cwcrenshaw

I completely agree and I think it comes down a matter of self respect with regards to what standard someone holds themselves to...and respect for humanity in general.

This is getting into the area of String Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

I did not mean to imply that the Torah was a rip off of Gilgamesh, I only meant to correct what was earlier implied...which was that the Epic of Gilgamesh was somehow a twisted version of God's Word. They are two completely seperate documents (speaking of Gilgamesh and the Torah) in themselves, granted the Epic of Gilgamesh is much much older.

I guess I'm missing something here...I thought that was called Heaven...and it was promised to all who follow God.

You are correct, The Epic of Gilgamesh was written far before the bible...something like 2500 years before. How then is it a distorted version of God's word when "God's Word" hadn't even been compiled yet?

It's strange, its almost as though the chances of things happening are exactly the same with God as without God...almost as if there was...no God at all. Weird.

I can't speak for freefromfaith, but I didn't answer his question...only pointed out the name of the Paradox he was implying. I do find it amazing that given enough time, every thread that an Atheist starts/posts in eventually has the usual "if your an atheist, why do you post on a christian board?" post.

In that case, I like my chances.

Freefromfaith, I'm totally with you on this. I think what you are kind of getting at is what is called the Epicurean Paradox: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? — Epicurus"

But you are putting belief above fact. I know you may not agree with science, but it has shown that humans ARE animals...we share something like 97% of our genome with every living creature. I concede that what a person believes may change how they behave, but it cannot change what they are. Fortunately we have the mental capacity to differentiate between what is rational and what is primative. Edit: I don't value animal life as much as human life either. I personally find that to be immoral, maybe i'm just biased because I am a human.

Simple...humans are animals...highly evolved animals mind you, but apparently not enough. We are just a higher order of primate (my opinion, don't get all fussy) than any of our evolutionary cousins...but still primates. We have a mental capacity that allows us to out-think and rise above every other species on the planet...but this advantage can sometimes be a weakness. We can think highly enough to know (most of the time) what is rational/irrational and what is right/wrong. Unfortunately this level of thinking can also allow us to carry out our more animalistic instincts in ways more brutal than any lower order species could conceive of. I forget who said it, but i remember someone saying: "we are primates...extremely intelligent primates, but primates nonetheless...our prefrontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big." Fortunately, most people will tend to use the rational and kind parts of their psyche far more often than the primative instincts.

I think you need to do some research on the subject before blindly dismissing it. You will find that of the supposed divine characteristics of Jesus, none are very unique. And I don't appreciate you implying that because I don't care about your particular interpretation, that I am "unknowledgable" about Christianity in general. You seem bound and determined to include personal attacks in each of your responses. We've already been over this ground. My "idols" (which you insist on calling them as though I worship them...could I not just respect the men? ) did not refer to themselves as "Atheists" for various reasons (I'm sure if they were alive today, this may be a different story)....but if you actually read Spinoza, Paine, Jefferson, etc you will find that they have laid the foundation for civilized society to enjoy freedom from religion as well as freedom of. Is there suffering, pain, etc in even the best societies? Of course...But compare this to any theocracy you like. I understand that you would like to blame all of the ills of religion on Atheism, but this is absurd. I'm sure Atheism is also to blame for the things that go bump in the night. Are you seriously saying that anyone who is truely religious is incapable of evil acts? I will not consider my argument refuted because you have not refuted it. But I will let it go because Pascal's wager is one of the weakest possible arguments you could have possibly made, so I do understand if you would like to sweep it under the rug. Big Bang vs. Creationism is a side argument that has no bearing on the point at hand. The topic is in regards to the basis of understand that all scientific advancement is founded on. That basis is a set of unchanging natural laws. If it were to be found that this basis is not correct and that there were forces that existed that could skirt these laws...the basis for science, as well as all that has been founded upon that basis, would instantly crumble. By your own definition though, this force (God) could never be proven of disproven in an objective, empirical way. Therefore God must be taken on faith...as also required for belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the monster living in my dryer that continues to steal my socks. They may be real to the person it happened to, but this again goes back to there being no truth, only perception. There are those out there that swear to have had contact with ghosts...and some that swear to have been abducted by aliens. Does this mean that I should accept that aliens and ghosts are real because the experience was real to that person? Hardly. It may be true to them but until hard, empirical evidence is provided...I will continue to look at the possibility of God in the same skeptical light as aliens and ghosts. Amusingly, there has been more evidence provided (however dubious and open to interpretation it may be) that ghosts/aliens exist than evidence for the existence of God...but I digress. However contrived you consider an inate, godless "moral guide" to be, it does not change the fact that we are of high enough mental capacity to know that some things are wrong. This is an issue that cannot be agreed upon by people who look at it as oppositely as we do. You believe that the morality that holds mankind together is due to God...that without God we would have no reason to be good to eachother and would descend into utter chaos. I, on the other hand, have the view that there is no God and that the fact that there is a moral code that keeps mankind from killing eachother is in itself proof that our "built in moral code" is real. We are looking at the same thing from two entirely different directions. The only thing we can really agree upon is that there is evil done every moment of everyday on this planet. You would no doubt attribute this to free-will and sin while I would consider this evidence that we are in fact animals who are perhaps not as evolved yet as we claim to be. That is to say that we often times "relapse" into our primitive mindset of brutality and survival of the fittest. I don't think there is much to say about this particular point other than we completely disagree. I agree that Plato's Cave is real, but not from a religious perspective...only from a knowledge perspective (which is how he intended it originally). At the risk of sounding anecdotal myself, I "function" quite well without any need for superstition. Again, I appreciate your attempt at describing me...but again...you know nothing of me. I was raised in a Christian household and never found any need to seek a God...sure there were times when I wondered about God as a child, but as the bible says: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Precisely... I think I would say we are inevitable rather than lucky. If you look at the probabilities associated with the conditions to support life (as we know it) opposed to the shear size of our universe...it would be almost statistically impossible to say that there AREN'T quite a few planets out there that are capable of, and in fact do, harbor life.

I was not indicating that either of us would be on the innocent side...that is not the point at all. The point was to show how the burden of proof is on the side making the claim. I used the justice system as an example because this is the most obvious illustration of this. But you did try to rebuke my arguments on semantics..and only one of the examples at that. Yes there are differences between Egyptian and Christian religions...but an amazing number of similarities between them that should make even the most fundamental Christian raise an eyebrow. It is not Christian Doctorine that I "dont care" about...it is your particular interpretation of them. It is impossible to argue with someone's particular interpretation of the Bible...because honestly, it's hard to find 2 people that agree on everything in the Bible. We must be able to debate on common grounds not this "moving goal post" of personal interpretation. I won't address the first part because that is simply ad hominem and does not deserve a response. All I can say is that I don't think you want to get into the "bad habits" of those claiming to be on the religious side. I will stick to the issue instead. The point of the quotation is that Stalin used the institution of religion that was ready-made for him. It was religion that was the vehicle to oppression in the USSR, not Atheism. You will no doubt insist that this was an example of what happens when Atheism is in power though...for that all I can say is that this is not the Atheism I condone. Not all Atheism is the same...just like I can't blame you for every atrocity ever committed in your God's name by every different denomination. I would like to draw attention to the final sentence of the quote: "No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine." This is the Atheism that I support. In fact, we have a very close example of the type of government Hitchens is describing...the USA. The USA is one of the only countries in the world that forbids the government establishment of religion, without infringing on the rights of individuals to worship however they please in private. I dare say that you too have found this type of government appealing...or at least, I should hope so. So you believe in God because Hell is the scariest consequence of all the major religions? I hope that is not what you mean. By your logic, unless you can come up with a good reason for not believing in a religion...and the consequences of not believing in that religion frighten you....then you should believe in the God of that particular religion just in case. If that is accurate then suffice it to say I've yet to meet even the first condition And yes I was raised in the church and a Christian household...I have read the Bible. I did not come to Atheism through ignorance of Christianity...quite the opposite...I came to Atheism because of what I learned about Christianity....and once you've discarded one religion, it is quite easy to discard them all for the exact same reasons. And yet I have previously said that there is no truth, only perception. How so? If you were able to demonstrate conclusively that supernatural phenomena existed that had the ability to suspend the universal and constant laws of physics that are known to be unavoidable...this would destroy every single human scientific advancement ever made and we would have to start from scratch...how would this not raise more questions than answers? This is the part I cannot stand. When painted into a logical corner, the religious resort to the safety of the anecdote. By trying to pass off personal experience as some sort of evidence forces people like me into the very uncomfortable position of A) being polite and not saying anything to the contrary or B) being very inpolite by continuing to disagree, which by default questions the other person's credibility and accuses them of lying somehow. I will not be put in that position. This is where I say...if it works for you, great...but leave me out of it. If I wanted to play the anecdotal game with you, I would tell you that I too am a married man that considers myself to be kind, rational, and moral...I have many relatives with kids that the fathers have abandoned and I try as much as I can to be a strong "big bother" or father figure to those children. God has played no part in my decision to do this. Anecdotal evidence is a very weak and childish foundation on which to base an argument and I hope that we can avoid doing so. There is reason without God. Our reason arose out of the evolution of our species to become higher thinking animals...and fortunately, we're not finished yet. This intelligence has allowed us to overcome the mechanisms of Darwinian natural selection...you need look no further than your medicine cabinet or the use of contraceptives to prove that. It would be right to conclude that there would be no reason not to kill, etc if we were lower thinking animals...but this presents a conundrum of sorts which is this: If we were lower thinking animals...we would not have the ability to realize that there is no reason not too kill, etc...therefore we would not simply kill because we thought "why not?". But since we are higher thinking animals, we have the ability to reason that this type of behavior is not logical and is in fact brutal. Anyone that would kill just because they found out God doesn't exist, is not a rational person. I'm am glad that you find comfort in God and that is not something I have a problem with...people may use whatever they need so long as it doesn't impede on anyone else's choice. My problem is the religious telling people that they NEED God...that they are incapable of functioning without Him. I realize that you are only trying to share your beliefs with me, not scare or depress me. Let me assure that it takes much more than that to shake me up. I appreciate you trying to show me the "light at the end of the cave"...but I assure you, sir, that there is in fact no cave.

Well, having finally finished that reading that...I think you are wrong on nearly every point and I will lay that argument out later on in my post. After reading your complete misunderstanding about burden of proof, I hope that you are not involved in the legal system in anyway...I would hate to have to prove I was innocent instead of others proving having to prove guilt...who knows what kind of wild accusations people would throw around. I can see I'm frustrating you. You take up one of the many similarities I list and reject it because of semantics...not too impressive. Yes there may be some differences, but more than enough similarities to see where the idea came from. How insanely ridiculous. You are actually trying to claim that I can't use Ockham's Razor as an argument against Christianity because of the context in which it was originally used. Ockham's Razor in itself is an objective statement that takes no inherent side in the argument. I assure you if Ockham was alive today and could see all that we've discovered, his famous Razor would surely cut the other way. wow, I don't know how to put this more simply. As for the USSR, I quote Hitchens who knows much more about the subject than you or I: "For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine. " Call it whatever you like, Pantheism is far closer to Atheism than Christianity. While we're recommending reading to eachother, might I recommend the Bill for Religious Freedom that he helped get passed in Virginia...or his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Both set the basis for the "Wall of Seperation" between church and state that makes America such a great country. I have to say Grungekid, it is rather disappointing to see a worthy opponent such as yourself trot out Pascal's Wager. I gave you more credit than that. There are so many ways to debunk this flawed argument that I cannot hope to cover them all. Here's a couple: Pascal's Wager is simply immoral. You are believing only because A) you want the possible reward for doing so and B) you are afraid of possible consequences of not doing so. If you are going to worship something, this is certainly not the way to approach your justification for it. First of all you must assume that you are worshipping the correct God, which is not an easy thing to be certain of given that the plethora of candidates made up through the years. Secondly, you must assume that this God values your blind faith due to expectation of reward over your deeds. This does not sound like the God you continue to defend. There are many more but I'll stop there to keep from getting too long-winded. And just to be thorough, I do not dismiss the possibility of a God...I only find it very VERY improbable and therefore my beliefs (or lack thereof) reflect that. I am not going respond to your entire post sentence for sentence, i'd be here for days. I think your whole argument boils down to a few key points though that I will briefly respond to. 1) Science does not claim to "know" anything, you are the only one claiming to know..which you have no verifiable way of doing. Science only postulates probablities based on observable evidence. 2 & 3) Simple answer...NO. Our understanding of the Big Bang Theory may not be as rock-solid as our understanding of gravity, but this does not automatically make God an equally viable possibility. God does not fill any gap in our understanding, it only makes people feel ok with not knowing. If anything, postulating God only raises more questions than answers. 4) You are assuming that you have adequately shown that there are things outside of science in which to inquire about. What other mode of inquiry outside of science would you suggest? Maybe we could meditate and have sayonces...or we could pray to something that we're not even sure is there...Pascal's wager says it couldn't hurt. 5) I lump this whole section together because it is simple to answer. You do not need God in order to be good to one another. But why be good to one another if there is no higher being to answer to for our actions? If you need this justification to be good to your fellow man then you have a very, very dark side that I don't want to see. Science is a humbling experience...the vastness of the universe is of a magnitude that we can not comprehend. We have discovered that we are just one small planet orbiting around one small star among billions that make up our galaxy...one galaxy among the billions that make up our universe...which may not be the only universe. The point is that we are here together and it is irrational and illogical to shed eachothers' blood so mercilessly over control of what amounts to not even a grain of sand in the Sahara. We owe it to eachother to be good to our fellow man and this has nothing...absolutely nothing...with why or how we got here. But what is the meaning of life then? Who says there is one. The #1 objective of all living organisms is to propogate their own existence through survival and reproduction....This does not justify killing eachother....In fact, as beings of advanced intellect, we know that we very much depend on eachother...this leads to an inate morality that is built into all of us. Sometimes believing in a higher power provides a vehicle to enhance that natural compassion...and sometimes it serves as a vehicle to express our more primative behaviors such as hate and violence. The key is to realize that we can be good to eachother without it. I don't force my beliefs on you and I realize that most (not all) Christians don't force their beliefs on others. Don't judge my reasoning for disbelief either...as you don't like when I judge your reasoning for belief. You have the right to believe whatever you want but that does not automatically make your beliefs superior to mine.