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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes someone a bad person?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True. Your point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> ^messenger:

stuff

You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Well, the central argument of the video is that life without God is meaningless. You've already agreed with that point, so the argument now seems to be is whether someone can be happy and fulfilled with a meaningless life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

Hope is what keeps people going. Without hope, you are just going through the motions. When you have hope and lose it, it is emotionally devastating. A person without any hope is a person most likely clinically depressed.

You can call depression a kind of mental disorder, and some people may be born without the right chemical receptors for instance, but most people are depressed because of a lack of hope. A person, for instance, who worked their whole life and lost their retirement in an afternoon, or a mom whose kids abandoned her to live in a nursing home. They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

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

The reason I made that comment about God is because of your comment about your depression. The reason you have that feeling that if you believed in God you wouldn't be depressed is because you know there is hope in God.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_163659 3.html

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am familiar with the philosophy of Sam Harris, and I figured you were borrowing from him, but it is good to know where you stand. My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

You also say that you feel the best state of a human being is to be blissfully happy. I'm sure everyone will agree with you that feeling blissfully happy is good. However, why should we believe this is actually what good is?. Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything. Maybe this is just incredibly selfish and the opposite of good, or somewhere in the middle is true, or maybe none of it. You give no actual reason (beyond arbitrary statements like that which makes the world better or worse) to equate feeling good with moral goodness. In a meaningless Universe, neither is there any basis for thinking that you have any moral duties. This leads me to some questions that you didn't actually address in the last post. Let me ask them again because they are central to this discussion:

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

I'll also address some of your comments:

In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion

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

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

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

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

I am familiar with his system, to which I reiterate the point; what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus told us:

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

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

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

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

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

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

If there is no objective morality, then nothing is really wrong. Any system you create in the end is a human invention, based on human interpretation, and agreed upon by human consensus. You still cannot get an ought from an is. Good could be defined as a world of people who love each other, or a world of people who love to eat children. What is wrong then is simply based on your personal preferences.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I understand that this wasn't meant to be perfect. It has, however, raised more concerns than it answered.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

Of what you said above in the first two paragraphs about the consequences of accepting meaninglessness as reality, just about all of it I fully agree with. For clarity, I’ll mark the exceptions:

the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become
and
Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Further, you comment that, "people become depressed because of a lack of hope."

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

All that is to say I pretty much agree with your view of what meaninglessness implies, and if there’s any bits that you want to explore more, I’m all for it.

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Lots of people do bad things to others and themselves, and later on, some may consider what they did was bad, or they might not. If they still think it was OK, it’s because they’ve used some kind of justification, like, "She did it to me first," "She was teasing me. What did she think would happen?" or, "He had it coming," or "I had no choice," And so forth. These are all rationalizations after the fact, justifications that allow them to still consider themselves as good people rather than change their behaviour or take responsibility for having done something wrong. These don’t address the real reason these people did these things. In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion.

I believe that the natural and best state for a human being to be is happy (and here again, I mean blissfully happy). Every bit of programming we have nudges us towards certain actions by rewarding us with feelings of happiness, or reduced misery. We only live once, so I would modify your description only slightly to, “taking what bliss you can when you can”.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too. Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

Transcendent! This just insults my intelligence at a whole new level.

Burn, Hollywood, Burn.

I disagree that it's about values per se. I mean it is to a point, but as he explains in this vid, it's actually causing physical changes in your brain. That's physiological and transcends any subjective rationalization. >> ^Trancecoach:

I mostly agree with you, although there is likely a way of watching porn that is more (or less) harmful than others. Having said that, I think the question is one of values. That is, what are/were the values that were instilled in you which enabled you to quit watching porn such that similar values can also be instilled (i.e., introduced, taught, nourished, evoked) in your kids?
It's a dangerous world out there, but, truth be told, it's probably just differently dangerous than it was when we grew up -- or when our parents grew up -- and it's not going to go away to "keep the kids safe." Thus, good role modeling and good values -- probably the way to go.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
Fischer was ridiculously dominant in his heyday, but comparing players across eras is difficult. Chess has become so much more professionalized now. The players train a lot harder, and more importantly they have computers to help them train, so in general players at the top levels now have a much tighter game than their counterparts in the 70s. It's kind of like tennis: if you judge based on dominance over his peers, Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time, but I'm sure Federer, Nadal or Djokovic could absolutely spank Laver in his prime.
Still, you'll get no argument from me if you believe Fischer is a strong contender for the "greatest ever" title. I still prefer Kasparov, but I might be biased because Kasparov isn't a racist lunatic. It's good to know that it's possible for a person to be a transcendent chess genius and still be a functional human being.


Fischer is a stupid racist idiot. However Kasparov is a politician...soo not much better in my book.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
>> ^Yogi:
#1 ranked in the world...I'll be Kasparov could come outa retirement and destroy this kid. Young whipper snappers. Also the FIDE rating is sort of messed up in certain ways. This guy though can play 10 games at once not looking at the board, that's a special sort of autism right there, pretty neat.

He has played Kasparov before, as he mentions at the end of the clip. They played two matches in 2004. One was a draw and Kasparov won the other one. Of course, Carlsen was only 13 back then, so I think he'd have a considerably better shot now. Anyway, very few chess players can hold a candle to Kasparov in his prime, but Carlsen is one of them, even though their playing styles are very different. Whether his career will be as impressive as Kasparov's remains to be seen, but he's definitely had a good start: youngest world number 1 ever, second highest FIDE ranking ever. He needs to win the World Championship now, but I'm sure that's coming. Incidentally, Kasparov actually coached Carlsen for a little while.

Fuck off with all this helpful information! Anyways Kasparov has been retired for a long time, so yeah Carlsen would probably take him. I still think FIDE rankings are bullshit, the best chess master ever as Fischer dammit!


Fischer was ridiculously dominant in his heyday, but comparing players across eras is difficult. Chess has become so much more professionalized now. The players train a lot harder, and more importantly they have computers to help them train, so in general players at the top levels now have a much tighter game than their counterparts in the 70s. It's kind of like tennis: if you judge based on dominance over his peers, Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time, but I'm sure Federer, Nadal or Djokovic could absolutely spank Laver in his prime.

Still, you'll get no argument from me if you believe Fischer is a strong contender for the "greatest ever" title. I still prefer Kasparov, but I might be biased because Kasparov isn't a racist lunatic. It's good to know that it's possible for a person to be a transcendent chess genius and still be a functional human being.

Fair enough - it sounds like you're certain in every practical sense, but you don't believe you have "absolute knowledge". That was really the main distinction I was trying to make. Certainly I agree that you can't reason in any meaningful way without writing off certain kinds of extreme possibilities.

I think absolute knowledge is possible even from our subjective standpoint. For instance, it is absolutely true that "something" exists. Any argument against this is actually proof that it is true.

In any case, I am making a claim to absolute knowledge, because divine revelation could only ever be absolute knowledge. A person receiving such revelation would have a justified true belief in God. That's my claim. It's not something I could prove..only God could prove it, but neither am I unjustified in believing it.

I understand the contrast here, and I think I understand now what you're trying to get at better - I just don't think this contrast is fundamental to the question I'm interested in (which is different, I think, than the one you're interested in). To me the intermediary steps are fungible - it's the start states that are interesting to me, and to me they all require arbitrary stuff that I don't like, but that seem necessary.

Well, originally you were responding to this question:

"I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence."

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in? What test could you conduct that would tell you the difference? Atheists often demand some kind of empirical proof of God, yet they are never forthcoming on the details of what that proof would consist of. That is really the impetus behind this question..

I think this difference in focus may come down to our varying perceptions of those intermediary steps. For me, the general big bang model, ideas of how stars and planets coalesced, natural abiogenesis, and evolution are reasonably credible as they stand and I expect those theories to develop and become more credible. You see those things very differently. I think that naturally leads to a different focus.

The reason I don't see them as credible is because of a lack of evidence. For instance, there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis, at all. In fact, louis pasteur proved that it is most likely impossible. Life has never once been observed coming from non-life. Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life". It's a just-so story and it isn't at all credible. I've heard the odds of it happening are far greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

People tell me that Creation sounds like a fairy tale, but then they tell me their own story that begins with "once upon a time a frog became a prince", and this somehow sounds plausible when you throw in billions of years.

time is in fact the hero of the plot. the impossible becomes possible..time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald
Harvard
Nobel laureate

I agree with this as well - to an extent. Having a unique God makes for a simple explanation in general (although it gets a bit complicated in practice for how we ended up precisely "here"). For the general problem of "how did this all get here", your recipe is very simple if it starts with God. On the flip side, God is a very big thing to assume. I think a case can be made for belief in a general God on something like this basis. Though I don't personally find it a convincing case at this time, that could change.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know". Yet, people bandy about "I don't know" as if this is the superior position. You have to wonder why to even think that the Universe was designed is subject to so much ridicule and derision, when it is actually a perfectly reasonable theory that is supported by evidence. As far as assuming God goes, you don't need to explain God to postulate Him as a possibility. What matters is whether the idea has explanatory power. The question always is, is God a better explanation for the evidence?

It isn't always an evidential argument, either. There many logical arguments to assume there is a God:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Perhaps another question: for you personally, would you describe your situation as more like "God provided me with special evidence, and I reason that He must exist because of this evidence" or more like "God produced a change in me directly, such that I now believe (unmediated by your own reason)"? (Or, obviously, something in between or different altogether). I think this would clarify your situation for me.

I received evidence in a number of different ways. One, is that God fundamentally changed me. In the blink of an eye, where I was broken, I was now healed. Where there was addiction, there was self-control. Where there was hate, there was now love and forgiveness. Where there was darkness, there was now light. It was instantaneous and it certainty had nothing to do with me. I would have stayed the way I was, left to my own devices. It was a supernatural transformation of my inner being.

Another thing is that God has demonstrated to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that He is in absolute control of everything. To the extent that I no longer include the word coincidence in my vocabulary. In short, He has used my internal and external experiences to give me evidence of His existence, and this is ongoing. I always experience the presence of God because His Spirit lives within me.

There are other ways that I cannot quite put into words. The peace of God transcends all understanding. His love surpasses all expectation and every height; it is a deep and wondrous mystery. He is my Father, and I am his (adopted) son. My relationship with God is a personal one that has changed my entire life in every conceivable way, beyond anything I could ever imagine or hope for.

>> ^jmzero

>> ^kymbos:

One of my favourite ever scenes in cinema.
Transcendent low-brow humour that Mel Brooks himself would be proud of.


Vote on it then?

One of my favourite ever scenes in cinema.

Transcendent low-brow humour that Mel Brooks himself would be proud of.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I think you go about prostylization the wrong way. I see you as kind of a digitized version of the guy who stands outside of bars with a megaphone and a sandwich board, passing judgement off on revelers that just don't care at best, and want to pick a fight with you at worst. Well intended, but not persuasive or well received.

I went about things the wrong way when I first arrived here, being somewhat of a neophyte to evangelism, which set the tone for the rest of my time here. Along the way, I've made some mistakes and said some things which further served to marginalize me, which the antitheists here have throughly capitalized on.

I was more hot blooded when I arrived, and cocky, being throughly schooled in all manner of philosophical argumentation, and having been *experienced* in the transcendent, I was more interested in dismantling arguments than showing the love of Christ. I regret that, but what's done is done. What's true is that God makes everything new.

My main failure was to take the bait of the innumerable insults that have been thrown my way. This was simply an immaturity in my faith, not really understanding what Jesus said about how I should react to them. He said to love that person, no matter how much they hate you. Pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you. The insults are not as bothersome anymore. I'm more interested now in love than argument.

You write these large blocks of text filled with Bible verses, judgement and a good deal of fire and brimstone. FYI: Bible verses, judgement, fire and brimstone only work on people who already believe in and fear God, just as you probably have no fear of Xenu, Allah or Mitt "White Horse" Romney (google it - funny story)

I have a wide variety of conversations on the sift, many of them on historical, philosophical, and scientific topics. People ask me questions about nearly everything, and so I think it would be difficult to pigeonhole my comments this way. Certainly, I have witnessed the truth about Gods judgment, but this isn't my main focus. As far as fearing God goes, you're right, many do not, but their conscience is still witnessing against them.

I'll look up Mitt "white horse" Romney.

The Christians in my life that make me most sympathetic to Christianity are the ones who express their faith through actions, not words. I've only met a handful of these people in my life, but they've all made a positive impact on my life. These are the people who exude love, empathy, understanding and compassion. These are the people that say 'I love you' when you really need to hear 'I love you.' You feel it almost like an aura around them. And, in every case, I had to inquire about them to discover their faith - with none of that uncomfortable evangelizing that comes off more like used car sales pitch than deep expression of faith. And, unlike the used car sales pitch, when I did learn of their faith, I felt a genuine respect for it.

Certainly, Christians should be doing good works at every opportunity. Faith without works is dead. Scripture advises two approaches to reach people. It says some save with mercy, and others with fear. Some people are so hardhearted that the only way to pierce their armor is to make them realize that they will have to answer for their secret sins, the ones that people hide behind their masks of public purity. To let them know that they didn't actually get away with it, whatever it may be. That's kind of why it kind of amuses me when I hear someone say something like "If I saw God I would tell Him off", as if God doesn't have them dead to rights on a list of sins 5 miles long.

Others are like a fragile flower, which must be handled very carefully and gently. Ones who have been abused by the church, for instance. It is truly sad how common this actually is. Of course there are many situations inbetween these two approaches, but in general, it is some combination of the two, leaning towards one of them.

I appreciate what you're saying about your friends. Perhaps this is the way the Holy Spirit has called them to deal with you. They are most certainly praying for your salvation. Again, it depends on the situation. It depends on the kind of relationship, and how much time you have to invest in someone. It is usually expedient to share the gospel in most cases.

Ultimately, it is out of our hands. I can't save anyone; only the power of God can change someones heart. When someone is saved, it is a true miracle.

Of course you can't choose what you believe; what you believe chooses you, so none of these people have brought me any closer to God. But that's OK, because they've done something much more important, they've brought me closer to my fellow humans. They've shown me the power of empathy (not that I'm always the most empathetic person - I've a ways to go in that category) and how contagious just being a good person can really be.

You believe according to your experience, and how interested you are in what is actually true, versus what you appear to see. If you believe that you are generally right about everything, then you will never look beyond your preconceived notions. I only changed my mind about God because He showed me the spiritual reality. I could not logically believe in naturalistic materialism as being a legitimate description of reality after that.

It's wonderful that your friends have taught you something about life, especially concerning the love of God. What Jesus teaches is that every human being has intrinsic value and is worthy of respect and love. He teaches us to love unconditionally and sacrificially, disregarding our own preferences for the good of others. If you can move past all of the contentious issues that surround these topics, and look to the words of Jesus Christ, you will find a transcendent love superior to the wisdom of this world. He gives us a standard of behavior that is impossible for any human being to live up to (without His help). Jesus asks more of you than any other person, in this time or any other, ever will.

I'm not sure if this helps you, especially considering it's pretty hard to refute aggressive atheists if you don't talk a great deal about your faith. Maybe a better path would be to understand where these atheists are coming from and what you have in common. Mutual respect. I don't know.

It does help me, and I appreciate your advice. There is always a better path when there is an argument, although, there is simply no avoiding having to debate certain things, when certain misconceptions are presented as the truth about what Christianity is. Even though you may be predisposed to agree with religious criticism, you must notice the distortions that are bandied about in the atheist community about Christianity and religion in general. I hear the same ones, over and over and over again.

I mean you no offense by this comment, my religious spite phase has mostly passed. I'd like to see you have a little better time on the site and not be the subject of scorn. Many of the discussion you have with atheists seem like a waste of time for all parties, because it's just a clash of worldviews rather than an attempt to find common ground and make progress. Some of the atheists on this site can be very cruel. I don't really follow these long back and forth theological battles anymore, but if someone crosses that line and is cruel to you, I'd be happy to join in on your side. If that appeals to you, drop me a PM.

I'm glad to hear that you are no longer in the business of giving theists a hard time. There are certainly enough people working doubleshift on this that you can walk away with your head held high. Yes, I agree, common ground should be sought out as a matter of course, although it is not an exaggeration to say that convinced atheists and theists typically disagree on almost everything. It's also hard to approach this on a human level, being that this is the internet, and the medium is far inferior for interpersonal communication. It is good for certain kinds of communication, but when it comes to empathy for instance, much is lost.

In any case, I genuinely appreciate your offer. Thank you for your magnanimousness. I may take you up on it sometime. I might also ask you how you see humanity avoiding a dystopianfuturetomorrow.

When I speak of ecstasy, I'm not talking about a sense of awe or wonder in the presence of natural beauty or a particularly moving passage in a piece of literature. There is, of course, no religious barrier to experiences of that sort. What I'm talking about is ek stasis, standing outside yourself. The Greeks originally used this term to speak about the powerful trances that would come upon the worshipers of Dionysos at their holy revels.

When I say "ecstasy," then, I'm talking about visions of gods and angels. I'm talking about howling to the bowels of the earth to dredge up demons and bend them to your will. Or alternatively, quiet sitting, focusing the mind on only the tip of your nose for an hour at a time, until a vision of the Unconquered Sun comes on you and explodes your world. The kind of experience that causes you to walk around for the next week as if the blood in your veins has been turned into holy wine. I'm talking about experiences that are life changing, help you to break bad habits and come to epiphanies.

Literal belief in these things is not necessarily key. But our brains need a hook to plug into this transcendence. Very few of us are able to do it without some kind of religious approach. And, of course, literal belief can sometimes be quite dangerous, if the belief is not just wrong, but demands harmful action--the Pentecostals who literally demonize those who disagree with them, for instance.

So we're not just talking about metaphor here. Non-literal interpretation by no means implies metaphorical interpretation, in the sense of the metaphor as a literary device.

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

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

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

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

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

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

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

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

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

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

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> ^shveddy:

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