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

[andave_ya]

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.

But what makes government always right? Even, what makes the church always right? The church as you are referring to it is solely the human part. God didn't and wouldn't actually tell them to go "kill the infidels," not in my Bible at any rate. What I'm trying to say is, is the government always right in what it does? Is anything connected with humans always right, every single time? The Crusades were based on weird superiority complexes cloaked as "God's will."


And um, everyone counts. Whether saved or unsaved. Especially if they're unsaved, because -- forgive me for sounding egotistical -- but if it wasn't for God's grace I'd be in the same place, worse probably, knowing myself. So I'd better not go around sticking my nose in the air because I'm a Christian.

That's physics, not life.

Ask a zebra.

. But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to everything?

[JBI]

What's free will? All action is the consequence of previous actions, therefore everything is predetermined. I see no gap room for free will. The predetermined history, that is, according to the Bible, genesis to Armageddon, and the stop of time, is predecided. If one is to stray, God, being all knowing knew in creation, and therefore sets people up for failure. It is predecided if you burn in hell or not, according to a logical interpretation of scripture.

Milton tries to defend against it in Paradise Lost, and argue free will, but even he, the most learned of his generation, and one of the wisest minds failed.

Prove free will, with or without Christian scripture, and then we can go from there. But as it is, free will is but a term used by Theists which means absolutely nothing.

Where is free will when time is linear? Could time have spun another way? Can Armageddon be dodged? Of course not if you believe in scripture, then where does the room come in for free will? God created us, and he is all powerful, therefore how could he not have known we would fail him? How could he not have known who would burn and who wouldn't? He set the time in motion, providing all the necessary props to assert his dominion at the end of time, yet where is the room for free will? Where is the room for bettering?

Fix that argument before we precede. To assume something like free will exists is not arguing, it is assuming, and not proving anything.

[JBI]

But what makes government always right? Even, what makes the church always right? The church as you are referring to it is solely the human part. God didn't and wouldn't actually tell them to go "kill the infidels," not in my Bible at any rate. What I'm trying to say is, is the government always right in what it does? Is anything connected with humans always right, every single time? The Crusades were based on weird superiority complexes cloaked as "God's will."


And um, everyone counts. Whether saved or unsaved. Especially if they're unsaved, because -- forgive me for sounding egotistical -- but if it wasn't for God's grace I'd be in the same place, worse probably, knowing myself. So I'd better not go around sticking my nose in the air because I'm a Christian.



. But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to everything?

God actually says to go out and massacre Amalechites, men, women, children, and cattle.

God also listed a number of things punishable by death, including disobeying your parents. In fact, pre-marital sex is, by the Bible, punishable by death - to be held in the public square, with thrown rocks.

[Redzeppelin]

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?

These are better - but again: the victims of these crimes were not members of the society - but "outsiders" or those considered "unacceptable" due to social status or race. I'm talking about the "mainstream" society of people who are of the same ethnicity, same religious views, etc. Nowhere in the US is there a town, city, county where theft is considered a virtue. I venture to say that that is so in most countries in terms of how the natives interact with each other. What we do to other countries, or what a government decides to "pull off" against its own country are different things - and again - when a "dirty war" is being committed, the general public does not always agree that it is virtuous or right.

I've given clear criteria and your examples do not meet that criteria. Seriously - I'm not trying to be difficult here. I honestly do not consider your examples to be valid in terms of presenting a culture where things like theft, murder, etc are deemed good, virtuous behaviors.

[JBI]

Not necessarily outsiders - often times random people, people who just happened to be there, or some other factor. I think the dismissal of "other" is again a logical fallacy, used to bi-pass the proof.

It's like you saying "I gave clear criteria for you to prove that God exists, and you haven't." I don't need to fit a criteria built on ethnocentric assumptions. I have satisfied the criteria proposed enough - of course I am not going to find a society exactly like the one we live in, with only one thing changed. That's just silly. It's like saying give me an example of the United States without white people. Such a thing can not be obtained in history, and must be hypothetical.

And when you go hypothetical, the persistent necessarily fails. I cannot create a situation outside of a historical reference point.

You want a Western world with only a few minor changes as an example from history. Good luck. You essentially asked me to find a country with cars but no gas pumps.

Everyone within a society is a member of society, or are you suggesting African Americans, or any other minority group's people aren't part of a society? Natural law didn't apply to them - they happened to drive Japanese cars instead of American ones. Blah Blah.

[Redzeppelin]

What's free will? All action is the consequence of previous actions, therefore everything is predetermined. I see no gap room for free will. The predetermined history, that is, according to the Bible, genesis to Armageddon, and the stop of time, is predecided. If one is to stray, God, being all knowing knew in creation, and therefore sets people up for failure. It is predecided if you burn in hell or not, according to a logical interpretation of scripture.

So it was predetermined that you'd type up these words? If so, then the words really have no inherent meaning because you had no free choice to compose them - which means they can contain no truth whatsoever. Right? How can you be exempt from predetermined actions in the universe you describe (using a description that you didn't really come up with)?

Prove free will, with or without Christian scripture, and then we can go from there. But as it is, free will is but a term used by Theists which means absolutely nothing.

Without freewill, your thoughts become the mere consequence of random and accidental processes and forces that you are subject to. Your thoughts then become nothing more than chemical/electrical reactions that occur due to no control or direction of your own - and as such, are meaningless. You cannot dismiss freewill and then use your thoughts/words to claim it doesn't exist because your words are not the product of your conscious thinking - they are the product of natural forces that you have no control over.

Where is free will when time is linear? Could time have spun another way? Can Armageddon be dodged? Of course not if you believe in scripture, then where does the room come in for free will? God created us, and he is all powerful, therefore how could he not have known we would fail him? How could he not have known who would burn and who wouldn't? He set the time in motion, providing all the necessary props to assert his dominion at the end of time, yet where is the room for free will? Where is the room for bettering?

There are a number of complex explanations that could answer this difficult question. My experience here with you over the last 20 posts or so tell me that I would simply be exhausting my fingers to go over these arguments. In short, in order to say that God "knows" the future, you presume a certain idea as to how God experiences time. That conception may be wrong. As well, I do not believe God "knows the future" because the future does not exist to be known. Therefore, what God may see is simply the entire panorama of our existence in a single, all-encompassing glance - as such - there is no past, present, or future for God - all is NOW in His vision. Which means that the entire arc of your life may constantly be shifting due to your freely made decisions; God's knowledge of you, your heart and mind, and your entire make-up, means that He knows with precise accuracy what you will do - but that's different than predetermining what you'll do. That's a short form of a much longer, more complex argument. Read Richard Rice's God's Knowledge and Man's Free Will for a thorough treatment of the topic.

Fix that argument before we precede. To assume something like free will exists is not arguing, it is assuming, and not proving anything.

Have you "proved" determinism beyond your assertion that it's true? Would you mind doing so, so that we know that you're not assuming yourself?

[JBI]

Yes, I agree, my thoughts are the product of what came before. You are trying to scare me into thinking otherwise, but in truth, it was pre-determined that I would type this, as it was pre-determined you would read this, and pre-determined if you respond to it. Are you saying, at every instance of your life, you, with the same past, replaying the same scenarios, with exactly the same parameters, would have chosen anything different? No. If you reflect, knowing the future, then you would change the past, but knowing the future would be pre-determined to begin with, so the same linear line follows.

As for no control - I have no "real" control, as I wouldn't act any differently. You are trying to use a fear statement, or an abstract logical gap to prove a point, when simply, I am not afraid and agree with you. I didn't have free will to decide to post this or not. I read your message, and based on my past, and the universes' past, I, under a direct reaction, posted this. Then I thought, and reread thour thing, and had another reaction, and edited this in.


Take a ball as an example. You push it, it moves. Now take a very complex thing, lets say, a single entity. It explodes, divides, changes, and as it does it goes along a strait path.

How can there possibly be free will anyway, if God knows everything. Knowing everything, and having a choice is a contradiction. You can't know all without a something existing. If the something exists, then you know what everyone will choose before they do. If so, it is pre-determined. Either he doesn't know all, or free will doesn't exist automatically based on logic.

But keep in mind, God not existing doesn't prove free will, which creates a bigger question, what possibly can prove free will. Contemporary physics seems to have proved well enough determinism, as does logic, but what evidence beyond a bunch of semi-intellectual theologians has even come close to proving anything like free will, without resorting to painful assumptions.



Your whole argument is necessarily flawed, because it is based on an assumption that God exists. Take away that, and anything you say becomes falsified automatically. Therefore the onus is on you to justify that belief, before you can start cutting at mine, which is based on empirical evidence and logic. You cannot prove y without proving x. If you can't prove X, as you said, then there is no purpose arguing anymore, because clearly there is no evidence Potent enough to convince the atheist. There is nothing but an assumption based on a bunch of old clergymen, and a 3000-1900ish year old text.

No evidence, no proof, only an assumption used to create contexts. You can't prove anything, therefore you cannot prove free will with logic, only with an assumption based on faith in an old, tattered book, which in itself is based on assumptions, and dated logic, not to mention contradictions within itself.

[Redzeppelin]

Not necessarily outsiders - often times random people, people who just happened to be there, or some other factor. I think the dismissal of "other" is again a logical fallacy, used to bi-pass the proof.

But they were people who were not considered an integrated part of the mainstream community.

It's like you saying "I gave clear criteria for you to prove that God exists, and you haven't." I don't need to fit a criteria built on ethnocentric assumptions. I have satisfied the criteria proposed enough - of course I am not going to find a society exactly like the one we live in, with only one thing changed. That's just silly. It's like saying give me an example of the United States without white people. Such a thing can not be obtained in history, and must be hypothetical.

Look JB - I give up. I don't know how to help you understand. Each of your examples possesses a characteristic that disqualifies it from countering my assertion. The reality is that some things are stable: all cultures have valued similar things and rejected similar things (to a certain extent). No culture sees murder of its members BY ITS MEMBERS as a positive, viruous thing. Slaves, criminals, those of different religious beliefs or race have been immorally treated with the tacit consent of society - but that society would not see that behavior enacted among its native members as virtuous or acceptable. It's not that my criteria is unreasonable; it's that no example exists to support your position.

You want a Western world with only a few minor changes as an example from history. Good luck. You essentially asked me to find a country with cars but no gas pumps.

I want you to admit that no society has ever existed that praised thieves, murderers, adulterers, cowards and traitors.

Everyone within a society is a member of society, or are you suggesting African Americans, or any other minority group's people aren't part of a society? Natural law didn't apply to them - they happened to drive Japanese cars instead of American ones. Blah Blah.

Come on J - you're a student of history; all are "members" yes - but society also has a strata for certain members - especially those who are different in a way that the community defines as significant.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, I agree, my thoughts are the product of what came before. You are trying to scare me into thinking otherwise, but in truth, it was pre-determined that I would type this, as it was pre-determined you would read this, and pre-determined if you respond to it. Are you saying, at every instance of your life, you, with the same past, replaying the same scenarios, with exactly the same parameters, would have chosen anything different? No. If you reflect, knowing the future, then you would change the past, but knowing the future would be pre-determined to begin with, so the same linear line follows.

As for no control - I have no "real" control, as I wouldn't act any differently. You are trying to use a fear statement, or an abstract logical gap to prove a point, when simply, I am not afraid and agree with you. I didn't have free will to decide to post this or not. I read your message, and based on my past, and the universes' past, I, under a direct reaction, posted this. Then I thought, and reread thour thing, and had another reaction, and edited this in.

I cannot go along with this line of thinking. Without free will, all your words become meaningless because truth cannot come out of random processess. Truth can only come from conscious freedom to discriminate between things. Without free will, your thoughts are mere random accidents. No "fear statements" here - simply the logic of the naturalists applied to their own thoughts.

[The Atheist]

. But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to everything?

Nope, only physics.

Remember, the full phrase is "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

I suppose you could argue that the zebra dies and the reaction to that is lion eating, but it blows your karmic hopes out of the water.

[JBI]

Oh, I know I promised myself I wouldn't post here again, but I came up with the perfect historical example of a society which encouraged the murdering of people (in this case Children specifically, such as infants). Of course, they no longer exist, but Jonestown Guyana I think fits the criteria well enough.

[NikolaiI]

Oh, I know I promised myself I wouldn't post here again, but I came up with the perfect historical example of a society which encouraged the murdering of people (in this case Children specifically, such as infants). Of course, they no longer exist, but Jonestown Guyana I think fits the criteria well enough.

Oh yes, that's a good point- infanticide. Two things though... the exception makes the rule?... and also, I would just say that Red's logic makes a lot of sense to me. Like stealing-- it is universal or near universal because no one wants to be stolen from. Same thing with violence but of course there is violence in certain social systems (like prisons).

[JBI]

No, I don't think there is a rule. He challenged me to find a situation, and I found one. Though I found one before, I think this one has particular punch, given the circumstances.

[Redzeppelin]

No, I don't think there is a rule. He challenged me to find a situation, and I found one. Though I found one before, I think this one has particular punch, given the circumstances.

But again - you've picked an exceptional situation - a cult that withdrew from regular society, led by a madman who set the society's rules. As well, the encouragement to murder was a one-time thing - a response to Jone's assertion that they would be invaded as a result of Congressman Ryan's visit. That's different than murder being an accepted part of day-to-day life - which is what I've been talking about all along (but maybe is only clear now): I've been asking for a society that encouraged murder, theft, lying, betrayal, cowardice, etc on a day-to-day basis within the "equal" members of a community (by "equal" I mean those members who are roughly of the same class, make-up, etc). I appreciate your example, but the circumstances are exceptional - the suicide was encouraged not so much as virtuous or good action, but a necessary final solution to a "threat" that Jones convinced his followers was imminent.

I need a culture whose behavior is not due to exceptional circumstances; a culture whose day-to-day behavior shows a value and respect for the negative actions I've listed probably 10x over the last twenty posts.

[Petronius]

Red, I think JBI has come up with nothing but good points and I don't understand your penelopean attempts at dismissing them. You started by claiming the commandments are natural, universal laws, and that I believe was proven wrong.
Are you now changing your premises in retrospect so you can challenge his examples? If these principles are now only to apply among "equal members", am I to believe that, as far as your natural laws are concerned, it's ok to steal from, lie to, betray or murder someone as long as you don't like them very much?

To add my own example, I invite you to read this article on human sacrifice in the Aztec culture.
The Aztecs believed the Universe is sustained by ongoing sacrifice, in which they felt it was their obligation to partake. This included self-flagelation, bloodletting and death.
Human sacrifice was pretty common and wide in scope, and it did not only include prisoners, but also willing (or indoctrinated) members of the society, the latter of which were revered by their peers. These people obviously thought ritual murder is an important part of their society, even a spiritual necessity. By what reasoning would you deny the imperatives of their culture?