Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to talk to an atheist (and you must)
Townhall.com ^ | January 24, 2005 | Mike S. Adams

Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson

When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: atheist; christian; christianity; convertordie; cslewis; god; jesuschrist; mikesadams; religion; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 751-773 next last
To: Modernman
Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that works are part of the requirement for salvation.

Ahhh, I notice how you slipped in "part of...". Are there no RC's on this thread? Every time I've heard a RC told that he/she believes that salvation is through works and not a gift of God, the RC has strongly protested and disagreed. If you don't mind, I'll wait for a RC to tell me what he/she believes. And the question, still stands - any Christian on this thread believe that salvation is through works?

301 posted on 01/26/2005 12:25:16 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

All true!

It was just your original statement that was, I thought, out of character.

Dan


302 posted on 01/26/2005 12:25:25 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
As you surely know, not all incorrect conclusions on this forum are arrived at by "jumping." Sometimes it's a short step.

Not all. I said many.

Reading comprehension causes many as well.

303 posted on 01/26/2005 12:27:16 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

But it was true. Jesus was trying to make a point. Remember, the world did think Jesus was "bad". He was a BAD Armenian.


304 posted on 01/26/2005 12:27:37 PM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I'm confused. Perhaps you can clarify the difference between your original statement and my paraphrased version of it.

You: For without God, life truly has no meaning whatsoever.

Me: life without your version of "God" is meaningless


305 posted on 01/26/2005 12:29:10 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: exnavychick
I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're irrational at all.

The belief that without God there is right and wrong is illogical. I wasn't talking about the lack of belief in God.

306 posted on 01/26/2005 12:30:47 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
since a belief in God is clearly the default belief for the majority of people,

**************

Wow. Believing in God is for the thoughtless?

307 posted on 01/26/2005 12:32:19 PM PST by trisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

> It's about whether it's OK in the bizarre world of atheism.

No, it's not. Why would you think it would be?

> So if you get away with either no uncomfortable consequences or acceptable consequences, it's the same in the end.

If you are a psycho, sure. But psycho morals ain;t mine, and hopefully they ain't yours.


308 posted on 01/26/2005 12:33:08 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
"Interesting, but self-referential. Proving the existence of a deity, or the deity of a man/god, based on the scriptures of the religion which believes both to be true is a tautology. "

Oh I agree with you. That post wasn't intended to convince an athiest. It was really directed at those who already believe the Bible but might be confused on an aspect of Jesus' divinity.

Some of the Old Testament verses are prophetic and in that sense a little stronger evidence, but those are probably only a small subset of what you need to see to realize both that "God is" and that "Jesus is God".

309 posted on 01/26/2005 12:33:32 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Jesus was not, Himself, denying that He was good. That would have been a lie. Which would have been, well, not good.

Dan


310 posted on 01/26/2005 12:37:02 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

> For you to answer "I dunno" when this question is put to you is the equivalent of saying "I don't care."

Hardly. Who will be President in 2007? Be honest... you *don't* know. But I bet you care.

Lack of data does not imply lack of interest.

> They believe in all variety of bizarre and wacky things.

Yes, like family, country, capitalism, morality, right and wrong...

> If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Fine. What makes you think atheists don;t stand for anything? They simply don;t stand for God. There's considerably mroe to life than that.

> what difference does it make if one conglomeration of proteins and chemicals mashes another one?

Because some conglomerations have greater value than others.


311 posted on 01/26/2005 12:37:28 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Define said law. Be specific.


312 posted on 01/26/2005 12:38:01 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
But that still wasn't "good". "Good" is a worldy measurement which means nothing in Heaven. The "good" people will burn in Hell just as the "bad" people will walk the streets of gold. The rich young ruler was "good" in the eyes of the world. If we saw the ruler today, we would call him a "good Godly man".

Peter is a classic example. Peter was a screwup but Jesus looked past that. Peter needed Jesus because he was "bad". The ruler was "good" therefore he didn't need Jesus.

There is no good and bad in Christianity. There is obedience and disobedience.

You are correct that in worldly terms, we have our own difination of what "good" is. For some, it is a "Good" morning, for others, it is not. For some, milk is "Good" for them, but if you a are lactose intolerant, milk is not "Good"

When Speaking in Terms of God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), we have to take God ofr what it truly means:

God is Good as God is HOLY. I agree that peter was a "screw-up", but he was a screw attached to the right Bolt. He know he needed Jesus. He know that others needed Jesus. The ruler was not good, as he did not recognise his need for a saviour. To him, it was as you discribe, obedience or disobedience. The things is, we can not live up to Gods standard, and the "good" ruler failed to see that. He failed to understand that while he had kept the civil laws (the last 6 commandments), the "good" ruler was placing his wealth above God. He was guilty of transgressing the first four commandments.

313 posted on 01/26/2005 12:38:12 PM PST by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Not all. I said many.

Of course. That's partly why I said "As you surely know," to make the distinction. Maybe that was too subtle, because frankly, I was specifically thinking of the one at hand.

Reading comprehension causes many as well.

And a big "Thank you" for the assurance that nothing has changed, and the reminder of how I might have tiptoed to that original conclusion.

314 posted on 01/26/2005 12:38:50 PM PST by newgeezer (When encryption is outlawed, rwei qtjske ud alsx zkjwejruc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
Unless an atheist can prove that there is no God, then they simply don't know.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

315 posted on 01/26/2005 12:38:50 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

"If man has been kicked up out of that which is only impersonal by chance , then those things that make him man-hope of purpose and significance, love, motions of morality and rationality, beauty and verbal communication-are ultimately unfulfillable and thus meaningless."


---Francis Schaeffer in The God Who Is There


316 posted on 01/26/2005 12:39:14 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

Boy, you sure hate having someone tell you they've seen a bumpersticker you don't like, doncha!


317 posted on 01/26/2005 12:39:25 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"The belief that without God there is right and wrong is illogical."

No it's not, otherwise you could show that it was.

318 posted on 01/26/2005 12:41:00 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
The following questions are designed to get you to think about what it is you do know and what it is you value.
  1. "If all of life is meaningless, and ultimately absurd , why bother to march straight forward, why stand in the queue as though life as a whole makes sense?" ---Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There
  2. If everyone completely passes out of existence when they die, what ultimate meaning has life? Even if a man's life is important because of his influence on others or by his effect on the course of history, of what ultimate significance is that if there is no immortality and all other lives, events, and even history itself is ultimately meaningless?
  3. Suppose the universe had never existed. Apart form God, what ultimate difference would that make?
  4. In a universe without God or immortality, how is mankind ultimately different from a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs?
  5. What viable basis exists for justice or law if man is nothing but a sophisticated, programmed machine?
  6. Why does research, discovery, diplomacy, art, music, sacrifice, compassion, feelings of love, or affectionate and caring relationships mean anything if it all ultimately comes to naught anyway?
  7. Without absolute morals, what ultimate difference is there between Saddam Hussein and Billy Graham?
  8. If there is no immortality, why shouldn't all things be permitted?(Dostoyevsky)
  9. If morality is only a relative social construct, on what basis could or should anyone ever move to interfere with cultures that practice apartheid, female circumcision, cannibalism, or ethnic cleansing?
  10. If there is no God, on what basis is there any meaning or hope for fairness, comfort, or better times?
  11. Without a personal Creator-God, how are you anything other than the coincidental, purposeless miscarriage of nature, spinning round and round on a lonely planet in the blackness of space for just a little while before you and all memory of your futile, pointless, meaningless life finally blinks out forever in the endless darkness?

From Here

319 posted on 01/26/2005 12:43:05 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
No, it's not. Why would you think it would be?

Because that's what the whole thread is about and it has been the thrust of my entire body of comments. Some have tried to change the subject.

If you are a psycho, sure. But psycho morals ain;t mine, and hopefully they ain't yours.

I don't hope to define how you are using the word "psycho".

For atheists, there is no logical morality. They try to squirm into it to feel better, but it's can't be done. Hence, atheism is bizarre.

320 posted on 01/26/2005 12:43:20 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
I'm curious. Can you elaborate?

Jesus Christ as a god, and the entire notion of a "revealed" or "inspired" word of God. We see these as a denial of the nature of God.

When a Deist speaks of the will of God, he is speaking of the laws of nature. Paine argued against slavery from the laws of nature, for example. The words Fate, Providence and God all have the same natural meaning to a Deist.

Deists view science as a quest to understand God, a very noble cause. We do not consider the words written by men in the Bible superior to science. We don't try to dictate to God through prayer, a simple "Thank You" does the job without need of a prayer book or beads.

Last but not least, we consider the zealots of the revealed religions a danger to liberty...A self evident truth of Nature.
...
321 posted on 01/26/2005 12:44:13 PM PST by mugs99 (Restore the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Bring quotes into it, will ya? ;)

"The world is my country, and to do good my religion."
"I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." - Thomas Paine

"Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast." Isaac Asimov


322 posted on 01/26/2005 12:45:11 PM PST by Renderofveils (8th Engineer Bn, 1 Cav. "Cannibals!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Was there some point that you were trying to make with this whole line of posts? If so, feel free to make it.


323 posted on 01/26/2005 12:47:19 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; malakhi
bad things about Islam [...] "hate speech" against homosexuals

It is possible to critically discuss religion without sliding into blasphemy, just like politics can be critically discussed without wild insults. A healthy society develops social rituals and conventions that delineate the acceptable and the unacceptable. It does so in immersion to a local culture. Naturally, different legal environments will emerge in predominantly Muslim countries and in predominantly Christian countries. This being said, if I deliberately set out to insult Muslims (or homosexuals) anywhere then I deserve to be sanctioned as per the local custom.

Our society is of two minds about hate speech laws because it lost all social convention. So at times we wish there were a law to bracket some lout, and at other times we recoil from it as we see the same law is used to muzzle legitimate debate. In a healthy culture the Muslim and the Christian would seek to separate and the homosexuals would keep to a closet, and most of it would be a moot point.

324 posted on 01/26/2005 12:49:14 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Well, I guess I am disputing that, too, lol. Just because I believe that God is the one that has endowed us with a sense of right or wrong doesn't mean I can't get why they think there can be right or wrong without God. It's quite simple, really. If there is no God, how could he have created right or wrong?

It's just the genesis of a circular argument, because each assumes the other's baseline is erroneous. It's basically an unwinnable one, unless you can get them to accept God in the first place. Or vice versa.


325 posted on 01/26/2005 12:49:47 PM PST by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: The Bard

I'm convinced that the ruler walked away, not because of his money, but because of his pride. He thought he was good enough. He was expecting an "atta boy" from Jesus and Jesus told him that he wasn't yet accomplished. The ruler needed to rely on Jesus' mercy rather than his own goodness.

The church has done a good job of teaching us to be "good" or not "bad" at least. We know not to cuss or drink or smoke or call people names or hate our neighbor and we are good at charity. God-fearing Christians are pretty good at emulating the rich young ruler. The church has done a lousy job of teaching us to be reliant on Grace alone. We are too busy being good sometimes.


326 posted on 01/26/2005 12:50:01 PM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
No it's not, otherwise you could show that it was.

The onus is on those who say it is. I only made that conclusion based on the inability of those who claim morality without God to show why.

You are free to try. The others have all failed.

327 posted on 01/26/2005 12:50:28 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

>>I'm confused. Perhaps you can clarify the difference between your original statement and my paraphrased version of it.

You: For without God, life truly has no meaning whatsoever.

Me: life without your version of "God" is meaningless<<

Be happy to. My version of God is not the perfect "version."

"1 Corinthians 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Fact of the matter is that if there is no creator and all existence is merely a trick of the cosmos, then nothing has any meaning whatsoever - there is no meaning in the beginning of creation nor in it's existence. The survival or extermination of all of mankind has no consequence whatsoever and morality is merely a man made myth.

Actually "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis covers this nicely for one who would like more wisdom on the subject than I can give on a thread on Freerepublic.


328 posted on 01/26/2005 12:50:32 PM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: exnavychick

I disagree. You are free to make their case for them if you think it can be done.


329 posted on 01/26/2005 12:52:28 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: tortoise; betty boop; marron; Michael_Michaelangelo
Thank you so much for your reply!

Your points are well made, however, there is no need for a believer to substantiate his doctrine with materialistic theory.

Not so however with the atheist - who as a metaphysical naturalist has put materialism at the center of his disbelief - otherwise his disbelief is actually a belief in rebellion to diety and in favor of self. That was my point.

In sum, there is not a scientific materialism "bar" for belief but there is for disbelief.

330 posted on 01/26/2005 12:54:32 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Was there some point that you were trying to make with this whole line of posts? If so, feel free to make it.

Either it's already clear enough or it's not. I'm satisfied to leave it to you and the Holy Spirit to mull over.

Have a nice day. See you around. May the love of Christ be with you always.

331 posted on 01/26/2005 12:54:56 PM PST by newgeezer (When encryption is outlawed, rwei qtjske ud alsx zkjwejruc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Renderofveils
But in the absence of a Creator.... What is good? Should human life be considered sacred?

I agree with Thomas Paine that duties include doing justice and loving mercy. But why? Why should are duties include that? And what makes us believe that? Is it designed into us or a mere societal norm?

Must we continue? What call? What is noble? Says who? What is progress if this universe is all there is? For even our secular scientists say this universe will end. Why do we care about the cause of humanity? Why should we care at all? Was it designed into us?

332 posted on 01/26/2005 12:55:07 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

If I understand you correctly, you would consider such a person an 'atheist', then, because he denies/doesn't believe in the true nature of God?


333 posted on 01/26/2005 12:55:11 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
How good of a bet is it to surround yourself with people who would happily murder *you*?

You might. You would also have to be tough. But by tough guys surrounding themselves with tough guys we have a tougher race and create a better future for humanity.

But in any event, that DOES well describe much of the Old Testament...

And any history book. Modern civilization serves only to wipe man off the face of the earth. Not that the earth would cry, I guess.

Is it? Oh, well...

Yeah, I didn't think you could defend it. Deep down you're an intelligent person.

Shalom.

334 posted on 01/26/2005 12:56:49 PM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: annalex
This being said, if I deliberately set out to insult Muslims (or homosexuals) anywhere then I deserve to be sanctioned as per the local custom

You've just imposed prior restraint on speech based on the listener being offended. To shut down criticism of Islam, all Muslims in such a system would need to do is cry "blasphemy."

Our society is of two minds about hate speech laws because it lost all social convention.

Our Constitution isn't, however. Hate speech laws are unconstitutional.

335 posted on 01/26/2005 12:57:18 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"The onus is on those who say it is."

No! Your libel demands that you answer.

You made that libelous statemnet, because you claim to be the sole posessor of logic, and you wish to denegrate others. TO wit: "For atheists, there is no logical morality. They try to squirm into it to feel better, but it's can't be done. Hence, atheism is bizarre."

Your statement is illogical and that's all your conclusion is based on.

336 posted on 01/26/2005 12:57:42 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
But I don't mind if others believe in deities. It doesn't affect me.

Yet

337 posted on 01/26/2005 12:58:02 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
Celebrate National Atheist's Day -- April 1st.
338 posted on 01/26/2005 12:58:42 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Because right and wrong do not need to be related to a fear of punishment, in this life or any other. In simplest and simplistic terms, "right" morally is that which provides the best chance for your genes to propogate. Thus murder is out, because people will come kill you for it; rape is out for the same reason. I've yet to come across a bit of (generally accepted) morality that can't be defined in this way.

How about the German who hides Jews from the Nazis? Where's the evolutionary benefit in that act? The German is placing his life in tremendous peril. Or is that not a moral act?

339 posted on 01/26/2005 1:00:14 PM PST by itsamelman (“Announcing your plans is a good way to hear God laugh.” -- Al Swearengen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Perhaps, but then your success is based on always being the guy with the most homeboys behind you. A smart person realizes that is not always a successful strategy.

It is the ONLY strategy. It doesn't matter whether you call them homeys and they protect you because of a mutual pact or you call them police and they protect you because of some mythical higher duty. You survive or you die. The best way to ensure survival is to be the toughest and surround yourself with the toughest.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I am the meanest son of a **** in the valley.

Again, that's been tried throughout history, with varying degrees of success. However, a society that is constantly picking fights with its neighbors will eventually find everyone else turning on it. Look at Germany.

And yet it is what we return to because it is what works. If you and I live long enough to see the fall of the West (and we are almost there so we may) you will see us return to it again.

Asking your neighbors to work with you because they are NICE - yeah, there's a workable strategy for you. </sarcasm>

Shalom.

340 posted on 01/26/2005 1:00:24 PM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

ping for later


341 posted on 01/26/2005 1:01:11 PM PST by melbell (There are 10 types of people in the world...those who understand binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I agree with Thomas Paine that duties include doing justice and loving mercy. But why?

Even if God tells us to follow these duties, why should we listen to him? Where does the universal principle, "We should always do what God tells us to do" come from? It can't come from God, for we can always ask why we should listen to him on the issue.

Are you making it up? Is it just a preference of yours? Are you jsut going with the crowd or what your parents taught you? Does something make us believe it? If so, is it not freely chosen?

Believing in God does absolutely nothing about relieving us of the responsibility of choosing for ourselves what is right and wrong. Both theists and atheists create our own morality
342 posted on 01/26/2005 1:01:52 PM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
To shut down criticism of Islam, all Muslims in such a system would need to do is cry "blasphemy."

No, they would also need to show that I blaspheme rather than criticize.

Hate speech laws are unconstitutional.

You brought them up, not me. Public decency laws were upheld by the courts till maybe very recently, by judges who had a better understanding of the Constitution than the current crop of imbecils.

343 posted on 01/26/2005 1:02:03 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Either it's already clear enough or it's not.

In other words, you are embarassed to say it was a post about me personally and was entirely off topic.

I'm satisfied to leave it to you and the Holy Spirit to mull over.

The spirit already told you, hence your reluctance to answer.

Have a nice day.

Thank you, you as well.

See you around.

Not likely. You wouldn't know me even if you laid eyes me.

May the love of Christ be with you always.

And also with you.

344 posted on 01/26/2005 1:02:34 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: frog_jerk_2004
OK, according to Occam's Razor, who is the "prime mover".

Non sequitur. Occam's Razor orders a set of possible hypotheses by probability of correctness. It does not make hypotheses. Esoterica: There are algorithmic methods for generating Occam-optimal hypotheses, but that is a completely different topic.

Secondly, if you are trying to prove the non-existance of God, why would you use Occam's Razor which gets its name from a 13th century Franciscan Monk?

1.) I'm not trying to prove the non-existence of God. I'm making pointed observations that need to be made for the sake of rigor.

2.) Even if I was, only the validity of the reasoning matters, not who a person was. This is mathematics, not religious doctrine, and nowhere in its description will you see "God", even from a Franciscan monk. Apparently you are upset because I didn't engage in some kind of ad hominem in my reasoning. It certainly would have made it easier for you if my reasoning contained such fallacies. A trepanned monkey could have asserted Occam's Razor and it would not make it any less valid.

3.) Occam's Razor has a long and distinguished history. The first assertion of it (that we know of) was by Epicureus, Occam famously restated it, Kolmogorov formalized it mathematically, and someone whose name I forget proved the universal optimality of it. I, for one, am not going to ignore a well-established and proven theorem of mathematics.

Mathematics does not take sides, and it either stands or falls by its own merits. You can't tweak it if you find the outcomes undesirable.

345 posted on 01/26/2005 1:04:50 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Perhaps "claiming morality" is too thin a line to stand on. I aspire to the ideals of honor and integrity, both to my self and others. I make no claim to have either, for those are just words if they cannot be backed by evidence. However, those are the two major ideals in my life, and while I fail at times to adequately exemplify those ideals, there are times when I feel I live up to them. You may ask me to define my perception of honor and integrity, and I'd be hard pressed to do so without writing a small book. But to summarize, I try to treat others as I would like to be treated. The Golden Rule. I don't want people killing or raping me, therefore I don't kill or rape people. It seems like it would not be something I would really appreciate. I like the things that I own, and wouldn't deprive someone else of their belongings, even if for a good purpose. (Like taking church-goers Sunday clothes and giving them to the homeless.) I define "bad" as something I would consider a misfortune if it happened to me, even though like everything else there are exceptions where I could see the "good" in something "bad."

People, it's not rocket science. Atheists may be godless, but we're not hollow shells. I am the product of all that has happened to me, all that I have learned, and that which my parents have taught me.


346 posted on 01/26/2005 1:05:17 PM PST by Renderofveils (8th Engineer Bn, 1 Cav. "Cannibals!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I'll put my conclusion on hold while you make your case. Have at it.

If there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no consequences past this world, define morality and the difference between right and wrong.

347 posted on 01/26/2005 1:05:28 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: 7thson

I'll read this later.
at home more time


348 posted on 01/26/2005 1:07:06 PM PST by Rightly Biased (Ecclesiastes 10:2 (don't be lazy look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
I think atheists can be some of the most interesting, intelligent people around, as long as it's not Christianity or moral issues being discussed.

We can't be expected to share your enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, if that's why you think we sound stupid when Christianity is discussed.

But really, you don't think atheists can talk about moral issues in an intellgent or interesting manner? How about Richard Posner? He's a judge and a scholar and he writes about those sorts of things (law, law & economics, morality, etc.).

Just because you don't like the conclusions some people reach doesn't mean they weren't reached after extensive intelligent consideration.

349 posted on 01/26/2005 1:09:17 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No, they would also need to show that I blaspheme rather than criticize.

Judges are wholly incapable (and Constitutionally prohibited) of determining religious issues.

The mere fear of being charged with blasphemy would stifle speech. Advocacy groups for various interests would use your laws to pretty much shut down politically incorrect speech.

350 posted on 01/26/2005 1:09:29 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 751-773 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson