answer my question on 1 John 1:1-2 based on the C.S. Lewis "trichotomy", as you put it.

Ancient Greeks believed that they received messages from the gods through various signs.

You'll have to give me a specific example in order to answer that question. It is possible that they truly received messages, but I would suspect that they would be demonic in origin. In addition, considering that the Greeks gods were little more than amplified humanity, making no attempt to account for sinfulness and redemption of fallen man, it would be diificult to take them seriously.

430 posted on 10/25/2003 7:34:25 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: RichardMoore
Your god is the Universe.

I still wonder at how people can try to assign belief to people who have no belief. Is it that hard to understand?

431 posted on 10/25/2003 7:53:34 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
So you cannot condemn as abolutely wrong (the "universal standpoint") the massacring of innocent Jews by Hitler? Please correct me if I am mistaken here.

That is correct. What's your point, that you don't like this consequence?

No, you are well aware that such a standard exists.

No, you arrogantly assert that I am "well aware" because your small mind can't comprehend that not everyone believes as you do.

You can't universally condemn mass murder, but you can't bring yourself to shrug it off either.

There's a difference between "not shrugging off" mass murder and claiming a universal basis for condemnation of it.

Whether it is effective or not has absolutely nothing to do with the question, as you well know. Whether your moral construct allows you to stand on firm moral, logical ground is the issue.

I see no logical contradictions in my position. You've yet to demonstrate any.

I would daresay that there are countless examples of evangelicals who believe that the Bible is authored by those it claims to be.

Ad numerum?
Anecdotal?

. I would go so far as to say that it is difficult to find someone in conservative evangelical/Catholic circles who does not believe it.

Interesting, because some of my references are also Catholic.

Thanks for the references though. I note that they provide lots of assertions, but little educational reference. Nonetheless, I can provide websites that back up my claims.

http://www.uscatholic.org/2001/06/gya0106.htm

You'll have to give me a specific example in order to answer that question.

It's rather well-established that there were Greek "orcales" who would set up temples near thermal vents and interpret the interesting scents that they caught there as "sighs" of the future. In any case, the stories of their gods had to come from somewhere.

You'll have to give me a specific example in order to answer that question. It is possible that they truly received messages, but I would suspect that they would be demonic in origin.

Ah, such a convenient excuse. "My divine messages are revealed Truth, but their divine messages are DEMONIC!"

The problem is that the same excuse could be applied to you. Of coruse, you'll wave your hands around and dismiss it with some lame excuse.
Actually, that's not the only problem. It's also an assertion without evidence. You've not even demonstrated that the "demonic" exists.

In addition, considering that the Greeks gods were little more than amplified humanity, making no attempt to account for sinfulness and redemption of fallen man, it would be diificult to take them seriously.

What does that have to do with the truth of their existence? Gods only exist if their nature matches what you want them to be?
432 posted on 10/25/2003 8:18:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
That is correct. What's your point, that you don't like this consequence?

Well, at least you are consistent here, which is more than most atheists. I'm sorry but I must be frank here - your viewpoint is absolutely abhorrent and tragically wrong, and if applied writ large to society will lead it into total and complete destruction. Massacring innocent Jews is a crime against God and man.

Since you cannot judge right from wrong, why are you on this website? Why do you care? The fact of the matter is, you do not live consistently by your own assumptions. Despite your inability to condemn the Holocaust, you make absolute judgments of right and wrong all the time. You do this because God has given you a conscience, and you know that there is an absolute Authority.

Nonetheless, I can provide websites that back up my claims.

I'm sure you can. That does not change the historic position of the church, which has been that the Bible is what it says it is. Your claim that "no reputable Bible scholars" believe that the Bible was actually authored by those who claimed to author it is laughable.

What does that have to do with the truth of their existence? Gods only exist if their nature matches what you want them to be?

No, it just makes it much more likely that they are man-created.

To paraphrase a sermon I heard the other day, Christianity is not a religion that man would have invented, even if they could.

Christianity is a religion that is not centered around the works of man, but demands that mankind believe and place their faith in the finished work of someone else; it does not demand rules and rituals and good works, it demands simple faith. It does not rely on human beings ability to "make something of themselves", it asks that human beings acknowledge that they are sinners and will always be; it does not ask man to "pull himself up by his bootstraps", it tells him that he cannot.

In other words, mankind does not come off looking very good in the Bible. Christianity says that there is nothing that man can do about it - he must look to Christ, who has obtained forgiveness of sins already, and is ready to change someone from the inside out. The less I am of me, the more I can be of Christ. I cannot imagine a less "humanistic" creedo. No, the Bible is not a creation of man.

At some point I sincerely hope that you answer my question about 1 John 1:1-2.

433 posted on 10/25/2003 9:30:41 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
'm sorry but I must be frank here - your viewpoint is absolutely abhorrent and tragically wrong, and if applied writ large to society will lead it into total and complete destruction.

Wrong is an assertion that you've yet to demonstrate as true. The rest is argument from the consequences, a logical fallacy. That you don't like the consequences of my worldview does not make my worldview false. Further, I assert that because I believe my worldview to be true and because society has not yet collapsed, you are wrong regarding that as well.

Massacring innocent Jews is a crime against God and man.

You again assert a god that you've not demonstrated exists. How is it an "crime against man"? Be specific.

Since you cannot judge right from wrong, why are you on this website?

Since you can't argue without tossing up bogus strawmen, why are you replying to me?

The fact of the matter is, you do not live consistently by your own assumptions.

I'd call my lack of belief in universal moral absoultes a lack of an assumption. You're the one assuming that there is such a thing. I just have yet to be convinced. I also don't see how I'm living inconsistently.

Despite your inability to condemn the Holocaust,

I do condemn the holocaust, I just recognize that I have no universal standard from which to make a condemnation, thus my condemnation must be from subjective standards.

Despite your inability to condemn the Holocaust, you make absolute judgments of right and wrong all the time. You do this because God has given you a conscience, and you know that there is an absolute Authority.

I see that you've run out of arguments for your position, so you're just insisting that you're right and saying "Is so!" without providing any supporting evidence.

You've yet to demonstrate that this "God" exists, so any arguments that you make that depend on the existence of this "God" are meaningless. No, I don't "know" that there is an absoulte Authority, and it is unbelievably arrogant of you to assert that you know how I think.

That does not change the historic position of the church, which has been that the Bible is what it says it is.

Do you really want to appeal to the "historic" position of the Church, which also promoted a geocentric universe for some time?

No, it just makes it much more likely that they are man-created.

From my position, the probability that any god is "man-created" is very, very close to 1 regardless of the nature of the god in question.

To paraphrase a sermon I heard the other day, Christianity is not a religion that man would have invented, even if they could.

Why not? The concept of a god taking human form and suffering as a substitute for human transgressions isn't exactly unique to Christianity.

[argument from "Christianity is unique!"]

I can point to several other religions off of the top of my head that are also "unique" in their own right -- not concentrating on the works of man, don't demand rituals. That Christianity has elements not shared by other religions does not make it more likely to be true.

At some point I sincerely hope that you answer my question about 1 John 1:1-2.

What about your question? You asked if John was lying, insane or telling the truth. You left out "misquoted" (unless you think that John was the actual author of that particular work) or simply mistaken. As such, your question is meaningless. If you want to expand it, my answer is that I don't know. I never met John, I never experienced what John experienced and I don't have any way to really find out. As such, I couldn't tell you if he was lying, telling the truth, insane, misquoted or misinterpreted.
434 posted on 10/25/2003 10:07:35 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: TXLibertarian
Epitaph for an athiest's tombstone:

"Here lies (name of athiest here), an athiest.

All dressed up and nowhere to go!"

435 posted on 10/25/2003 10:23:22 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Wrong is an assertion that you've yet to demonstrate as true.

Wrong is that which goes against God. You cannot attempt to define it and still logically hold to the atheistic position. Nevertheless, inconsistently, you have a knowledge of right from wrong or you wouldn't be here.

You again assert a god that you've not demonstrated exists. How is it an "crime against man"? Be specific.

The spectacle of where your worldview has taken you is enough to make me weep. You know in your soul exactly what I am talking about. The murder of 11 million people is a crime against man, according to the universal moral standard which is God.

I do condemn the holocaust, I just recognize that I have no universal standard from which to make a condemnation, thus my condemnation must be from subjective standards.

Your "condemnation" is completely worthless. Why not simply say, "I don't care who is mass murdered, because my atheism so restricts me in my moral thinking that I can't see my way to condemn it." Yet when the tyrant comes to your door, I am sure that you will be the first to take up arms, in total contradiction to your stated beliefs.

Do you really want to appeal to the "historic" position of the Church, which also promoted a geocentric universe for some time?

Yes, because it is the historic position of the church and Bible-believing Christians for the last two centuries. Your comment about the "geocentric" universe is an attempt at injecting an unrelated topic that has nothing to with the point being made.

What about your question? You asked if John was lying, insane or telling the truth.

Yes, and you still have not answered. Saying he "misunderstood" is illogical at best, because the passage makes clear that John has seen, touched and heard Christ. He walked with him for the better part of three years. Manuscript evidence casts severe doubt on the idea that John was "misquoted". No, someone named John claimed it. Now, was he lying, insane, or telling the truth?

By the way, in denying the existence of God, you'll have to prove to me that you have been everywhere in the universe and know with absolute certainty that there is no God. Until then, you cannot know. I can, because of the proof that exists all around us in creation, the rational nature of His Word, and the testimony of what he has done in my life supernaturally.

436 posted on 10/25/2003 10:55:07 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
In the last paragraph I should probably have said, "Christians can" instead of "I can" because God changes all Christians.
437 posted on 10/25/2003 11:00:02 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Wrong is that which goes against God.

Once again you assert this "God" without demonstrating it. You're assuming your conclusion and using your assumption to "prove" that my position is false. Usually that logical fallacy requires at least a little subtrufuge -- such as using a consequence of you being right as "proof" -- but you're apparently brazen enough to try to use "I'm right, therefore you are wrong" as a logical argument.

You cannot attempt to define it and still logically hold to the atheistic position.

Actually, there are a number of definitions of "wrong" that invoke no gods. In the context in which you used it above, it simply means that you assert that my position is incorrect. No gods are required for the definition of "wrong" in that context.

Nevertheless, inconsistently, you have a knowledge of right from wrong or you wouldn't be here.

Support this assertion.

The spectacle of where your worldview has taken you is enough to make me weep.

You know very little about me, so I don't really understand why you would weep.

You know in your soul exactly what I am talking about.

"Soul" is another undemonstrated assertion.

The murder of 11 million people is a crime against man, according to the universal moral standard which is God.

Ah, so your "crime against man" relies upon your "God exists" assumption, which you've yet to demonstrate is true.

I can understand why the murder of 11 million people makes people very emotional. I don't feel good about it either. Through biology and through social conditioning, I have a level of empathy that makes mass murder (and murder in general) revolting to me as well. I can understand the desire to have a "higher authority" that says that it's wrong. However, that desire does not translate to fact. Wanting very much for mass murder to be "wrong according to a standard as fixed within the universe as c does not make such a standard exist.

Your "condemnation" is completely worthless.

Is it? Condemnation of Hitler's actions got his leaders hanged.

Why not simply say, "I don't care who is mass murdered, because my atheism so restricts me in my moral thinking that I can't see my way to condemn it."

That would be a lie. I do care. You're once again ignoring my real position because you can't argue against it, inventing strawmen to knock down.

Yet when the tyrant comes to your door, I am sure that you will be the first to take up arms, in total contradiction to your stated beliefs.

How would taking up arms against a tyrant contradict "my stated beliefs"?

Yes, because it is the historic position of the church and Bible-believing Christians for the last two centuries.

And yet I find sources from the Church and other Bible-believing Christians who say otherwise.

Your comment about the "geocentric" universe is an attempt at injecting an unrelated topic that has nothing to with the point being made.

You attempted to cite the Church as an authority on Biblical authorship. I'm just pointing out that they've stubbornly held to false views in the past, even when reality proved them wrong.

Yes, and you still have not answered.

I did answer. I said "I don't know." I even explained why I am not in a position to know.

Saying he "misunderstood" is illogical at best, because the passage makes clear that John has seen, touched and heard Christ.

So he thought that he was touching the divine, but he was mistaken. Or he expressed his thoughts on the divine, but whomever wrote down what he said misunderstood what he said.Manuscript evidence casts severe doubt on the idea that John was "misquoted".

Huh?

No, someone named John claimed it. Now, was he lying, insane, or telling the truth?

I don't know whether he was lying, telling the truth, insane or mistaken about what he had experienced.

By the way, in denying the existence of God, you'll have to prove to me that you have been everywhere in the universe and know with absolute certainty that there is no God.

By the way, in denying the existence of kfojsarweklriou, you'll have to prove to me that you have been everywhere in the universe and know with absolute certainty that there is no kfojsarweklriou. Until then, you cannot know.

Try to understand. I lack belief in ALL GODS. Not just the God that you worship. Not just the God that you and the Jews worship. ALL GODS. Your god is just one of thousands in which I lack belief. Your god, therefore, is your assertion among many thousands of others. The burden of proof is upon you to show that your assertion is true. Until then, I have no more reason to believe that the god that you present exists as I do for believing that Zeus exists. Yes, Zeus is supposedly very petty, rather quick to anger and something of a lecherous old man, but that doesn't in any way disprove his existence.

I can, because of the proof that exists all around us in creation, the rational nature of His Word, and the testimony of what he has done in my life supernaturally.

Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's "You're just ignoring the obvious". It's not convincing, especially since I've heard the same argument from a Hindu.
438 posted on 10/25/2003 11:51:07 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
You were right to leave your contention that the case for 2+2=4 collapses without alluding to god.

To you of course it does. But logically and morally it doesn't, because without some outside validation of your opinion it has no more moral legitimacy that your attackers.

Throughout your writings, you present clouded and confused understandings mixing rights with values. When you say something has meaning (in the sense of "value", not "definition"), the immediate question that should arise in you is "meaning to whom". Because, by "meaning" you are referring to a value, and it is individuals that value things (see FACT#1 and FACT#2).

You make a similar error as Decartes who recognized that "I think" but failed to recognize that one cannot simply think without thinking about something. The flexibility of grammar caused this oversight and fed the subjectivism that followed even to this day, where people insist that they cannot know of the existence of a reality outside their own minds.

So, I say it means something to me, referring the value to a valuer. You then reply that it means nothing logically. I must ask you, "logically means nothing to whom? And after you clarify that, I will ask you to demonstate the logical failure.

Fact 3: humans, among all things we observe in our environment, are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion.

Look, fact #3 is not an absolute.

You did NOT give ANY "evidence" that it is not an absolute. All you did was make the observation, which is just as obvious and goes hand in hand with FACT#3, that humans can be observed to NOT be controllable through peaceful persuasion. But of course that has NO bearing on FACT#3 which remains, as stated, a true fact that all of us observe, despite your denials. I am left wondering if English maybe is not your first language. There are examples of humans that don't think, but that does not mean that thinking is not a property of humans. There are examples of humans that don't run, but that does not mean that running is not a property of humans.

As you and I pass through this life, we observe many things--falling leaves, rising sun, singing birds, dry soil, etc. A small subset of those things have a property whereby we find that we can control them through peaceful persuasion. We find upon further inspection that the only things we've encountered that have that property are humans (of course it is the property that is important, and if some nonhuman possessed it, then rights would become relevent to that thing as well).

It is that property that leads to rights. As an observation, a characteristic of reality that our senses allow us access to, independent of what anybody believes, it is a fact and thus an absolute. It thus follows anytime and anywhere the natural ingredients come together. It is inferred in ancient writings and in alien cultures. It is part of the human condition.

If you have some other notion of what "absolute" means, I offered you the opportunity to clarify.

I mean, in the morning I tiptoe around my wife to keep from waking her up. I am "altering my behavior" to avoid a conflict. Does that mean my wife has an "absolute right" to sleep?

Following the (absolute) facts of human nature, you are respecting, thoughtful of your past communications and understanding of your wife, her value to sleep. Yes, that is an fairly good simplified example of rights. As an illustration it is limited only in that one might see a rock slowly rolling by another rock and claim that it is choosing to roll quietly thinking about the other rock's value to sleep. Thus, an example with more complicated human behavior would be a better illustration, but this one is pretty good. That you do this for your wife, is an observation in yourself of the truth of FACT#3. With that admission, I do not expect you to deny that fact anymore.

My long-winded analogy of the courtroom was to show that in order to pass moral judgment you need something higher than your own opinions and intellect to be consistent.

Perhaps with the analogy you were trying to allude to something which would allow me to construct for myself the proof of inconsistency of moral judgement without appealing to a "higher"...something. I must say that I don't see it. I am rather hoping that you could provide such clarity yourself, and simply layout the proof. Maybe I can start it for you:

1. I value A.

.

.

.

10. Therefore I do not value A.

11. 1 and 10 prove inconsistency.

439 posted on 10/26/2003 3:40:26 AM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: beavus
You were right to leave your contention that the case for 2+2=4 collapses without alluding to god.

Did I? If I did "leave it" I don't recall. Well, in any case, here is the answer. 2+2=4 because God created the universe that way, with order and reason. The Creation, and therefore 2+2=4, cannot exist apart from God.

Sorry, I do not believe that my wife has an absolute right to sleep late, because her right to sleep, through no fault of her own, must often give way to things that are more impotant. If, without having incurred a moral sanction, she must give it up, I cannot see how it is a right - it is merely a preference.

If I commit murder I give up my right to live by God's law and the law of the state. But if the baby wakes up through no fault of my wife's, my wife must give up her "right" to sleep in. Her dignity as a human being is not being "violated" in such a case. Therefore it is not an absolute right - it is a preference.

I may prefer to wear yellow. I have a right to purchase what clothing I wish, if I have the money, and if said clothing is available. It is possible, I think, to make a Biblical case for an absolute right to free commerce. But I do not have an absolute right to wear yellow, even though no one will stand in my way if I do.

Besides, here is the kicker - toddlers cannot be "peacefully persuaded." A small child will put their hand on a burning stove when they do not know that it is hot. They must be physically restrained. You cannot stop a 1-year old from putting their fingers in the socket by launching into a discourse on why it will knock them across the room.

In the end, you still need a transcendent moral standard to account for rights. Fact #3 remains something that is not entirely consistent at all times. Human beings are unique in the world in that some do respond to peaceful persuasion, but that is because they are made in the image of God and can morally reason, unlike a dog or a dolphin. But the fact remains that means of violent coercion must be in place or civilization would collapse into chaos.

440 posted on 10/26/2003 6:09:55 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-455 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson