Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[John V]

I'm under no obligation to compel you to have vanilla John (nor should you have imagined that this was my intention), all I was doing was providing compelling reasons for my subjective opinion.

Ah, so they're non-compelling compelling reasons. Got it!

[The Grand Nudger]

You still haven't explained why they aren't compelling, and predictably you declined to answer a direct question or invitation to elaborate on your response. They're clearly compelling to me, and would be to anyone who shared the individual opinions that went into the overall formation of my opinion of vanilla and chocolate. A compelling reason to hold a subjective opinion =/= a compelling reason to have a bowl of vanilla ice cream. That doesn't make the reason any less compelling, because it isn't meant to drive you to eating ice cream in the first place (nor is it required to do so to be called compelling).

[Tiberius]

Quit it with the name-calling please.

[John V]

You still haven't explained why they aren't compelling,

OK, it's begging the question. "I like vanilla because I like light things and vanilla is light" begs the question, "Why do you like light things?"

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, it's because I don't like heavy things....but......the reason I don't like heavy things is that they leave me feeling somewhat nauseated........and of course feeling nauseated is undesirable because it is a factory standard defense mechanism for (among other things) ingesting harmful substances. So one might say that even though chocolate ice-cream isn't actually harmful to me, it triggers a response similar to things that are, and so my reaction and opinions on the matter are understandably negative (especially when it is compared to vanilla, which does not elicit this response from me).

Are these not compelling reasons to hold a subjective opinion?

---

(again, look at how quickly we can weave an elaborate tapestry of explanations, and again.....there are some opinions for which this does not seem to be possible....)

[John V]

Actually, it's because I don't like heavy things....but......the reason I don't like heavy things is that they leave me feeling somewhat nauseated........and of course feeling nauseated is undesirable because it is a factory standard defense mechanism for (among other things) ingesting harmful substances. So one might say that even though chocolate ice-cream isn't actually harmful to me, it triggers a response similar to things that are, and so my reaction and opinions on the matter are understandably negative (especially when it is compared to vanilla, which does not elicit this response from me).

Are these not compelling reasons

Yes, getting sick is compelling.

to hold a subjective opinion?

It's no longer a subjective opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course it is still subjective. Because chocolate is not objectively heavy (just as one example of how this remains what it began as). I think what may have tripped you up is that we both agree that getting sick is not desirable, but even this doesn't mean that "getting sick is not desirable" is objective....it merely means that we both agree on this. People are capable of sharing subjective opinions..you know, like whether or not vanilla is better than chocolate.

---

This, btw, is why I cannot stand it when people invoke the opinion of a god..or when they imply that we have no grounds for criticizing or disagreeing with these supposed opinions of god.

You and I have explored vanilla, we found areas where we agree and areas where we do not. We could meet at some point from the common ground of getting sick without ever agreeing on whether or not vanilla is better than chocolate. Because we can refer to what can be demonstrated (what can be known) in the formation of our varying opinions we have at least the opportunity to make a compelling case for our opinions (and to compare our opinions with those of others). Because I'm willing to concede that my opinion is merely my own -that it is subjective- I am not required to show how "heavy" chocolate is...a herculean task if you really think about it...nor is it actually required to be heavy to begin with. IOW, we can actually have a discussion..wheres "godopinesit" is a dead end. "Why does god opine it?" -

[Ryantology]

---

No, they don't. However, they present an interesting scenario. Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands. Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing). There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend. All of this puts the decision on the shoulders of the individual--there is no clear proof either way.

I'm sorry, but no. If you claim that you are God, you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. All Jesus did (or, was told to have done) was little more than parlor magic. It is not up to me to prove that he was not what he said he was, since he made the claim and failed to make a convincing case.

The absence of evidence is not, itself, evidence. But, the absence of evidence gives one no reason whatsoever to accept the veracity of the claim. As far as the actual evidence goes, what we have in the Gospels are fairy tales.

Either you believe the sources or you refuse to believe the sources because you are convinced that deep questions such as humanity's purpose and origin are answerable only by naturalistic science.

I am convinced of that, but it is a result of there being no credible evidence. It is not the cause of my refusal to believe the sources.

The article I linked argues for a burden of proof for theists and atheists alike (http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com...-of-proof/ ). My sources don't prove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean atheism is to be automatically accepted in its stead.

Incorrect. I can't speak for everyone, but I am sure that most atheists do not reject the whole idea of supernatural gods simply because one story has no proof and makes no sense. It is only after one examines many claims of divinity and finds each one lacking that atheism becomes the only sensible option.

One sensibly dismisses the God of Abraham after not just finding no reason to believe it, but after finding out that the devotees of other deities make similar claims and none of those pan out, either. The fact that Jesus was almost completely a ripoff of Horus really does not help.

Both beliefs have a shortage of evidence and, more importantly, require a presupposed way of looking at the evidence.

Even if you assume that all atheists insist there are no gods, the balance of evidence is not equal and the claim of theists does not deserve to be treated as equally likely to the claim of an atheist.

Atheists presuppose empiricistic naturalism. Theists presuppose rationalism in addition to empiricism. When two sides are arguing with opposite epistemologies as we are (with the very origins of those epistemologies the topic of the argument), one of us cannot simply tell the other 'prove it' as if they have the higher ground.

Incorrect. We claim there is no evidence of gods, and there is no evidence of gods. We point to mountains of evidence directly contradicting claims of theists, from individual tales in the Bible to the very origins of life and the universe, which have invariably forced the mainstream of your religion to abandon the idea of interpreting the Bible literally and integrate the concepts discovered by science. There is no truth to the notion that both claims carry equal weight.

My reason (and I believe the Holy Spirit's intervention) tells me Jesus told the truth about himself. Your reason ignores all human motivations and cuts the answer down to a cold science. If I may make an analogy. Joe the anarchist punches Dave the policeman in the face. A rationalist would say, “Joe hit Dave because he hates government institutions.” An empiricist would say, “The object called Joe collided with the object called Dave” and look for a physical explanation. Apparently, object Joe struck object Dave when the electrical activity in Joe’s brain rose. What caused the activity? The empiricist will look for other instances of the activity. He might discover that it increases when near objects that hold some kind of authoritative power over object Joe. Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.

I give you credit for the creativity you put into your dancing around the point.

Your analogy breaks down at a critical point, though: the claim "Joe hit Dave because (insert reason here)" is not one any person would reject for purely empirical reasons, the way most atheists reject claims of divinity. Without knowing any details of the event, it is something entirely possible and in violation of no natural rules. There would be no need to examine this event in such a way to prove its physical possibility.

But, that is not analogous to the claim theists actually make.

You are making a claim that is incredible. A version of the above closer to your claim would be "While standing in Cleveland, Joe threw a punch which hit Dave, while Dave stood in San Diego". With a claim like that, the motive behind Joe's attack is not to be even considered relevant until we can prove it actually happened, because the story as presented is impossible. That is why atheists disseminate the claims of theists the way they do: the meaning of the story is less important than the credibility of the story, when the person telling the story expects everyone to accept it as truth and model their lives around its message. If the story is a lie, why should we accept that the meaning behind it is worth following?

The same goes for reasoning about God. God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God. God’s existence is not provable if by ‘proof’ you mean ‘physical proof’. Now, He might leave clues for us. But if He does, He does so on His own terms with a purpose in mind. If His desire is for people open to His love to find Him, He will provide enough evidence for them to believe. Providing undeniable physical evidence makes people view Him as a force to submit to. Even if you reasoned God's intentions differently than I just did, 'proof' would have no place. You have the right to argue, "God would show Himself better if he existed" or "God would cater to all my wants." But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).

You presuppose the existence of God. This operates against reason. If you cannot prove the physical reality of God, anybody who claims to know his will, or how he operates, is nothing but a deluded charlatan.

That is the ground the atheist stands on: we see no reason to even bother examining the details of God until we can establish that he actually exists. Since no theist can do that, all your quacking about his will and his love and his power are of no substance or meaning. Not only is the problem one of existence. If we assume God does exist, you will agree that he does not communicate directly with humanity. This means that no person has the ability to know, or the authority to claim, what God's will actually is, or how he thinks and operates.

Even if we assume God exists, the only reasonable position a person may take is that of Deism, because all claims made by those who insist on an actively participating God should be regarded as inventions, fabrications, or delusions until any of them can be empirically substantiated.

This is why only the crustiest atheist would attack the supposition of a deist, yet we have a field day with theists of all other varieties. Your dogma is worthless until you can prove it is based upon something real. Even if you could do that, your dogma would be worthless until all of its individual claims could be examined and verified.

You have a long way to go before you get there.

---

[John V]

Of course it is still subjective. Because chocolate is not objectively heavy (just as one example of how this remains what it began as). I think what may have tripped you up is that we both agree that getting sick is not desirable, but even this doesn't mean that "getting sick is not desirable" is objective....it merely means that we both agree on this. People are capable of sharing subjective opinions..you know, like whether or not vanilla is better than chocolate.

But, if you convince me that "getting sick is not desirable" is subjective, then I'll no longer find sickness to be a compelling reason, and you're back at square one.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that very much John. I'd be willing to wager that you find all sorts of subjective things extremely compelling. Note that I wouldn't doubt that you'd argue with me about it....... You wouldn't be implying that your own opinions aren't compelling reasons for things..even to you...would you?