Objective morality

[LuftWaffle]

On 10/13/2017 at 3:44 PM, Bonky said:

I don't want to live in an echo chamber. 

Hi Bonky,

I totally agree with that sentiment. I want to know what the truth is even though I may not like it. 

Quote

I guess the atheist community is just as diverse as every other.   I happen to occasionally listen to the atheist experience on youtube, there are atheists on there that are mild and looking to help and then there are atheists that are less patient and more combative. 

Definitely. My statements were a little tongue in cheek in my previous post, but there are many atheists that I have a great deal of respect for, and in parallel there are a lot of Christians that I can't bring myself to respect. I heard somebody say that a problem with culture nowadays is that people lost the skill to disagree without seeing the other side as evil, or malicious. I am very guilty of this myself. 

By the way, do you subscribe to the "Unbelievable?" podcast? I think you might like it. It has a lot of debates about various topics and the guests are usually very knowledgable.

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable

Quote

I think this forum does an excellent job balancing things.  Some forums are very strict for non believers and some forums are so open that jerk atheists flood the place.  

Yes, I see that too. This is the only forum where I can discuss my beliefs about hell without being relegated to a restricted section, even though beliefs about the afterlife isn't a central Christian issue.

Quote

I'm going to try to read up on free will, but I have a feeling it's going to be dry for me 

Oh, it is pretty dry as are most fields of philosophy. Philosophy or religion and ethics are interesting, but much of the rest is a pretty effective cure for insomnia. It's because every field of philosophy is a tree of -isms. People disagree about something and you have two camps. Then each camp disagrees about some aspect of their school, and slice the idea into separate concepts and gives it an "-ism". Each subset then argues and runs thought experiments which causes a lower order disagreement and more -isms.  And the deeper you go the more -isms you have to keep track of and in many cases, the further one gets away from common sense. I love philosophy I really do, but I keep to keep within the common-sense zone as far as possible. This is why you'll never see me run the ontological argument for God. While it's clever, I don't think it's common sense. 

Anyway, since we're taking a break from ethics and so on, mind if I ask you something: I've noticed you mentioning prosperity teaching a few times in these discussions. What are you views on this, do you think the bible teaches it? Is it part of what led you away from Christianity? What do you think about churches that teach it? I'm not trying to evangelise you or trick you, I just want to know how you see it.

Edited October 17, 2017 by LuftWaffle

[Bonky]

14 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Anyway, since we're taking a break from ethics and so on, mind if I ask you something: I've noticed you mentioning prosperity teaching a few times in these discussions. What are you views on this, do you think the bible teaches it? Is it part of what led you away from Christianity? What do you think about churches that teach it? I'm not trying to evangelise you or trick you, I just want to know how you see it.

Prosperity teachings?  To me that sounds like the idea that if people look for wealth or material "fruit" from their prayers etc.   I don't know much about it.  I was raised in the Baptist church so I wasn't familiar with that.  We were taught to pray for people, not pray for things.

I slowly left the faith when I was around 30 [I'm 45 now].  It wasn't evolution or atheist arguments, it was just the idea that I didn't have tangible personal reasons why I believed, it was just what I was taught to believe.  I didn't feel like reality reflected what was taught in the Bible in many places.  It was a slow process and I prayed about it.   I didn't really feel/detect any answer and that fed my thought that maybe, this is just a belief that was handed down to me.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Bonky

[LuftWaffle]

On 10/18/2017 at 3:00 AM, Bonky said:

Prosperity teachings?  To me that sounds like the idea that if people look for wealth or material "fruit" from their prayers etc. 

Yeah, this idea is prevalent in many so-called megachurches, where God supposedly wants everybody to have nice houses and loads of money and all that is needed is that one tithe 10% of one's salary. Of course those who do not get the promised riches are told that there is something wrong with their faith or something to that effect. It's basically a giant scam and it isn't taught in scripture at all.

Quote

We were taught to pray for people, not pray for things.

Well put. 

The reason I asked about the prosperity stuff was only because you mentioned once or twice, and I thought that maybe you or someone you knew had a bad experience with this.

Quote

I slowly left the faith when I was around 30 [I'm 45 now].  It wasn't evolution or atheist arguments, it was just the idea that I didn't have tangible personal reasons why I believed, it was just what I was taught to believe. 

What do you mean by tangible personal reasons? Are you talking about the personal experience, like a road to Damascus scenario where God reveals Himself to you in a clear and undeniable way?

Quote

I didn't feel like reality reflected what was taught in the Bible in many places.  It was a slow process and I prayed about it.   I didn't really feel/detect any answer and that fed my thought that maybe, this is just a belief that was handed down to me.

I think this is really the most difficult issue to deal with, the hiddenness of God. I think this is where a lot of people lose their faith: they're in an existential crisis, or a crisis of faith and they really just need some kind of signal from God, and what they get is....silence. This is something that we all struggle with at times. C.S Lewis talked about a law of undulation, where sometimes one can feel close to God and other times one can feel like a fool, clinging to a fairy tale. It seems part an parcel of life.

Do you miss Christianity at all? I guess what I'm asking is whether atheism is fulfilling? Sure, if it's true then whether it fulfills or not is irrelevant, but is does seem rather dreary and bleak...almost conspicuously dreary and bleak. Many atheists now join "churches", in England for instance there's a "Sunday assembly", where they go to meditate and sing Elton John songs. 

Is there a part of human nature that longs for meaning and transcendence? I think that tiny blip of the desire for meaning is sometimes the only signal we get, like CS Lewis said, "where there is a hunger, there must be something to fulfill that hunger". I can't help but think that our very need to meaning and transcendence is at least a small piece of evidence that there is something out there to satisfy that need.
 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by LuftWaffle

[enoob57]

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:00 PM, Bonky said:

Prosperity teachings?  To me that sounds like the idea that if people look for wealth or material "fruit" from their prayers etc.   I don't know much about it.  I was raised in the Baptist church so I wasn't familiar with that.  We were taught to pray for people, not pray for things.

I slowly left the faith when I was around 30 [I'm 45 now].  It wasn't evolution or atheist arguments, it was just the idea that I didn't have tangible personal reasons why I believed, it was just what I was taught to believe.  I didn't feel like reality reflected what was taught in the Bible in many places.  It was a slow process and I prayed about it.   I didn't really feel/detect any answer and that fed my thought that maybe, this is just a belief that was handed down to me.

I wanted to comment on this bonky:
If you have analyzed what the Scriptures really teaches then you would know that from where you are right now 'as unbeliever' you have no resource within yourself to find God... it is all external in the work here at Worthy and The Word and the creative format of existence itself. That is why God refers to your state as lost because you look for Him where satan knows you'll never find Him... it isn't till you come to the reality outside of yourself by the creative evidence around you that He must be ... then and only then can you begin to search for Him properly where He can be found and it is everything that you are currently not >but< could be if only this

Matthew 5:1 (KJV)

[5:1] And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

[2] And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

[3] Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[4] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

[5] Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

[6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

[7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

[8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

[9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

[10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

[12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

[13] Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

as you can see in this list all that are blessed are dead to self and alive to God and others; a concept of commitment where all of what we began in is put aside so that what God speaks of in His Word can be the motive to which life is... to live such here is suffering but the enemy Lucifer has had much time to influence such to be so...
Love, Steven

 

 

[Bonky]

8 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

What do you mean by tangible personal reasons? Are you talking about the personal experience, like a road to Damascus scenario where God reveals Himself to you in a clear and undeniable way?

I guess something that would tip me off that I'm not delusional.  No need for fireworks, but somehow affirmation that I'm not just just buying into fiction.

9 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

What do you mean by tangible personal reasons? Are you talking about the personal experience, like a road to Damascus scenario where God reveals Himself to you in a clear and undeniable way?

I think it was that I realized that I had no solid reason to believe what I was reading.  I don't know if I became a skeptic or if I always was but suppressed it.  All I know is that I was taught that the Bible was 100% truth from kindergarten on up.  

I remember wondering one time when I was in my early 20's, if what I believed was really true.  I was talking to a good friend of mine who was studying to be a pastor.  His dad was a pastor in the area.  I was trying to express that I had this thought that, what if I'm wrong.  I started off my sentence with something like "Did you ever look at opposing arguments and think....."  He finished my sentence and said something like "...You just know you're right."

I smiled and nodded, because I was too afraid to reveal that I was thinking the opposite.  

9 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Do you miss Christianity at all? I guess what I'm asking is whether atheism is fulfilling? Sure, if it's true then whether it fulfills or not is irrelevant, but is does seem rather dreary and bleak...almost conspicuously dreary and bleak. Many atheists now join "churches", in England for instance there's a "Sunday assembly", where they go to meditate and sing Elton John songs. 

LOL Elton John songs.  I tried the UU church after I became agnostic.  I actually loved it, I was dating a girl that lived near Penn State so I went to the UU church up there [she went there].  I got to see these brilliant well educated folks talk about their concerns, they voiced their values and beliefs.  Everyone was welcome, I truly enjoyed that time.  I just couldn't keep up with it I guess, besides we eventually broke up lol.

I can understand the thought of wanting to embrace the creator of our Universe.  I just never had a good reason to believe that is the case.  

I have mixed feelings about church.  I certainly enjoyed going at times, but there were things that occasionally bothered me.  For instance I remember my nephews wife couldn't get pregnant.  Word got out that my sister speculated that it was sin in her life that was robbing her of bearing a child.  That really hurt her feelings, but the sad thing is that there is biblical support for that thought process.  

9 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Is there a part of human nature that longs for meaning and transcendence? I think that tiny blip of the desire for meaning is sometimes the only signal we get, like CS Lewis said, "where there is a hunger, there must be something to fulfill that hunger". I can't help but think that our very need to meaning and transcendence is at least a small piece of evidence that there is something out there to satisfy that need.

I agree that's why I don't shut myself off from the possibility that God is out there and wanting some kind of relationship.  I just feel like I tried to hard and I guess my skeptical impulses started to get the better of me.   I started considering secular arguments and while not all of them impress me, some of them make more sense to me than what religion offers.  

[LuftWaffle]

On 10/20/2017 at 6:27 PM, Bonky said:

I guess something that would tip me off that I'm not delusional.  No need for fireworks, but somehow affirmation that I'm not just just buying into fiction.

To a psychopath the concept of empathy may seem like a delusion. Or to a colour-blind person, being told that something is green or red may seem like others are deluded. What evidence are such people given beyond the mundane tools of logic, reason and experience? Wouldn't you say that given your life experience and the arguments presented in this thread that believing there is such a thing as right or wrong is a mere delusion? It is delusional to think that cause and effect applies to the cosmos, such that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? 

I don't want to rehash all the arguments, but given what you've learnt here over the years, that it's possible to be a Christian and still be rational, thoughtful and of relatively sound. But I still can't help but think that your problem isn't with evidence. You accepted compatibilism because it's convenient to do so without even really investigating it. You admitted that the subject is new to you and yet you accepted it, just because you thought it would help you avoid the consequences of determinism. Isn't believing something just because it's convenient far worse than a Christian who at least knows why he believes what he believes?

As an atheist you must believe some pretty fanciful things yourself such as:

that there is no objective right or wrong,

that we are responsible for our actions even though our actions are determined by forces outside our control,

that universes can come into being from nothing,

that there is a multiverse that happens to spew out universes that are sufficiently random in nature to make a universe like ours a matter of statistical inevitability.

that science and observation are the only ways to find truth.

As such I think philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a point when he says that theism appears superficially to contradict reality but at it's core is compatible with reality, whereas naturalism appears superficially compatible with reality, but at its core, contradicts it. 

I mean, the problem you claim to have is that you can't see God, but the bigger problem with your view is that it can't see right, wrong, meaning, purpose, responsibility, and it needs to violate the laws of science to explain, the cosmos, why the world is the way it is, human origins etc. You could claim that you just don't know what the answers are because they haven't been discovered yet, but that's a tacit admission that when it comes to observable evidence, Plantinga is correct.

Quote

I was talking to a good friend of mine who was studying to be a pastor.  His dad was a pastor in the area.  I was trying to express that I had this thought that, what if I'm wrong.  I started off my sentence with something like "Did you ever look at opposing arguments and think....."  He finished my sentence and said something like "...You just know you're right."

If you know anything about me is that I'm very much opposed to the anti-intellectualism that you find in Christianity. If your friend had done his Christian duty to address the questions of the human intellect as well as to deal with the issues of the human heart, then perhaps you would not have become so disillusioned. It makes me very angry when people honest questions get dismissed with this kind of pious-sounding mysticism.

Fortunately many churches are abandoning this romanticism and realising that Christianity needn't be sheltered from scrutiny but that it can stand its ground in the marketplace of ideas. 

Quote

LOL Elton John songs.  I tried the UU church after I became agnostic.  I actually loved it, I was dating a girl that lived near Penn State so I went to the UU church up there [she went there].  I got to see these brilliant well educated folks talk about their concerns, they voiced their values and beliefs.  Everyone was welcome, I truly enjoyed that time.  I just couldn't keep up with it I guess, besides we eventually broke up lol.

I think a lot of atheists are brilliant, indeed. Sadly I find the popular atheists like Dawkins, Lauwrence Krauss and Hitchens aren't anywhere near as smart as some thoughtful atheist bloggers. 

Quote

For instance I remember my nephews wife couldn't get pregnant.  Word got out that my sister speculated that it was sin in her life that was robbing her of bearing a child.  That really hurt her feelings, but the sad thing is that there is biblical support for that thought process.

There is biblical support for blaming a person's misfortune on sin? Heck, no. Abraham's wife Sarah must have been a great sinner indeed. 

We all have horror stories about church, because church is made of people and people are messed up, unfortunately.

Quote

I agree that's why I don't shut myself off from the possibility that God is out there and wanting some kind of relationship.  I just feel like I tried to hard and I guess my skeptical impulses started to get the better of me.

I don't think there is anything wrong with scepticism per sé. As long as it's applied consistently. I find many atheists aren't though. They're hyper-sceptical when it comes to claims that might favour Christianity and they believe any nonsense they find on the internet that is against Christianity. Christians are by no means immune to this confirmation bias, either, but Christians do not pride themselves on their scepticism and rationalism as atheists do.

Quote

I started considering secular arguments and while not all of them impress me, some of them make more sense to me than what religion offers.

Are you talking about positive arguments for secularism, or just arguments attempting to undercut or refuse theistic arguments? I have seen very few argument in favour of atheism other than the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil, and neither of those are considered compelling nowadays even among thoughtful atheists.

Edited October 25, 2017 by LuftWaffle

[Bonky]

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

To a psychopath the concept of empathy may seem like a delusion. Or to a colour-blind person, being told that something is green or red may seem like others are deluded. What evidence are such people given beyond the mundane tools of logic, reason and experience? Wouldn't you say that given your life experience and the arguments presented in this thread that believing there is such a thing as right or wrong is a mere delusion? It is delusional to think that cause and effect applies to the cosmos, such that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? 

Look at your examples of what some people think are delusions...one of them includes a psychopath.  I would think our discussion of morality should focus on the NORM not the brain damaged or similar.   

I have no issue with the idea that the  Universe has a cause, I have an issue with proclamations that the cause is a personal God who wants to have a personal relationship with us etc etc.  It goes deeper than that but what I'm saying is that a deist and I don't have much to argue over.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

I don't want to rehash all the arguments, but given what you've learnt here over the years, that it's possible to be a Christian and still be rational, thoughtful and of relatively sound. But I still can't help but think that your problem isn't with evidence. You accepted compatibilism because it's convenient to do so without even really investigating it. You admitted that the subject is new to you and yet you accepted it, just because you thought it would help you avoid the consequences of determinism. Isn't believing something just because it's convenient far worse than a Christian who at least knows why he believes what he believes?

I admitted up front that I didn't know much or enough about the topic specifically to temper my statements about free will.  I never said that I was rock solid with these terms or even their implications.  So I don't think it's fair to ding me on something I admitted I wasn't comfortable [knowledge wise] with yet.  I don't view Christians as inherently irrational or thoughtless.   

I will admit that many many times their explanations for WHY they believe what they believe are anticlimactic, or unimpressive I guess.   I don't think I'm being particularly harsh in my criticism either.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

As an atheist you must believe some pretty fanciful things yourself such as:

that there is no objective right or wrong,

that we are responsible for our actions even though our actions are determined by forces outside our control,

that universes can come into being from nothing,

that there is a multiverse that happens to spew out universes that are sufficiently random in nature to make a universe like ours a matter of statistical inevitability.

that science and observation are the only ways to find truth.

As such I think philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a point when he says that theism appears superficially to contradict reality but at it's core is compatible with reality, whereas naturalism appears superficially compatible with reality, but at its core, contradicts it. 

I mean, the problem you claim to have is that you can't see God, but the bigger problem with your view is that it can't see right, wrong, meaning, purpose, responsibility, and it needs to violate the laws of science to explain, the cosmos, why the world is the way it is, human origins etc. You could claim that you just don't know what the answers are because they haven't been discovered yet, but that's a tacit admission that when it comes to observable evidence, Plantinga is correct.

A number of the things you've put in here are not views that I espouse so you seem to be speaking to a group of people.  I don't understand the point of that. 

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

If you know anything about me is that I'm very much opposed to the anti-intellectualism that you find in Christianity. If your friend had done his Christian duty to address the questions of the human intellect as well as to deal with the issues of the human heart, then perhaps you would not have become so disillusioned. It makes me very angry when people honest questions get dismissed with this kind of pious-sounding mysticism.

Fortunately many churches are abandoning this romanticism and realising that Christianity needn't be sheltered from scrutiny but that it can stand its ground in the marketplace of ideas. 

It wasn't something that led me away from the faith, I'm sure he was just responding with what he was really thinking.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

I think a lot of atheists are brilliant, indeed. Sadly I find the popular atheists like Dawkins, Lauwrence Krauss and Hitchens aren't anywhere near as smart as some thoughtful atheist bloggers. 

I actually loved Hitchens but he debated with a cocky and snarky demeanor, but that was just who he was.  I didn't always see things the way Hitchens did but I always found him entertaining I guess.  Krauss is similar, I find him entertaining but he wouldn't be my first pick to debate a top tier opponent.  I think that's a side gig for him not a focus.  I listen to Sam Harris once in a while.  He's not as openly arrogant but I feel like he's fair in his approach to topics.

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

There is biblical support for blaming a person's misfortune on sin? Heck, no. Abraham's wife Sarah must have been a great sinner indeed. 

We all have horror stories about church, because church is made of people and people are messed up, unfortunately.

I won't say it was all the time but the common theme I heard through the years was that misfortune could be a time to reflect whether you were right with God.  Surely the Bible supports the idea of punishment and why couldn't barrenness be included?  My overall memory of church was that it was ok.  I guess I look at it now as an American cultural tradition that I took part of for a while. 

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with scepticism per sé. As long as it's applied consistently. I find many atheists aren't though. They're hyper-sceptical when it comes to claims that might favour Christianity and they believe any nonsense they find on the internet that is against Christianity. Christians are by no means immune to this confirmation bias, either, but Christians do not pride themselves on their scepticism and rationalism as atheists do.

That's honestly something that makes it hard for me to understand and embrace most religious worldviews.  I think there is a lot being asked of the reader to take things on faith.  Inevitably the blame goes to the skeptic because they should have ultimately known better.   Surely we don't treat each other this way in day to day life, we're usually happy to show other people "our work" so that they can see where we're coming from.  In religion it seems to often be viewed [skepticism] as an attack or rebellious action.  

On 10/25/2017 at 3:24 AM, LuftWaffle said:

Are you talking about positive arguments for secularism, or just arguments attempting to undercut or refuse theistic arguments? I have seen very few argument in favour of atheism other than the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil, and neither of those are considered compelling nowadays even among thoughtful atheists.

I would say counter arguments to theistic claims.  I am also going with my own personal experience that I really don't have a good reason to believe that the supernatural world really exists.  Or even if it did, to what extent.  I honestly thought that my departure from Christianity was going to be temporary.  I figured something would happen to draw me back but that never happened.   If I were to ever go back, it would need to be after I have a reason or reasons why I actually believed, not just doing it because that's what my culture was hip on.

 

[LuftWaffle]

On 10/31/2017 at 8:29 PM, Bonky said:

Look at your examples of what some people think are delusions...one of them includes a psychopath.  I would think our discussion of morality should focus on the NORM not the brain damaged or similar. 

Hi Bonky,

I wasn't talking about our discussion on ethics but was referring to you statement about getting a clue that you're not delusional. Being deluded is a psychological state, isn't it?
My point wasn't to liken you to a psychopath or even to refer to you as damaged in some way. It was simply an comment on the sorts of evidence that someone like that has at their disposal. As psychopath is aware of the existence of empathy even though they don't directly perceive it, because of the testimony of others and because of philosophical reasons. I'm saying that those lines of evidence are basically the same kinds of evidence that you have at your disposal to come to an awareness of a reality that you don't directly perceive either.

See, when you're delusional some strong "Road to Damascus" type revelation won't convince you that you're not delusional. In fact I think for you personally it may have just the opposite effect. Most atheists want some special miraculous invitation from God, but I'm saying those kinds of evidence will not be sufficient to convince a person like you that you're not deluded.

Quote

I admitted up front that I didn't know much or enough about the topic specifically to temper my statements about free will.  I never said that I was rock solid with these terms or even their implications.  So I don't think it's fair to ding me on something I admitted I wasn't comfortable [knowledge wise] with yet.

You're right, that was a cheap shot and I apologise for it. There was a point in there though, which is that when atheists call themselves "sceptical" I have found that this refers singularly to a reserved scepticism for God. When it comes to all other topics they are not more sceptical, or less sceptical than any other people. This is my point, atheists identify themselves as "being sceptics" as though scepticism is part of their make-up, which would really more accurately be description not as "I am sceptical", but "I am sceptical of things about God". The problem though is that such an admission would fly in the face of something else that atheists claim all the time, which is that they have no special bias against God, they merely lack belief.

Quote

I don't view Christians as inherently irrational or thoughtless.   

I will admit that many many times their explanations for WHY they believe what they believe are anticlimactic, or unimpressive I guess.   I don't think I'm being particularly harsh in my criticism either.

I think many times Christians tend to be a but triumphalist and I would agree with many atheists that a great number of miracle claims don't seem convincing. I don't think though that one needs an impressive case to be rationally justified in believing something. Atheists tend to buy into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra, which I don't think is a good epistemic criteria. I think one can be rationally justified in believing in the existence of God from pretty mundane pieces of evidence, like the moral argument, the cosmoligical argument, etc.

Quote

A number of the things you've put in here are not views that I espouse so you seem to be speaking to a group of people.

I know you don't directly espouse these view, but atheism by definition requires a belief that something can come from nothing, that life can come from non-life, that moral values can emerge from amoral matter and so on. The things I listed were merely the best theories. My point was just that while atheism claims to have science on it's side, this is merely superficial. In order to explain these kinds of origin questions, atheism must part ways with science.

Quote

It wasn't something that led me away from the faith, I'm sure he was just responding with what he was really thinking.

Sure, and I didn't mean to diss' your friend, but I do have a problem with the approach of not trying to give answers to honest questions.

Quote

I actually loved Hitchens but he debated with a cocky and snarky demeanor, but that was just who he was.  I didn't always see things the way Hitchens did but I always found him entertaining I guess.  Krauss is similar, I find him entertaining but he wouldn't be my first pick to debate a top tier opponent.  I think that's a side gig for him not a focus.  I listen to Sam Harris once in a while.  He's not as openly arrogant but I feel like he's fair in his approach to topics.

I loved Hitchens too. I felt He was just "keeping it real", whereas I find Dawkins to be utterly disingenuous. Krauss is part of a new line of scientists, who are actually philosophically incompetent and who make really stupid claims like saying "phjilosophy is dead" all the while doing poor philosophy. This includes Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Steven Hawking and Bill Nye. Will Bill Nye I'm using the loosest possible definition of scientist. I agree with you though, I think science is their thing, but I think provocative statements helps book sales.

I am not impressed with Sam Harris. In his debate with William Lane Craig, he was arrogant and I found his arguments to be the classic rattling of "biblical problems" while ignoring the foundational problem with his own "moral landscape" view. Sadly WLC is dry as can be and while I think Harris lost the debate, WLC isn't the most cuddly and likeable person out there. 

Quote

Surely the Bible supports the idea of punishment and why couldn't barrenness be included?

I agree but it's one thing saying that God might punish with barenness and it's a whole nother thing saying, "You are barren, therefore you are being punished". God knows whether or not He is punishing or testing someone, but I don't think Christians have the right to assume that someone's misfortune is a punishment. Most of the time misfortune is just that.

Quote

 Surely we don't treat each other this way in day to day life, we're usually happy to show other people "our work" so that they can see where we're coming from.  In religion it seems to often be viewed [skepticism] as an attack or rebellious action.  

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I do believe many of us here have taken time to show "our work", and while I think the issue may not be purely intellectual for many atheists, I do think we try not to paint every atheist as some kind of villain. You have to keep in mind though that we are often on the defense here and perhaps we ought to be more charitable and not take things so personally. Politically and culturally though Christianity is fighting many battles on many fronts.

Quote

I would say counter arguments to theistic claims.  I am also going with my own personal experience that I really don't have a good reason to believe that the supernatural world really exists.  Or even if it did, to what extent.  I honestly thought that my departure from Christianity was going to be temporary.  I figured something would happen to draw me back but that never happened.   If I were to ever go back, it would need to be after I have a reason or reasons why I actually believed, not just doing it because that's what my culture was hip on.

Ok, fair enough. All I ask is that you take into account that countering any view, is much easier than making a case for the view. I guess what impressed me the most is how phisopically robust Christianity is. This is an old religion dating back to the bronze age, and in a modern scientific world of satellites and cellphones, it can still hold its own in the marketplace of ideas. Whether or not you're convinced by it is obviously a different story, but you must admit, that if the Judeo-Christian worldview was a mere human, invention, it is a pretty time-tested and robust invention.

...And our head-honcho Jesus, if He was just some dude looking to make a name for himself, He sure pulled it off and then some.
Even the atheist version of Jesus' story is impressive, I mean, this guy comes out of nowhere, a carpenter's kid from the crappy part of Israel. He has no formal education no real marketable skill. He makes a name for himself as a miracle worker (let's assume He figured out some David Blaine sleight of hand tricks which convinced some people that He could heal people). He starts making political enemies and enemies in the religious establishment because He exposes their corruption and hypocrisy. He gets caught and executed, and his little group of twelve frightened followers deny him to save their backsides and flee.

Suddenly some event happens that makes these same cowardly disciples believe that He has risen from the grave and they start proclaiming this everywhere, this time even being martyred for Him whereas before they denied Him. The story of the risen man spreads across the whole world and now 2000 years later the smartest philosophers and the smartest scientists in the world are still taking about this guy. If that was just a con-artist doing the greatest con the world had ever seen, as an avid Poker player, I would still pick Him as my hero.

Either way, I'm glad you're here, and I hope that you don't decide one day that you've had enough of us and leave. Perhaps some day the penny will drop for you, and perhaps it won't, but you have many friends here and they are praying for you.

Edited November 3, 2017 by LuftWaffle

[Justin Adams]

Hello.

As is my penchant, I will bust in on this discussion with something entirely different. Luft has so adequately put points over a lot better than I could. I salute you both!
Sometimes, what is 'self-evident' hits us so deeply that intellect is suddenly enhanced by Truth.

In watching just a few of these videos, suddenly and quite eerily truth began to trickle into my mind. Yes, I was a believer even, but seeing EVIDENCES such as this had a profound effect on me. It did not bypass my intellect - it added dimensions to my comprehension!

http://www.explorationfilms.com/INCREDIBLE_CREATURES_I.php

So to get quickly to the point I got the kids a series of videos by Dr. Martin. who was a definite atheist until one day... 

Dr. Martin was aghast! He had studied Evolutionary writings for years and had never, ever noticed any "assumptions". But, the idea intrigued him, so he began to study some specific instances of Evolution. Immediately, he saw "assumptions" that he had never seen before; it was as though a blind spot had been removed so he could even see that assumptions did, indeed, exist! He further quickly saw that these assumptions were so terribly impossible they could never occur by sheer chance -- even over a period of billions of years. That they were impossible for any thinking, discerning person to believe.

After a short few weeks, Dr. Martin was in spiritual turmoil, for he instantly realized that, if he rejected Evolution because of these unprovable assumptions, he would have to embrace Creationism and its Creator God. After some months of turmoil, Dr. Martin did, indeed, make that spiritual jump.

Now, he proves through this video that some of God's most lowly creatures demonstrate how impossible Evolution is. Dr. Martin zeroes in on specific creatures in which their very survival depends upon two or more unique capabilities that must mesh together at once. One capability cannot evolve, and then the other, for the creature would die. Each of these capabilities represents more than a million-to-one mathematical chance against it occurring by chance, through Evolution; by adding two or three of such capabilities to one creature, God has ensured that all men should know how utterly impossible it is that this world and all its inhabitants should come together by chance evolution.

[http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1653.cfm]

[Willa]

For years we have been taught situation ethics and the end justifies the means.  Both of these oppose God's objective law, the 10 commandments and the laws of love on which they hang.