Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position. While you have correctly concluded that life without God is meaningless, and I commend you for being intellectually honest to admit this, the point is that you certainly will not live that way. You will actually live as a Christian does, believing that human beings have value and dignity, and that there are good things we should do and bad things we shouldn't do. The problem is, in a meaningless Universe, you have no rational justification for any of these things. You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress. You have nowhere to stake a claim, and this is why your atheism becomes a sinkhole which is pulling you down directly into nihilism. In the end, a bag of stardust has no rational justification for morality, or any kind of value. If you are an atheist/agnostic you have to admit you have no value, no dignity, and no basis for good or evil.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

People worship because they're made to worship. Go around this Earth and you will find people worshiping all manner of Gods and created things, the sun the moon and the stars, celebrity, money, power, themselves. 1 Romans says that God has made Himself evident to people in the things He has made. So, rather than people worshiping because they wanted to avoid meaninglessness, they worship because it the most natural thing for them to do which matches their experience. People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

I can speak on depression because I used to be depressed. I know what it is like, and having come out of it, I am qualified to speak on what I can clearly see as being the number one issue; hopelessness. A person who depressed is carrying burdens in their life which tell them that tomorrow will not be better than today, in fact it will probably be worse. People who are depressed often times see no reason to carry on at all. This could be for a number of reasons; living situation, health, low self-esteem, loneliness, finances, abuse, or perhaps all of the above. In the end, it all boils down to a lack of hope that whatever they are depressed about will ever change or get better, or that it would matter if it did. People who have hope are happy and not depressed.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

So, I suppose the point is that it is hopeless. Not only is a life without God meaningless, but if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction. This is what I mean when I have said in the past that in all of our history human beings have made absolutely no progress what so ever. All of the knowledge in the world doesn't count for anything if you don't have the wisdom to use it. All of our learning is simply hubris when you take a look at the condition of the world today. It is actually more wicked at this time than any other time in history. I believe God is in absolute control because He has shown me this is true. I'll give you an example:

One time I had to hitchhike across country. This was just before I became a Christian and I wasn't sure about Jesus. I was kind of scared having never really hitchhiked before, so I prayed and said: "Jesus, if you are the Son of God, and I need to know you, please help me through this. I can't do it on my own so I am going to trust you to help me". After I prayed this prayer, everything was lined up for me as if it was programmed. Money, food and rides all came to me at the right time in the right place. For instance, I would meet someone in one spot and they would help me, and then 800 miles away in a different state on a different day I would meet them again. This happened to me 3 times. Two of them I met in the same place within 20 minutes apart, and they both were met in different states many hundreds of miles away. The timing of all of this was practically impossible. Only God could have arranged me to keep meeting the same people when they were going in opposite directions across the country and on different routes, at the same time. Even if they were going in the same routes and directions it would still be improbable. Not to mention they were in small windows of time where I was in the right place at the right time to see them.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Actually, one of the defining characteristics of being a psychopath is the ruthless manipulation of others for pleasure and short term gain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

You can say your bliss is better and more noble than their bliss but you would have no justification in doing so. There is actually no reason in your worldview to say that psychopaths aren't normal and you are abnormal.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

Yes, we both have that sense, but the difference is you have no basis for saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred. If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that? According to what you've said here, that would make you a hypocrite.

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead.

You say this with certainly but I think you have to recognize that this is your hope. I wonder where this hope comes from? Since you've never been dead before to see what happens, what makes you so sure about it? Could this information about life after death exist in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of things that you don't know?

What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves).

You're absolutely right about that. The scripture says when there is no King every man does what is right in his own eyes. It also says that there is a way that seems right to man, but the end of its ways is death. Also, interestingly, this philosophy matches the only rule of Satanism "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Christianity teaches that we should trust in God with all of our heart and lean not on our own understanding.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

Right, but not doing things because they make you feel bad isn't the question. Unless there is an absolute morality, these are just chemical reactions in your brain. Your mind is deluding you into thinking something is bad by secreting a certain chemical which makes you feel guilty when you steal, and secreting a certain chemical that makes you feel good when you don't do it. These things aren't really bad, they are just how your brain evolved. So, why be a slave to chemicals? I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

What makes someone a bad person?

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

Well, there you go. You have no justification for right and wrong, and you admit that. You don't know why, and you don't care, so you go by your feelings. This is the cognitive dissonance I was talking about at the beginning of the post. You know intellectually that a meaningless Universes gives you no basis for morality, but you don't live that way. You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil and acting as if life has meaning and value when you know that it doesn't. You are fooling yourself into ascribing meaning to what you know are just chemical reactions in your brain. There is analogy made to the brain being like a soda can..you shake it up and it starts fizzing, which is just like the chemical reaction in our brains. One is fizzing morally and the other is fizzing immorally. What's the difference?

Your atheism leaves you in the position of not being able to tell me that something like child rape is absolutely wrong. In your world, there is no such thing, and if everyone thought it was right, it would be.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong. It's very easy for everyone to understand Gods laws because we already know them. The problem is that people suppress the truth about God, and so people are deceived about what is good and evil are just doing what is right in their own eyes. I didn't understand growing up that fornication was wrong because society said it was okay, but now that the deception has been lifted my heart is in agreement with it. I know that is wrong, not just because Gods law says it is, but because it is written upon my heart.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

We have the freedom to obey or disobey God. The one thing God will never do is make you obey Him. In that sense, you have to determine whether you will do what is good or evil.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

The ambiguity comes in when you assert these things with no rational justification. You admitted earlier that you have no ultimate justification for right and wrong, so why do you think Harris somehow does?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

This is really an argument from incredulity. I'm sure no one pictured an entire society could be convinced that killing millions of jews is a good thing, but it happened. People can and have agreed to do some extremely wicked things. The point is that if morality is based upon what people agree on, and people can potentially agree on anything, then you have a moral system that could call the same thing good or evil depending on what the opinion was at that time. That is no basis for morality.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

I don't recall saying this. There is the divine command theory which states that whatever God commands is ethically good. For instance, although God commanded us not to kill, He used the Israelites to judge the Canaanites after giving them 450 years to repent. This though was a unique situation because God ruled the Israelites directly as His own kingdom. The only other example I can think of is Abraham and Issac, and of course God didn't want Abraham to kill Issac.

These days, though, we're under a new covenant, and Gods Spirit dwells within His people. There is no example of God telling us to do anything contrary to His word in the NT, and therefore I see no basis for agreeing that I would either.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

"a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws."

The point is, without enforcement a person is free to violate their conscience as freely and as often as they choose without any consequences. A conscience doesn't preclude the need for an external set of laws because most people willfully ignore their own conscience.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

Christianity wasn't arbitrarily invented, it is revealed truth. I've also already covered this throughout the reply. According to you, unless you appeal to an authority, you have no basis for right and wrong, and neither you or Harris have any authority to appeal to in a meaningless Universe. You're content to just follow your feelings and not think about it, which I pointed it is cognitive dissonance.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. That is the proof that God exists in the middle of all of this. You are living like a Christian while denying God with your atheism. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning". That would be the same as me saying that God exists because He exists. It is a viciously circular argument that you would never accept from me. I can point to a transcendent God who reveals truth, and tells us what is right and wrong, and is the source for the uniformity in nature. I can justify these things, but you cannot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_ 1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

Sorry. I can't remember what I was thinking of, or if I wasn't just confusing one thing for another. Perhaps I was thinking of this:

http://videosift.com/video/Ray-Comfort-Teaches-about-Adolf-Hitler

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

Hope is what keeps people going … They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

This is my fault. As I mentioned in my last comment, I had intended to write further down about people who do find bliss in hurting others, and I had it fleshed out in the drafting process, but I guess I accidentally deleted it before posting. Anyway, here it is. First, there’s psychopaths. You don’t understand what a psychopath is. It’s not a blood-crazed killer from a Hollywood movie. In real life, a psychopath is someone who fails to feel empathy or sympathy, someone who has no sense of altruism. They do whatever serves their own interests best – however they define that. This is in sharp contrast with how the rest of us think about other people, which is mostly with compassion. I’ve been close to a few psychopaths, and they enjoy things like music or sports or writing or whatever like anyone else, and they mostly understand that others think hurting people is bad, so they avoid it. They don’t get any special thrill from hurting others – it just doesn’t hurt their conscience if they do. I’m guessing they don’t really ever feel the bliss I’m talking about.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead. What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves). Like, I might like to eat your cookie, but it would feel worse to steal it from you than it would feel good to eat it. Instead, I think about how I can have the cookie without feeling bad about it. I would probably ask you for some of your cookie, and then I’d not only have some cookie, but I’d also share a friendly interaction with another person in my community, someone who will probably enjoy sharing their cookie with me and be glad I asked them. Win-win. So to recap, “taking what I can” to me and most people, involves having the greatest amount of personally rewarding experiences I can, and those involve not doing bad things, and often involve doing good things.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself…That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

So you downvoted a comment that I put some thought into, snipped out the majority of it in your quoting, disagreed with the one line you quoted, and then failed to explain how it was wrong.

All you'd have to do is show one positive to be gained from religion that is exclusive to religion, and you did not do so. After labeling me absurd, you then veer completely off that point. Religion is a combination of philosophy and dogma, and it is my contention that all the positives inherent in religion come from the philosophy and not the dogma, thus rendering them available even to those who do not buy into the dogma. I singled out Christianity (which I am most familiar with) but you could apply these statements equally to Buddhism (with their dogma being reincarnation and karma), and most likely to any other religion.

Those who are moral because of heaven or hell, or because they want to be reincarnated well, or for whatever other dogmatic reason fail to appreciate morality for what it is. If this is such an absurd comment, then by all means please tear it apart. Just calling it names does nothing constructive whatsoever.

I don't know what to do with the knowledge that you rarely vote on comments, considering your failure makes your vote seem rather petty to me. On the plus side, I have no idea what effect your vote has, so it's hard to be affected by it.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

Hey Adam,

Thank you for sharing your background with me, and for your kind-hearted attitude. I haven't taken any offense to what you've said. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I'll relate some of my background to you first of all. I grew up in a secular home, and there wasn't any talk of religion in my household, for or against. There was a bible in my house, and although I attempted to read it as a child, I didn't get past the "begats" in Genesis. I thought that perhaps that was the entire rest of the book. I grew up knowing nothing much about religion, and so I was agnostic by default.

It wasn't until a bit later in life that I received revelation that there is a God. At the time, I had started to ponder what the truth actually was. I started to search for it, because I felt that the love was slowly draining out of this world, that things were going really wrong, and it got to the point where I felt personally convicted to stand up and do something. What, I had no idea, but more than anything else, I wanted to know the real truth.

It was very shortly after this that I received revelation from God of His existence. Although I wasn't precisely looking for God at the time, I believe that He gave me this revelation because I was searching for the truth. God showed me that He was there, and that He is personally interested and involved in my life, and that He loved me. Needless to say, this was utterly shocking, and as naturalistic materialist, my mind was blown. I found out in a moments time that all that I knew was in some way, wrong. There was no room in my worldview for a Spirit, but God shattered that mold.

He didn't come out and say who He was, though. Instead, He had me investigate all of the various religions, belief systems, philosophies etc that I could..everything from Asatru to Zen Buddhism, and while I was doing this He gave me clues about Himself along the way. What I ended up believing was that none of the worlds religions were correct. I essentially believed that while they all might contain some element of thetruth about God, they were imperfect representations of who He is. I definitely did not believe that Christianity could be the one true faith. I had that picked out from the beginning as something I profoundly disagreed with.

Which is why it was the last religion I investigated. The actual truth was that I didn't know very much about it. I had, like many atheists do, a lot of things picked out of the bible which made me believe I could just dismiss it outright. It turned out though when I actually really read the bible that the understanding I thought I had was incredibly superficial (and self-deceiving). I had tried to read it before, but there was always veil there that prevented me from really understanding it. This time though that veil was taken away and everything became alive to me. The reason for this was that what I was reading was corresponding to those clues that God had given me about Himself that I had mentioned earlier. God had reinforced certain ideas and principles about Himself to me, which didn't really make any sense at the time (and indeed drove me crazy trying to figure out what He meant), but suddenly the meaning was unlocked and made crystal clear through what I was reading in scripture.

Because of that, I started to develop a simple faith in what I was reading. On that basis I put some faith in the bible as being at least potentially accurate, and I decided to give my life to Jesus Christ. That's when God showed me that is who He is. When I gave my heart over to Him, He supernaturally transformed me, and He gave me a new life free of anxiety, addiction and depression. He exchanged those things for peace and love and joy. Where there was darkness before, He had brought light.

So, that's my testimony. When you ask why didn't God reveal Himself to you at that time, a few things come to mind. The first is that everything is done in His timing. God has a plan, much bigger than our plans, and I believe that there were many things God wanted to show me before He brought me to Christianity. He wanted me to experience what I did so that when I became a Christian, I would be more effective in communicating with others who are seekers like I was. So that I would be able to relate to them better than someone who grew up in the faith could have. It could be the same for you, that God has had many things to teach you, to give a certain ministry to others, and for your own understanding.

Second, although you are a non-believer, you seem to have a genuine desire to know the truth, and to know, if there is a God, who He is, and what He wants from you. I believe God has placed that desire into your heart so that it would lead you to find Him, as He did in mine. I believe that you're asking me this question for a reason, and that reason is that God is reaching out to you. I would suggest to you that you pray to God and invite Him into your life, and ask Him to forgive your sins. Part of the Lords prayer is "Your will be done, your Kingdom come". Tell God, if this is so, that you're willing to surrender your will for His will in your life. I have prayed that God would hear your prayer and lead you to Him. I also recommend that you read the Gospel of John.

You're right, that from your perspective there may be no reason why you should believe one religion is any better than the other. I shared that view for all of the years I was searching. I can give you a lot of good reasons why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, but only God can change your heart.

What God doesn't expect is that you are going to figure Him out. Only He could reveal the truth to you. What He does do is give you opportunities in life to get closer to Him. They could be, for instance, situations that test your moral fabric. "What does he do when no one else is looking?" "How does he treat people when he has nothing to gain?". It's how you live your life that is proof of what is in your heart, and that is what God is interested in. I think that is what determines how close to Him you will get. What scripture guarantees though, is that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That you would have the desire to do that is a gift from above.

In regards to your forest question, God speaks to us in many different ways. A person doesn't need language to understand that there is a higher power. In Romans 1:18-21 it speaks to the fact that God gives a general revelation through His creation of His power and Godhead. How could this man learn about who God is? Well, no one is unreachable on this planet. God could lead him out, or lead someone in. He could give the man dreams and visions.

So I hope that is a satisfactory answer. I couldn't tell you precisely why God hasn't reached out to you before, but what I feel is that He is reaching out to you now. The question is, will you answer His call?

God bless you,

Joshua

>> ^PalmliX

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

Done.

@berticus - Vietnamese should be in the list of cuisines. Buddhism should be in the list of spiritual (dis)beliefs. You have "exclusively heterosexual" listed twice.

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

To say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement about your psychology. It has nothing to do with the question of Gods existence. Atheism, by definition, is a denial of any deity. When you describe your beliefs, you aren't talking about atheism, you are talking about agnosticism. You are saying you don't know. The problem, and confusion begins when you take that a step further, and say you don't believe in God because you don't know. That doesn't logically follow. Does it make any logical sense to say that because I don't know if apple pie tastes any good, I don't believe it tastes good? Does it make sense to say that because I don't know if Howard is left handed, that I don't believe he is left handed? If not, then why does it make logical sense to say that because I don't know if God exists, that I don't believe He exists?

If you really didn't know, you wouldn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. You would be neutral to the existence of God. You are not clearly neutral, since you are taking a negative position on God, and a negative position has a burden of proof.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

Your premise is faulty for a number of reasons. First, you presume that all spiritual experience is a trick of the mind, based on the fact that you had a break with reality and believed in something that wasn't true. I've given you an alternative explanation to your theory, which is that most people who claim to be having a genuine spiritual experience are having that experience. The question is, is it from a genuine source or are they being deliberately deceived?

You also presume that the reason people believe is because it makes them feel good. If all it were was a spiritual high, I wouldn't believe it either. My faith isn't based on feelings, it is based on the action of God in my life. Many times I did not have the feelings, but God provided the evidence. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and there are certain things only He can do. God has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt that He is an absolute control of reality, down to the very atom, down to the mircosecond.

What I am saying to you is, God will provide the evidence that will convince your skeptical mind. He will provide the undeniable evidence that you could not interpret away. When you encounter the living God, you will walk away utterly changed, in every conceivable way, forever.

Ask Jesus to throw you a bone. Say to Him, Jesus, if you are real I will serve you. Please show me evidence that you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about serving Him, I have no doubt He will respond. He said knock and the door will open.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

Two points I want to clarify:

... it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

As to demonstration:
How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

I'll address the rest of your content above in a later comment.

Bad definition, unless by "knows nothing about the spirit", you mean, "doesn't believe in the same spirit I believe in." I have my own insight into my own experiences with spirituality. So far, they have not led me to necessarily believe in anything supernatural. That makes me a "weak atheist". Would you really respect my insights into "the spirit" more if they had led me to be as fervent as you, but about Taoist Buddhism?

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

False. I have never anywhere stated that there is no creator being, or even that a God doesn't exist. I have stated that God as described in the Bible -- if words have meaning -- cannot exist as such because the set of descriptions are internally inconsistent. Because they contradict each other, they therefore preclude any such entity's existence -- again, if words have meaning. Now, it's possible that there is a God who is described in the Bible, but only if the descriptions there are somewhat inaccurate, which would cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity as God's word, but then it's possible God, for his own reasons, wanted a flawed book to be his voice.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture. To the point:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned"

Without the Holy Spirit, you are incapable of understanding scripture. Like you, I once had a number of things picked out in the bible which I believed were contradictory or demonstrated that God is not who He says He is. I thought I had a solid case, but to my surprise my case was only founded on my own ignorance..once the Holy Spirit opened my eyes, I saw how shallow my conclusions were, and I also saw the answers were always there, I just didn't see them.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity. Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. This to me represents the intellectual bankruptcy of the skeptics typical argumentation against Christianity. Skeptics never once consider that the obvious goodness, wisdom and purity of Jesus Christ is actually living proof that they've completely misunderstood the God of the Old Testament. They never consider it from that angle, and try to apply their understanding the other way.

But you don't fall under scenario 2. You just believe you fall under scenario 2. For you to be correct, you would have to know that an omnipotent being is what is revealing something to you. Nobody, not you, not us, can be certain that you are right about that. I can think of two ways you could be wrong: 1) you may suffer from a relatively common mental defect that causes people to be absolutely convinced they are communicating with a superior being; and 2) you are being contacted by a superior being, but you as a human are in no position verify that it is an omnipotent being, as any being significantly superior to you would appear omnipotent to you. In a nutshell, humans don't have perfect understanding of anything except systems they created themselves, such as mathematics and formal logic, so you can't testify that your understanding of your experience is perfect.

About 1), as I've said to you elsewhere on the Sift, I'm not suggesting it to be mean or insulting. It's a common condition, and people of all spiritual stances suffer from it, and they all believe they're communicating with a real entity. If their accounts were consistent, then there'd appear to be something to it, but they're not. People who have these conditions don't even gravitate to the same religion, if any religion at all. For you to say you are right to the exclusion of all those other people who are equally convicted is arrogant. The same applies to your following arguments:

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective. There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

I'll elaborate on the other issue in the last paragraph.

This part, I get, but what I say above still stands. If one had no other evidence other than an experience like yours, it would make perfect sense for one to believe they had contact with the real God, and that what they were interpreting was exactly true. But there's other evidence: other people have had very similar experiences, often associated with mental injury (falling off a horse and going blind, for the most famous example), and they have come to a wide variety of conclusions based on their own (human) interpretation of the experience. This, to a rational person, should suggest that you may not be right, and that is enough.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one. There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God"

Again, I used to be the same way. I believed anyone advocating for supernatural claims had a screw loose. It seems that way on the outside, looking in. It isn't anything which you will understand or believe until God opens your eyes to see.

Is it possible that a superior being could fool quite a bit of the planet? Sure. Satan and his minions are doing just that. Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure. This is where my presupposition comes in. I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit.

Bad definition, unless by "knows nothing about the spirit", you mean, "doesn't believe in the same spirit I believe in." I have my own insight into my own experiences with spirituality. So far, they have not led me to necessarily believe in anything supernatural. That makes me a "weak atheist". Would you really respect my insights into "the spirit" more if they had led me to be as fervent as you, but about Taoist Buddhism?

Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing.

False. I have never anywhere stated that there is no creator being, or even that a God doesn't exist. I have stated that God as described in the Bible -- if words have meaning -- cannot exist as such because the set of descriptions are internally inconsistent. Because they contradict each other, they therefore preclude any such entity's existence -- again, if words have meaning. Now, it's possible that there is a God who is described in the Bible, but only if the descriptions there are somewhat inaccurate, which would cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity as God's word, but then it's possible God, for his own reasons, wanted a flawed book to be his voice.

There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

But you don't fall under scenario 2. You just believe you fall under scenario 2. For you to be correct, you would have to know that an omnipotent being is what is revealing something to you. Nobody, not you, not us, can be certain that you are right about that. I can think of two ways you could be wrong: 1) you may suffer from a relatively common mental defect that causes people to be absolutely convinced they are communicating with a superior being; and 2) you are being contacted by a superior being, but you as a human are in no position verify that it is an omnipotent being, as any being significantly superior to you would appear omnipotent to you. In a nutshell, humans don't have perfect understanding of anything except systems they created themselves, such as mathematics and formal logic, so you can't testify that your understanding of your experience is perfect.

About 1), as I've said to you elsewhere on the Sift, I'm not suggesting it to be mean or insulting. It's a common condition, and people of all spiritual stances have suffered from it, and they all believe they're communicating with a real entity [sentence edited for clarity -- I don't mean all spiritual people]. If their accounts were consistent, then there'd appear to be something to it, but they're not. People who have these conditions don't even gravitate to the same religion, if any religion at all. For you to say you are right to the exclusion of all those other people who are equally convicted is arrogant. The same applies to your following arguments:

You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

This part, I get, but what I say above still stands. If one had no other evidence other than an experience like yours, it would make perfect sense for one to believe they had contact with the real God, and that what they were interpreting was exactly true. But there's other evidence: other people have had very similar experiences, often associated with mental injury (falling off a horse and going blind, for the most famous example), and they have come to a wide variety of conclusions based on their own (human) interpretation of the experience. This, to a rational person, should suggest that you may not be right, and that is enough.

*parody for the unbaptism segment

While I believe Bill is right, much of his argument is flawed. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. There are non-theistic religions, the adherents of which could fairly be called atheists. Some Buddhist sects, for example, have no belief in deities but Buddhism is still a religion.

So, while atheism is not a religion, neither is it the opposite of religion.