Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Nonfactor:

Hey buddy, You also were included in the above. I just forgot to do the blockquote for you.

If there are any other atheists who want to participate, feel free to come along.

I’ve never deconstructed a proof down to the point at which I required divine intervention to explain the construct… and I’ve done a lot of proof work and deconstruction.

Can you explain how logic relies on God?

gekkobear on July 13, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Guys, thank you very much for your cogent responses. Those are EXCELLENT, well-thought out, probing questions that deserve a serious philosophical response from me. To be honest with you, I just worked a very long shift all day today. And I am scheduled to work 14 hours tomorrow on Saturday. And Sundays are kinda crazy for me too.

Here are my suggestions.

We take both (and more of your questions or issues) of your excellent questions, and formulate them into a general “Atheist Argument against the ‘Argument for Truth in Defense of Theism’ “. Then you two guys email my boss below at this website.

Maybe suggest to him the need for a public “debate” on this same issue. I say “debate” loosely here because it is not really a debate at all. Rather, I intend for it to be a respectful, written presentation of competing presuppositions on a key topic, in a question-answer session. Then maybe later we ask Allahpundit if he can think about referencing a future Hot Air link to the website, and also have an open thread along with it for reader comments. When Allah naturally declines this idea, we can then mention to him that we all know where Michelle shops, where Michelle has her checking account, and where Michelle has her nails done, and we can thus “guarantee” that Allah will soon have his iphone delivered gift-wrapped.

When Allah declines our idea the second time, we just unload the nuclear weapon: “Hey, Allah, we happen to be very good friends with KP and ….”

If this sounds like a goofy idea, please remember that I am very exhausted, and I will try to respond to your excellent questions in a couple of days.

What do you guys think?

Atheism, as a system, can be compared to a man writing checks on an empty bank account. The man does write checks, (”logic”), the problem is his system cannot account for his usage of checks.

See, having a tautology as the basis of logical thought “a = a” is what I learned in logic class.

Somehow I missed the “a = a because god said so” portion of logic. Exactly what about a reproducable simple construction of proofs and reasoning requires a creator? Does rational thought not happen without divine intervention?

I’ve never deconstructed a proof down to the point at which I required divine intervention to explain the construct… and I’ve done a lot of proof work and deconstruction.

Can you explain how logic relies on God?

Video: (Darts for Jesus) Hardcore Bible Thumpers Reveal Their Ugly Intolerance

Christian Extremists Disrupt Hindu Senate Invocation
These disruptors aren’t true Christians, just as jihadis aren’t true Muslims. Shame on all of them.
Being Christian is about tolerance, acceptance and forgiveness, but you see very little…

The map is in the persons head. He went insane knowing there was no way out and created one to assuage his feelings. That’s what religion does. It’s what we said about the religions of ancient Greece and it’s most likely what we’ll say thousands of years from now about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. This isn’t to say these ideas aren’t artistic or knowledgeable, it’s just to say that they aren’t true.

Let me step back and actually explain the metaphor a bit more.

The map is the Bible.

You can argue that someone in the past went insane and thought he/she knew the map and wrote it down, but Christians today are literally looking at a map they did not make up themselves.

The way out of the cave is to travel through space or look through a telescope. There may be other caves out there (other alien civilizations) and I’m not discouraging people from attempting to find them.

Actually, in my metaphor, the entire universe is inside this cave or system of caves.

Basically, Plato’s allegory, transcending what we already know to be true rather than exploring the things we can see already.

Disagreed wholeheartedly. If you cannot see the harm done to humanity due to certain religious practices you’re blind. All because these religions believe their God or gods to be the ultimate true authority.

You’ve just changed the subject. And I already addressed this earlier.

All dogma is harmful when followed blindly. That has nothing to do with God and whether or not He exists.

Religion is not the same as a belief in God. And to be clear, when I’m writing, I’m not writing about religion at all. Religion is the one thing Christ hated the absolute most.

How do you know you’re right? The Bible has falsities. If you can’t even trust The Bible, the only reason you know about the God you worship, then why should you trust it when it says “God exists” or “The Bible is right” et cetera?

Just because you believe the Bible is the only way we know God doesn’t make it so. Christians discuss regularly about having a relationship with God.

You don’t have to read book about your parents to know they exist. You talk with them.

Very simplistically, let’s say there was a “fountain of youth,” but that it was separated from the rest of the world by a huge canyon which was only accessible by an invisible bridge and which could only be traversed once by each individual. I could tell you the bridge existed and give my stories about how living forever has been cool, but unless you decided you believed me and took that step, you’d never really know.

Of course, the difference being, at that scenario, you’ve actually got a risk involved.

But as I wrote already, this isn’t something I care to prove to you. The only point I was making is that if we’re right, which I’m not trying to prove even though it’s all you seem to want to talk about, then we should share this with other people.

How convenient it is to only claim you’re right and then not engage in a discussion that would determine the fact.

I’ll get back to the discussion in a bit, taking a break.

Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I never claimed I was right. I’m convinced that I am, but for the purpose of this discussion, I have not claimed as much.

But again, it isn’t relevant here.

You cannot prove that I’m wrong, and I have no reason to prove that I’m right. You seem to be reasonable and educated, and I’m sure you’ve heard many arguments presented as proof. I’m certainly educated in my own right, but that doesn’t mean I can add anything more to what you’ve already heard.

And with my invisible bridge analogy, what I’m really trying to say is that the only way anyone ever knows is if they take that step and either stumble to their deaths or drink some water at the fountain.

I can’t take you on my journey. It was a personal one.

Or rather, to quote the flawed Bible, “spiritually things are spiritually discerned.” Meaning, if you want to know what a Spanish broadcast says, you’ll have to learn Spanish. I can translate for you, but you’d have no proof that my translation is correct.

Therefore, I see no reason to go back and forth on this one. Though the point made in one of the links provided was interesting. The fact that our earth is expanding proves that it had a beginning, since as reversing time would eventually show the universe retract. And if no energy is created or destroyed, then how did the world come to be?

But I’m sure you’ve got several reasons for all of that, including the fact that going back far enough even science still leaves a lot up to mystery, so I just don’t see the point. Really, I’m sure you’ve heard it all. I have. When I was young, I took to arguing with my teachers and really enjoyed it all, believing these discussions would lead somewhere, but they never did. In my somewhat wiser years, I just don’t see any reason to do that.

Do you?

Why is it the American citizen’s fault? Why is the American citizen being thought of as boorish and rude?

naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Just a theory, but I’m going to guess that it was because the American citizen in question acted like a boorish, rude religious bigot. Hence people thinking that person was a boorish, rude religious bigot. It’s uncanny, really.

It was the majority Democrats who forced it, it’s the Democrats who were the ones being boorish, rude and inconsiderate, 1) using an unsuspecting guest as the trigger, making him feel uncomfortable 2) slapping the American People across the face and then sneering at them for being surprised, then irate.

Ah, I see, the people that tried to silence this Hindu man were just poor helpless victims of an evil plot by the Democrats. They had no choice but to respond to a brief prayer by someone who dares to believe something different than they do by freaking out and trying to silence him. Wow, and here I thought both Christians and conservatives believed in crazy things like free will and people being responsible for their own actions. Your “forced” defense puts you in the ideological company of great philosophical thinkers like the Aussie Rape Mufti, who thinks that men have no choice but to rape women who leave their “meat” uncovered. Bravo. You must be so proud.

The fact is, the three bigots could have protested in other ways that didn’t require stifling somebody else’s speech. They could have walked out or held up signs, or they could have called a press conference afterward or issued a statement to the press voicing their disapproval and disagreement with the practice. Those are just a few of the things they could have done, all of which would have allowed them to exercise their 1st Amendment rights without infringing on anybody else’s. And protesting in one or all of those ways would have had the added benefit of not alienating all the people that see something like that clip and get the impression that all Christians are narrowminded bigots who can’t wait to ram their religion down other people’s throats. I know that isn’t true, not for the vast majority of Christians, but it’s awfully hard to convince people otherwise when you have evidence like this little escapade.

But instead of protesting in one of the ways I suggested, or doing something comparable, the three nimrods chose–no one put a gun to their head and forced them to do anything–to decide that God gave them carte blanche to decide who gets to talk and practice their religion and who doesn’t. And apparently you approve of that, which disappoints me on a lot of levels. Heck, why not just shoot the guy? That’ll not only silence him today, but it’ll remove all risk of any other bigot ever feeling “uncomfortable”. Now wouldn’t that make Jesus happy! Might as well permanently shut up everybody else you disagree with too while you’re at it. Yeah, that’ll win souls for Christ.

We have a 1st Amendment for a reason, and it’s for everybody, not just Christians. But I’d be just as pissed if it was you getting shouted down.

My main beef (there goes that word again) with a Hindu opening the session in prayer has to do with the idea that we were a nation founded under one God. That being the God who started with Abraham and then sent His Son to live among us to teach us first hand how to live.

::insert baby crying here::

wow how could anyone really give that much of a crap about the whole one god thing. go cry some more about how we’ve betrayed our tradition and then maybe you and god can discuss how to take the power back :P

You just dissed a group of people, close to the magnitude of the population of the United States, by mocking what they hold deeply holy.

naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Left field as in that question came out of left field, not as an insult. The fact that you took my two word response and then wrote a page-length diatribe against me speaks more to your compulsion than to my tolerance.

ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 11:19 AM

So your position is that atheists cannot use the laws of logic because they are immaterial? That just looks like a convenient excuse to avoid the question I brought up. Where is the logic involved in believing in a god (and specifically the monotheistic Gods)? Do you admit that those who believe in God don’t have any measurable evidence? Do you admit that believing in something with no evidence is illogical? If not, why not?

I disagree that the Bible is full of holes. I believe there are no internal contradictions found in the Bible.

“Internal contradictions.” Given the fact that the book has been edited so much throughout the years I’d be surprised if there were “internal contradictions.” But are there external contradictions? Certainly. The fact that no person has ever lived to be older than 400 is one, the fact that there was never a flood that covered the Earth is another, the fact that many of the traditional Biblical stories have actually been told before in Sumerian mythology is another. There are many things in the real world that contradict with The Bible but if you can’t see that then I guess I could see why you’d believe in the God of The Bible.

5.) there are facts or data that suggest the need for a theistic world.

Even if I accept that premise why should that deity be omniscient or omnipresent?

7.) one of those facts is the undeniability of the universal, immaterial laws of logic that are a-priori.

Why do you believe a god created the laws of logic? It is even more probable that they are human creations (like the law of contradiction and like God himself) of immaterial concepts in attempts to explain the physical world.

8.) we know that atheism cannot justify or explain 7.)

ColtsFan on July 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM

I think atheists can very well explain why human beings felt it necessary to create the numerous gods we’ve had throughout our history just as well as they can explain why we created the laws of logic. Therefore I don’t think 8.) is a given. Religious people might like to think that only their god is capable of explaining the universe they live in, but I’ve yet to see any facts whatsoever to back up this claim other than the statement “God exists.”

Actually, Nonfactor, I’m speaking of people who actually have a map, rather than those who simply believe they have one.

And how do we know they have a map? How do they know they have a map? It’s convenient to simply say “they have a map,” because it’s similar to saying “X god exists.”

You can argue that it’s a map that leads nowhere, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a map.

The map is in the persons head. He went insane knowing there was no way out and created one to assuage his feelings. That’s what religion does. It’s what we said about the religions of ancient Greece and it’s most likely what we’ll say thousands of years from now about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. This isn’t to say these ideas aren’t artistic or knowledgeable, it’s just to say that they aren’t true.

Atheist would argue that there is no way to get out of the cave, and that we should just sit there and enjoy it rather than working so hard to find a way out that, they believe, does not exist.

Agreed. As an atheist I view the world and the universe not as if I’m trapped in a cave (as it appears the religious people do in your metaphor) but as if I’m a privileged resident of Caveland. The way out of the cave is to travel through space or look through a telescope. There may be other caves out there (other alien civilizations) and I’m not discouraging people from attempting to find them.

But you have no proof that it doesn’t exist.

True. I never said I did. What I said is that there is no proof that a God exists. If we were to obtain proof that some foreign God (not one confined to a religion of this world) existed I’d believe in Him, but that isn’t to say I’d change my way of life pray to him every night. The claim is that “God exists,” I’m rebutting that claim by saying that there is no proof he does. If you want to reasonably make that claim give me some proof.

There’s no harm done if we’re wrong.

Disagreed wholeheartedly. If you cannot see the harm done to humanity due to certain religious practices you’re blind. All because these religions believe their God or gods to be the ultimate true authority.

if we’re right and didn’t at least try to help others, doesn’t that make us monsters?

How do you know you’re right? The Bible has falsities. If you can’t even trust The Bible, the only reason you know about the God you worship, then why should you trust it when it says “God exists” or “The Bible is right” et cetera?

I’m not going to engage in an argument with you about whether or not we’re right.

Esthier on July 13, 2007 at 11:51 AM

How convenient it is to only claim you’re right and then not engage in a discussion that would determine the fact.

I’ll get back to the discussion in a bit, taking a break.

what was it Gandhi said??

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”- Mahatma Gandhi

zane on July 12, 2007 at 2:48 PM

He also said:

The English should surrender to the Nazis and the Jews should commit suicide.

Gandhi himself had remarked (in 1922) that he had “repeatedly said that I would have India become free even by violence rather than that she should remain in bondage.”

Also Hinduism is no better than Islam:

As soon as the oppressive British were gone, however, the Indians–gentle,
tolerant people that they are gave themselves over to an orgy of bloodletting.
Trained troops did not pick off targets at a distance with Enfield rifles.
Blood-crazed Hindus, or Muslims, ran through the streets with knives, beheading
babies, stabbing women, old people.
…
So, for those who
like round numbers, the British killed some 400 seditious colonials at Amritsar
and the name Amritsar lives in infamy, while Indians may have killed some *4
million* of their own countrymen for no other reason than that they were of a
different religious faith…

If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to
offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives and throw themselves
into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was
convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for “ages to come.” If
they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they
would leave a “rich heritage to mankind.”

So, what’s your opinion on Ganesh?
naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Left field.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 1:15 AM

You just dissed a group of people, close to the magnitude of the population of the United States, by mocking what they hold deeply holy. You cannot believe that people would be insulted by what you just said, but entire neighborhoods in India have been torched and rampaged through for just such a dismissive slight against Ganesh or Shiva or Kali. You did not even notice that the protest calls at the Senate did not mock the gods of the Hindus, as you just did, but that the God of the Torah/Bible commanded no other gods before Him.
For the general reader, Nonfactor is so confident of his position, he won’t task a single braincell to educate himself as to what’s out there, even speaking ignorantly on physics – the study of the LAWS of force and motion, blithely calling the universe “chaotic,” to the astonishment of those who working in that highly structured discipline; now throwing around religious slurs with pure ignorance and disinterest – Nonfactor having no concept of the solemnity of deeply held faiths of people who arrange the hours of every single day to incorporate prayers and burnt offerings to their gods. He’d stand in the house of a Buddhist, slack-jawed, watching the man’s wife prepare a morning cooked plate of food for the idol in their shrine in the center of their house, the offering for the idol given BEFORE the people of the house eat their own food, with the stupid, “What the hell are you wasting your time with that?”
World’s worst guest. Pissing off people of every faith from Kalamazoo to Timbouktou.

The phoney constructs of the Left are 1) all religions are the same, so what’s the big deal? 2) all religion is only cheap opiate of the masses. 3) with 1) and 2) falsely established as a “truth,” then any type of religious strife is pointless and mindless so everything would be fixed if there was no religion.

The secular humanists have been no kinder to Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Animists, Jews or Christians, sending millions upon millions upon millions to massacre. ALL religions calling people to spiritual cleanliness, awareness of the spiritual realm, leading people to think beyond the here and now are a threat to the secular government state, and must be eliminated so that the State is god.
The Dems invited a very nice and earnest and probably unsuspecting man to a solemn US Government official occasion, for the opening prayer. UP-ENDING over 200 years of solemn and beloved TRADITION … WITHOUT having the respect for established tradition NOR the COURTESY to CONSULT the AMERICAN PEOPLE who consider the Capitol as THEIR property and with NO REGARD for the considerations of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Right on cue, as anticipated by the Democrats, an American citizen protested.
Why is it the American citizen’s fault? Why is the American citizen being thought of as boorish and rude? It was the majority Democrats who forced it, it’s the Democrats who were the ones being boorish, rude and inconsiderate, 1) using an unsuspecting guest as the trigger, making him feel uncomfortable 2) slapping the American People across the face and then sneering at them for being surprised, then irate.
THe Hindus Parlimentarian in secular India would think twice about pulling such a stunt. Hindu rioting keeps them in check. The Dems gamble, and smirk, knowing Christians are restrained by faith NOT to encourage mob justice.

So before questioning the logic of atheists or moral relativists question the logic of the religious. Where is the logic in believing in something that has been proven false (The Bible) and something that hasn’t been proven to exist (God)? The answer: there isn’t any; that’s why it’s called faith.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

First, I am not personally questioning the logic of atheists. I have learned much from many different folks. So my case or argument is not directed personally at atheists, but rather at their philosophical system, which cannot account for the universal, immaterial laws of logic.

Atheists in fact do use logic. The problem is that their worldview cannot account for (both metaphysically and epistemologically) their usage and application of logic.

I do not see internal contradictions present in the Bible. If there was one, then all of us need to reject the Bible, and move on. But the Bible does not contain contradictions. It contains propositions and truth.

By the way, all of us thinkers have “faith.” All of us thinkers believe in the following, yet there is no “proof” for them in the history of philosophy:

***existence of mind-independent reality
***existence of other minds (subject-object problem)
***Hume’s problem of a Self or Person. Note: this Humean problem is often directed at theists who believe in a dualistic (Mind-Body) constitution of a human. But this is just as much, if not more a serious problem, for atheists who embrace a Materialistc conception of personhood.
***arguments for Solipsism are wrong.

Again, the above is just a quick summary of enduring problems in philosophy that lack “knock-down, hard, conclusive, apodictic certainty type of proof.” But yet, on a practical level, all of us, including atheists and skeptics, use “faith” every single day.

My point is simply:

it is unfair to restrict the use of “faith” to Christians. After all, atheists use “faith” a lot more often than Christians.

The real question is,

“is it a rational faith or an illogical faith?”

Atheism, as a system, can be compared to a man writing checks on an empty bank account. The man does write checks, (”logic”), the problem is his system cannot account for his usage of checks.

I have suggested in the past that the Book of Hebrews and the Gospel of John point toward Jesus Christ as the Epistemological Logos who provides knowledge to mankind out of His sheer grace alone.

Knowledge to fallen mankind is a gift of God.

Can someone explain to me why a secular legislative body like the U.S. Senate opens with any kind of prayer?
Enrique on July 12, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Because the country as founded was not secular in the ACLU meaning. The very first act of the very first session of the very first Continental Congress was a debate to choose a minister to lead them in prayer. The prayer was very long and well received by all. See the Library of Congress

Congress endorsed an American translation of the Bible. Even President Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to appropriate money to purchase New Testaments to be distributed to the Indians so they might understand the principles upon which our nation was founded. Congress approved that purchase.

Here is a wonderful description of that first prayer by John Adams. George Washington among others knelt during the prayer. When the prayer ended there was a ‘profound silence’. Then a man stepped forth to give a speech that ‘electrified the house’. Thus the representatives were introduced to Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was one of many who insisted that America was first and foremost a Christian nation.

There has been a huge redefinition of America led by the media and the schools. The same game has been played with gun ownership. The straw man is hunting, as in ‘ who needs an automatic to hunt deer?’. The question creates the redefinition.

I like the Bible quote ‘By their fruits ye will know them’. Do not listen to the opinions of what America is. Read the actual history, the facts, the letters, the speeches. America the Real has not been erased, only hidden

Why do you blame god for the choices of man? Are you saying that god is evil because he allows you to choose?

Guardian on July 13, 2007 at 2:33 AM

No, I’m saying that God can be considered evil because he allows bad things to happen to innocent people. My argument above was that under a polytheistic model, there are several Gods, not one, and all of them have limits to their power. Under the monotheistic model, there is only one omnipotent God, who gives man free will, but does nothing to protect those who are at the receiving end when man exercises that free will for evil.

I recognize the 2 schools of thought in monotheism – Christianity, where ‘God’ grants everybody free will, vs Islam, where ‘Allah’ micro-manages everything. I’m not suggesting that ‘God’ is evil for giving man free will, but I do think that if monotheism was true and God allowed bad things to happen to innocent people because of the manner in which man exercised free will, then such a God is ‘evil’ for having the power and yet not intervening. It would be like a driver on a freeway witnessing an accident and doing nothing to help the injured party.

While Atheism denies the existence of a God in the first place, Polytheism allows for the possibility that despite being the creators, there are limits to the power of all Gods. I tend to go with Polytheism, since Atheism would require me to believe that everything in the world is a structured combination of elements, put together over time at random, with no creator behind it all.

… sorry guys, I’m not trying to make thareb look intolerant; but I will admit to helping him make himself look this way.

gekkobear on July 13, 2007 at 12:21 PM

He didn’t really need any help, but you did a good job. I liked this one:

Interesting. So, for a Muslim, from their beliefs, attempting to violently convert or destroy the non-Muslim world is appropriate and understandable (at least from your viewpoint).

But when referring to moral truths I disagree. Something can be both “good” and “bad” at the same time depending on who you ask.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

We all agree that different thinkers possess different moral perspectives. But that descriptive fact is separate and independent of the different claim of moral relativism, which attempts to pass off “relativism” as a normative feature of moral discourse.

There are too many problems with moral relativism. If you want to discuss it further, we can.

If you, as a Christian, don’t understand just how detrimental honoring false Gods in our governmental system can be, maybe you need to peruse the O.T. a little and see how much the nation of Israel was affected by those kinds of practices.

Interesting. So, for a Muslim, from their beliefs, attempting to violently convert or destroy the non-Muslim world is appropriate and understandable (at least from your viewpoint).

Since it is appropriate to break laws and violate the right of others over “false gods” surely you understand why some Muslim believe that blowing up those they disagree with is also appropriate, right?

Note, these actions are not equivalent, but are a matter of scale. If you can’t be relied upon to follow the law and act in a reasonable manner; then perhaps society would be better off with you spending time in a cell.

As Christians we are never surprised by those that attack us.

And oddly, those who aren’t Christians aren’t too surprised when you attack them. Especially when you’re in full-on “martyr mode”. A Christian is never as dangerous as when they’re breaking the law, infringing in the rights of others, and claiming to be a victim all at the same time. Oddly, breaking the law, infringing on the rigths of others, and hypocrtically claiming to be a victim while doing this tends to ensure some form of “attack” allowing the martyr complex to continue. Convenient strategy.

They aren’t “Tolerant”, they aren’t “Open Minded”, they aren’t “Peace Loving”. They are good old fashioned cowards who are afraid to defend their faith in the arena of ideas.

thareb on July 12, 2007 at 10:21 PM

Well, if I want an opinion on tolerance, open mindedness, and peace loving viewpoints I’ll certainly hunt down the first closed-minded bigoted person I can find who approves of violating the law to promote their religion.

Actually, here you are thareb. What sort of experience do you have with tolerance, open-mindedness, or peace?

You don’t believe theirs was the best plan, but are comfortable with stating:

God bless the individuals who had the cojones to do that in the Senate today.

thareb on July 12, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Interesting viewpoints. So, when you are intolerantly shouting down your opposition to truly enforce your (and only your) religion having any sway in America; do you realize that you’re attempting to ensure and enforce a system of Government that is the problem with most of the world?

No, of course you don’t. Because America isn’t great for it’s freedoms; it’s great because of a religious viewpoint. Heck, even if we were conquered by a dictator, Jesus would make us free. Whereas even if another country had our freedoms without a Christian background, they wouldn’t be as good.

Why? I dunno… thareb said so? Socialism can’t hurt the U.S. economy while Jesus is enforced… I guess. I’m not sure thareb’s closed-minded viewpoints, bigotry, intolerance, and sociopathic rants don’t really lend to having their underlying logical precepts observed.

Thareb, any idea on why the Jews (who follow the same God as you, albeit not in the same way) seem to have more problems with the world than those who don’t even follow the “correct” God? Since Government structure, is entirely a product of religion; you can explain the prosperity and peace of Japan since WW2 from their belief structure? Perhaps you can explain the peace and freedoms of the island nations in the Pacific (before the coming of the Christians of course, which destroyed that peace).

Oh… maybe Government isn’t a product of religion? Seeing as I have a counter-example that is valid, reasonable and doesn’t match your “only Jesus allows and brings freedom” theory. For my second trick… “Hong Kong”… very free, good economy, nice place to live; not Christian.

Freedom isn’t due solely to Jesus, or Jesus likes people in Hong Kong and Japan for reasons you have yet to explain…

… sorry guys, I’m not trying to make thareb look intolerant; but I will admit to helping him make himself look this way.

By atheism do you mean moral relativism/subjectivism? I know the law of contradiction is often used as a tool to prove absolute truths (and in this case absolute moral truths–because atheists can believe in absolute truths, i.e. the corners of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees), but the law of contradiction cannot be proven to be true nor proven to be false. In a sense it’s like a god. But when referring to moral truths I disagree. Something can be both “good” and “bad” at the same time depending on who you ask.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

You write, “by atheism do you mean moral relativism/subjectivism?”

No. I am not equating atheism with the identification of moral relativism or subjectivism. By atheism, I am referring to the classical definition of “a person who disbelieves in the existence of God.”

Atheism is a topic in philosophy of religion. Atheism should never be defined strictly as moral relativism.

However, it is true that many almost all
thinkers believe that atheism entails the negative consequences of moral relativism in the field of ethics or subjectivism in the field of epistemology. But this is very different from defining at the very beginning “as atheism IS moral relativism.”

Let me backtrack for a second. I know several atheists who, while accepting the view that atheism entails the ***negative consequences of moral relativism***, nonetheless disbelieve that atheism entails the negative consequence of subjectivism.

As a theist, I am kinda inclined to think they are right. But then again, the disquieting voice of Nietzsche’s “perspectivism” rings loud and clear right now.

25.) You write, “because atheists can believe in absolute truths, i.e. the corners of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees.”

My response is: if you rationally believe 25.), then you have also believed, by necessity, in the mind-independent existence of abstract entities, propositions, etc. The next question is: can your worldview of atheism account for 25.?

I am not denying atheists use logic. I am only saying that atheism, as a worldview, ***when consistently applied***, cannot account for their usage and practice of the laws of logic. Thus, atheism fails as a worldview. Atheism, (not the people, but the worldview) can be compared to a man writing checks on an empty bank checking account. The man is using checks (”logic”), but he cannot ***account*** for his usage of the checks because the checks bounce every single time when they come due.

You write, “but the law of contradiction cannot be proven to be true nor proven to be false.”

You are absolutely correct!! Very good point.

I think myself and Norman Geisler in his book (CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS ISBN: 0-8010-3822-7) agrees that the universal law of non-contradiction is **undeniably true**, though it cannot be proved to be true because the law of non-contradiction must be “used” in order to disprove or to prove something.

The law of non-contradiction is an axiom of thought. It is a First Principle, a First Presupposition upon which reality is founded upon. It is a fundamental non-natural feature of thought. It reflects logical necessity, and this law must be true if words, language, science, ethics, or whatever are meaningful.

Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Actually, I never said that. I only said it would be worth looking at, not believing in. Those are two different things.

I’m not dismissing the idea of a god, but I’m not going to believe in something because an old purported holy book says He exists when that very “holy book” has been shown to be wrong in many of it’s other claims.

Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

And no one should place their faith in a book, a person, or a religion. That’s stupid.

Context aside, the result will be the same. When God’s people turn away from Him, the shit hits the fan.
infidel4life on July 12, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Sure, God’s people, but America is just a country, not God’s people. THAT’S the distinction.

Nonfactor on July 12, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Actually, Nonfactor, I’m speaking of people who actually have a map, rather than those who simply believe they have one.

You can argue that it’s a map that leads nowhere, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a map.

Atheist would argue that there is no way to get out of the cave, and that we should just sit there and enjoy it rather than working so hard to find a way out that, they believe, does not exist.

But you have no proof that it doesn’t exist.

Of course we have no proof that it does exist, but so what. There’s no harm done if we’re wrong.

Besides, in all your condescension, you completely forgot to answer my question.

Again, if you’re right, no harm, no foul, but if we’re right and didn’t at least try to help others, doesn’t that make us monsters?

I’m not going to engage in an argument with you about whether or not we’re right. I honestly don’t care about your opinion on that just as you don’t care about my opinion on that. It’s irrelevant here and completely pointless, leading to nothing but the all too famous atheist arrogance that I am just not interested in reading.

Again, if you’re right, no one cares. All it does is turn the Bible into a book full of very entertaining stories that provide good advice for people to live their lives by if they so choose. Wow. Big freakin’ deal.

And sure, religions in general can easily turn people into sheep (though dogma of any type, even the nonreligious type, can do the same exact thing), but that’s bad no matter what. That’s bad even if Christians are right.

See, you don’t have to prove that God doesn’t exist to prove that “group think” is bad. It’s bad either way.

I’m not dismissing the idea of a god, but I’m not going to believe in something because an old purported holy book says He exists when that very “holy book” has been shown to be wrong in many of it’s other claims.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

By the way, thank you for taking the time and going into some detail concerning your position.

A very rough outline of my position can be viewed here.

I agree with you on some points you made in your above quote.

If the Bible is full of holes or contain contradictions, then the Bible’s credibility is shot and lacking, and everyone needs to move on.

I disagree that the Bible is full of holes. I believe there are no internal contradictions found in the Bible. I have found the following books helpful for providing a rough sketch on how to answer some popular questions:

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE DIFFICULTIES, by Gleason L. Archer, ISBN: 0-310-43570-6

HARD SAYINGS OF THE BIBLE, by Walter C. Kaiser, ISBN: 0-8308-1423-X

My position is this:

5.) there are facts or data that suggest the need for a theistic world.
10.) given 5.) what worldview best makes sense of the data or facts?

I am not arguing:

a.) One should believe in the Bible.
b.) The reason for a.) is because a verse in the Bible told me so.
c.) Conclusion: therefore, the conjunction of a.) and b.) leads to a defense of Biblical infallibility.

I am not arguing in the above form at all.

Rather, I am presenting a case for:

5.) there are facts or data that suggest we live in a theistic world.
7.) one of those facts is the undeniability of the universal, immaterial laws of logic that are a-priori.
8.) we know that atheism cannot justify or explain 7.)
10.) given 8.) what worldview best makes sense of the data or facts?

But who decides what interpretation is correct? It’s slight variances in religion (specifically Christianity) that form more and more churches all claiming to be the true Christian religion. This leads to my other argument against churches taking good ideas and incorporating them.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

My position is that Christian churches that practice and apply the Biblical model of expository, Christ-honoring, Biblical preaching avoid the sad tendency towards “group-think” psychology.

And to be honest with you, I have also seen some group think prevalent in atheist/agnostic/skeptics circles that I have been to in the past.

You ask, “which interpretation is correct?”

That is a complex postmodern question that I think James F. Harris does a decent job in explaining clearly in his book on epistemology called: AGAINST RELATIVISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL DEFENSE OF METHOD (ISBN: 0-8126-9202-0).

My short answer: as thinkers, we should reject the excesses of postmodernity, while being open to some of its benefits. It is a struggle to wade through the murky waters, but all forms of subjectivism and relativism must be quickly abandoned. I guess that makes me (on epistemological terms) a **particularist**. But a particularist does grant that we as thinkers do have items of knowledge of our world, and then moves forward to ask, “how does one account for these?”

Yes in the sense that I don’t believe in a god. Why don’t I believe in a god? Simply because there is no proof. Could a god/spirit/moral standard exist in this universe? Possibly, but I’m not going to believe in it sans evidence. I don’t think atheism denies logic, I think it embraces it. It is logical to view the world and the universe we live in and determine that even if a god/spirit/moral standard did exist the chances of it aligning itself to the exact specifications of the religions of this world are near impossible. I am defining logic and reason in a scientific way where evidence and observation are used and I can see why you may think atheism illogical if you define it in a different way.
Nonfactor on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 AM

I appreciate your desire in wanting to base everything on evidence.

My definition of logic is the same as used in standard analytic philosophy. For clarity, we could use “logic” as a word to refer to “the law of non-contradiction”, “in that A cannot be NOT-A at the same time and in the same place.”

Yes, I am wholeheartedly a fan of observation and evidence. But the nature of logic is **a priori**, in that the structure and ontology of logic is outside of what is often called “science.”

Logic can never be reduced to science, for the same reason that logic can never be reduced to language or psychology. Logic can never be reduced to biology or to evolutionary epistemology or whatever. Logic is a-priori.

My position is not: “atheists are bad illogical people.”

I read Nietzsche all the time. My position is: “while atheists may use logic, they cannot account for their usage and practice of logic, because their worldview prohibits referencing to that which is non-natural.”

Logic is non-natural, therefore atheists do not have a worldview that explains or is able to make reference for the everyday practice and usage of the immaterial laws of logic. Since atheism is a form of Naturalism, atheists do not have the philosophical tools nor the philosophical furniture to explain or make reference for their usage of the immaterial laws of logic.

Atheists themselves may believe in logic, unfortunately, their worldview, ***consistently applied*** prevents them from being able to make reference or justify their usage of the immaterial laws of logic.