Hello.....I have a little problem

[Statler Waldorf]

---

---

A Muslim committing ad Holmium against a Christian because he is fishing for kudos from atheists is a bit strange.

I see none of them as logically sound. Albeit there are no sound logical arguments to the contrary, they all establish premises on the basis of assumptions. This would need to go to a new thread for elaboration, but suffice it to say that most all proofs, pro or con, are generally or inherently based in causality and that may not (probably not) exist. They certainly make assumptions of things that we can never know.

I agree with you here, they are not deductively sound arguments. My next question for you would be do you only believe in the existence of that which you can deductively prove to be true?

Like I said, the same way I know there are no fairies or ghosts for that matter. Nothing supernatural can exist. If it did, then by it's own existence it would have to be natural and natural things do not perform magic as magic is unnatural.

More circularity.
“Nothing supernatural can exist.”
“Why not?”
“Because the natural world is all that exists.”
“How do you know this?”
“Because nothing supernatural can exist.”
“Why not?”
“Because the natural world is all that exists.”
“How do you know this?” …and on and on it goes...

No true god could possibly appear before anyone. It would only be a representative or messenger.

Please explain how an omnipotent god can’t appear before you.

We have yet to establish the authority of this dubious collection of books alleged to proclaim it's own authority.

Who is “we”?

Because they are logically incoherent with my worldview.

So if they are logically consistent with someone else’s worldview then they are rational in believing in their existence?

That is their desire. Go to heaven and worship their god and bow to his whims.

I didn’t realize you were using “tend His garden” metaphorically. Spending eternity in a glorified state worshipping God and reveling in His amazing glory does not sound too bad. Certainly beats spending eternity standing on the parapets of hell shouting out one’s hatred for Him while they suffer endlessly.

A ship decending from the heavens that is 1500 miles wide, 1500 miles deep, 1500 miles high and walls 200 foot thick. Why does god need a spaceship? Did you know the moon is just over 2000 miles in diameter? That is one big ass Borg ship.

Well I don’t see any mention of a space ship, but the dimensions of the city in Revelation 21 are meant to symbolize the sheer magnitude and eternally secure nature of Christ’s church.

My point was, when it comes to morals, there are no consistencies in either the theistic worldview or the atheistic worldview. There are agreed on rules via democracy or tyranny, but there are no absolutes. Everything changes with the times.

Are you suggesting there are no absolutes but morals are absolutely relative? Careful with those self refuting claims there.

---

No need. Here is a partial.

1220: Dominican Order founded

1231: Gregory IX begins Medieval Inquisition

1478: Sixtus IV authorizes the Spanish Inquisition

1515: Leo X institues pre-press censorship, not enforced

1517: Martin Luther (or see a Catholic take on him) begins his protests

1540: Jesuit Order founded

1542: Bernardino Ochino flees Italy, converts to Protestantism Paul III establishes the Roman Inquisition Limited press censorship, banning of Ochino's works

1544: Yet another Index version

1559: Paul IV's Pauline Index

1563: Last session of the Council of Trent ends

1564: Tridentine Index published

1571: Congregation of the Index founded by St.Pius V

1588: Sixtus V creates Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition or Holy Office

1600: Giordano Bruno's Trial (and subsequent burning)

1633: Galileo's Trial

1834: Spanish Inquisition officially ends.

1908: Inquisition becomes Holy Office.

---

Well that’s very interesting, but its relevance still escapes me.

Simple. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In humans yes, but you still have not demonstrated how this little rule would apply to God.

I think the destruction of all human and animal life on this planet qualifies, along with an plethora of other 'god-like' actions. We are talking genocide on an unparalleled scale and drowning to death is not an easy way to go either. The condoning of "bashing babies heads against the rock", the approval of adultry for the sole purpose of continuing a blood-line, this god's head is not on straight.

If everything deserved to die then it is not wrongful genocide to give them what they deserve, it is justice. God has the right to do with His creation as He sees fit. Where did God approve adultery? You still have not demonstrated how it would be wrong for God to do any of these things; especially considering that you have already admitted that there are no moral absolutes so it really is just different strokes for different folks isn’t it?

You're just equivocating Statler. 'Christian Theism' as a worldview, necessitates certain positions being upheld as dogmatic these propositions required in order to be classified as a Christian. I do not doubt that many Christian vary is some of their stances but the fact remains that their entire cognitive belief system is structured around the supposed facts that; (a) God Exists and (b) The bible is his inerrant word. These fundamental similarities are the core of the 'worldview' as it were.

Are you suggesting that there are atheists who believe in God? I think lacking a belief in God is a necessary position atheists must hold to. So their core beliefs would be simply the opposite of Christian Theism: A: God does not exist B: The Bible is not His inspired word.

I'm also sure that you are sincere in your belief that atheism as a philosophical position is weak, that is your opinion and I respect that but stating it as fact does not make it so, as I'm sure you are aware.

No it’s a bit of a historical fact; it is hard to point to any great philosopher that was an actual atheist. Contrary to what people believe today, Dawkins and Hitchens are not particularly sophisticated philosophical men. Why do you think atheists have put so much effort into redefining atheism as a “lack of belief” rather than its traditional definition as a “positive belief in the non-existence of God”? It’s because if they have to share the burden of proof they know it’s an impossible burden to bear.

The problem is you seem intent on shoe-horning in your own personal value judgements. The existence of God, for you, is the fundamental and axiomatic basis of your entire philosophy. My position as an agnostic atheist is a result of my personal philosophy and understanding not vice versa.

Are you saying that you adopted a theory of knowledge, existence, purpose, and morality that excluded the existence of God before you were an atheist? It seems to me that you’d have to make a decision as to whether God exists or not before you should be adopting beliefs that exclude the possibility of His existence.

I suggested that you have no knowledge of my own or anyone else’s morality or anything else and thus no knowledge of how we justify them.

No knowledge at all? That is just it though; I do know things about your beliefs simply because I know you are an atheist. I know that your views on morality exclude the existence of a transcendent law giver; I also know that your views on purpose and existence do too. So I may not know the particulars but I have it pretty narrowed down since there are only a handful of views on such matters that do not include the supernatural, gods, or God. I am always willing to listen to your beliefs though so that I may understand them even better though.

So you do see the problem with your argument then?

No.

Statler, you took what she said, gave it your own spin and then drew the Dahmer comparison. I'm making the point that in a supposedly civilised discussion that is more than a little weak.

I gave her position no spin at all, she clearly said that God did not own her and she could make up her own rules on morality, Dahmer just happened to hold to the exact same position.

I'm not outraged by your comparison. I think it's an unfair and pathetic route to take in a discussion and as such I think you owe her that admission and an apology. That being said, that is only my opinion and I respect your right to free speech.

I don’t think it was unfair at all, it would be unfair if she didn’t hold the same position Dahmer did on morality, but she does unfortunately.

I’d respect your position a little bit more if you ever stood up for me when people bring up the crusades, the inquisitions, or just when they personally attack me and call me every name under the sun (look at some of the things Shell has called me for example), since you have always been silent when that happens I suspect you are just objecting because it was a “Christian on atheist crime” more than anything really.

Once you enter into a social situation though your moral choices will be judged by intention and consequence and if you interfere with the rights of another you can legitimately be called to account.

Can’t you see how this is a self refuting position you have taken here? Say that someone adopts a view on morality that it is their moral responsibility to force others to conform to their views. Now you would tell this person they have no right to force their morals on other people, but by telling them this and stopping them from acting out their view of morality you are actually forcing your view on morality on them, which is what you objected to them doing in the first place. Moral relativism is a self refuting position, if it is true it is false if it is false it is false therefore it is false.

I'm sure you're aware that one philosopher publishing a critique does not ultimately prove their assertions. From what I've seen so far their own positions are just as roundly criticised. I'll certainly have a look at their work though.

Well that’s why I suggested that you just propose a secular worldview and we can take a look at how it does not hold up.

In the meantime I think it's reasonable to assume you were equivocating when you claimed all other worldviews had been proven false.

No equivocation here, I have seen critiques of all other proposed worldviews and how they are logically incoherent or even contradictory in nature. The Christian worldview is the only one I have encountered that is internally consistent and can account for the preconditions of knowledge. If you believe others exist please let me know what they are.

Considering there is already a presuppositional apologetics thread that would seem the appropriate place. Why don't you pick one of your supposed preconditions and post your rationalisation of it there and I’ll respond in due course?

Sounds good.