NY State Senator Quietly Rewrites Press Release Denouncing Atheists, Unaware of Something Called a ‘Screenshot’

AMERICA!! FUCK YEAH!!!1!12

The Information Age has not been kind to these theocratic dinosaurs.

Just lock the guy in a room With Ricky Gervais, Penn Jillet, and the ghost (I don’t think ghosts are real but it’s a nice image.) of Christopher Hitchens. See how long it takes for them to verbally tear this guy a new bodily orifice with which to expel the excrement that must be up to his ears.

Then, who fixes his quantun?

Instead of trying to engage atheists in a meaningful conversation and trying to understand their worldview, he instead applies misconceptions and outright falsehoods to demonize us and continue on in his fervent belief that his chosen religion is the only true and correct one.

I don’t even live in New York but was so angered I felt the need to write to him. I did, I’m sure there will be no response as I’m just this hate mongering godless heathen. My email was polite and direct, not filled with the ranty rhetoric his initial statement made. I cry for human kind and the closing of minds. Glad I don’t live in his district.

While your anger is understandable, and your action commendable, if this tool doesn’t care about secular-minded people who can vote for him, he sure as hell won’t care about those who cannot.

I might have an easier time hating god were he less abstract.

People like this senator kind of make every penny you guys spend on billboards worth twice as much, don’t they? (You’re the guy from AA, right?)

But the change suggests that Lanza knows what he said was unfair and untrue.

Or he believes it’s true, but reckons (perhaps, because of some of his advisers told him) it would be negative politically.

Maybe he realized that if AA’s tax-exemption was revoked for something as harmless as that billboard, religious-based groups like Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage would be in jeopardy as well. And members of those groups are likely to make up his voting base.

That may be possible. Alternatively, he may have reckoned (maybe because someone told him) that that would be politically negative publicity. Or both.

Incidentally, tax exemptions are not the same as tax subsidies, and no tax dollars are going to American Atheists due to the tax exemption. Might his failure to see that difference be a problem too?

I’m not sure I’d put Penn or Gervais anywhere close to the intellectual and rhetorical prowess of Hitch. Don’t get me wrong, I like them just fine. But I wouldn’t list them on a dream team of defenders of the (lack of) faith.

Oh, please. If common sense, ethics, and intelligence became requirements for holding office, half of the elected officials in the U.S. would have to resign. And I’m being kind by saying only half.

*whew* I’m safe for now. I was appointed to finish someone else’s term.

/totally the Gerald Ford route to government

I’ve heard this so many times, but I still don’t understand it. Is there a good explanation on how this kinda thinking works?

I DO hate self-righteous fools like Lanza, though. When I was a precocious inquisitive 12 year old, i told my rabbi i didn’t believe in god. He slapped me in the face. In the half century since my bar-mitzvah, i have seen far more of the pious persecuting the non-believer.

If i truly had a relationship with the creator of the universe, i’d keep quiet and bask in the love and truth they say comes with it. But it’s nothing more than the emperor’s new clothes, so they all have to make public displays of their piety to compensate for their doubt.

I think him and the American Atheists deserve each other. Let them have their phony war on Christmas; I’ll be over here enjoying the sparkly lights and presents.

Doesn’t make sense to me either. I classify it under argument from assertion.

I have contacted New York Senate minority leader Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins to find out who will be running against Senator Lanza in November. Who’s prepared to join me in the fight to unseat Lanza? I want this appalling bigot to lose big.

I have posted this on Senator Lanza’s Facebook page and sent it to him via email.

“Senator
Lanza, Your attack on atheists is appalling and bigoted. I have
contacted the democratic leadership in your district. I’m sure a great
many of my fellow atheists will be only too happy to join me in offering
my full support to any candidate who opposes you next November.
Congratulations – your bigotry and open hostility to freedom of speech
and religion has earned you an organized and vocal group prepared to do
whatever it takes to see you lose in 2014.”

Certainly there are more personable and sympathetic gods to be found elsewhere…

Odin might even wander on over for a cup of tea and some soup. You never know.

He’s fickle.

I fully support that idea. You go ahead and enjoy “sparkly lights and presents”, while the grown ups discuss issues that are more important than how entertained you are.

The truth that we see insufficient evidence to believe in any gods? Especially yours?
Happy Holiday!

They just can’t comprehend how a person can simply not believe in their God, so they have to rationalize it somehow.

It’s pretty much the same thing as the die-hard Apple or Android fanboy is about their phone (they can’t comprehend how you aren’t choosing the obvious superior phone) except even further devoid of anything like objectivity.

Cool story bro!

And you know Christianity is right because it’s the most popular religion right? And the most popular denomination is Catholicism…oops, that could be a problem for you…

ummmm… I am self-deceived because I don’t believe the Bronze age story of a God that raped a virgin so He could give birth to Himself so He could kill Himself to atone for the sins of the original man and woman eating a forbidden fruit that He made in the first place… And he loves me, but if I don’t believe in Him, he will send me to Hell for eternity?

No, really – you are calling ME self-deceived?

Happy Saturnalia!

It is certainly possible to hate things that do not exist in reality. I hate Yahweh… and Voldemort, Edward Cullen, and Diesel10. I also can be reasonably sure that deities, wizards, vampires and sentient train engines are not real.

1.5 billion Muslims can’t be wrong!

Wait a second…

Oh I don’t know…Ricky is pretty persuasive. And he generally speaks at a level that even this Lanza could understand. Could…but probably not.

Hi Pepe. I think I can help. Romans 1: 18-21 teaches that EVERYONE knows that God exists, but some choose to suppress that truth in order to avoid accountability to Him. That is, they profess to not believe in God, but then live as if they do believe in Him and the truth of the Bible when they appeal to concepts such as morality, truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic.
Immaterial, universal, invariant concepts such as these cannot be made sense of in any atheistic worldview (after all, how does a strictly material, constantly changing universe give us concepts and laws that are not made of matter, apply everywhere, and don’t change?) but can be made sense of via the Christian worldview as a direct reflection of the absolute character and nature of God. As such, atheism (and all competing non-Christian worldviews, for that matter) is reduced to absurdity, as it does not comport with any of the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, and therefore cannot be logically justified. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that believing in things with no logical justifcation for doing so is the very definition of an irrational position, no? Merry Christmas!

“”I think it might be fairer to say that Atheists tend to hate God like they tend to hate Voldemort, Hank Rearden, Bill Sikes, Jar Jar Binks, Joffrey Baratheon.””

Yet none of them call themselves a-Voldemortists, a-Hank Reardenists, a-Bill Sikesists, a-Jar Jar Binksists, or a-Joffrey Baratheonists. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because they do indeed hate the God that they know exists and are trying very hard to suppress that truth per Romans 1: 18-21? Sure sounds like it to me.

scmike, you just have no clue how messed up that whole statement is, do you? I wish for you to find knowledge and logic in the New Year 🙂

Hi Scmike,
Thanks for trying to explain. I just don’t understand how or, more importantly, WHY, we would just try to suppress the ‘truth’. Especially if it means that we know we’re gonna burn in hell for ever. Why would anyone be stupid enough to do that?

Thanks for the warm wishes Cary_w. Regarding your assertion about my statement, you provided no justification at all to substantiate it. Did you have a rational objection to the argument?

He’s silly because he thinks New Yorkers are going to be intolerant of a BILLBOARD!!

Some people would rather be god than submit to God, Pepe. Denying his existence allows them to live the way they would like to and continue in their sin, rather than obeying Him and forsaking their own ways. It is for this very reason that the Bible calls those who deny God, ‘fools’—-because they are denying what they know to be true despite the dire consequences of doing so. Nothing could be more foolish than willfully rejecting God’s offer of salvation through Jesus Christ and choosing to perish instead.

No. The truth that the very concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘evidence’ are evidence of God’s existence and the truth of the Bible, as neither can be accounted for otherwise. If you disagree, feel free to tell how it’s possible to know anything to be absolutely true in your worldview and how you know for certain that any evidence presented to you is valid or invalid as a proof.

Sorry Amor, you haven’t presented any logical objection here, either—just a bunch of gross misrepresentions of the Bible, which only serve to show a very hostile bias on your part. If you’d care to posit something rational, I will see about formulating a response. Again, Merry Christmas!

Popularity has nothing to do with it unbound55. Truth has nothing to do with consensus. Merry Christmas!

Hey John, what people ‘believe’ has nothing to do with truth. If everyone in the world stopped believing in gravity, their believe would not negate the truth of its existence. A little more thought next time…..?

That was a joke. You do know how jokes work, right?

Tea? That might earn you a blood eagle from Odin. He’s a mead man for sure, but still far more reasonable & friendly than Yahweh.

This is astonishingly silly. Atheists also tend to ‘hate’ Allah, Kali, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda and any other gods or supernatural figures whose followers are causing harm and distorting public policy because of their beliefs. And you know that our reason for ‘hating’ those other supernatural beings is based entirely on the fact that their followers are causing harm, not on the idea that we secretly think they actually exist. Why on earth would it be any different with the god of Christianity than with the gods of Islam, Hinduism etc?

Of course, in the real world, most English-speaking atheist activists direct their ire predominantly against the followers of the god of Christianity only because that’s the god whose followers are doing the most harm in the English-speaking world. If that changes (or in places where it’s already untrue), expect to see the focus change too. But don’t arrogate to yourself the right to state that those who campaign against harms caused because people believe in things that probably don’t exist are actually secret believers in those things. Otherwise we might just as easily say of you that deep in your heart of hearts you know that your god doesn’t really exist, but you hate the idea of being in a god-free universe so you just pretend to yourself that he does.

Circular reasoning: Why should anyone give credence to Romans:1:18-21. Non-supported assertion: ‘Everyone knows [the Christian] God exists…’ Everyone? really? what about the ones who didn’t in the past, don’t know now or won’t in the future? Non-supported assertion: that ‘a strictly material, constantly changing universe give us concepts and laws that are not made of matter, apply everywhere, and don’t change?)’ can only be explained by the ‘Christian worldview’ How so? and why not other ‘worldviews’. Define ‘Christian worldview’ – which is so vague as to be absurd on its face. In fact, unique to each individual and may or may not be considered ‘Christian’ by others who claim to know the breadth and width of what is meant by the concept: ‘Christian’. Non-supported assertion: ‘as it does not comport with any of the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, and therefore cannot be logically justified.’ You mean any other ‘worldview’ out side of ‘Christian’? Please explain why that would be so and it might be helpful to provide an example of why these ‘preconditions’ are ‘necessary.’ Sorry, Scmike, your ‘logic’ doesn’t hold up. I feel for you though. I’m certain that deep down you must realize that the Christian God is not actually real, and therefore you must at least suspect that you are deluding yourself in believing. Of course, that sort of delusion could be considered a form of dishonesty, a lie to oneself, as it were. Thus, your faith in God could very well be entirely immoral in its conception and perhaps should be abandoned immediately for the honest and strict morality of reality. Warm holiday traditions to you!

I do enjoy discussing this subject and if you would like to you are welcome to e-mail me robstone08@gmail.com

It doesn’t matter how Lanza tries to spin this he is still wrong and a HUGE apology is required to get out from underneath his remarks. His remarks are not just hate speech but the new version shows that he has no clue what atheism even is. It’s just pathetic that he thinks this will blow over somehow, or that it’s ok to offend a group of people he doesn’t like and clearly doesn’t understand.

I loved my Iphone, then the new IOS came along. Steve Jobs is spinning in his grave fast enough to power Arizona in a heat wave…

He’s changed it again.

You mean other than it’s circularity?

Glad to see that you also have no rational objection to the argument!

You claim a god exists. Our rational objection is that you merely claimed it without giving us evidence.

The ball (and the burden of evidence) is in your court, bub. Why should we believe that your non-evidenced god exists?

The truth that the very concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘evidence’ are evidence of God’s existence and the truth of the Bible, as neither can be accounted for otherwise.

You now have two claims to evidence: your god and that your god is responsible for truth and evidence.

If you disagree

I disagree but you don’t get to tell me how I respond. First you have to evidence your two claims. So far, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your two claims except to assert that they are true.

Try again.

The difference between your non-evidenced god and the Theory of Gravity is that gravity can be repeatably demonstrated.

Care to give any repeatable demonstration of your non-evidenced god?

If American currency said “In Voldemort We Trust,” if the Pledge of Allegiance had “… One Nation, Under Voldemort, With Liberty and Justice for All” at the end, and if American politicians tried to pass laws because “Voldemort is in my heart, and told me He wants this law enacted,” you’d join me in becoming an a-Voldemortist.

Feel free to substitute Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Zeus, Thor, Odin,… And, yes, your Jesus and your god, for Voldemort. How do those taste in your mouth?

You can’t claim something to be truth without evidence. If you have no evidence, the most it can be is an opinion.

Th concepts of truth and justice are evidence that Superman exists. How can you claim that a book written by men is divine? Man created god, not the other way around. Until you have proof otherwise, science invalidates your Bronze Age superstitions.

You’re using the “you weren’t a real Christian” argument? You repeatly fail to even address the one challenge given to you. Prove your statement that your god exists with actual evidence. You resort to changing the subject and passive-aggressive attacks. Present your evidence or concede that your belief is founded on confirmation bias and self-delusion.

Sure, I am irrational because I don’t believe in fairy tales.
Sorry, your trick is not working, projecting yourself onto people you don’t know only reveal that you suspect you are the irrational one.
Goodbye troll.

-His apology

“I have, for the second time, amended the content of this statement. I’ve
done so based upon conversations which I have had with callers
describing themselves as atheists. They have expressed concern, based
upon misinterpretation, that my original statement can be taken as
offensive to atheists based upon their beliefs. This is not only the
furthest thing from the truth, it is completely contrary to what I have
intended to accomplish with my stand. My opposition to the sign has
nothing to do with the beliefs of atheists, it has to do with the belief
of many that it is hurtful and hateful toward people of faith at
precisely the time they are celebrating what they believe. While our
constitution protects such unkind statements, so does it protect my
right to denounce them. I extend my apologies to those atheists who
might have been offended, even if that is by virtue of misunderstanding.
I simply believe that it is wrong to do nothing in the face of hatred. I
defend the right not to believe as strongly as the right to have faith.
I firmly believe, however, that neither should be used to demean the
other. What we need is good will toward each other, and I hope this
debate and my position has helped people focus upon that.”

While I agree fanboys exist in both smartphone OS camps , comparing fundies to fanboys is hardly fair ! The consequences of fanboyism is just internet trolls and flame wars . Realise that no one actually gets burnt or beaten to death!

When you have a rational argument, you will get a rational objection. How about these objections:
-Appeal to bigotry as you insult all other faiths/religious ideas
-Unsupported argument
-improper definition of terms such as logic and rationality
-Shifting the burden of proof away from the person making the claim

As a born again Christian you seem to have a lot of unchristlike hate in your heart for anyone who believes otherwise.
You seem to be deceiving yourself if you think anyone should take your sectarian nonsense seriously.

You have no rational argument. You came here insulting people. Friendly does not mean feeble.
You came here with hate in your heart, you should expect the same in return. Jesus was very big on making that clear. Evidently you missed the memo. Too busy being born again to show a modicum of respect for those who are born once.

Hey jm, thanks for your response and the warm wishes. I think your post is a very good example of what I’m talking about and will be happy to demonstrate for you and those following along the truth of my claims. Your comments reveal that you believe in a standard of logic that we SHOULD adhere to in our reasoning and argumentation as well as a standard of morality by which you decry things like lying and dishonesty. You also claim that it is possible for you to be certain of things in your worldview is well. I would like to know the following:

1) What are the standards of logic and morality you are appealing to here? How do you account for those standards in your worldview? Why do they necessarily apply to anything or anyone, let alone this discussion?

2) How is it possible for you to be certain of anything with only your limited experience and observations to go on?

That should just about do it. Take care!

P.S. As for your claim that there were people in the past who didn’t know of God’s existence; God has revealed Himself to all people through time via natural and special revelation, beginning with Adam and Eve and continuing to this day. I have no doubt that this very thread will serve to confirm that truth. Talk to you soon!

Hey spuddie. As I have grown accustomed to in these types of discussion, you provided zero support for any of your objections. Surely you can see that absent justification for your claims, you are doing the very thing you are (falsely) accusing me of doing, no?

No one is talking about belief here, Bear. Rather the argument is that you KNOW that God exists, but are suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. Your comment reveals a precommitment to the concept of ‘evidence’ which alludes to ‘proof’. Proof of anything requires truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic, none of which can be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible. If you dispute this, feel free to provide your competing account for the existence of any of these things without God. You will not be able to, as these concepts do not comport with atheism in any way shape or form, but I think the exercise will be helpful to you. Take care.

Well, you’re surely not doing yourself any favors by continuing to live in denial of God’s revealed Truth. There are only 2 types of people, Pepe; those who profess the truth and those who suppress it. I trust I don’t have to tell you which side you’re presently on? God doesn’t send people to hell for what they don’t know, but for denying the God that they do know exists and rejecting His offer of salvation. Repent and trust in Jesus Christ and God will forgive you of your sins and for your denial of Him.

Hey again, spuddie. You seem to have a penchant for making unjustified claims and allegations. As of now, everything your have asserted above stands unsupported (and unsupportable). I seem to remember a well known atheist stating that claims made without evidence should be dismissed in the same manner (or something like that). Sounds reasonable to me.

Hey, you’re free to giggle all you like, but you do so without any foundation in rationality or logic, as you (yet again) provided zero support for your claims. Have fun!

Sure. The very concept of evidence is evidence for God’s existence, as it alludes to ‘proof’. Truth, knowledge, and abstract, invariant, universal laws of logic are necessary preconditions for proving anything. Concepts such as these do not comport with any atheistic worldview or evolutionary model, while they do comport with the abstract, universal, invariant character and nature of the God of the Bible. As such they can be made sense of in the Christian worldview by the impossibility of the contrary. It then follows that Christianity is logically defensible while atheism is not, as it ends in the absurd conclusion that knowledge, truth, and logic are not possible. Why trust such a hopeless position, Bear?

Spuddie, I would be shocked if you didn’t at least feel the slightest twinge of guilt as you wrote your above comment, given the host of baseless allegations you have made against me and the litany of names you have called me thus far.

(Not that I mind, though, as I have found that such tactics are usually a good indication that an opponent has run out of rational arguments. Keep it up!!)

Uh, jim…….did you have any justification for your above claims, or should I just add them to the (large) pile of baseless assertions that has accumulated from the atheists on this thread? Let me know.

Sure, absent the God of the Bible, you have zero justification for the existence of truth, logic, knowledge, proof, or the uniformity of nature (i.e. induction) and must accept all of these things on blind faith alone. This is being demonstrated by the atheists on this thread as we speak—just scroll up.

Hey Rob, thanks again for the response. You are the first professing atheist that has ever admitted that they do, in fact, know that God exists. This means that you can’t possibly be an atheist, as you can’t know something or someone which could be false or who doesn’t exist.

As for your questions: I appreciate them, but with all due respect, they are very flimsy reasons for choosing to live in rebellion against the God whom you admittedly know exists. For instance, why could God not choose a doctor as the means through which he brings about healing? If you are intellectually honest, you would be forced to admit this possibility. Indeed, heaven is a much better place than earth, but since life is a precious gift from God, I see no reason why we shouldn’t seek to preserve it until the day of our appointed departure (especially since we know that sickness, disease, and death are natural enemies of mankind and are a result of the curse). I recommend that you give some serious thought to the real reasons for your denial of God and that you will repent and trust in Jesus Christ, as these objections will not hold up when you stand before your Creator.

Hey jim, just because you don’t like the evidence presented, doesn’t mean that none has been given. Of course, rejecting evidence simply because you don’t want to accept it is the very definition of an irrational position.

Nope. Mutual exclusivity. Nice try, though.

Hey, I.A.. Is all truth based on empirical evidence? If so, please provide the empirical evidence to support that assertion (and also tell where you have examined ALL truth, as I would love to have a look myself!).

As for the rest of your claims, they are surprisingly void of evidence to support them—especially since your whole post was put forth in defense of the necessity of evidence in order to substantiate truths. That type of inconsistency could cause the intellectual honesty of a person to come into question………just sayin’.

I’d say the same thing if I were in your shoes, spuddie. No doubt it is uncomfortable seeing atheism exposed for what it really is, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be exposed. Take care.

Hey David. Not that I agree with your comparison of Christianity to the other (false) religions you mentioned, but you also raise a good question here: as an atheist, what is the objective standard of morality which says that people SHOULD NOT cause harm to one another? What is your logical justification for why anyone else SHOULD abide by that standard if they choose not to?

Also, since rapists, murderers, and terrorists also evolved according to your worldview. How do you know that they didn’t evolve the correct standard or morality and you didn’t evolve the incorrect standard? In other words, how do you know for certain that causing harm isn’t want we should be doing vs. not causing harm?

Easy. God has revealed Himself such that we can certain of Who He is and that the Bible is true. It is the only holy book that is objectively verifiable, comports with reality, is internally consistent, and makes sense of abstract, universal, invariant concepts such as laws of logic, mathematics and morality. If you dispute this, feel free tell how any abstract invariant makes sense in your worldview.

The Bhagavad Gita says ” He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the goal of knowledge.” It also says that those who fail to recognise God are fools. Given that there are pretty similar claims made in Christianity, Islam and Judaism how can you say which one is the Truth?
How can you justify, when there is a crossover is philosophies (and in actual content in the case of the Abrahamic religions) that only one particular religion or sub-religion is true and picking the wrong one will result in eternal torment?
And why would a loving God create a multiplicity of religions, load them up with similar arguments, presumably allow billions of people to choose the wrong one and then wager our eternities on the outcome?

Huh. Funny. All the Muslims I work with tell me the exact same thing about their religion, their god, and their holy book. The exact same thing. Keep reading those last four words until you understand what rtanen was telling you in point #3.

No one is talking about belief here, Bear.

No, we are. You have asserted that your non-evidenced god exists (claim). I don’t believe you (rejection of claim). It is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for your assertions. Please do so.

Rather the argument is that you KNOW that God exists, but are suppressing that truth in unrighteousness.

No, I know no such thing and you cannot say I do. Claiming I do know your non-evidenced god exists is hubris and insulting on your part. I know what I know and you can’t claim otherwise. It is dishonest of you to try.

The argument here is that you claim that your non-evidenced god exists. It is your burden of evidence to prove it does, not mine.

Your comment reveals a precommitment to the concept of ‘evidence’ which alludes to ‘proof’.

Damn straight it’s my “precommitment” because without any evidence, crazy beliefs are possible, like your still-un-evidenced god. Why won’t you give any?

Proof of anything requires truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic, none of which can be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible.

You’ve already added that second claim to your side of the ledger: that your still-un-evidenced god is responsible for truth & etc. You still have failed to evidence either of those two claims, merely asserted them. Why should I believe you?

If you dispute this, feel free to provide your competing account for the existence of any of these things without God.

Nah, you asserted two claims that you’ve thus far failed to evidence at all. You still owe me some and I don’t accept your assertions.

You will not be able to, as these concepts do not comport with atheism in any way shape or form, but I think the exercise will be helpful to you.

Funny, of the two of us, you’re the one with two claims on the table and no evidence. Give me some, then we can continue talking.

Whoa…never said I knew or know that god exists…..but we will talk further…

I know. You’re right. I’m gonna go watch This Is Spinal Tap for the 80 billionth time and forget that guy exists.

Sure, absent the God of the Bible,

You assert the god of the bible exists but have provided no evidence to support that claim. I justifiably reject that claim.

you have zero justification for the existence of truth, logic, knowledge, proof, or the uniformity of nature (i.e. induction) and must accept all of these things on blind faith alone.

You assert that with zero justification. I reject your assertion.

This is being demonstrated by the atheists on this thread as we speak—just scroll up.

No, the atheists on the thread, including me, keep asking for evidence to your claim that your still-un-evidenced god exists. Please provide it, otherwise you have zero justification for the existence of your god. (See what I did there? I used your own words back at you. Feel free to provide some evidence that your god exists beyond merely saying so on blind faith alone.)

And you think your farts smell like roses.

You are an idiot.

Good riddance.

What the fuck would you know of any other worldviews? You spent hours insulting every one but your own and extolled yours on the basis of “because”.

I am certain there are plenty of intelligent born agains who facepalm when they read your nonsense. Do they ignore you on the christian websites because they find you inane? Did you come here because they won’t let you play in their reindeer games?

“Therefore, I argue from a presuppositional position which exposes the internal inconsistency of those worldviews which deny the God of the Bible.”

I deny the God of the Bible. Show me how my worldview is inconsistent, based solely on the fact that I deny the God of the Bible.

“None of these abstract, universal, invariant concepts can be made sense of outside of the Christian worldview”

Even if they didn’t make sense, they don’t need to. For me to use logic, I just need to know the rules of logic, I don’t need to “make sense” of them, in the sense that you are using that phrase.

The Bible is false. Full stop. If you refuse to admit that, then you’re just showing yourself to be impermeable to reason.

The Chronicle of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, on the other hand, asserts that morality, logic, etc. were bequeathed upon humanity by the FSM. It also says that pirates had cannons, and they attacked merchant ships. Archaeological research has determined that pirates did in fact have cannons. Also, having cannons is consistent with attacking merchant ships. Thus, tCotFSM is objectively verifiable, comports with reality, is internally consistent, and makes sense of blah dee blah blah.

“Lanza Continues Drive to Remove Malicious Advertisement”

Really? He’s embarked on a campaign to eliminate all advertisement that is “malicious”? Funny how the only example of such that he’s found is an atheist billboard. I don’t recall him doing anything about all the anti-atheist billboards, or the Ahlquist incidents, or the whole “In God We Trust” stuff.

“Just as millions of Americans are preparing to celebrate Christmas, a secular activist group, American Atheists, unveiled its latest anti-Christmas ad in Times Square which asks, “Who needs Christ during Christmas? “ and answers with “Nobody “. The group declares that “Christmas is better without Christ.” ”

How is presenting one’s views on how to improve Christmas anti-Christmas?

Also, some pedantry: it should be “SENATOR ANDREW LANZA DENOUNCES AMERICAN ATHEISTS’ HATEFUL TIMES SQUARE ADVERTISEMENT that says ‘NOBODY’ NEEDS ‘CHRIST DURING CHRISTMAS’ ” and “led to the Holocaust”.

I think this blog title is a bit inaccurate. He did make note of the fact that he had changed his press release, so the “quietly” isn’t exactly correct.

Of course I’m hostile, you ass – you called me “self deceiving” in my “suppression of the truth”.

“gross misrepresentations”? I’d agree with, “gross simplification” – but it’s all there in that book called the Bible. I’ve studied that book many different ways. I can quote you all the passages that my gross simplification is based on.

Happy Festivus.

That isn’t an argument!

UWIR, I have eaten spaghetti and meatballs many, many times. Will your god have pirates with cannon attack me for that? I live far from the water so they’d have to have flying ships to attack me. Will my distance from that water save me?

Religion by definition belongs in museums and is a part of ancient society based on obsolete views. Modern spiritual science totally devoid of judgmentalism, bigotry, arrogant “this is the only truth” reasoning, is more consistent with modern society.

It basically comes down to David Hume’s “Is-Ought” problem. I find the mathematical concept of the “poset” useful for grasping the issue (with “ought” involving an ordering relationship over a set of choices); however, I also find relatively few theists with the patience to follow through the axiomatic underpinnings.

The laws of math are still more a set of abstract relations of abstract entities, which are sufficiently general to be able to correspond to pretty much anything. The question is not whether you can describe something with math, as which bit of math actually does describe it.

For example, morality seems to correspond pretty well to “posets” — involving an ordering relationship over a set of choices, where given a pair of options A and B, you may have A better than B, B better than A, A equivalent to B, or A incomparable with B.

The question is not whether a poset exists. (The abstract existence of a set of such posets can be shown constructively as theorem from ZF or vNBG axioms.) The question is, which poset corresponds to what someone means by “morality”.

I didn’t say I don’t believe in God *because* I don’t like him, you dumb sack of pubic lice, I said I don’t believe in him *and* I hate him.

No, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition!
🙂

Nothing that you presented is evidence. It amounts to no more than you saying “God exists because I believe he exists” and “My proof that he exists is that I presuppose his existence.”

You also greatly insult those of us who wished mightily for evidence of God’s existence during our painful deconversions.

If you really think that the only reason not to cause harm is because you think your God (sometimes) tells you not to…
I actually don’t know how to convey how appalled I am.
Also, the ‘objective and unchanging’ morality of the Bible sanctions slavery, which most people agree today is immoral. Do you account for this change as moral progress, or do you believe that anti-slavery campaigners were wrong to move away from the Biblical model of God’s chosen people being allowed to own slaves?

So, by mutual exclusivity, no Christian who may have at any time harbored a doubt about the existence of God, can be a ‘real’ Christian. Wow, that cuts out, well, nearly everyone.

It must be very satisfying for you to be perhaps the only ‘real’ Christian left. How illustrious a personage you must be!

Well, for once we can (almost) agree. You are correct that there are only two types of people, however, they are: those who believe there are only two types of people and those who don’t.

Simple. The scientific method. It’s the only proven reliable means to the closest to ‘true’ humans can attain. That is why religionists disdain it. It is responsible for all the luxuries you currently enjoy; computers, vehicles, electricity and on and on ad infinitum. What are the contributions of religion to society lately? Sectarian strife, rivers of bloodshed, terrorism, constant praying and worshipping to no effect, attempted oppression of others based on ideology, fake war on Christmas propaganda, solidarity with the Duck Dynasty guy. Are you kidding me? Here’s the ‘truth’ about all religions: Butts in the seats. In the U.S. its an entertainment industry for gullible, fearful people willing to take out their wallets to avoid burning in hell. Stay classy, Christians.

Didn’t see any answers to my questions here, jm. Here they are again:

1) What are the standards of logic and morality you are appealing to here? How do you account for those standards in your worldview? Why do they necessarily apply to anything or anyone, let alone this discussion?

2) How is it possible for you to be certain of anything with only your limited experience and observations to go on?

Problem is, Frank, you betray your own standard here. Your very statement about religion is itself a religious one–it is judgmental, bigoted, and arrogant, as you are asserting your position to be the ‘only truth’ with regards to the place of religion in the world. Such is the inconsistency of those worldviews which deny the God of the Bible.

You said: “”I have not seen one iota of support for your position other than smug self-declaration.””
How ironic.
Look, Spuddie, I have given you my worldview’s justification for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc. You may not like the justification that I have given, but to say that none has been provided is patently dishonest of you. Surely you can see that continuing to evade my requests for you to provide your own competing justification for the very laws of logic you are using to even evaluate and critique my comments only serves to lend credibility to my claims, no?

Thanks for the opinion piece, Frank. Should you ever decide to actually provide proof for your claim and/or provide the objective standard by which you determine what is ‘rational’, feel free. Take care!

Again, spuddie, your lack of a competing account for the preconditions of intelligibility serves to support my position quite nicely. Thanks again!

Thanks again for the help, spuddie! You continue to do wonders for my claims and the cause of Christianity! Keep it up!

Again, bear, just because you don’t like the evidence you’ve been given is not rational grounds for dismissing it. I could just as easily say that, since you have not provided any evidence that you can justify the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge in your worldview, then all of your statements are therefore illogical, untruthful, and baseless as of now. We both believe in the existence of knowledge, truth, and logic, and all any intellectually honest reader has to do is scroll up to see that only one of us thus far has presented any justification for why that is. Surely you can see that borrowing concepts that can only be made sense of in the Christian worldview to try and argue against the Christian worldview, is woefully self-refuting, no?

Again, bear, just because you don’t like the evidence you’ve been given is not rational grounds for dismissing it.

Liar. You’ve given no evidence. You’ve merely asserted. Please educate yourself on the difference between evidence and assertion.

Here’s what assertion is defined as:

-a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged)

-a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason; allegation. (Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary)

-something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

By each of these definitions of the word, you’re repeated claims are mere assertions, statements without support or evidence.

I could just as easily say that, since you have not provided any //snip//

From the guy who’s given NO EVIDENCE for his claims, this is dishonest and hubris.

Provide your evidence for your still-un-evidenced god or your claim is justly rejected.

any intellectually honest reader has to do is scroll up to see that only one of us thus far has presented any justification for why that is.

Any intellectually honest reader can see, quite clearly, that you’ve merely asserted your claims without evidence and have provided no justification at all for either of them.

Additionally, any intellectually honest reader can see that, despite repeated requests for evidence for your claims from me, you’ve failed again and again and again and again to provide any.

That intellectually honest reader must be asking themselves why you’ve ignored each and every request I’ve made, why you’ve repeatedly failed to give evidence, and so that intellectually honest reader is justified in rejecting your claims, just as I have.

Surely you can see that //snip//

No, stop lying. You’ve got two claims on the table: 1) your still-un-evidenced god exists, and 2) your still-un-evidenced god is responsible for truth.

I have rejected both claims. It is your burden of evidence to provide justification for your claims.

You have failed over and over and over again to evidence both of these claims, despite repeated requests from me to give some.

Any intellectually honest reader can see that you are full of crap, have no evidence to back up your wild claims and are justly ignored because your claim is easily rejected.

Hey Amor. I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t take Bible exegesis from you given your penchant for misrepresenting the Bible and your presuppositional bias against it, no?

“”What we actually know is true is only based on reason & evidence.””

I welcome you to share one thing that you know for certain to be true and to tell how you know it.

“”The undiscovered truths still remain true and we don’t start BELIEVING it’s true before we have evidence.””
Oh? And what was the evidence that was presented to you that caused you to believe in things like logic, truth, and the concept of ‘proof’? Clearly you would have to accept the existence of these things BEFORE proving that they exist. That’s what presuppositions are, they are the foundational assumptions by which we interpret the world around us, including all evidence. I presuppose that God exists and that the Bible is true and then reason from that position, while you do not. As such, logic, truth, and knowledge can be justified in my worldview as a direct reflection of the revealed absolute, universal, immaterial character and nature of God. How do you justify the existence of such concepts in your worldview, I.A.?

Your repeated avoidance of my requests to account for abstract, universal, invariants in your non-Christian worldview, despite appealing to them over and over again, should do just fine. Take care.

scmike,

Your repeated avoidance of my requests for evidence for your two claims is noted. Feel free to continue avoiding that burden of evidence as it shows every intellectually honest reader that you are intellectually dishonest and have no evidence to support your still-un-evidenced god. But, if you do write back, including evidence for your two claims should do just fine.Take care.

Thanks again for the help, scmike! You continue to fail to evidence your claims and set back the cause of Christianity due to your dishonesty and hubris! Keep it up!

1. a) what is ‘true’, b) what is ‘just’, c.1) the physical necessity of determining what is ‘true’. c.2) the sociological imperative for justice. d) They don’t ‘necessarily’, but in my opinion it’s better if they do, otherwise, the discussion has no practical purpose. Sort of like playing chess with a partner who refuses, or is unable, to move his piece.

2. Why is ‘certain’ relevant? I’m certain that the sun came up this morning. I see it. I’m not absolutely certain about other things. ‘Certain’ is a continuum; more or less certain depending on the available information, and how much of that information can be demonstrated to be ‘true’.

Perhaps you will now do me the courtesy of a rebuttal to my other comments?

In what way does the use of logic, or any reasoning to make sense of the world around us, prove that God exists? Logic is something humans made up in order to navigate the world around us. We use consistency to process information.

Nothing forbids you from making nonsense claims like you are. As a matter of fact, you’re doing it and the universe hasn’t collapsed. My point is that I use certain standards to understand the world, and the amazing thing is that it works, wonderfully. Your comments are not up to that standard so I feel perfectly justified saying that if you can’t put your beliefs into some form that makes sense to the same logical thinking that is used to discern other aspects of life and the universe successfully then either your comments are faulty or the beliefs are faulty.

Let me rephrase what I said before: Why do you think you can make certain claims without any evidence whatsoever and demand that we simply accept what you say?

Every single argument you’ve used can be applied to any creature I care to make up. What?! You don’t believe in the almighty Purple SnowUnicorn? Well, that is your fault. The evidence is all around you if you’d just decide ahead of time to believe in him! As long as you believe it’s there, you’ll see it in everything!

Spending Christmas with my nephews putting on an elaborate show of Santa Clause’s arrival just made me realize even more that there is no more evidence of God than there is of Santa Claus. If one wants to believe, then they will, reality be damned.

Sure let me keep it simple….1+1=2 is true, because if you have a single object and add another single object then you will have one more than you had. Which is 2. Math is based on REASON. Another example of truth is that women give birth to children. That’s based on evidence of observing sonograms and live birth…. Logic and truth are not presuppositions because logic is a method of figuring out what is so and what isn’t. It isnt based on what you presuppose. This argument sounds extremely childish and you are the only one I’ve ever heard of thinking that logic and truth are pre-suppositions. ‘Pre-suppose’ means you believe something before its demonstrated to be so. Reason is a logical thought process based on the continuance of how things are demonstrated to work already. You apply them to your pre-supposition AFTER you make any presumption. Reason isnt something you suppose before you actually suppose something. This isn’t a worldview or an opinion. Logic/reason is applied to presuppositions. Its not a presupposition itself. Even you said it when you said ”I (presuppose) that God exists and that the Bible is true and then (reason) from that position”<–How can you apply reason to a presupposition, if you believe reason is a pre-supposition?…be consistent dude. Btw you were talking about gravity being true earlier. You mean to tell me its just a presupposition? Lol. This argument is just as silly as a gynecologist arguing with a creative idiot that claims babies are born through stork theory and thinks the gynecologist has a presupposition on equal footing with the stork when it comes to explaining how babies are born….Gotta love theist wisdom. When you try to strengthen your argument by taking basic foundations of assessments away, you now open the door for any irrational thinker to create fictional characters in their heads in which there is no way to validate because its ''their presupposition.'' You've gone full retarded on me and I tap out by your submission of stupidity.

So you don’t stand behind your own words.

I get the feeling that even other Christians think you are an idiot. Which is why you are here.They don’t want you around.

I have known plenty of Christians who are intelligent and capable of supporting their own statements or at least giving a coherent argument. You will never be one of them.

No you patted yourself on the back and asked everyone to just accept it because you love Jesus so much. Well, that may work among other Born Agains. They are not a very critical bunch for this sort of thing.

Obviously you are not used to dealing with those outside the bubble of people who do not consider themselves mini-Jesii with anything other than smug contempt.

While others were willing to overlook your obvious sectarian bigotry, I am not. You are nothing more than a person who loves to hate. Someone who thinks following Jesus means not really having to follow him with that whole “love thy neighbor” stuff. A sham Christian who thinks being born again means they can demand respect which has not been earned.

Btw you do realize everyone here thinks you are an idiot?

1) Then clearly the Greeks did not develop logic if logical laws were present BEFORE the existence of the Greeks.
2) You’re contradicting yourself here, jm. (a) There would have been no way to distinguish between superstition and rational thinking prior to the development of logical laws, as they are the standard by which rational reasoning is measured. (b) This means that the Greeks would have had to develop the laws of logic without a valid standard by which to gauge the accuracy of their own reasoning while the laws were under development. As such, you are arguing that the laws of logic were developed using reasoning devoid of logic (i.e. superstitious, illogical reasoning). Surely you can see the absurdity of such a position, no?
Hopefully it is clear to you now that laws of logic are not man-made constructs. Rather, they are a transcendant, universal standard of correct reasoning that directly reflects the absolute, universal mind and thinking of God and are the way that He expects us to think and reason, being made in His image.

I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way, spuddie. I guess I should probably just go away and stop exposing the irrationality of atheism, huh? Riiiiiiiiight!!!!
Giving truth to those who are in error, in hopes that they might come to their senses and turn from their folly, is one of the most loving things a person can do. Remember, the truth only hurts when it should, and I can tell by your responses that you’re definitely smarting from it. Perhaps you should give some thought as to why that is?

Well, at least you’re not an atheist—I am pleased with that! If you’d like to now tell how the fsm accounts for abstract, immaterial, universal laws, the floor is yours. Also, feel free to provide the objective support for your claim. To match the Christian claim, such support should be able to be examined by all, comport with reality, be internally consistent, and make sense of abstract, universal, invariants. Take care.

“”The billions of Muslims and Hindus, not to mention the followers of thousands of other non-Xian religions, disagree.””
Agreement has nothing to do with truth, bear.

“”I reject your claim.””
Proof does not equal persuasion. Again, I am happy to leave our discussion here.

The great part about public forums like this one, is that intellectually honest folks can review these dialogues and see clearly which side has justified their position

Yeah, the great thing about this is you’ve presented two claims 1) that your non-evidenced god exists and 2) that it is responsible for truth. Where is your justification for these claims? Nowhere. You’ve repeatedly failed to evidence your non-evidenced god. Repeatedly, even when I’ve asked you again and again.

and which side has only evaded the questions that they can’t/ don’t want to deal with to keep from having the inconsistency of their position (further) exposed.

And yet, even though I’ve asked you over and over for some or any evidence for your still-un-evidenced god, you’ve completely evaded your burden of proof.

I am fine with that.

Thanks for your dishonesty. Intellectually honest readers can see that you make unsubstantiated claims then refuse to back them up, even after repeated requests for evidence.

The issue with using the Bible to prove a point is that it is demonstrably wrong on so many things it isn’t funny. It gets some mundane things correct, but so do comic books.

And the atheistic worldview accounts for morality, truth, knowledge, and the laws of logic just fine,

“No” appears contradictory. Effectively, according to your comment, your justification is the same as for the napkin religion pictured above. This is where we differ. Your ‘standard’ with regard to all posited deities is, in my opinion, arbitrary and inconsistent when it comes to the God of the Bible. Thus, your standard is variable according to your whim. I simply apply the standard across the board. And, as far as I am able to determine, there is no good reason not to. The justification for all of them is the same, i.e., none. Unless you can show why the Christian God is superior to any other without an appeal to the Bible, there is no reason to give Him any more credence than any other imagined god.

I’m comfortable with uncertainty. In my acquisition of knowledge I welcome new information which I use to assess and re-assess my perception of reality. This works quite well. It is not always reliably ‘certain’, of course. I’m ok with that. Seeking information allows for revision and refinement of knowledge. Appeals to magical beings, supernatural effects, superstition and myth has no place in it. I have actively sought and assessed the information and deem such things useless for ‘knowing’ anything. Except perhaps that religions generally are a quite clever innovation to govern groups of people and exploit them to acquire wealth and power. One can turn on the TV any Sunday morn and observe the charlatans ply the same trade laid out in the old testament. Those burnt offerings in Leviticus, barbecued on the tabernacle fire, sure made a “pleasing aroma to the Lord,” and undoubtably made a tasty supper for the priests!

You have selected a particular set of so-called certainties amongst a huge array, most of which you justifiably reject based on your perceived valid standard. How do you account for the inconsistency? As I mentioned, you’re almost there. You have a lot invested and it might seem frightening. Yet, awe and wonder awaits, my friend.

Thanks for an interesting conversation. Take care.

The character and nature of the God of the Bible is that of a petty, bigoted, jealous, genocidal abuser. Why would you worship such a being, or take its example as a good one to follow?

Hey spuddie. The very fact that you want me to stop using these arguments against your position is verification that I shouldn’t. Although, I do understand why you’d want me to. I’d say the same thing if I were in your position.

What is the standard by which you deem anything to be ‘nonsense’ in the first place, Olive? Absent an objective standard by which to base this on, your complaint is meaningless and is reduced to arbitrary personal opinion. What is that to me (or anyone else for that matter)?
See, you profess not to believe in a universal standard by which people SHOULD reason and think, but you behave as if there does exist such a standard when you continue to make allegations that I am being illogical. If there is no logical standard of correct reasoning, then no reasoning can ever be incorrect (i.e. illogical). As such, the most you could ever say is that my thinking is ‘different’ than yours. The fact that you do believe that some reasoning is incorrect betrays your professed position and reveals the internal inconsistency of your worldview. As a Christian, I can say with certainty that internal inconsistencies are absolutely irrational and therefore false, since they violate an absolute, universal standard of logic prescribed by our Creator. This is something you could never say or justify in your worldview. I hope you’ll give this some serious thought.

There is no universal law of logic. Even if it were, God isn’t necessary for its existence. You simply keep stating things without any evidence over and over and over…

You are assuming that God is a prerequisite for all things, and then using that assumption as your proof. You’re simply asserting that this is true with no foundation in reality. You realize that it is faulty because anybody can make the same assertion about anything without any evidence, right? I’ve decided that nothing can exist without the The Purple SnowUnicorn. I’ve made a statement without any evidence. How is this different from what you are doing?

You come back a week later and expect me to hunt through the thread to find my previous post? You didn’t have a response to it when I first posted it, why should I expect you to have a response now?

I have presented the claim that there is a supernatural being that conferred logic. You claim that there is supernatural being that has conferred logic, and you’ve claimed a whole bunch of other stuff, too. If the claim that I have presented is “absurd”, then your claims are even more so. That you refuse to acknowledge how absurd Christianity is simply confirms how much of an ideological blind spot you have. My entire point is that for any goal you claim Christianity achieves, I can present a less absurd worldview that also achieves that. As expected, you either aren’t able to comprehend my point, or are deliberately ignoring it.

Furthermore, this entire discussion started with regard to the claim that people who claim to be atheists actually believe in God. You may believe that you have an argument for Christianity, but even if it were valid (which it is not), that wouldn’t change the fact that atheists don’t accept the argument, and don’t believe in God. Even if you believe that a disbelief in God is somehow “inconsistent”, that doesn’t change the fact that it is sincerely held.

It is nonsense according to rules I use to navigate the world (as do many others) quite successfully. You aren’t certain of anything as you have no personal interaction with God and have provided no evidence of his existence. I’m using logic, yes. I’m not saying that logic doesn’t exist and doesn’t work. I am, however, saying that it isn’t a universal law and it isn’t useful simply because “God did it.”

I am giving what you say serious thought and you aren’t making the profound statements you think you are. I was a Christian once, too.

So… May I ask what your precise definition of objective morality is?

After that, please point out the objective moral beliefs as found in the bible.

When you manage that, tell me how all 41,000 denominations of Christianity practice this objective morality.

Actually, when you manage that, tell me how a single denomination has managed to practice objective morality for 2,000 years.

Firstly, Feminerd, I deny your gross mischaracterizations of the God of the Bible. However, you do raise some good questions here: by what objective moral standard do you condemn any of the behaviors you cited above? How do you account for that standard? Why does it necessarily apply to anything or anyone? I welcome your responses.

Hey, UWIR, you made the claim and it is up to you to defend it. Sure, you may have posited a ‘deity’ (and consequently abandoned your atheism, which is a fact that still pleases me) as an attempt to counter the Christian position, but you have yet to rationally defend your claim. I have shown how the God of the Bible provides a rational basis for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants, such as the laws of logic, as they comport with these aspects of His revealed character and nature. You, on the other hand, have yet to tell how you reconcile the non-absolute, non-universal, material nature of spaghetti with the existence of such standards. I am eager to do a thorough internal critique of your professed pastafarian worldview and demonstrate further why it is not rationally defensible, if/when you decide to address this fundamental inconsistency. I won’t hold my breath for you to reconcile the irreconcilable, though.
P.S. I should remind you that positing claims which cannot be rationally defended on your part only serves to validate the Christian claim of the impossibility of the contrary. I am grateful for that!

“”So… May I ask what your precise definition of objective morality is?””

Moral standards revealed and prescribed by God.

“”After that, please point out the objective moral beliefs as found in the bible.””
Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. To condense even further: Love = good, Hate = bad.
God’s moral standards are not Christian specific, Olive. They are absolute, immaterial, universal laws that reflect the absolute character and nature of God and have been revealed to all people directly by Him as the prescribed way He expects us to behave and conduct ourselves, being made in His image. This is what makes things like rape, murder, child molestation, terrorism, etc. ABSOLUTELY wrong in my worldview. However, this is something you could never say, as you have espoused a position in which morality is reduced to subjective personal preference. This leads to consequences that you probably won’t want to accept, such as the possibility that the behaviors I listed above could be perfectly acceptable and even ‘right’ in your worldview. You see, if morality can be arbitrarily stipulated, then anyone is free to stipulate their own moral standards and you lose any basis for arguing against them, as one personal preference is no more valid than another. While you may profess to believe this, you (thankfully) do not live that way. I hope you’ll give this some very serious thought.

So you condone slavery (and sexual slavery) and consider that an objective moral good?

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11)

You think killing children is an objective moral good?

“So this is what the LORD Almighty says about them: “I will punish them! Their young men will die in battle, and their little boys and girls will starve. Not one of these plotters from Anathoth will survive, for I will bring disaster upon them when their time of punishment comes.” (Jeremiah 11:22-23)

Forcing a woman to marry her rapist is an objective moral good?

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Bashing babies against rocks is an objective moral good?

“Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” (Psalms 137:9)

Just curious.

See what I mean? You believe in things like morality, truth, knowledge, and laws of logic, but how do you rationally justify the existence of these abstract, universal, invariant concepts in your naturalistic worldview? So far, no one on this thread has even come close to providing an answer to that question. I don’t suspect there will be one.

You’re right. I’m asserting that until you actually provide concrete evidence for your God, I will continue to not believe he exists. I’ll own that.

I am asserting you’re making assertions with no proof. You think you are, but you are not.

As far as not giving evidence myself,I don’t need it to point out the fact that you’ve given absolutely none yourself and that your arguments are based entirely on naked assertions with no proof or justification.

Hey Olive. Regarding your questions:
1) Biblical slavery, yes (the passages you referenced have nothing to do with sexual slavery). Modern day slavery as we know it, no. Apples and oranges.
2) The taking of any life by God is good, as ultimately all life belongs to Him and is His to do with as He pleases. Fortunately, we can be certain that God has a morally sufficient reason for everything that He does per His promises in the Bible.
3) You’re confusing absolute moral laws with those non-absolute civil and ceremonial mandates prescribed upon the Jewish people of ancient Israel who lived under God’s Theocracy (i.e. The Old Testament). Apples and oranges.
4) No. It was good at the times and places commanded by God.
Now, my follow up question to you would be: by what objective standard of morality would it be wrong to do any of the above in your worldview, Olive? How do you rationally account for such a standard?

Why was it good then but not now? Why was it good in certain contexts but not in others? Who decided that certain parts of the bible were ok in the past, but needed to be reformed?

I think you’re the one confusing objective morality. See, you are picking and choosing which things God advocated as good or as contextually ok but not applicable to modern life. There are other Christians who look at the bible and say that it condones modern slavery. What part of the bible says that modern slavery isn’t ok? How do you, exactly, decide that these things are no longer moral?

Perhaps this will help:
1) Where in the universe do laws of logic not apply? Does the logical law of non-contradiction apply to the universe itself, or could the universe both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way?
2) How do you know for certain that I am not certain of anything?
By the way, the profoundness of any statements will be interpreted via the presuppositions of the one examining them. No evidence will convince someone who doesn’t wish to be convinced, Olive, as proof doesn’t necessarily equal persuasion. However, it is my hope that you will come to see the irrationality of your position as you consider, and attempt to formulate answers to, the above questions. Sure, you may choose to continue to profess atheism after this discussion, but it will be despite sound logic and certainly not because of it.

I have already defended it. It’s not my fault you lack the long-term memory to remember it.

“I have shown how the God of the Bible provides a rational basis for the existence of abstract, universal invariants,”

Well, now, that’s just another example of your dishonest equivocation. Even if you had so shown (which you haven’t), the challenge is not to provide a rational basis for invariants, but to present a rational basis for believing in invariants.

“as they comport with these aspects of His revealed character and nature.”

“Comport with” is quite a bit weaker than “rational basis”, and by appealing to alleged revealed nature, you are begging the question.

” You, on the other hand, have yet to tell how you reconcile the non-absolute, non-universal, material nature of spaghetti with the existence of such standards.”

We aren’t discussing spaghetti, we’re discussing the FSM.

Hinduism says that before the universe there was silence, and the universe expanded from a single point through the will of the godhead Brahman. Then the god Brahma (an aspect of Brahman) created the contents of the universe and its laws (including the laws governing concepts such as truth and logic, which is why his other half is Saraswati the goddess of knowledge), and will create a new universe when this one is destroyed.
Why do you think this story is wrong?

P.S. Saying it’s wrong because the Bible disagrees with it is no more a valid argument than my saying the Bible is wrong because the Bhagavad Gita disagrees with it.

I have to disagree with your claim that the moral prohibition against lying is absolute or universal. Lying is wrong in certain circumstances because it causes physical or financial harm to another (e.g. if I lie about the condition of a car’s brakes when selling it). Lying can also be wrong because it violates an implicit or explicit standard of conduct within a relationship, essentially changing the terms of that relationship in a way that disadvantages one party without that party’s consent.

However, lying is not absolutely or universally wrong because there are circumstances when it prevents greater harm than it causes e.g. (warning – Godwin’s law in action) the people in occupied Europe who lied to Nazis about the presence of Jews were causing harm to the Nazi engaged in looking for Jews by forcing them to spend more time looking for victims and creating a risk to the Nazi of reprimands from their superiors, but they were avoiding the far greater harm of the people they were hiding being tortured and killed, rendering the lie morally acceptable.

If the lie was unacceptable because it was contrary to your god’s nature, wouldn’t it be impermissible in all situations, even ones involving Nazis?

“by what non-arbitrary standard of morality do you call any behavior wrong in your worldview?”
my basis for causing a behaviour morally wrong is that the harm it causes to others outweighs the utility derived from it.
“How do you account for that standard?”
by the fact that humans function best when living in groups so we are best served when our moral standards reflect the long-term interests of that group and its members.
“On what logical basis should anyone else adhere to that standard if they don’t want to?”
I’m not suggesting that anyone else adhere to my moral standards so long as they do not engage in behaviours that cause needless or disproporitonate harm to others. I know that people measure harm differently than I do and I respect their right to do so where they don’t fall below basic levels of respect for others.

Also, on the argument you keep making about the existence of logic proving the existence of your god, this article addresses the exact point you’ve raised:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

I should thank you for raising this argument because it made me research the nature of logic, so I’ve learnt something new due to your posts even if it’s not the thing you wanted me to learn 🙂

What you don’t realize, Feminerd, is that we will interpret any evidence (including the Bible) via our respective presuppositions. I presuppose that God exists and that His Word is true, while you presuppose that God does not exist and that the Bible is not true, hence your innacuracies and mischaracterizations of God and the Bible. The question then becomes, which of our positions is internally consistent, comports with reality, and can be rationally defended? You answer that question very clearly in your above comments when you profess not to believe in objective morality and then contradict yourself when you say that if another standard allows for certain behaviors, it is a ‘pretty bad’ standard of morals to adopt. This is terribly inconsistent, as the most you could ever hope to say about any behavior is that it is ‘different’ from the one you hold, but certainly not ‘good’ or ‘bad’. If morality can be arbitrarily stipulated, then anyone is free to stipulate their own and you lose any rational foundation for arguing against them. After all, if I say “I like the color red” and you say, “yeah, but I like blue”, what is your personal preference to me? You should give this some serious thought.

I know that intellectual honesty is not your strong point, UWIR, but unless the ‘S’ in FSM stands for something other than ‘spaghetti’, you stand (self) refuted and remain without any rational justification for the laws of logic you are attempting to employ in arguing against the Christian claim. Your position is therefore reduced to one of blind faith. I am pleased with that!

Hey Richard. How do you know that extinction is not the proper goal of mankind vs. self-preservation? In other words, how do you know that extinction is not what we SHOULD be striving for? I welcome your response.

Not wasting my time with your confirmation biases

Hey rtanen. Just saw your comment. Normally I don’t entertain Biblical criticism from those who can’t account for logic or the validity of the senses and reasoning they employ in order to do any textual analysis. However, just so those following along don’t think that your allegations of inconsistency are in any way valid, I will address them:
1) There is no inconsistency here. Proper exegesis reveals one angel on the stone with wo inside the tomb.
2) Your allegation here is false. The Bible never claims that pi = 3. It only tells us that 30 cubits went around a space of 10 cubits. Since a cubit is an approximate unit of measurement in the Bible (about the length of a forearm) and varies from person to person, it is not possible to derive a precise mathematical ratio, such as pi, from it.
3) Problem is, if mathematical laws are merely descriptive in nature, then they lose their universality and only apply to whatever they are describing at that moment. There would be no reason to expect that these laws applied to past unobserved events in history (such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, the reproduction of the first species on earth, or the formation of galaxies and stars in the universe) or to expect them to hold 2 seconds from now in the unobserved future. As such, you lose any rational justification for relying on them at all or assuming them to be true, as they could now be false for all you know.
Regarding laws of logic: clearly they also cannot be mere descriptions of reality, as you would then have no reason for believing that they apply to anything outside of your own limited experience and they could vary based upon peoples’ differing perceptions of reality, with no way to resolve the conflict between competing standards of logic absent an absolute overriding standard by which to determine which were correct. Also, there would be no reason to believe that laws of logic have applied in the unobserved past or the unobservable future. This means that you would have to allow for the possibility that the universe itself may have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way BEFORE there were humans around to observe reality and infer the logical law of non-contradiction. This, of course, is absurd.
Regarding morality: Behavior has nothing to do with the existence of a universal standard. The fact that some people like to behave immorally in no way negates the existence of the standard they are violating (in fact, the term ‘immoral’ presupposes the existence of a correct standard of human behavior). The question is not whether or not certain actions can be deemed acceptable by other people, rtanen, but whether YOU would ever accept certain behaviors (such as rape, murder, or terrorism) as OK if they were perpetrated against you or someone you care about. Everyone knows that these are absolutely wrong and not just a matter of personal preference, but only Christianity provides us with a rational justification for why that is.

“”I start with no presuppositions. I merely ask to be convinced by evidence that things are true, and if no convincing evidence is presented, go with the null hypothesis instead.””
Actually, Feminerd, your very statement that you start with no presuppositions is, itself, a presupposition which makes your claim a self-refuting one. In addition, there are many others that you hold as well. Take the concepts of logic, truth, proof, and knowledge for instance; clearly, you would have to accept the existence of these things prior to proving their existence. My position is that the God of the Bible is the necessary precondition for the existence of any abstract, universal, invariants such as the ones listed above, as they cannot be rationally justified or accounted for outside of the Christian worldview. In order to argue against my claim, you must assume the opposite position (i.e. God does not exist and the Bible is not true) and you will interpret any evidence presented to you via those assumptions. The problem is, in doing so, you destroy any foundation of your own for rational thought or the ability to know anything in your worldview. You also lose any logical basis for making any moral assesment, as your claims about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are reduced to nothing more than mere subjective personal opinions which have no binding authority whatsoever. After all, why should anyone care about your opinions if it is their desire to do otherwise?
Fortunately, you do not live in accordance with your professed beliefs, as is evidenced by your claim that you believe one standard of morality to be ‘better’ than another, as opposed to just being ‘different’ from one another. Absent a known absolute, overriding, correct standard by which to gauge this, one standard could never be ‘better’ (i.e. more correct) than another. If I say that 17 is the answer to the question ‘what is 2 + 2’ and you say the answer is 6, both answers are incorrect, but your answer is the ‘better’ answer because it is closer to the known absolute correct answer of 4 (in base 10 mathematics). What is the absolute correct standard of morality by which all people should live and behave, Feminerd? How do you account for such a standard? Why does it necessarily apply to everyone?