"Ethics do not require god. The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil." The ends justifies the means? So rape is OK sometimes, but not other times? Who gets to determine whether the circumstances or effects are justifiable? The "majority"? Someone really "smart"? Maybe some really smart, minority group like atheists since, "World history and standardized test histograms show that it is and always has been the case that the majority of the world's population is misinformed, ignorant, stupid, or all of the above."

"...mankind is rapidly improving." I must have missed the memo. I'm sure the past 100 years of history out of human history are a good sample. Let's see, WWI, WWII, Cold War. OK, maybe just the past 5 years -- Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine.

From the about page, "EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism...". It contains some interesting stuff. Let's see "God Burns Little Ones" refers to Zechariah 13:7-9 which says "And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried." A careful reading shows that this reference isn't saying that children should be burned, but that their character will be tested and refined. Another reference on EvilBible says "Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven" referring to Matthew 19:12, but fails to take verse 19:11 in account where it is indicated that it may be better to not marry. Jesus is stating that choosing not to marry for religious reasons is a viable option (and he makes clear it isn't for everyone), not that castration is specifically the way to go. I could continue, but it is clear that this site attempts to misquote and misrepresent in order to bolster the Atheist's claims. Guess the "logical ethics system" allows trying to mislead as long as it brings people to your point of view.

Finally, I should accept "on faith" the atheist presupposition that logic or forensic evidence explains everything and that any other form of knowledge is either inferior or invalid? Godel's incompleteness theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem) shows that a system (in his case, mathematics) cannot be proved or disproved based on the system itself. Why should I grant that (1) logic is the only available path to knowledge, (2) it is within logic's abilities to prove/disprove the existence of a God and (3) there isn't another, higher system that supercedes the system of logic?

I guess if I accepted your presupposition that logic explains everything, then your arguments make sense:

- The ends justifies the means (logic doesn't come with an ethical basis, so this one is as good as the next)

- Most people are idiots (assuming atheists are correct, logically the vast majority of the world must be stupid)

- Mankind is improving (I guess that since atheism has been held as the official state position of several large nations over the past century, things must be getting better?)

- Misrepresentation is OK to try and discredit another point of view (since "The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil.", the atheist is free to do whatever they want as long as they think the circumstances and effect are in their favor).

Back to my original quote "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." My prejudice is simple -- Jesus was made radical statements about himself, God, religion, society, etc. that makes him unique from anyone else who ever lived. A simple cartoon and the ensuing logic argument attempt to ignore this altogether and avoid discussing the real issue -- what did Jesus do/say and what does that have to do with me?

"Not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning." To your points:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.

I tend to agree with you that this argument matters little and is tangential to the whole topic. However, you've supplied a fair amount of evidence for this point including inflammatory phrases such as "magical teapot believers", "nutjobs", "full of shit", "I think you know where you can store your advice", etc.

2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.

Again, I don't see it being too central to the original discussion. It is interesting, though, that you stated "Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet." Sounds like you're out to "evangelize" change in the world then? Perhaps even applauding where militant atheism is applied? More on that in point #4.

3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.

A strawman argument that is so over simplified and incorrect that it isn't worth addressing.


4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.

Nobody denies the crusade, inquisition, etc. took place, but the issue is whether these people are "Christian" or not. Did they call themselves Christian? Yes. Were their actions aligned with the words and example Jesus laid out for his followers and, therefore, what Christians are supposed to be like? No. You are assuming that all those who claim to be Christian are truthful representatives of Jesus and not self-centered, power-hungry, opportunists who saw it was fashionable to call themselves "Christian" given the power structure of the day. You are attempting to equate two vastly different entities and, therefore, the logic fails.

Is it fair to level the same charges against atheism by equating the actions of atheistic states to represent all atheists? 26.3 million killed in China under Mao Tse Tung, 66 million in the Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin/Khrushchev, 2.5 million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. If you are going to make the claim that Christians are genocidal monsters, it would seem that atheists are in the same boat. If you want to talk about current events, communist regimes with atheistic tenants (e.g. China, North Korea, etc.) continue to be highlighted for human rights abuses as they target those purely because of religious beliefs (do a search on hrw.org for examples). The problem here is that it is hard to argue that these leaders are not following the "beliefs" laid down by what you portray of atheism -- religious people are "nutjobs" and there is work to do in "salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet".


5. God wants us to have free will.

Free will is a core point used against the logical "problem of evil" or "problem of hell" arguments. You've had your own ad hominem arguments to try and avoid it -- "That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it."or "More rhetoric and no substance." You also attempt to claim that free will can't exist in the Christian view -- "And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free." You are trying to change the definition of free will with freedom from consequence -- again, another logical fallacy. Along your line of argument, free will should include the ability to choose to go to heaven. However, if heaven is a "perfect place", would it be perfect if anyone and everyone could be there? Free will cannot make logical impossibilities true -- can I choose to make myself invisible? score 5000 on the SAT test? etc.


6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

Old argument? Yes. The core argument of the cartoon is "The Problem of Hell", a variant of "The Problem of Evil"/Epicurus' Riddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell) which is a logical argument that has been around for a long while.

Hold water. Not bad. You could say the same of the theistic ontological argument too. Atheists and Christians have used these for some time and, as such, it is apparent that neither side considers the other's logical "proof" so compelling as to concede defeat. I expect that you'd claim this to be more "bullshit", as you are fond of saying, so I'll be more direct. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is not true. Free will and yet being unable to choose evil are logically inconsistent. On one hand, you have free will with the potential for evil while on the other, no evil but no free will.


7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

Arguing over a relatively small percentage seems to be silly -- the point that the vast majority of the population is religious isn't impacted by the difference. It seems equally ridiculous to claim that a majority is proof of something -- I'm sure that Christian and Atheist alike can site a majority opinion either now or in the past that we consider incorrect.


And to sum up what we've heard outside of these points:

1. Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well. Which I happen to agree with.
2. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

For all of the times you've bashed people for lacking logic or evidence, where is it when you make these assertions? You've read what Jesus did/said and can comment specifically how he is full of crap then?


Although it has been interesting to watch the comments go back and forth on this and to jump in from time to time, I find the following quotation by Elbert Hubbard appropriate, "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." As this string of comments (along with hundreds like it scattered about the internet) shows, God is not going to be proved or disproved by logical arguments alone.

joedirt - If humans have created "advanced technologies", then it is not evidence that God is a half-wit but rather confirms we are the "best an omnipotent deity can come up with." As for our inventions being "better", I've yet to hear a doctor/scientist/engineer make a serious claim that we've achieved anything that is more than just a fraction of the capability and complexity of the human body and mind.

"You are selfish and half-witted to view religion like this." Therein lies the core issues. First, we're back to name calling and trying to claim superiority over each other -- the very issues I was trying to point out in my previous post. Second, it isn't about religion as that often turns out to be doctrine, rituals, rules, etc. Those aren't the things that are important and, in too many cases, it ends up being a cover for those with other motives. It is about trying to get back to the original relationship and a change in internal attitude.

Imayliffe - Your posted comments detail an extensive history how those claiming to be Christians have screwed up multiple times. While you may want to blame Christians for everything, we could use history or current events to detail how other groups of people have messed up too. Your statement that this is "good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt" ignores the very facts you've tried to use to bolster your own claims.

The cartoon and the arguments within the comments take too much latitude assuming an invalid perspective.

God made people as the pinnacle of his creative efforts and gave them the ability to love. With love comes free will (because without the ability to choose, it really isn't love). People used their free will to essentially say "Fuck you God, we don't need to follow your rules and we're doing things our own way." Selfishness has since worked its way through the ages and the consequences have followed (by elevating one's needs/wants/desires above others, one can justify pretty much anything -- deceit, theft, murder, etc.).

God made multiple attempts to reestablish the relationship, but people kept messing it up. Many simply chose to continue in their ways because they liked playing master of their destiny. Others thought they knew how to fix things -- through the words they said, the rituals they observed, the rules they followed, etc. Very few really "got it". Jesus came to try fix things while making it clear that what counts is not what is on the outside (appearance, words, rules, etc.), but what is on the inside (the attitude, the driving motivation).

How have people responded? We continue to screw it up. Some want to ignore it all, placate themselves with some logic and go their own way. Many Christians believe they are in the "in crowd" because of their denomination, rituals, beliefs, etc., while their inner attitudes aren't really any different. As we can see from this collection of comments, the groups argue and insult each other.

The cartoon along with the collection of comments just proves that we still don't understand. We continue to essentially say "Fuck you God, I'm doing it my own way" and then try to add on "God, you could have prevented me from messing up in the first place, so this whole thing is your fault anyway. What do you mean that you won't want me living at your place with you forever? You aren't much of a God if that is the way things are, you weak, stupid, evil... Hey, I've got it! I don't even think you exist at all!"

The statement that "Jesus loves you" is rather amazing given how he has been treated by those who argue against him, those who have tried to usurp his name to justify their hideous actions and those who present themselves as representing him while not following his words and examples. Jesus is truly unique in the way he dealt with people, how he spoke, the logic he used, his interactions with the "religious" and what he claimed about himself. I think it is worth more consideration than a cartoon and some philosophical arguments.