However, I would not disregard Hitchen’s view with regard to Stalinist Russia, or modern North Korea. Both those dictators created god cults around themselves. All grace is seen as coming from such dictators in such nations. There can be little doubt that Kim Il Wackjob wants his people to see him as a god.

Why, in God’s name, Al Sharpton?

The fact that one Al Sharpton is getting a couple over on one Chistopher Hitchens should be undeniable proof of God’s existence and of His grace. :-)

And these “philosophical proofs” aren’t so much proofs as they are assumptions. Aquinas assumes God exists and then lays out a philosophical argument for Divine Law. Aristotle assumes a higher power (I don’t think he specifically mentions the gods) and philosophical argues why people should pursue that higher power. Et cetera.

Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Anyone who wants to know what Thomas or Aristotle had to say about God had better read him for himself. If he wants to try to figure out what Thomas or Aristotle thought about God, it’s best for him to keep in mind that what a writer has written in one place requires comparison with what he has written elsewhere. It’s best for him to consider also that if a thinker of philosophic rank makes a mistake, the mistake bears careful examination. And even if one is of that amazing sort of atheist who somehow know what God, if God existed, must be, one had better still raise the question, “What did Thomas (or Aristotle) think God is?” And that may become a way for the atheist to lose his faith that he knows what a supposedly nonexistent God must be.

Acting in your self-interest is good and not acting in your self-interest is bad–see?

Is Osama acting in his self-interest? I’m thinking yes, so I’m just wondering if you consider him “good.”

Intelligent Design goes down the drain at the mention of his name.

I think the Roulette wheel is an decent analog, though it may be a rough fit. I would say its more complex than simply religions. Could be Evangelical Fascism, Socialism, or any other value system on said wheel. Atheists might think it’d be good to pull players from said wheel (operating on Resolute’s assertion that atheists would be outside the wheel), but you run the risk of someone going back to said wheel and picking a number that is way hostile. Which is another thing that drives me nuts, is the moral equivalency that some tack on to Western Christians and Jihadis.

Of course I’d argue that some Atheists belong on said wheel, namely the evangelical variety that believes religion is the driving force for problems in the world, and their own ideology and value system stems from that, uh, Hitchens would possibly be an example.

Boy, between keeping up here and perusing the “who gets nuked” thread, I’ll be awake all night.

My point is that people adjust their moral behaviours based on what the churches teach, therefore the morality contained within the churches is relative.

Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM

There are degrees of error. No church under heaven has it 100% correct. The central doctrines are what matters the most. The cases you mentioned above we could point out the error easily from Scripture. There is a definite consistency in the interpretation of Scripture amongst the Christian churches that hold to Sola Scriptura (2 Timothy 3:16-17) over the past 2000 years. Sola Ecclesia (Roman Catholic), well that’s a morally relativistic position, IMO.

If they differ it could be in one of two ways:

1. Essentials
2. Non-essentials.

Also, as a Christian there is a difference between disagreeing on:

1. Salvation/Justification
2. Wisdom/Knowledge/Sanctification

The first in both cases is a genuine point of contention; the first of the latter pair is more than likely a case of heresy. Since Christianity’s object is to save souls, the other stuff may or may not be significant.

There is a hierarchy to this stuff, not all of the phrases writ by St. Paul are equal.

Which church, amongst the current crop of churches, is the morally correct church? I ask, because I now have two different people saying the exact same thing. I will also hazard a guess, PRCDude & Rose, that neither of you attends the same church nor are you members of the same sect. Therefore, one of you has it wrong.

The only thing that is ambiguous is the minds of people; that is, you are free to ‘narrate’ any ‘text’ in a way that suits you; though if you do so falsely you are contending with the law, the letter that kills.

The reason for the force of the law is existence itself; the punishments and rewards are on a certain level simply woven into reality. The law of necessity certainly pertains a lot to the material since in the material, force is the ultimate decider. The only law, then, which would stand in the material world is the law which has the authority to kill.

Law itself is of a spiritual nature; and thus all of the laws have a spiritual interpretation as well.

Fossil record. Google it.

Blacklake on May 8, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Missing Link=leap of faith.

Spassvogel on May 8, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Cambrian Explosion: Google it.

CrimsonFisted on May 8, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Well folks, thanks for starting with a little humor before we decended into the earnest, endless war!

Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Again, I wasn’t accusing atheists of anything. I was just trying to understand. You are a relativist, correct?

The morals contained within the Bible are intentionally designed to be ambiguous. I can make it say whatever I want, for whatever purpose.

What do you mean? Like the 10 commandments? The summary of the Law is “love the Lord with all your heart…and love your neighbor as yourself.” And “love does no harm to a neighbor.”

I respectfully disagree. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Just as you are responsible for doing the same. We must each live with the consequences of what we believe.

People can not just declare that they are right and that the other side needs to provide the burden of proof. It does nothing to strengthen their own position. That goes for both sides of the debate.

jman on May 8, 2007 at 10:02 PM

That’s not what burden of proof is. If I tell you there is a God I don’t get to say “prove me wrong,” I need to prove my statement correct. If I say stars eventually explode I need to prove myself correct and not tell others to prove me wrong. Doing so is a logical fallacy.

Anyway, Christianity is not a giant umbrella with a one size-fits-all dogmatic approach. That’s why you have a whole pile of different sects with an equal number of moral outlooks. You want polygamy? I can find you that. You want married preists, I can find you that. You want a church that treats a woman as property of her husband or father? I can find you that as well. Do you like gay people? Boy howdy, I bet there’s a church for that. It’s probably on the West Coast.

Sounds to me like I have found some moral relativism in this Christianity. No, can’t play that “not a true Christian” card. The morals contained within the Bible are intentionally designed to be ambiguous. I can make it say whatever I want, for whatever purpose.

I’ll leave it to the Christians to hash out whose interpretation of vague moral standards is correct. I’m just going to operate like I normally do: enlightened self interest.

This is not really accurate. Many East Asian spiritual systems are non-theistic. For instance, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism. Now it is true that some of them have developed polytheistic offshoots, but in their historic form, these “religions” had no commitment to a Creator.

I’m just glad He had a commitment to them. :-)

Buddhism is, perhaps, a first form of atheism. But I do not claim enough knowledge of it to speak with much confidence. Certainly it seems like a religion; I doubt Christoper Hitchens would admire a Tibetan monastery much more than he would a Cistercian one. In which case it is a religion without a God.

Like Hitchens’s schoolboy Marxism. But nobler, infinitely more polite, and far more sober.

I would suggest that Buddhism does have concepts of the divine, the holy, and purification, even though it believes that it all spins down to nothing in the end. For me, that is close enough to a religion for me to claim it as one; I would suggest the absence of atheists claiming it vigorously as a branch of science would allow me to advance my claim without much need for a court of probate.

The second response (”heaven”/”hell”) grounds obedience to the moral code on a personal prudential desire to attain eternal bliss and avoid eternal pain. So the position collapses into ethical egoism.

Beware of this concept, because it is of the law and thus kills. A fundament of Christian thought is to die to self which means selfishness as a primary motivator.

Hell is the final word on God’s justice, in that he does not kid when he condemns, and heaven is a the final word on his Mercy. If we’re talking Christianity, we may find that Heaven does not look like ‘paradise’ in the sense of sensuous pleasures nor can a person in hell gamble, have sex, eat, or anything like that either. They are not only ‘places’ but ‘states of mind’, ‘spiritual planes’, ‘eternities’, and ‘ontological realities’. In other words, an explanation of them simply as ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ only deals with the surface, and thus misses the entire point of their existence. The idea strictly of ‘Heaven’ as ‘milk and honey paradise’ and ‘Hell’ as ‘pain and punishment’ are not of Christian origin, but seem to stem from man’s desire to see justice done even beyond the grave.

Besides, if you aren’t of the mindset of one reborn, you would not like heaven much — Worshiping God all day? Sounds like a drag…

Of course, hell has no light, though it be the lake of fire and brimstone… tell me that is a purely literal description…

The burden of proof is not upon the atheist. ..

Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 8:55 PM

I respectfully disagree. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Just as you are responsible for doing the same. We must each live with the consequences of what we believe.

People can not just declare that they are right and that the other side needs to provide the burden of proof. It does nothing to strengthen their own position. That goes for both sides of the debate.