List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[The Atheist]

Joseph Stalin died of natural causes, as did Pinochet, and others. The so called justice in this world is a mere illusion. There is no real justice - just look at the poverty rates in Africa, even in countries which are overflowing with natural resources.

Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.

Saved me saying it - nicely put.

Quite often - as is the case with Zimbabwe - the wicked prevail and the good are punished.

[The Atheist]

Actually, this idea of good and wicked raises another point in terms of the OP.

I don't believe there is any evidence which would convince me to follow a god whose standards are such that an atheist who has committed no crime can be sentenced to the same punishment as Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin and Pol Pot.

[MattG]

Karma. This is the true natural law; the law of cause and effect. It is not dependent on humans.

It's part of it. Natural law is much wider than this though.

[Redzeppelin]

Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.

That's clever, but not valid. I asked you for a culture that thought things like theft, murder, adultery, lying, cowardice and/or betrayal were praise-worthy things as part of my argument that certain values, certain rights and wrongs are consistent throughout history and throughout cultures. You've not done that. You have presented a utopian vision of an indian culture, but instead of providing me with a culture that values the things I've listed above, you've decided to argue that their lack of existence disproves my point. It does not do so in the least.

Oh, and I even forgot. The Vikings were all about stealing other people's stuff in Raids, as were many peoples, and are many peoples today.

Sure - but again, "acts of war" (whether "official" or not) against another culture are very different from what is condoned and valued within the culture and the interaction of its own members. What I need you to tell me is that the Vikings condoned theft among their own community members - that would prove your point.

Nah, I can kill someone and get away with it, and quite frankly, if I don't feel bad, I win. I don't see there being any sort of "justice" in this world - actions and consequences. If you can live with the consequences of the actions - that is, you can commit a crime and not feel bad afterward, and not get in trouble, then naturally there is nothing saying you are wrong.

The key word in sentence #1 is "IF." Have you, by chance, read Dostoyevsky's Crime & Punishment? It's very instructive in commenting upon the scenario you suggest. I would assert that the consequences enacted upon the human heart from such an action do exist - whether the doer wishes to acknowledge them or not.

That always leads to the ad Hitler argument, which says essentially that how can we condemn Hitler on those grounds. I hate to answer like this, since it may be a shocker, but quite frankly we all would be (well I wouldn't, I wouldn't exist, but you get the point) praising Hitler, and heralding him as the hero of the world, who saved it from the clutches of those filthy Jews (I am being ironic here).

Natural law is what allowed us to condemn Hitler's "lawful" killing of the Jews.

The point is, Religious people in general seemed unmoved by the Holocaust as it was happening. I don't recall the Pope ever condemning Hitler in his life time, and speculatively, it is possible that the current Pope would have dawned the SS uniform had the War gone longer.

Christianity did indeed drop the ball badly in this instance; that invalidates Christianity, however, no more than a few bad cops invalidate the value of the police force, or a few bad doctors the value of medical treatment.

Joseph Stalin died of natural causes, as did Pinochet, and others. The so called justice in this world is a mere illusion. There is no real justice - just look at the poverty rates in Africa, even in countries which are overflowing with natural resources.

Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.

I never suggested anything about "justice" or that the world was fair. God is just, and at the final accounting, justice will be served - that He has promised. In the meantime, in order to allow us our freedom, He must allow certain things to occur that we take issue with. It's interesting that nonbelievers complain about God and all His "rules" that they don't want to obey, but then they turn around and demand that He violate our freedom by stopping all evil before it happens - you can't have it both ways.

[JBI]

Why are they invalid? Because they defeat your argument? There are cultures/were cultures where people would kill each other to increase their status. the early Iceland peoples for instance, used to kill each other in blood feuds.

As for your proofs why my concept of theft is not a natural law, consider this: A regressive tax does just that in the economy. It takes more from the poor, and gives back less.

I see no problem with calling even that stealing.

But there are cultures, and countries, who allow Americans to come in and steal there natural resources. IF you look at the colonial and post-colonial history of the 20th century, you seem some disturbing things - you see American funded fascist regimes, you see Genocides going unpunished, and you see cultures who allow people to go and steal from their neighbor, assuming the neighbor is something that isn't like. Robbing the other is a trait of this world in many, many places.

But beyond that. I see no reason why my examples shouldn't count. If the concept of theft doesn't exist, then the society doesn't really care about it, being the natural law doesn't exist. The abstract terms invented for the sake of our social contract aren't made natural automatically. If the abstract doesn't exist, it clearly isn't universal. I hate to accuse this, but you are being ethnocentric.


As for natural law allowing us to condemn Hitler, I would say you are wrong there to. I think what really did that, was a mix of Russians, British and commonwealth, Americans, and others. The actual condemnation is a huge misconception of history. How many people were actually found guilty of war crimes and sentenced after the war? Or better yet, how was Germany's economy right after the war? Did it not sky rocket because of all the funds poured into the border post with Russia, and vice versa?

Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.


Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.

[Petronius]

Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.

I'd go even further and say that when goods are shared, stealing is the only way to appropriate them. The primitive taking a bowl of berries from the storage house for his personal use steals from the community, since there is no measure of linking the efforts he made in support of the group with the quantity he took.
I, eating the last piece of cake in the fridge, am stealing it from the rest of my family.

[PierreGringoire]

Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.


Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.

Hitler did boost the economy. You know how he did it? He provided jobs that made weapons. If he would have just sat around without putting those weapons made in factories into no use. The country's economy would have collapsed. I'm not negating anything you said. I'm just trying to make clear that Hitler's "economic policies" should not be held in awe the least bit.

Alexander the Great and Genghis Kahn pretty much wanted to conquer as much of the world as they could. There were no real goals.

Many things are pure sophistry. I like to go back to Quantum Mechanics. Its a confusing science and doesn't work the way we think it works. What does it prove? How little far common sense goes when it comes to explaining the origin of things. I do not think it is necesarrily romantic or fanatic to believe in a divine entity, or at least keeping an open mind to one.

The suffering populace in Africa is well noted. It contributes to one keeping an open mind about the matter. All you really need is one case study of someone suffering so much so that they don't have any options to get out to make this point valid.

[Redzeppelin]

Why are they invalid? Because they defeat your argument? There are cultures/were cultures where people would kill each other to increase their status. the early Iceland peoples for instance, used to kill each other in blood feuds.

They are invalid because they do not address the criteria of my argument: I asked for a culture where stealing, etc were admired and considered praise-worthy by the cutlure as behaviors acted out within that culture among its members. You have not shown that. That theft (supposedly) did not exist among a certain tribe of indians does not mean that theft was admired and condoned among the people - it means that stealing didn't exist; but if it did exist, would the people have praised and admired those who did it within their culture?

As for your proofs why my concept of theft is not a natural law, consider this: A regressive tax does just that in the economy. It takes more from the poor, and gives back less.

Your example is of the positive civil law; although you may call something "theft" you have done so via interpretation; either way, no culture advocates theft as a positive way of life or a behavior that benefits the society within which it occurs. Taxes that are unfair are not condoned - but since they are not "theft" explicitly, sometimes they are permitted to exist.

But there are cultures, and countries, who allow Americans to come in and steal there natural resources. IF you look at the colonial and post-colonial history of the 20th century, you seem some disturbing things - you see American funded fascist regimes, you see Genocides going unpunished, and you see cultures who allow people to go and steal from their neighbor, assuming the neighbor is something that isn't like. Robbing the other is a trait of this world in many, many places.

These are clever, but they are not the same thing; once again, your examples have to deal with interactions between cultures; I'm talking about within the culture itself; so, instead of speaking of England's "stealing" of India's resources, let's talk about England or India: in history has either country supported the idea that theft of property among its members was OK, praiseworthy, admirable behavior?

But beyond that. I see no reason why my examples shouldn't count. If the concept of theft doesn't exist, then the society doesn't really care about it, being the natural law doesn't exist. The abstract terms invented for the sake of our social contract aren't made natural automatically. If the abstract doesn't exist, it clearly isn't universal. I hate to accuse this, but you are being ethnocentric.

Clearly you don't get the argument and I don't know how to rephrase it so you can understand. Within a community - whether it be tribal or national - when in history has stealing from each other, having sex with other people's wives, lying to each other, indiscriminantly killing each other, betraying each other been seen as positive, praiseworthy, admired behavior? I dare say you will not be able to find such a community. Your examples have all dealt with one culture vs. another, war-time conditions, negating the existence of the vice, or a matter of interpretation - but you've not offered an example for the criteria I've laid out 4-5 times now.

As for natural law allowing us to condemn Hitler, I would say you are wrong there to. I think what really did that, was a mix of Russians, British and commonwealth, Americans, and others. The actual condemnation is a huge misconception of history. How many people were actually found guilty of war crimes and sentenced after the war? Or better yet, how was Germany's economy right after the war? Did it not sky rocket because of all the funds poured into the border post with Russia, and vice versa?

Natural law is what drove those countries to condemn and drives us now to condemn the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.

Hitler's "success" is not the measure of his rightness or wrongness - you have got to be kidding me; are you really taking the argument in this direction?

Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.

My statement that God will ultimately distribute justice isn't an argument about anything except my belief that justice will eventually be served for the wrongs done on earth - this is an answer to the charge that God is unjust because He doesn't address injustice right now.

[andave_ya]

Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?"

[JBI]

No, not really. In truth, the countries sat back and appeased Hitler. His boats in their harbor, and tanks on their ground is what caused them to go against him. The Canadians for instance, went because the British did. The Americans didn't really go, and went once they got attacked, knowing it was them next.

Not divine law - or any such nonsense. Simple survival.

As for societies that praise stealing? Raider societies. Underground societies. Vikings again, who you won't acknowledge.


For murder and killing:
Native Americans again, who used to war, as I have said, which I got out of history books, used to fight for status as men, proof of masculinity. The crusades, church sponsored keep in mind, are proof of sanctioned massacre enough. How many were butchered a) on the way, and b) once they got there? Oh wait, I guess they weren't Christian so they don't count either right?

Honestly, you narrowly dismiss history to support your own agenda, when really government sanctioned massacres have gone on, and go on to date.

My last point, was more to suggest that you can't prove God delivers justice by saying you believe in it. It is like saying, I believe in x, therefore x is proven, and therefore y exists. You cannot skip to y without providing something more substantial to x. For all you know, Hitler is basking in God's holy light right now.

[Redzeppelin]

No, not really. In truth, the countries sat back and appeased Hitler. His boats in their harbor, and tanks on their ground is what caused them to go against him. The Canadians for instance, went because the British did. The Americans didn't really go, and went once they got attacked, knowing it was them next.

This discussion of history isn't really germain to what we have on the table. It's interesting, but a tangent that I'm not interested in pursuing.

Not divine law - or any such nonsense. Simple survival.

Sorry J - when you don't quote the portion of my post you're dealing with, I get unsure to which point of mine you're addressing.

As for societies that praise stealing? Raider societies. Underground societies. Vikings again, who you won't acknowledge

For murder and killing:
Native Americans again, who used to war, as I have said, which I got out of history books, used to fight for status as men, proof of masculinity. The crusades, church sponsored keep in mind, are proof of sanctioned massacre enough. How many were butchered a) on the way, and b) once they got there? Oh wait, I guess they weren't Christian so they don't count either right?

I'm getting the idea that either a) you refuse to admit I'm right; or b) you really don't understand my argument. For the 3rd or 4th time:

You are using examples of immoral behavior performed against other cultures, other peoples, other communities - not immoral behavior done against the community itself by members of the community with the community's blessing and encouragement. In such situations - especially if they involve war, disputes, or a struggle to survive - the normal rules of moral behavior is suspended (in part) because what is done to the "other" (another nation/community/people) is "justified" in some way (legitmately or not).

Now: imagine said Vikings are home from the raids and are living in their Viking community together. Please do not tell me that if Sven the Viking raids Erick's tent and steals his sword that Sven is going to say "Excellent - I've been robbed. Time to head over to Lars's tent and take his sword." Do you get it? No culture has seen stealing among its own people/community as a good, admirable thing - something on par with bravery (which is universally valued especially by the Vikings). How much plainer can I make it?

Honestly, you narrowly dismiss history to support your own agenda, when really government sanctioned massacres have gone on, and go on to date.

I'm dismissing your poor historical examples. The government sanctioned massacres aren't against their own people - and if they are, that the government "sanctions" them (as did Hitler's) does not mean that the community/society/culture in general accepted the practice as good, admirable, praiseworthy.

My last point, was more to suggest that you can't prove God delivers justice by saying you believe in it. It is like saying, I believe in x, therefore x is proven, and therefore y exists. You cannot skip to y without providing something more substantial to x. For all you know, Hitler is basking in God's holy light right now.

I'm very aware that I cannot "prove" anything about God - and I've never suggested anywhere in these forums that I can do so in any way, shape, or form.

I take the existence of God as a given; you don't have to. When people make the charge that God is unfair (a statement that implies that He exists) I simply give the response that the Bible tells us.

Shockingly, if Hitler repented and asked for forgiveness (sincerely so), he could be in heaven. However, there is no evidence that Hitler had a change of heart about what he enacted and enabled. As hard as it is for me to say, Hitler did not commit the unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is the sin of consistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's conviction of the human heart. The odds are pretty good that Hitler may have committed this sin, but until we get to heaven, we really can't know for sure.

[JBI]

OK fine, how about dirty wars committed by elected governments? How about what's going on in Darfur? How about Gladiators, forced to kill each other for entertainment?

[JBI]

I'm very aware that I cannot "prove" anything about God - and I've never suggested anywhere in these forums that I can do so in any way, shape, or form.

I take the existence of God as a given; you don't have to. When people make the charge that God is unfair (a statement that implies that He exists) I simply give the response that the Bible tells us.

Shockingly, if Hitler repented and asked for forgiveness (sincerely so), he could be in heaven. However, there is no evidence that Hitler had a change of heart about what he enacted and enabled. As hard as it is for me to say, Hitler did not commit the unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is the sin of consistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's conviction of the human heart. The odds are pretty good that Hitler may have committed this sin, but until we get to heaven, we really can't know for sure.

Great to know - no matter what you do, if you acknowledge God in the end, you make it to heaven. You call that moral? I call that shooting ones self and argument in the foot. Killing millions is forgivable under Christian law, but denying god! Burn in hell for it!!

[The Atheist]

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?"

That's physics, not life.

Ask a zebra.

[Redzeppelin]

Great to know - no matter what you do, if you acknowledge God in the end, you make it to heaven. You call that moral? I call that shooting ones self and argument in the foot. Killing millions is forgivable under Christian law, but denying god! Burn in hell for it!!

It is not enough to simply "acknowledge" God - since God knows the human heart, you can't fool Him; if your repentance is sincere, then God accepts you. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was to redeem all sinners - even ones who did terrible things. I do not expect you to understand or agree with that theology. But please understand that God does not "sentence" one to hell for denying Him - hell is the destination that those who deny God choose because of the simple reason that they would be miserable in heaven. To force someone to go to heaven who rejects God would be the equivalent of "hell" for that individual. God respects human freewill enough to allow His creations to choose an eternity out of His presence. Think about that for a bit before you fire back.