@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

I guess it's time we stop using those incredibly stupid things called antibiotics because we're breeding resistant organisms for those as well. The facts make it damned clear that the only winner in this race are pharmaceutical companies. Patients pay more for the medicine as germs become more resistant. In another 20 years our antibiotics will be useless, but pharmaceutical companies will happily move on to the next longterm fuckup that is profitable in the short run.

While we're at it we should stop using idiotic chemotherapy and radiation for cancer because we only end up with resistant cells.

Do you really see no benefit to pesticides? Not a single upside? That's strange because they keep selling them. Someone's buying.

I eats germs likes theys'..... tiny, tiny, mac n cheese particles!!

Your elected officials, ladies and germs. No wonder we're screwed

Since I am post-menopausal, if that Crazy PMS comment was directed at me, it misses the mark. No PMS. Menopause is behind me.

I'm practically a man now, hormonally.

>> ^SevenFingers:

Wow... Such a stupid debate on what girls/boys/men/women mean. Since Girls/Women are the same sex and Boys/Men are the same sex, wtf does it matter if one was used and not the other? What about Guys/Gals? Ladies/Germs? Dicks/C nts? Rational-doesn't-use-his-emotions-to-control-his-thoughts-asshole/Crazy-PMS-Over-reacting-Bitch?

>> ^SevenFingers:

Wow... Such a stupid debate on what girls/boys/men/women mean. Since Girls/Women are the same sex and Boys/Men are the same sex, wtf does it matter if one was used and not the other? What about Guys/Gals? Ladies/Germs? Dicks/C nts? Rational-doesn't-use-his-emotions-to-control-his-thoughts-asshole/Crazy-PMS-Over-reacting-Bitch?


Taking it a bit fucking far, aren't you dude?

Wow... Such a stupid debate on what girls/boys/men/women mean. Since Girls/Women are the same sex and Boys/Men are the same sex, wtf does it matter if one was used and not the other? What about Guys/Gals? Ladies/Germs? Dicks/C*nts? Rational-doesn't-use-his-emotions-to-control-his-thoughts-asshole/Crazy-PMS-Over-reacting-Bitch?

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

>> ^Reefie:

The cat's food bowl is kept in the bathroom right next to the toilet?! Ewww...


What? Why is that Ewww? Your cat might get germs?

>> ^Sagemind:

OK, with laundry, I get Light, Med, Dark but in no way do I get hot/cold!
We wash everything in cold water.
And, what's the deal with randomly choosing hot over cold for certain items?
And to top it off, hand washing is only for stuff that doesn't regularly get washed or bizarre stains.
And those stupid toilet brushes are crap (pun), just dump in some Lysol (to kill the germs) and wipe the bowl out with a cloth. Way more effective.


You really should always hand wash your bras or you end up having the underwiring poke through.

OK, with laundry, I get Light, Med, Dark but in no way do I get hot/cold!
We wash everything in cold water.
And, what's the deal with randomly choosing hot over cold for certain items?
And to top it off, hand washing is only for stuff that doesn't regularly get washed or bizarre stains.

And those stupid toilet brushes are crap (pun), just dump in some Lysol (to kill the germs) and wipe the bowl out with a cloth. Way more effective.

I just finished "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jarrod Diamond.

For school I'm reading "Reporting for the Media," "Essentials of Criminal Justice," "Classics of Western Philosophy," and "Ethics in Criminal Justice."

Also, I'm teaching myself InDesign from "Exploring Adobe InDesign CS5."

Hope to finish Plato's "The Republic" sometime between.

>> ^hpqp:

Great job indeed!
http://www.livescience.com/1870-clean-fight-germs-fuels-allergy-i
ncrease.html

>> ^Woggy:
This cat has fecal matter on its paws and the parents let up on the kids eating surface. Great job parents!



I'm all for exposing kids to allergens and bacteria in order to develop a strong immune system. But, worms are a different story.
http://www.vetinfo.com/diseases-transmitted-feline-litter.html

Great job indeed!

http://www.livescience.com/1870-clean-fight-germs-fuels-allergy-increase.html


>> ^Woggy:

This cat has fecal matter on its paws and the parents let up on the kids eating surface. Great job parents!

I will say this much in his defense.

Where exactly does it say it's a right to not be exposed to diseases? People like to confuse privilege with right all the time.

It's in everyone's best interests that everyone be healthy. Notice though that I didn't say it's a right. However, that is not the same thing as catering to the OCD/germ-phobia that exists in the US. Two completely separate things.