More absurd than some magical omnipotent being wishing us into existence? I'd sooner go with aliens seeding the early earth with life than "God did it".

Honestly abiogenesis is a lot less absurd than say, quantum or dark energy. Not that I'm suggesting those don't exist, just that our natural intuition about something is frequently false.

As with all things, it's not necessarily a law change that need to happen. Laws don't drive the zeitgeist, the zeitgeist drive laws (or should).

People need to be dissuaded from wanting to have guns. In Europe, people don't really want a gun, and don't even see a need for one. Sure, there are hunters and they have guns, and sure you can get one if you're in a dangerous area with bears and shit, but actually getting a gun is when you're hunted by mafia or something like that and you're desperate. Why would you ever want to walk around with a gun? I don't really get it.

Perhaps people have a fantasy about being a hero, where they shoot the bad guy. Everyone has that as a kid; most kids also grow up.

There's something deeply satisfying about firing a gun - power at your fingertips. Control. Maybe it's a control thing. People don't like to be out of control, with a gun they always have something to fall back on to control the situation.

Maybe it's a macho thing, although women carry guns too. I don't know the statistic of it, but I would imagine more men do than women. Men are intrinsically destructive while women are creative - it's our nature. We men beat up our rivals to gain access to that sweetest fruit of all: peach. Perhaps it's an extension of power; an penis extension. Don't pull the trigger, squeeze it tenderly. You are the gun; look down the aim at your target and fire.

Maybe there's some brain vs brawn in it. I would wager good money that as intelligence goes up, gun ownership goes down. No statistics to back it up, but I'd love to see if it's true. Brains are taking over everything - it's the decade of the Nerd. Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams could get all the girls and gets all the admiration in the big world, while Dick McKickaball failed to make the team and married Candace the exotic dancer his friends hired for him on his 21st birthday. But at least he could shoot JJ Abrams in the face with his 4½ inch death stick.

Society doesn't really gain much from guns does it?

It has its own market and thus gets people to move money around with someone around to skim the top. dft said this in point 2 as well. This could be done for worse stuff though - snuff porn has a market; heroin has a market.

Mutually Assured Destruction is always a fun acronym to throw around. If everyone does eye for an eye, the world will go blind, I've heard somewhere. Probably a shitty western or something.

Feelings of security? If I have a gun, do I feel safer from the people around me that may or may not also have guns? I would feel safer in my home, I think. If I feared home invasions. Home invasions are a weird thing; very rare in europe to the best of my knowledge, even though we don't have guns. Seems like something that would only happen if there was an enormous disparity between poor and rich, making the poor desperate (and lazy) enough to want to do a home invasion. If Brian the Aryan Man-God makes 10 million billion $$ a year, and Rommel the Dirty Mexican doesn't get anything because he has to pay child support off his social security and also cover his meth addication, then the chance of Rommel doing a home invasion is greater than if Rommel makes half of what Brian does. Maybe we need to raise the floor, instead of raising the ceiling on the extrema of wealth to lose the desire of guns.

Maybe it's all of the factors at once, and we have someone like the NRA pushing everyone to want all of them. I want security. I'm afraid. I have a small dick. Home invasions happen all the time. Schools get shot by crazies, I need to defend myself.

Bang!

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

There... the demons went away. Guns are your friends.

My mom thinks me using facts is racist. Poor people tend to be black. Poor people tend to commit crimes. White people tend to move away from black neighborhoods. I suppose I should have spent less time studying political behavior in my state and more time making jokes.

"What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" "A job." - From the woman who calls me a racist for saying most violent crime in the US is black on black crime.

The biggest issue with the mainstream and statistics is that unless it plays into their stereotypes of behavior, they don't care. And when it does, they don't really care about the real cause.

From Wiki: (Violent Crime, UK)

"Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime.[8]
Rates of violent crime are in the UK are recorded by the British Crime Survey. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin on "Crime in England and Wales" summarizes the findings of this survey. For the 2010/2011 report,[9] the statistics show that violent crime continues a general downward trend observed over the last few decades as shown in the graph.
"The 2010/11 BCS showed overall violence was down 47 per cent on the level seen at its peak in 1995; representing nearly two million fewer violent offences per year."[citation needed]
Regarding murder, "increasing levels of homicide (at around 2% to 3% per year) [have been observed] from the 1960s through to the end of the twentieth century". Recently the murder rate has declined, "a fall of 19 per cent in homicides since 2001/02", as measured by The Homicide Index.
By contrast, there is a widespread belief that violent crime is on the rise, due largely to a mass media which disproportionately reports violent crime. This phenomenon is described by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature."

(Violent Crime, US)

"The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It should be noted that these crimes are taken from two separate reports, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and that these do not look at exactly the same crimes. The UCR measures crimes reported to police, and looks at Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. The NCVS measures crimes reported by households surveyed by the United States Census Bureau, and looks at assault, rape, and robbery. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than two thirds between the years 1994 and 2009.[10] 7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[11] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at yearend 2008 were in for violent crimes.[11] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes.[12]"



------------------------

If you didn't want to read that babble, quick and simple: they're one and the same. From my understanding, both countries use the Type 1 list: a crime against a person in which injury or death may occur. In some cases, just because no one was hurt, doesn't mean it wasn't a violent crime.

Which brings up the other point to be made. Is the reporting of the crimes uniform? Do the Brits report EVERYTHING, as opposed to what's somewhat routine here in the states where crimes often go unreported, even when the police show up? Domestic violence only exists if one person files charges. The victim could be bruised, bleeding, broken bones etc, but if they're not willing to file a charge, no crime occurred.

Or, more so, do street brawls get reported more often in the UK? If I punch some dude, does that go onto a record somewhere where as in the states, I've been in many fights where even if the police broke it up, no reports were ever filed.

All of this is useful information, but so far the data is pretty superficial. The comment the video makes about "put on your boots and go find out" (paraphrased) is pretty much the only solution I can think of. Then again, it's the same solution that people have been chanting for for generations and have yet to see the high and mighty Elite do it.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

The point was never that a meaningless Universe makes life more difficult; you simply decided that was the point. The point the video makes, and which I have also been making, is that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance by having no ultimate justification for your value system, but living as if you do. You admit that under atheism the Universe is meaningless, and so we've been debating on whether you can find any justification for a value system in a meaningless Universe. The explanation you have ultimately given me is that you believe there is a right and wrong, and people do have value, because you feel it. Do you realize this proves what I have been saying all along?

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

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

Your atheism tells you that life without God is meaningless. Your feelings tell you that life is meaningful. These are two conflicting cognitions. Instead of realizing that and re-evaluating your atheism, you say that you don't know why and you don't care. That is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Most people in this world (around 85 - 90 percent) are theists. If we are going to talk about universal belief in this world then it is theism which is normal. That is historically where our morality comes from. Everyone who believes in God has an ultimate justification for right and wrong, but atheists do not. So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

Actually, psychopaths do know right from wrong, but they don't care.

In any case, what you're saying here contradicts your later claim that my hypothetical about a society approving of child rape is ridiculous, and proves my point. You admit here that you couldn't say that your way of morality is superior to psychopathy, it just so happens that there are more of you than there are of them. You name that as the reason why your way should be preferred. Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Now think about if the situation were reversed and psychopaths were in the majority. Your version of morality would no longer be preferred, and psychopaths would no longer need to conform to your standards; you would need to conform to theirs. Whatever was normalized in a psychopathic society would be what was called good and whatever the psychopathic society rejected would be called evil. This is proof that everything I said was true. The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be. This is simply a fact. Whether you think it could happen or not is relevent to the point.

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.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

I'll get to this later.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

The reason I said this was in reply to your assertion that we developed religion because it answered questions and made us feel comfortable. My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us. It has nothing to do with whether it is more or less natural to worship Jesus. It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature. It's only through personal revelation that we direct our worship in the right direction.

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.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss.

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless. In this sense, it is still equally meaningless whether human civilization implodes or doesn't implode. Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

You can feel hopeless and not be depressed, but the source of the depression is almost always hopelessness. I'll give you some examples. If you put all of the worlds depressed people in a very large room, and gave each of them a check for 10 million dollars, you will have instantly cured around 80 percent of them. The majority of depression comes being stuck in a bad situation that you don't feel like you can change, situations that cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. A lot of money buys a lot of change. Many of the rest are probably depressed because of health issues, and if you could offer them a cure (hope), they would be cured as well. The remainder are probably depressed because of extreme neurosis. There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Someone has come back from the dead to talk about it: Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe the bible; you can ask Him yourself. You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated. You are basing your conclusion on no evidence but merely your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

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?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

So no one is really bad?

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?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality.

I hope I don't need to point out that the bible says nothing about condoms. Gods morality is really as simple as the two greatest commandments because if you follow those you will follow all the rest:

Romans 13:9-10

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you love your neighbor and love God you are basically doing the whole law right there. There are some particulars that can emerge in different situations just like we have laws for different situations, and so Harris would have to accommodate those as well.

2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

Yes, in this case we would rely on our own understanding, as informed by the biblical worldview. What scripture is saying when it says "lean not on your own understanding" is that we make God the Lord of our reasoning. So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

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

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

Yes they would:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

[me:]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.

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia. You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not. There are plenty of sick and depraved religions out there, and religions can easily corrupt a culture, like islam has done to the Arab culture.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations. Millions of Christians were murdered by communists in the 1940's and 50's. I highly recommend you read this book:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracealoneca.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebu
ilderfiles%2Ftortured_for_christ.pdf&ei=PSNiUIyTCsPqiwLYtYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNG-ro4rM7dfvFCkgIvjnmgdhQnSPA&cad=rja

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. 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".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

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

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry


We seem to be getting into a lot of repetition in this thread, so rather than going line by line, I'm going to attempt my points and reactions to yours with fewer quotes, hopefully hitting the important themes. I don't want to minimize anything you've said, so if I skip anything you feel is a separate issue and is cogent, feel free to draw my attention back to it specifically, but check first and see if you can't answer that same point with something I've already said in here.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position ... if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction ... You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil … these are just chemical reactions in your brain … why be a slave to chemicals?… you have no rational justification for … saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred.

There's no cognitive dissonance in my mind –at least, not about doing the right thing. I acknowledge a life without God has no ultimate purpose, and that in the grand scheme of things, the Earth is going to be swallowed by the Sun in a few billion years and nearly all traces of humanity will disappear with it, and at that time, nothing anybody has ever done will matter because there will be nobody left for whom it can matter. With that in mind, it does seem odd that despite realizing this, I would still care about doing the right thing.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

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.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

People worship because they're made to worship … 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.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

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.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss. If by "natural atheist" you mean people who have no supernatural practices including ancestor worship or anything, then yes, you're right, I don't believe such a society exists. To me, this points to the universal human tendency to worship something—anything, and to feel better about life when we do so. Slaves to chemical reactions in their brains, as far as I'm concerned.

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.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that?

I would never say that someone "ought not to do" anything on objective moral grounds. If I ever said something like that (I wouldn't use the words "ought" or "should"), it would be on the understanding that this person either knows the local laws and is violating them, or more likely shares a moral foundation with me, is acting against it. Either way, that person, upon consideration, would probably prefer not to be doing that mean thing, and is only doing it to satisfy some other need of theirs that they consider higher than their need to do the right thing by me. (This isn't to justify the bad act, but to show you how I think about bad acts and the people who do them. In other words, I don't believe people get encouraged by Satan or anything to do bad things.)

[me:]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:]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?

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

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?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

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?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

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.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[me:]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.

[you:]God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong.

And elsewhere…

[me:]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.

[you:]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.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality. 2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

[me:]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.

[you:]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.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

It's a bad comparison anyway. Genocide happens all the time, even in religious societies (by the 1939 census, 94% of Germans were Christian, FWIW). You can't compare this with an entire society suddenly deciding that torturing children is morally correct. If I ever heard of such a baby-torturing society existed, I'd immediately assume it was in accordance with their religious belief, rather than just what they all decided was OK, wouldn't you?

[me:]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.

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

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. 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".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Of course if we kill off the internet and easy travel between continents then that trend might reverse. Communication is the key to overcome our natural fear of the unknown. The internet is the start to peace on earth but communication over long distances require a huge effort to keep up so we could still screw it up.

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

I've said pretty clearly that God defined what we should or shouldn't do, and outlined consequences for those actions. If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

Neither did God create sin. God created the conditions in which free will creatures could make a choice between obeying or disobeying God. He didn't create them to sin, and neither did He cause them to sin. He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible. Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

The two kinds of death are, when the body dies, and when your soul is cast into hell.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

It is a good analogy because it illustrates the conflict between justice and mercy, and why God sent His Son. On one hand, God is holy, and He must punish all sin. On the other, He is merciful and wants to forgive us. What I am saying is, God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us. Therefore, He sent His Son to take our punishment, in our place, so that He could offer us forgiveness through the cross. If you want to know why God will not lower His standards, use some common sense. Should we just let murderers and rapists go free in the hopes they will reform themselves? Will this encourage or discourage more crime? What about the victims?

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

We created the evil in this world, not Him. He gave us laws to keep us from evil.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

You believe you are an animal. And we did know better..God gave us a conscience to know right from wrong, and God told Adam and Eve what was good, and not good, to do. If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots. Second, God created us to have fellowship with Him.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

I've already answered about punishment. Again, God wants us to have fellowship with Him. Rebellion against God is a choice; God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

Man wasn't corrupt before he sinned; he was created innocent. However, he was imbued with the ability to make a free choice. God didn't create man to sin, as I've said, and neither did he force man to obey him. He simply gave him the choices, showed him what was good and what wasn't, warned him of the consequences, and let him make the choice.

Did God know they would screw up? There is some contention there among theologians. Some believe that He did, and that He allowed creation to go forward to demonstrate His glory. I don't necessarily believe that, because scripture shows God dynamically interacting with His creation. If it were true that God knew absolutely everything that would happen, it would mean He was just "going through the motions". I believe that God does have an absolute foreknowledge about how His creation will turn out, and that He does know the future, but that He leaves some things open to give us free will.

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

The only way you'll realize it is if the Holy Spirit changes your heart. Until then this remains the truth:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

God didn't invent the evil in the world, man did. Yes, you would kick him out of the house if he refused to change. What if after you kicked him out, he was shot and killed? Did you force him to act that way? Or did you do everything in your power to help him, and change him? Whether you think hell is fair or not, and remember that is based on your own imperfect sense of justice, I think you have to admit that people are ultimately responsible for their own choices. If God makes it clear what the consequences are, when someone ends up in hell, who else do they have to blame but themselves?

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

No, it's not. There is a Heaven in which God dwells, but He moves His dwelling place to Earth to live with us. That is what it says through the entire bible. What you're referring to is the pop-culture misconceptions of what scripture says. People hear their entire lives about scripture from the culture and assume they're true, and then they repeat them to others as fact, like in this video, because they are ignorant of what scripture actually says. Many of the bibles most ardent critics have never actually read it. Neither is it an "alternate parallel dimension" on Earth. It is here, on this Earth.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

The law was given because of sin

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God.

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

Death was a punishment for sin.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

...but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum?

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

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

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

She has about the level of understanding I would expect from a bright 12 year old. If her parents are feeding her this, they have a "bright 12 year old"'s understanding of the financial system. About the same as Ron Paul.

Canada has debt because it spends more than it takes in. Doing so in recent years has been mostly a good decision - and generally it's hard to argue with Canadian fiscal and bank-regulatory policy given its recent performance. We've weathered the recession better than most other places (partly this is due to the our natural resources and industry mix, but not completely).

Fractional reserve banking has a complicated effect on the economy. It's not easy to fit this into a 5 minute talk, but it allows for beneficial ways of managing and growing the economy.

If you think banks are just stealing money, go start a bank or invest in one. You'll find that they're businesses like any other, and that Canadian banks are mostly well regulated, and mostly make their money in responsible ways. Banks are not magic, and individuals can leverage money in many of the same ways they do.

On the flip side, there's been tremendous misbehavior by American financial companies (most of these aren't best described as banks) in the last decade, supported by bad laws. Some people got very rich while the economy got screwed to Hell. This had nothing to do with the basic ideas of fractional reserve banking, and everything to do with naked dishonesty, regulatory capture, and plain old corruption.

@shinyblurry

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

These don't form my "faith", per se, but my best educated guesses or hunches at the moment. I rarely verbalize my beliefs on these matters, so it probably won't come out too coherently, but heregoes:

All the experiences that humans have are part of the natural condition of being human, and are ultimately caused by something in nature and in our natures, not by anything supernatural. I don't believe there are any higher powers necessarily, though our knowledge of what happened more than 14 billion years ago is nil, and there is so much yet undiscovered, so really, anything could be there. I don't think we had a conscious creator. I don't believe there are any superior entities that interfere with the universe at all, and none have a personal interest in us.

Any spirituality I have, therefore, stems from experiences as a human only. I believe conditions like nirvana probably exist and are achievable with great concentration and effort. I believe that faith in something helps it become real, and lack of faith hinders it. This includes health and psychological matters, as well as attracting success or failure in your endeavours.

I think that humans probably don't actually have free will, but considering how complex a question that is (the sum of all laws that govern everything in the universe), it's better for me to interact with the world as if we do. I believe that the the closest thing a person has to a "calling" or a "true path" is to be true to themselves, find their own person, and let it express itself perfectly in the world. This can be done by achieving mental calmness and following your heart and what feels right [edited]. In a state of mental calmness, your heart will never misguide you. There is no single correct expression of a person, just as there is no single correct "good" thing to do at every given moment. It can be suppressed by the self or others, and this suppression always causes unhappiness, which causes people to do bad things to others and themselves. True happiness and fulfilment can only come from feeling free to express who you really are. That to me is the human spirit.

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.

You're quoting the Bible at me as if I already accept that it's true. I don't. If I were to interpret that passage's spirit into my spiritual framework, it would say that humans usually cannot have numinous experiences unless they are very much in tune with their true selves, and let that spirit flow through them and guide their actions, and leave the ego out.

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.

I'm not talking about the laws. I now understand that they no longer apply. I'm talking about the historical account of events. I don't understand how the OT could have been accurate and the word of God before Jesus, but then suddenly ceased to be after. Either a book is God's word and it's true, or it's not. And a god's word should not be something ephemeral. Its truth value cannot change ever. So, either God did all those horrible things in the OT that are ascribed to him, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the OT is wrong.

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. [edit: didn't insert this quote in the first draft]

I don't know everything that Jesus preached, but I consider him to be probably the best moral philosopher I've ever heard of, at least in broad strokes.

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective.

Statistics don't determine fact. I thought you told me you were a scientist before your conversion.

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.

Are you going "lalala" with your hands over your ears? That's not what I said at all. Fact: there are lots of people besides me and you around the world who have transcendental experiences. Fact: they often identify the entity in their experience as a divinity from a particular religion. Fact: they are just as fervent about what they believe as you are about what you believe. If you agree that those are facts, then I don't see how you can tell me that your interpretation of your experience must be the correct one and all those other people's are false ones. Logically, this is strong evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate, and may in fact represent something in the human condition caused naturally.

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.

How could you know this? Are you in their minds? Did God give you some statistical data?

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.

How can you say that your revelation is the truth, and that all these other people's revelations are false? They would tell me with equal fervency that theirs is real and all the others are false. Saying yours is necessarily right is illogical. I mean, what separates you from these other people that got fooled by what you think are false visions? How do you know you haven't been fooled too? I mean, if they can get fooled, why can't you? Are you smarter? Stronger? What?

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.

We agreed back at Qualiasoup vs. Craig not to introduce solipsistic arguments.

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.

Do you have other evidence besides your relationship with Jesus? What is it?

Now I'm paraphrasing the Imam: "I presuppose that Allah 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 Allah through the teachings of his prophet Mohammed (PBUH)."

What's the difference between the two of you? How can you say you're right and he's wrong?

Now me: "I presuppose that reality is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. My presupposition is not justified in any way. It just makes my experience of life more meaningful."

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.

Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.

I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.

Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.

You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.


>> ^messenger:
"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.
You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.
Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.

You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.

Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

If religion is the disease, then why did we have over 100 million deaths from atheistic regimes in the 20th century? They made it their express goal to exterminate religion and in the process committed some of the worst atrocities in history. No, the problem is clearly human nature. When man tries to get rid of God he just replaces God with himself. I agree with you, that religion itself has contributed to the suffering and degeneration of the planet. Jesus hated religion. That's why He drove the moneychangers out of the temple. That is why He railed against the pharisees. He said, these people worship God with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. Scripture says this about religion:

James 1:27

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

The problem has always been that people follow the traditions of men rather than demonstrate the love of God. Even just a few decades after the cross, Paul wrote about men who preached a different gospel, one that glorified men rather than God. The contamination is universally human nature. Nothing is pure in the hands of an impure heart.

Examine history and see the parallels. Humanity is just repeating the same story, over and over again. There is nothing going on today that hasn't already happened before. The set and props have changed, but our nature hasn't changed. Man corrupts everything he touches because his scheming is against the will of God. There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end are the ways of death. The problem is outlined in this video. Yes we have more knowledge, but knowledge doesn't help us. What we need is wisdom. However, wisdom doesn't come from man, it comes from God. Wisdom isn't something you can engineer..explore some philosophy and you will see that ultimately it has no real answers.

The divine wisdom, however, ordained that Jesus Christ would come in the flesh to give us our answer. It says that message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The world in its wisdom knows nothing of the ways of God, so God chose what the world would consider foolish to shame the wise. God chose to save us in a way people would consider foolish, because the foolishness of God is wiser than mans wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than mans strength. You think it's ridiculous, but God is simply showing up the wisdom of the world for what it is: foolishness.


>> ^Fletch:
Religion is the disease, Blurry. You're feverish rants, nonsense ramblings, and tone-deafness are primary symptoms. Reason is the only thing that can save you or this planet, but I fear it is too late for you and your fellow carriers. The infection has mutated into hundreds of different, self-preserving variations, and reason, although a powerful medicine (and requisite for wisdom), cannot cure those who refuse treatment in the first place, or have simply become immune to it's healing due to past, repeated undertreatment. Religion has evolved into a superbug.
Can the next version of VS please hide ignored comments that have been quoted in a subsequent comment?