If God assigns our meaning, who assigns God’s meaning?

Nobody. By definition God is the author of meaning.

Is God without meaning if there’s no God above Him deciding that?

Uh, no. He is God. There is none above Him.

If God can have meaning without an outside entity assigning it to Him, then so can I!

Ummm. . . no. . . You are not God. No offense.

Why must meaning be imposed in order to have meaning?

I’d further add that all that does is pass the buck for assigning meaning one entity higher up the chain.

If God assigns our meaning, who assigns God’s meaning?

Is God without meaning if there’s no God above Him deciding that?

If God can have meaning without an outside entity assigning it to Him, then so can I!

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/incidence.htm

Worldwide it’s a very different story. In countries that are not the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand UK, or in Europe (i.e. a larger portion of the world) heterosexuals are far and away the largest portion of those living with and newly infected by HIV/AIDS. The millions of HIV/AIDS infected individuals in Africa, and continuing epidemic there, are clear evidence of this. You can see similar patterns in many Asian countries.

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp411-e.htm

Do we conclude that AIDS is a black/asian person’s disease because the majority of worldwide infections are in these populations? No.

There are behaviours that increase the risk of one getting HIV/AIDS, but anyone can partake of them and anyone can also mitigate their risk in these behaviours (drug use, multiple partners, unprotected sex, etc can all be made safer or avoided all together).

How does that work exactly? Why do the capricious whims of an outside intellect give us more value than that which we find within ourselves? Why must meaning be imposed in order to have meaning?

spirit goo” again is a materialistic term. We are made in the image of God, and therefore, human beings (including unborn humans who have their own DNA–oh my, I’m using science) have more intrinsic value than any other creature.

Well, now I’m confused. The addition or not of a soul (spirit-goo) is not the important point – atoms in motion can have ‘intrinsic value’ if God values them? If God (a thinking subject) is the one doing assigning the value, the value (by definition) is still subjective. Adding a God doesn’t change anything.

Our value comes from beyond ourselves. You still haven’t answered according to the atheist worldview.

I don’t have the energy to go through it. Reading ahead, I see that you consider ‘God commands it’ to be a consistent standard of right and wrong. I don’t consider that as having to anything to do with what is right and wrong – we would be talking past each other.

Wow. Asking you to be consistent is “telling you what you think”?

No, you’re coming here issuing challenges. “Asking you to be consistent” is not actually trying to come here to learn from others. It’s trying to come here, all assumptions about us made beforehand, and tell us where we have it all wrong. It takes no “open ears” at all to do what you’ve done.

For example, I and others have responded to your “we’re only atoms” attack. If you have been listening, you’d be able to sum up our argument in a couple of sentences. What is it? If you’re actually listening. If your ears work, you should be able to tell us why it is that we think we are not properly described as “just atoms”.

I’ve asked for answers as to why you think the way you do and why anyone should listen to a bunch of atoms banging around?

No you didn’t. Asking implies you want to know something from someone else. All you did was put a question-mark at the end of an attack.

Never did you tell me why you think the way you think.

Yes we did. You didn’t listen. I can only conclude therefore that you don’t want to know how I think. Otherwise you’d actually act like you gave a flying fuck.

Oh well, apparently asking questions, or more appropriately, asking for answers must build walls.

You aren’t asking questions. You’re issuing challenges. You come in here telling us we supposedly believe that we’re all just atoms, that we think every man is a moral island, that we are some kind of science droids with no appreciation for natural beauty, that we advocate kill-the-weak style morality… and then you start bringing in hot-button issues like Proposition 8, AIDS, late-term abortion… like any common internet troll.

You’re not asking questions. You’re trolling for a fight, or to feel like a big man defending your religion.

I have been very friendly (IMHO).

Multiple regular posters here would disagree. So how you doing getting people to listen? Is that working out for you so far? Do you enjoy shouting in the wind? Would you actually like to be heard?

How about taking a chill pill and adjusting your style? You are the newcomer here after all. You even pissed off a fellow Christian here!

I have not called anyone names. I have not damned you all to hell. I have not called for blood.

You set a low bar for civility if that’s all it takes to be friendly.

I don’t expect that I have “won” any one of you over to God’s side.

Whoo… listen to THAT ego!

I originally replied because I found it amusing that most people on this site were calling Hitchens the winner without hearing the panel (or the film of the debate between he and Wilson). Sorry, I just thought that funny.

So if you think it’s funny, who are you posting for? Who is reading your post and enjoying that humor? You seem really self-absorbed and self-pleased.

Well, even if none of you is convinced, I hope you at least entertain some of my challenges. Sorry to have entered a “debate” here.

Dude. You’re just coming off like a jerk with something to prove. Really. Chill. Trust me.

I am not the one with the allusions of the Christians being thrown to the lions. I did not ask for a bunch of saw dust to mop up the blood of Hitchens opponents.

I fail to see how you’ve set any better example.

Whatever your position is, I think your assumption falls to pieces once you admit that we humans are fallible. You can’t be sure that you, along with all the other interpreters, the translators, the editors, the compilers, the recorders, the retellers, the witnesses, the prophets, etc. have gotten the story exactly right. With all those opportunities for bias, agenda, and honest error to creep in, how can you claim to know “God wants it to be this way” with such certitude that all of us -even those of us without your certainty- should be subjected to a legal codification of your religious beliefs?

If we’re going to decide to write laws straight out of a religion’s precepts (i.e. become a true theocracy) who gets to decide which religion gets the driver’s seat, and why? How can we determine which of the thousands of religious revelations is the right one? If we pick Christianity, do we pick a version that says a blastocyst deserves full human rights or not, and why? It’s not laid out in the Bible. It’s only present in the various denominations’ interpretations of it. On what grounds are modern interpretations better than those that used the Bible to justify slavery? Do we make the death penalty a federal punishment, as it exists in the Bible? Do we go back to stoning disobedient children?

Some aspects of morality are complicated, but most of it is pretty straightforward. I and everyone I’ve spoken to think that we should try to minimize pain and suffering, and maximize happiness and well being. Of course we all have different beliefs as to why we think this, and especially as to how we should achieve these goals, so we refine our ideas through debate and we learn from our mistakes. We progress.

Personally, I think that a perfect guide for behavior does theoretically exist. Given everyone’s needs and desires there must be a perfectly balanced compilation of rules of thumb somewhere in the aether, but I don’t claim to know it. I’m definitely skeptical of anyone who claims they do. I won’t agree with your version unless you convince me with argument and evidence. What I am doing is constantly refining my own thoughts so that I might be ever more in line with this ideal version of right and wrong.

The important thing is that we recognize our imperfection. One thing I think we both can agree on is that the worst atrocities in history were committed by people with the arrogant idea that they had an absolute knowledge of what is right.

I have been very friendly (IMHO). I have not called anyone names. I have not damned you all to hell. I have not called for blood.

I don’t expect that I have “won” any one of you over to God’s side. I originally replied because I found it amusing that most people on this site were calling Hitchens the winner without hearing the panel (or the film of the debate between he and Wilson). Sorry, I just thought that funny.

Well, even if none of you is convinced, I hope you at least entertain some of my challenges. Sorry to have entered a “debate” here.

I am not the one with the allusions of the Christians being thrown to the lions. I did not ask for a bunch of saw dust to mop up the blood of Hitchens opponents.