Evidence God Exists: Part II

[rjh4 is back]

But many believers I have encountered DO say such a thing. VERY LOUDLY, in fact. They KNOW that "God" exists! They KNOW there is a heaven! They KNOW "Jesus" died for our sins. I would even say that the majority of believers I have come across would say "I know God exists!" as opposed to "I believe God exists."

No doubt. And when they say such things you take such statements as a claim to absolute truth don't you. But when you make statements that sound like a claim for absolute truth, you seem to expect that it should be taken as your opinion (your statement "There is no evidence of God" (or something similar) coupled with your statement "Nope. Believers will proclaim "the truth". I only put forth an opinion"). Maybe they make such statements in a similar frame of mind as you make your statements. It seems to me it is always best to ask.

---

... the negative moral & ethical influence of the Christian religion.

The actual teachings of Christianity or how some abuse such teachings? There is a difference. I would be interested in hearing how Christian morals and ethics, particularly as presented in the New Testament, would be negative.

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Beautiful example of a strawman argument / appeal to pity. The answer, of course, is no. Now give me a reason you have to have religion to tell you that killing another human, another member of your tribal group so to speak, is wrong.

How is that a strawman argument? A strawman argument is one that a person sets up and portrays as another person's position and then rebuts that, instead of rebutting what the other person's position really is. Mine is merely a hypothetical scenario that I ask people to answer to see how consistently they apply their view of morals. It seems to me that if one believes that morals are manmade and based on the majority of the members of a society, to be consistent, the answer should be "yes", not "no". Nobody has yet explained how a "no" answer is consistent with an initial position of morals being manmade and based on the majority. As to your last sentence, I really did not understand what you want me to explain. If you restate, I will try to answer.