If you are right, and evolution is the only answer, then we will all just be dirt-food when we die. But if you are wrong, and the intelligent design people are right and there is a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot.
By the way, did you ever read what the Kansas School Board had proposed? It doesn’t sound like it from your letter.
California Boy
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
@Enlightened:
.
Lengthy it may have been, but that was a work of pure beauty.
.
And before this comment gets hijacked by some fruitloop or other, that’s “beauty” in a beauty-through-elegance-of-argument kind of a way, not the you-have-to-have-had-a-creator-to-appreciate-beauty-as-an-absolute kind of a way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To a comment a while ago about how god must be a female, I have this, and simply this to say: God is supposed to be perfect, right? I don’t see what’s so perfect about the lack of a wang?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jill,
You wrote, “When it comes time to be punished for sin, he should at least take PART of the blame.” – Okay let me preface my reply by saying God did not create sin. He created the opportunity. God desires real relationships so He created free agents instead of robots. That said, God did take part in the punishment…He hung on a cross. That was His way of taking the punishment for any one who would accept His forgiveness. The wages of sin is death. He died.
You also wrote, “For example, if homosexuality is so wrong, why create homosexuals?” – I do not know whether or a homosexual is born with those tendencies. I read about an experiment in which the scientist concluded that the hypothalamus was substantially different in homosexual and heterosexual males (It was either larger or smaller; I can’t remember. The book, “Ethics For A Brave New World” is in storage, so I can’t give you any of the details. Sorry.). However, one cannot be sure if the difference is a cause or a consequence. I say that to say this: Maybe people are born with homosexual tendencies. People are born with the A1 allele (variation) of the DRD2 TaqI polymorphism, which gives them a small but significant tendency towards addiction to opiates and endorphin releasing drugs like alcohol. Does that make it right to be an alcoholic and to behave as alcoholics do?
It seems to me that the basic question you have (at this point) is this: If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then why are things as they are? I will answer this question in a rather large post. If you’re interested check it out. I find this particular topic fascinating. I think the answer is startling.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is a brilliant summation of my anger at the “meaningful life requires a Divine Observer” argument, Davey. Hats off to you.
/
I am no pythias, no savant, and certainly no prophet. But I foresee another 2316295634 word missive from our friend, using my format (and maybe the word “debunked”, unless he reads down first and realizes it’d be a bit trite), coming back with standard creationist arguments, trying to discredit my sources and re-enfranchise his, misquoting, using circular, ad hominem, and other fallacies of logic to support his arguments, and signing with a gesture of affection that forces a familiarity upon me with which I am uncomfortable (I don’t like strangers calling me dearest).
/
Give me the frothing, illiterate, homophobic breed of Christian any day… they may laugh as they consign me to hellfire and brimstone, but they don’t give me the willies when they pray for my soul.
/
Anyway, not sure why I bothered except I’m home sick and exhausted and miserable but if I fall asleep I will wake up in the middle of the night. My refutation won’t make a bit of difference to the Christian creationists so mostly it was a waste of time, but a better one than watching television.
/
Actually I’m beginning to feel better.
/
Maybe I just needed to assert my inalienable American right to self-govern my spirituality.
/
Not only that, but guess what? I gave ten years of my life defending my right and yours to do so, keeping my mouth shut and supporting Commanders-In-Chief whom I knew were morally bankrupt and ethically hypocrites and more importantly, were raping the hell out of my beloved Constitution… and by golly, I’m so proud to see Americans exercising that right. Keep going, please; I think I (and I know a few others out there) gave enough of myself to pay the tab for a good long while.
/
So sing out loud and strong, ya lubbers, and lash him with wet noodles who first cries, “But our government has our best interests at heart!”
>.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nic:
“Does that make it right to be an alcoholic and to behave as alcoholics do?”
.
Hmmm. I’ve got a better question, nic: regardless of whether an alcoholic is “right” or “wrong” (and let’s be clear about this: many alcoholics can no more control their addiction than you or I could control gravity if we stepped off a roof; gravity is amoral, and so is addiction), would it be “right” or “wrong” to be intolerant of an alcoholic, to the point of persecution, physical harm and murder? Where’s the morality in that?
.
Arghhh, ye lubber, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jill,
Before I post my verbose explanation for the existence of evil and hell and they can co-exist with an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, I want to clear something up for you. You wrote, “…Insisting that one need worship him to get in would be vain….” – Let me give you an accurate definition of worship: Be human. Rocks worship God by being rocks. Water worships God by being water. Worship is not bowing down and repeating praise. God actually detests that type of behavior.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nic:
“God actually detests that type of behavior.”
.
And this was revealed to you how and when, exactly? Let me see if I’ve got this straight: your argument has now mutated (evolved? surely not?) to include the following assertion: if we act as humans (rational, thinking, debating, atheistic, skeptical humans included, presumably), that’s exactly what God expects from us as “worship”, therefore we all worship God, therefore God exists?
.
As far as I can tell, the following is logically equivalent: Cats are not rocks; rocks are not people; all people are cats.
.
Furball, me hearties?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why Is This World So Messed Up?
Introduction:
There is no getting around the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world.
Evil has often been cited as strong evidence against the existence of the God Christians proclaim. David Hume put it succinctly when he wrote of God: “Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is He impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then is He malevolent. Is He both able and willing: whence then is evil?â€
On the surface this appears to be a valid argument.
1. Defining Omnipotent
Job 42:2, “I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.†(NKJV)
Mark 10:27, “…with God all things are possible.” (NKJV)
However, Scripture makes it clear that there are some things God cannot do:
Titus 1:2, “… God, who cannot lie….†(NKJV)
James 1:13, “…for God cannot be tempted by evil….†(NKJV)
In other words, He cannot do anything that is “out of character” for a God whose character is perfect and right. It is not a weakness to be perfect and unable to sin…that is actually a strength.
(All Quotations from this point in the argument for God’s omnipotence are direct statements of C.S. Lewis.)
“The ordinary usage of the word impossible generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word unless.†I can’t see front door unless I get up and walk around a few corners. However, some things, such as those things which are self-contradictory, are absolutely or intrinsically impossible. These things are “impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. ‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. …Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk about God.†A good example of an intrinsic impossibility is that God cannot cease to be God. Or the ever popular: God cannot make a rock so big that even He cannot move it.
C.S. Lewis suggests that “not even omnipotence could create a society of free souls without at the same time creating a relatively independent and ‘inexorable’ Nature.â€
“It is against an environment and preferably a social environment, an environment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself stands out.†So I need you in order to realize I’m me. Further, in order to distinguish thoughts we need “a neutral something, neither you nor I, which we can both manipulate so as to make signs to each other. Matter, which keeps souls apart, also brings them together. But if matter is to serve as a neutral field it must have a fixed nature of its own. Again, if matter has a fixed nature and obeys constant laws, not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to the wishes of a given soul, nor equally beneficial to that particular aggregate of matter which he calls his body. If a man traveling in one direction is on a journey downhill, a man going in the opposite direction must be going up hill.†The fixed nature of matter “furnishes the occasion for all those acts of courtesy, respect, and unselfishness by which love and good humor and modesty express themselves. But it certainly leaves the way open to a great evil, that of competition and hostility.â€
You may conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of matter abuse. “But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried to its logical conclusion evil thoughts would be impossible….†Miracles are instances when God modifies the behavior of matter, but a stable world “demands that these occasions should be extremely rare.†If you’re playing chess you can’t just let every thing go the way your opponent desires (do-over’s, etc.) or you’ll never really have a game. The same is true with our existence; God has to allow things to run their natural course in order for our existence to really mean anything.
We are all probably guilty of thinking, “I would have made things differently if I were God.†But, if we look at things logically we’ll doubtlessly come to same conclusion to which C.S. Lewis came when he wrote, “Perhaps this is not the ‘best of all possible universes, but the only possible one.â€
2. Defining Good
God is good. Beyond this, it is God’s character and nature, which determines what is good and what is bad. It is impossible to absolutely determine whether a thing is good or bad without comparing the thing to the person, character, and nature of God. Any attempt to define what is good or bad outside of the person, character, and nature of God will be relative and arbitrary. It will be the mere opinion of humans. We will look further into this matter in a moment. But at this point lets us consider the goodness of God.
(All Quotations from this point in the argument for God’s perfect goodness are direct statements of C.S. Lewis.)
When we talk of the goodness of God, we mainly mean his love, but our concept of love needs correction. We all want a “kind†God who only wants us to be happy and have a good time. We want a Grandfather in heaven more than we want a Father. We just want some old Guy who gives us whatever we want. “There is kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness is separated from the other elements of love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object…. As Scripture points out, it is bastards who are spoiled: the legitimate sons, who are to carry on the family tradition, are punished [Hebrews 12:8, “But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.†(NKJV)].†If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness.â€
His love for us is like: “that which an artist feels for an artifact†(the artist desires a certain character); “the love of a man for a beast†(an animal “high in scaleâ€, like a dog is so nearly loveable that it is worth a man’s while to train and make it fully lovable.); “a father’s love for a son†(the father uses his authority to make the son into the sort of human being he, rightly, and in his superior wisdom, wants him to be); “a man’s love for a woman†(“Love may, indeed, love the beloved when her beauty is lost: but not because it is lost. Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal.â€).
God loves us too much to let us stay in our present sinful condition. He wants us to be perfect!
Some will say that God’s love is utterly “selfishâ€. However, “God is Goodness. He can give good, but cannot need or get it. In that sense all His love is, as it were, bottomlessly selfless by very definition; it has everything to give and nothing to receive.†Further, God is fully acquainted with us. Therefore He knows what will truly make us happy. “When we want to be something other than the thing God wants us to be, we must be wanting what, in fact, will not make us happy.â€
It’s not that God arbitrarily made us such that He is and has our only Good, but rather that there were no other possibilities. All other possibilities are, as it is, intrinsically impossible. He is the only possible Good.
“God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. To be God – to be like God and to share His goodness in creaturely response – to be miserable – these are the only three alternatives. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows – the only food that any possible universe ever can grow – then we must starve eternally.â€
God is perfectly good and God is all powerful.
3. So where did evil come from?
Before I answer that let me say this: The existence of evil really does not present a problem for Christianity. But it is a problem for those how do not believe God exists. How can evil even exist much less be defined if existence began from the impersonal + time + chance? Beginning from the Big-Bang or any other beginning other than God, evil cannot exist, and what is is always right. Because there is nothing absolute to decide what is evil. Matter and energy are silent; they don’t care how people act. While someone who believes in these theories might say that a particular thing is evil (i.e. cannibalism), some guy in a jungle tribe might say, “That’s good eatin’.†Who’s to say whose opinion is worth more? If there is no God nothing is absolutely bad, not even murder! It’s all a matter of personal opinion. Some one might say, “The majority agrees on what’s good and bad, so that’s a way to absolutely define good and bad.†However, if that is the case then Hitler’s tactics in Nazi Germany were good because they represented the majority’s opinion. The bottom line is this: Evil can’t be anything more than an illusion unless God exists.
But back to the question at hand: “Where does evil come from?â€
The answer is Free Will.
People have the ability to choose. God made us like this because He desired to have loving fellowship with beings who would obey Him, beings who would choose to do so even in the face of temptation to do other wise. If He wanted us to love Him, but never gave us a choice, that wouldn’t be love at all: it would be slavery. If God didn’t give us free will we wouldn’t even be people: we would be robots. This is the key to understanding this whole thing.
Evil arises out of the possibility of choice.
Did God know what people would choose?
Yes. God foreknows everything, but God’s complete foreknowledge does not mean our steps have been predetermined. When your parents had you as their child, they foreknew you would grow up and one day break their rules. Of course their foreknowledge is not perfect like God’s. But the main point is that your parents don’t force you to break their rules, just because they know you will. And God doesn’t force anybody to break His rules. The choice is ours. God simply knows what we are going to choose, because He is God.
In order to fully understand the presence of evil, we have to look back at the beginning.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. It was good and without the effects of sin. God created everything perfect and without sin. Adam and Eve had the ability to choose between obedience and disobedience.
Now the choice wouldn’t have been a real choice if it was without consequence. The choice that God presented them with was this: Obey God and live forever in bliss with all of your needs being met, or disobey God and live a hard life away from the presence of God. Adam and Eve chose to live apart from God. It was humanities first sin. The consequences of the first sin were devastating. God was clear when he commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He said that disobedience would mean death, a spiritual death, apart from His presence. That is exactly what happened. But it didn’t just affect them. It affected every thing.
God created Adam and Eve in His own perfect image, but they passed on a broken image to their children and ultimately to the entire human race. [Romans 5:18, “…Through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation….†(NKJV)] Once sin entered the world, people were condemned to live painful, imperfect lives. Even natural evil (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.) is the result of the first sin.
Romans 8:21-22, “…Creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs….†(NKJV)
Sin has corrupted everything and created a barrier between God and His creation that only He can cross.
God never wanted Adam and Eve to disobey him. God did not create sin or evil. He created choice, which provided an opportunity for true love, but at the same time and opportunity for sin and evil. He knew that this was a risk. But God decided that love was worth the risk.
A great amount of evil and suffering in the world is the result of God letting the natural consequences of things take their course.
Some one may ask, “Why doesn’t God just eradicate all evil?†But think about this: if God were to wipe out all evil at 12:00 midnight tonight, where would you be at 12:01 ? I know I’d be toast! We’d all be toast!
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.â€
It is critical to remember that there really is no such thing as the “innocent” suffering.
Here’s why God doesn’t just erradicate evil:
2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.†(NKJV)
God is giving people time to repent.
God has suffered longer than you and I because of evil; He’s been patiently dealing with this thing for a long time. God has not only suffered the longest, but He has suffers the most.
God truly suffers the most.
Stop and think for a moment about how much humanity suffers at the hands of evil. Yet even the worst imaginable pain does not even hold a candle to what Jesus went through on earth when He was crucified and killed.
Matthew 27:46, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’†(NKJV)
When Jesus took our sins upon Himself on the cross something happened that has never happened before and will never happen again. Jesus was separated from the Father.
Remember also that He continues to go through anguish in heaven as He sees the devastating results of an evil world filled with evil people.
God could have chosen not to do anything about the mess we made, but instead He took on human form and allowed Himself to be murdered so that we could have a way out of our hopeless and helpless condition. God may have allowed evil into the world, but by doing so He condemned Himself to more suffering than anyone in history.
“This is going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you!”
Have you ever heard that line before? It’s a statement from parents designed to “comfort” their children right before they get a good old fashioned b-whooping.
Somehow I feel that whoever invented this tactic really didn’t think things through too well. I mean, what kid hears that and is suddenly overwhelmed by relief that his/her parent is a participant in the pain being inflicted on the posterior?
Our defiance really hurt God more than it hurt us! God is not far off watching this messed up world like it’s a comedy or a bad drama. He is intimately connected with our suffering.
Here’s some Great news:
The story of this evil world has a happy ending for those who have trusted Christ. One day all evil and pain will be gone forever. As one person said – for the believer, this world is the worst that life will ever get. For the unbeliever, this world is the best life will ever get.
Revelation 21:4, “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” (NKJV)
4. Providence
Providence sums up God’s caring relationship(s) to the created world. God uses all this evil and suffering. He turns it into good stuff. Here are a few ways:
1. God uses pain and suffering to help people see that everything isn’t all good. Evil is actually a great witnessing tool. Here’s the way C.S. Lewis put it:
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
Hard times and suffering often turn people to God. Further, you can use the fact that evil exists to show people that God has to be real.
2. God uses pain and suffering to shatter the illusion that what we have is enough for us. C.S. Lewis observes that this is where some people think God looks evil, but really He looks most attractive. Sometimes God allows really hard times to fall on seemingly good people so that they will stop loving stuff and start loving Him. C.S. Lewis calls this “Divine humilityâ€. This is God’s willingness to receive us even when our only motive is that we have lost everything and things have become rather rotten for us. He points out that this is to our good fortune by asking: “If God…would not have us till we came to Him from the purest and best motives, who could be saved?â€
3. Serving God sometimes has to be hard and contrary to our liking or else we’d never know if we were serving God because we love Him or if it’s just something we like doing. So God uses pain and suffering to authenticate our faith.
As Christians, we don’t have to view suffering as purposeless bad karma or random chance. God promises to weave it into His plan. Even amidst all the evil and suffering in the world Christians can rejoice.
Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.†(NKJV)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One Eyed Jack,
I posted some posts to Jill before I read your post on Oct 15th, 2006 at 9:09 pm. The last post, which is titled “Why Is This World So Messed Up?” will answer you inquiries. I hope.
My playground illustration obviously comes up short of illustration the situation. God wants to give you life (toys, ground, etc.); however, you do not have to accept it. If you choose not to accept what He offers He has only one option, as a Gentleman, that is: Not to force it on you. He leaves you alone.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I honestly don’t even know where to begin.
.
Get some help, nic, *please*. Seriously now, this is me, Davey, a moral, caring, human soul, reaching out to you, because I can see clearly that you are a fellow human, and you’re in obvious torment, and it makes me so very, very sad for you.
.
It also makes me so very, very angry, that *someone*, *somewhere*, is responsible for this dishevelled, awful, cluster-bombed wreck of an otherwise perfectly fine, working human mind. Your mind, nic, your *mind*, dammit! It’s precious! It’s important! In all the universe there’s only *one* like it. Please, please, please – help someone to help you fix it. It’s possible to escape from the damage that’s been inflicted on you in your childhood, but only if you have as much faith in your own abilities to face the world as you do in your indoctrination.
.
I’m so very sorry to have to put it like this, but you’re damaged, and you need fixing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Enlightened, I agree about the frothing Christians. Hey, there’s another good name for a band… the Frothing Christians. They could play with Godsmack and Disturbed. I’d go see them, just for the hell of it, with a name like that. Anyway, I share many of your sentiments, but you have stated them so eloquently and clearly that I don’t feel the need to reiterate.
I am certainly enjoying being outspoken and unapologetic about my beliefs. I have never been one to keep my feelings in, but issues of freedom, especially the attempted violation of the wise concept of separation of church and state, apparently get me going. I’m a born Pastafarian. It can’t be helped. Thank you for giving of yourself so that I can spout off here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nic, your post made the back of my eyeballs hurt. For God’s sake, please, take a hike, eat a hamburger, or something. Do something real.
F.Y.I. Everything you wrote is lost on me. I am beyond your grasp. I don’t care what you believe, but please don’t include me when you say that “we” should do or be anything in relation to God. I do agree with one thing you said, however; that we should be. I don’t see how that relates to worshipping, but I am fine with just being. I went hiking yesterday in the nearby mountains, well-known for having the “worst weather in the world.” As I stood on the top of one of the peaks I visited, I felt my God there. It was in the falling snow, the mountain ash berries, and the gray jays. I acknowledged my smallness and frailty on top of a big mountain on a small planet in an ineffably large cosmos. That is how my God speaks to me, not through you. I’m sorry, but I just can’t hear you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t feel so bad about writing long posts anymore.
.
Thanks for that, at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NowtheworldhasMeaning,
Okay, I’m not really sure where to start. Let me just keep it simple. Your view of existence, as spelled out in your Oct 16th, 2006 at 12:07 pm post, is entirely too simplistic. Your reasoning from a Newtonian/Calvinistic perspective, and that just isn’t the way our world works. It’s simple. It’s easy. However, it’s not realistic. I encourage you to read some articles on quantum mechanics.
Here is how I see existentialism: Blindly optimistic. Some existential thinkers are theist. Other existential thinkers decide not to take a “blind leap of faith” to God, but they still leap. They should accept reality, like the post-modern thinker, but instead they pretend that there is meaning for the individual. They pretend that we should be held responsible for our actions, etc. However, they do all of this pretending without any substantial reason for their conclusions. They leap. That is the very essence of existentialism. The existentialist is typically right in her/his conclusions; however, they get there in an illogical fashion.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SaucyWench I second your post .
I hope you didn’t kick any worshippers on your way up the peak SaucyWench. You would have hurt your toe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Deart nic–
Read your posts, including that long one. In responce: “He created the opportunity”
Boom. Done. God gave the opertunity, so he is in some way, no matter how small, responsible for sin. Not saying free will is a bad thing, but he had to know when he gave us free will that some people were gonna mess up- were gonna sin. So he does bare some of the blame, yes?
-
“If you choose not to accept what He offers He has only one option, as a Gentleman, that is: Not to force it on you. He leaves you alone.”–If only some of his more….shall we say, ‘devoted’ followers would do the same. XD
-
“It is against an environment and preferably a social environment, an environment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself stands out.†So I need you in order to realize I’m me. “—so does god need people to know he’s god?
-
“Let me give you an accurate definition of worship: Be human”–Kay. I’ll do just that. And because god wants me to worship him by being human, if I do my best to be human, then I’ll go to hevean regardless of whether I read the Koran or the Torah in my spare time, yes? Sounds good to me.
-
One thing I’ve noticed about you, nic: you keep hammering in how god is good and god is great….but I don’t think you realize how those views are shared by millions of people, Christian or not. Muslims no doubt feel the same way, they just call their god by a different name. Wiccans no doubt feel the same way…they just have several different dieties instead of the one. So why does one nesissarly need to be a worshiper of Jesus to please god, as long as they act the way god wants them to act? (Whether because they accept an afterlife or think religion is a bunch of lies but still want to be decent people.) Also, whether or not he has the ‘right’ to, if an aitheit acts the way god would want him to act, isn’t that enough to get him in through the ye olde pearly gates? You said yourself, god wants us to act human.
If that’s not enough, then god also wants us to worship him in addtion to all that….and THAT, my dear nic, would make him vain.
-
And last but not least, to Whathellman: not having a wang means that you don’t have to double over in agony whenever you get hit in the downstairs area. Bonus!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on guys.
I don’t agree with Nic’s statements, but at least have the decency to answer him with something more logical than “your mind is damaged.” Props to those of you who did.
And Nic…your arguments aren’t convincing but your effort is kinda admirable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Once again I apologize for the blasted typos and spelling errors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@almondine:
It’s indecent to try to get someone with a serious problem to get some help? How? Would you not try to talk a potential suicide down from a ledge?
.
By perpetuating the myth that we should accord “respect” to another’s beliefs , no matter how irrational or uninformed, no matter how dogmatic, no matter how much they may be the product of indoctrination, flawed thinking and intellectual damage inflicted by dogma (often during childhood; a shocking abuse), you only allow the continuation of the insanity that is organised religion, and the suffering that it creates.
.
I know many atheists who would agree with you; I however do not. Perhaps that makes me a fundi atheist, I don’t know. Arguing each point again and again achieves little, other than to cause the “believer” to dig a deeper trench in which to shelter from persecution, and just pushes them back to basics – faith can withstand any intellectual argument, because it is immune to rational argument. Surely it’s better and more moral for me to speak the truth as I see it: Nic’s argument is fundamentally flawed, because the mind that posits it has been damaged by religious instruction to the point at which it can’t even understand that a rational alternative exists, let alone examine an alternative from any standpoint other than that it’s “ungodly” and therefore “wrong” by default. In this light, Nic’s effort is far from “admirable” – it is in fact enormously self-destructive. Giving the oxygen of respect *in any form* to his/her argument is, at best, inhumane, and at worst morally bankrupt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nikkiee, thanks. No, I didn’t kick any worshippers. I did walk over a lot of them, though. They were very helpful at the stream crossings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a Christian i’m deeply offended by Cali Boy’s comments. Who are you to say who will be in a “tough spot,” and how do you know it wont be you? Treat others the way you want to be treated. There are no exceptions. I believe gay marrage should be legalized, because it’s legal for others. I believe a woman should have the right to an abortion, because it’s her body, not mine. I don’t believe these pastafarians will go to hell, because I don’t believe I’ll go to hell. They have faith, and as far as i’m concerned that’s good enough for me. Do not play God by judging, or condemming anyone. And that to me is what is most offensive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Enlightened,
Let me begin by saying this: The traditional arguments for the existence of God are purely philosophical. They are not sufficient for proving the existence of God. They certainly are not sufficient for proving that Jesus is God.
This is my reply to your post on Oct 16th, 2006 at 3:20 pm:
/
You wrote, ” This does not mean the universe is not running down; but you don’t know if that means it’ll reverse course and rev back up….” – That possibility is only real if the universe is static. The universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Richard Morris, an agnostic, does a good job of debunking that possibility in “The Big Questions”.
Next…never mind. I was going to reply to everything you wrote, but it’s pointless. Here’s the bottom line: As finite beings we have to subjectively interpret our observations. Science is not objective, because the scientist is always interpreting his observations. Further, he is always viewing from somewhere. Likewise, theology is not objective.
Here is the kicker: I live everyday as if human life has meaning. You live everyday as if human life has meaning. My conclusion (humans are intrinsically valuable) is logically consistent with my presupposition (an infinite and personal God created humans in His image). If you are an atheist, you conclusion (humans are intrinsically valuable) is not logically consistent with your presuppositions (life began with an impersonal explosion of impersonal matter).
You wrote, “Meaningful is not required to be quantified by an afterlife; it merely requires a purpose. That purpose can be self-driven; I could determine that my life had meaning if I left behind a legacy of philanthropy perpetuating beyond my demise. Further, I could determine that my life has meaning right now because I am impacting my environment.” – You are an existentialist and a romantic. Sure, your life has a self-defined purpose, but it’s an illusion. Once the entropy has increased to its maximum, you and your self-defined purpose are lost forever.
Keep it logical.
I really must go. Thanks for the reply.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, Nic, wow. I often wonder if you really believe what you write or if you’re just having fun.
.
By your own arguments, you admit that there are things in the universe, sin being one of them, that are not the construct of God. As you argued, God is not omnipotent in that there are laws which he must obey. If God is the creator of all things, including the universe and all the laws that govern it, He must be responsible for all consquences of said universe. If he is not responsible, then He cannot be the creator. By your arguments God is not the creator of the universe.
.
If God is not the creator of the universe but we accept that He exists, then we must redefine Him as god (little g), not God (big G). So, who then created this universe and its little god? Yet another God?
.
You write, “He desired to have loving fellowship with beings who would obey Him,” You might want to look up the definition of fellowship. You cannot have fellowship with a master. Fellowship requires the participants be equals. If this was truly god’s desire, shouldn’t he have created a universe of other gods? Perhaps we are gods? Hmmm…
.
Finally, I have to respond to the playground analogy. You write in your latest response, “If you choose not to accept what He offers He has only one option, as a Gentleman, that is: Not to force it on you. He leaves you alone.” But he doesn’t leave you alone. He punishes you. He banishes you to an eternity of torture. This is not the act of a loving god. There is no redemption from Hell. No pardon. No get out of jail free card. Hell is pure punishment. There is no rehabilitation option. The more loving option would be the ‘blink’ you out of existence than torture you for eternity.
.
I believe from your own examples that god does not truly desire our love. The only thing that pleases god is obedience:
.
-Genesis 22:12 “…through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
-Exodus 19:5 “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.”
-Luke 11:28 “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
-John 15:10 “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.”
.
The list could go on for pages.
.
I have a son. Sometimes he disobeys me. Although I don’t like it when he does, I don’t stop loving him. Even if some day he no longer loves me, I will still love him. That is love. That is not god.
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brother Rigatoni
Thank you for posting in the vein of what many of us here were under the impression religion was about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill,
You wrote, “So does god need people to know he’s god?” – No because God exists in three distinct, yet unified persons. Before you say that that is crazy and impossible, you should not that laboratory observation has confirmed the plurality of location for sub-atomic particles. If particles can be in multiple places at once, why can’t God?
Let me clarify my definition of worship: God created us to be humans and enjoy the life He gave us. However, we are sinners in need of forgiveness. God freely offers that forgiveness. So to clarify, Worship = Be a human who has accepted God’s offer of forgiveness.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Edit
Make that “what western religion is supposed to be about”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oneeyedjack,
Some things are intrinsically impossible. That does not negate the fact that God is the creator of all things.
You wrote, “You cannot have fellowship with a master. Fellowship requires the participants be equals.” – God has created us in His image. He has called us friends.
I do not believe that the nature of hell is as you describe it. I believe that the fire and torture mentioned in the Bible are metaphoric statements for something, which will be much worse. I believe that there are levels of consciousness in hell. This answers the question: “How can a murder get the same punishment as a thief?” It’s really an involved topic, but if you’re interested, for some reason I doubt that you are, I will post on this topic. I posted an explanation of the existence or reality of hell on Sep 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pm.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok I am back and a little drunk, I have been a good boy and done what my existential morals tell me to do and at least snogged (passionately kissed for those who are not British) a nurse.
But now to somethink more important, you say my veiw of Existentialism is too simplistic you are correct it is very simplistic but even the mighty and almost God like being that is (obviously there is no God but this guy comes close)Sartre could not explain Existentailism in less than a couple of hundred pages and even they you layman would have no idea. As I am not even clever enough to reach Sartres shoes I can’t hope to explain it in a paragraph, does not mean it is not correct though! Existentailsm may have been talked about by Christianity but it was never practiced by them, only Atheists have been able to practice such a rational moral view point.
-
-
Nic you say the the existential veiw point is incorrect and how can personal meaning be worth anything. This is the express view of the Nihilists, if you want to talk about rational thinking go no further then these guys. Please ask one of these guys about God, I always get a kick out of their responses
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nic,
You pointed out that God exists in three distinct persons but you didn’t say what that has to do with his need or lack therof to let people know he is god. I don’t see how being multiple entities at one time has any effect on his ego.
It is nice to read your arguments as you obviously have researched them very well. I am so used to debating with people that know nothing about their own arguments let alone their oppositions arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
not to open an old wound or interrupt anything, or be completely off topic, but i saw the title of this this topic and glanced at what some people were saying, and i can’t help but ask, why can’t christians believe that God created Evolution? Personally, being a Christian and going to catholic schools my entire life, i think that it would be much more impressive that God made us from the smallest of cells and crafted us into the complex beings that we are today, instead of making us and BAM! humans were here, never to be changed again. Kinda like a work of art. You can’t just make a work of art; you have to put time, emotion, care, and compassion into it for it to truly be a work of art. You can’t manufacture that; time, emotion, compassion.
i don’t think God manufactured us either.
ps. you only have one life to live, are you going to spend it bitterly arguing on a computer over the internet about religion, which in turn is scared, special, and unique to each individual? Its like arguing about food, everyone likes different things for different reasons. Except when people argue about food they eventually accept that the other person is different from them for some genetic reason and give up trying to prove that their taste buds are better and perfect.
peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NowtheworldhasMeaning,
I never said your existential perspective was simplistic. I said that your attempt to prove that God’s omniscience somehow made it impossible for us to have free will was entirely too simplistic. You used the chaos theory, but you stuck to a Newtonian model of the universe, a model, which is fine if your trying to land on the moon, but quite insufficient if your are attempting to understand free agents. You said man is not a machine, but can be compared to a machine, but then you rendered mankind as nothing more.
I said you existentialism was romantic.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pastawy,
Thank you. I appreciate healthy debate, too. A lot of people here resort to name-calling; that’s unfortunate.
The Triune nature of God is amazingly intense. It is similar to quantum mechanics in that the Western mind has a hard time accepting it. The reason that God does not need people to recognize Himself is because He (I am now referring to any one of the three Personalities) has two other distinct and co-eternal persons, against whom He can recognize His Self. Typically people think that in order for God’s three distinct Personalities to be unified they have to be physically connected. The observation of 1 sub-atomic particle in multiple places has helped me to break away from this type of thinking.
Thanks for the interest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” So to clarify, Worship = Be a human who has accepted God’s offer of forgiveness. “–oh! Now you’re changing things around. So which is it, eh?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–god created us to be imperfect, therefore we shouldn’t be punished for being imperfect. If there is a hell, then only those who DESERVE to go there should go there–murderers, for instance. Otherwise, they shouldn’t. I think god is wise enough to understand that at the end of the day, if a person’s done their best to be a good individual, then that’s all that really matters. And besides, what are we being forgiven FROM? Being imperfect as god him/her/itself created us? I don’t fancy the idea of begging for forgiveness so I can go to heaven…..I say, tally up my score and see where I belong. If I belong in hell, so be it. Why use the excuse that it’s ok ’cause I believe in god, so he’ll forgive me? Doesn’t change the fact that I did whatever I did.
-
So, I guess I’m halfway there….I like to think I’ve got the ‘be human’ part down, it’s a shame I don’t want nor accept god’s forgiveness for my screwups. Bring on the divine punishment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill,
I qualified my definition of worship because while I assumed everyone would understand that I was writing from a Christian perspective, no one actually did. So I qualified my definition. Here is the deal if people were perfect, which the way He created us, we would need no forgiveness. However, we are no longer perfect. God knew we would stain ourselves; however, He also knew He had to allow for that possibility in order to have a real authentic relationship with us.
You wrote, “What are we being forgiven FROM? Being imperfect as God…created us?” and later, “…So He’ll forgive me? Doesn’t change the fact that I did whatever I did.” – Maybe forgiveness is a poor choice of words at this point. Lets say it this way: We need to accept Jesus’ offer to endure our punishment for us. God doesn’t overlook you sins when you get saved. They are punished. Jesus (God) is the recipient of your punishment. Punishment is probably a poor choice of words, as well. Lets say that the natural consequences of you deviation from God’s design earn you eternal separation from God (i.e. Life). It is intrinsically impossible for God to simply overlook your deviation.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill,
I qualified my definition of worship because while I assumed everyone would understand that I was writing from a Christian perspective, no one actually did. So I qualified my definition. Here is the deal if people were perfect, which the way He created us, we would need no forgiveness. However, we are no longer perfect. God knew we would stain ourselves; however, He also knew He had to allow for that possibility in order to have a real authentic relationship with us.
You wrote, “What are we being forgiven FROM? Being imperfect as God…created us?” and later, “…So He’ll forgive me? Doesn’t change the fact that I did whatever I did.” – Maybe forgiveness is a poor choice of words at this point. Lets say it this way: We need to accept Jesus’ offer to endure our punishment for us. God doesn’t overlook you sins when you get saved. They are punished. Jesus (God) is the recipient of your punishment. Punishment is probably a poor choice of words, as well. Lets say that the natural consequences of you deviation from God’s design earn you eternal separation from God (i.e. Life). It is intrinsically impossible for God to simply overlook your deviation.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
whoa there me hearties…
.
If we were created perfect in the first instance why would we stain ourselves? i’ll grant you the pasta sauce gets everywhere, but he would know we would spill it – and therefore by definiton people were NOT perfect in the first place as the ability to “stain oneself” is obviously an imperfection. As a result God is still responsible for a flawed creation, he can’t have it both ways. the parent is responsible for the child, the manufacturer is responsible for his goods…
.
Also if God punishes Jesus (who is god) who accepts the punishment from himself on our behalf, isn’t this…
.
a) a bit creepy, punishing himself? a bit like he’s a masochist as well as a sadist – still, if S&M floats his pirate ship and it’s between consenting deities who are we to mock? and
.
b) on accepting the punishment for our flaws (which he created)without being asked he admits liability as creator and therefore is responsible for all our crimes, in which i have a compensation claim i’d like him to answer….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science is for things that can be proven, Religion is for schitzophrenics.
E.G.
Definition of Schitzophrenic: A person that thinks something exists which no-one else can physically see.
Can you SEE God?
No.
I hope this has cleared up the Little issue of Science or Religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
.
You failed to address my original comment. In your own words, “He desired to have loving fellowship with beings who would obey Him.†The key here is “obey.” Obey implies a master/subservient relationship, not a relationship of peers.
.
The nature of hell is irrelevent to this discussion. Regardless of its exact nature, hell is not a desirable place to be and anyone condemned will be there for eternity. So, here we are again at the same point which you keep dodging. God does not act as you said, “If you choose not to accept what He offers He has only one option, as a Gentleman, that is: Not to force it on you. He leaves you alone.†This is not true. If you do not accept what he offers, then you will be punished in whatever form of hell that is. God is the ultimate “gotcha!”
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Argh.. tooo long…. brain melting… what the hell did i miss?
.
Only one thing to do then…
Add another monster to the mix.
SO ATTENTION: HARD CORE READERS ONLY… LONG ARTICLE!!!
.
First off, id just like to point out that to me, the motivation of any divine being is not really a strong point. I personally dont believe in one, so i would rather consider the im/possibility of his existence rather than his reason for being, to me this all seems a touch too metaphysical (or would it be metapsychological?).
Also, the above posts are waaaaay to long to read, so forgive me if i repeat an earlier argument.
.
couple a points though…
.
Why does the christian argument so often include the assumption we would want to be forgiven by god, to live with by his side etc ad nauseum?
I for one hold a philosophical opposition to the idea that i need to be accepted or forgiven by a being that, given the ultimate power, the ability to fix the ails of the world, does nothing.
.
And please, before the argument of free will comes up again, consider this; Why does he not confirm his existence, empiracally, beyond all doubt? It would not remove the capability of humanity to govern their own actions, merely reduce the pain people inflict on one another in his name. At the very least, if he would like the human race to behave in a certain way, it would give us some guidance.
.
All it would take is one manifestation in a manner that could not be doubted. This is god after all, I am sure he could manage that.
.
Why would he prefer us to flounder in the dark? Dont argue that you should come to belief on your own, that a manifestation would remove the element of faith, because otherwise, you argue against the purpose of a miracle.
(A miracle, I hold to be any event that believers hold could have been performed solely by a god)
Basically, if faith should not require proof, then why does it need the trappings of supposed events of god?
.
Why do we need to be lectured on hellfire and brimstone.
.
WHY DO WE NEED RELIGION?
What purpose could religion hold except as a form of proof?
To guide us to the true path?
Why are we unable to do so ourselves?
I hold that each person can live their own life, sure they may make an ass of it, sure they may hurt someone else, but it is their choice to make. Afterwards, they can deal with the consequences, whether it be the weight of the law, or the gratitude of the public.
.
WHAT GIVES ANYONE THE RIGHT TO PREACH?
What gives any one person the right to teach their beliefs over any other? I believe what I believe, why should i believe what you do? (please remember, you came to this site, we are not arguing on a christian board here)
.
I’m atheist, but that doesnt mean im immoral, or nihilistic to the point of apathy. I am not going to go and steal or murder, rape or wound. I would rather act as a decent HUMAN being, and maybe, just maybe leave a legacy to the rest of humanity.
.
WHAT MAKES GOD THE ONLY REASON?
Yes, in time, all will be meaningless.
Yes, against the impossible implacability of entropy, it seems unreasonable.
But, y’know,is that any reason why i shouldnt help my race? Is it really so unimaginable that the satisfaction of living my life, of helping humanity, of simply being, is it’s own reward?
.
WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BELIEVE?
If your god made us, maybe he made us to doubt deliberately.
Maybe he thought that mankind would better use their time by getting down to the business of whatever it is we do, rather then wasting time and resources to idolate him?
.
That is my two bob on the issue. What you make of it is your own, and whatever it is, just bloody deal with it yourself.
.
.
.
.
.
In other news…
.
spider, dont forget that not only that if jesus is god is it kinda masachistic, but you also have to wonder just how inbred you have to be to be your own father.
.
Adam, while its good to see you support us, its spelt schizophrenia, which refers to a deterioration and/or confusing of personalities.
After all, we cannot be elitist and superior if we spell like the fundamentalists :P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
woops.. masOchistic… got all caught up in a cloud of smug…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“WHAT GIVES ANYONE THE RIGHT TO PREACH?
What gives any one person the right to teach their beliefs over any other? ”
.
This all depends upon you definition of preaching, humanity as advanced so far by teaching and learning. For the most part we have not had to re-invent the wheel on mass, but every time you talk to someone you slightly influence them.
.
This is a few years ago now, I have a cousin who was 14 years old and like all of the smaller cousins are they seem obsessed with what the older cousins do (older by a few years). Whilst around my house he knocked on my door and walked in to chat to me I was reading on of Dawkin’s books and explained to him about evolution and it’s effect on religion.
.
My cousin is now an atheist, studying Boilogy, now not all of this can be attributed to me but I am an enthusiastic person and can make boring thinks seem more exciting, when talking I have not mastered it over the internet yet! The problem I have is my cousin’s father (my uncle by marrage) is a Muslim who blames me for his somes “fall from grace”.
.
Now was I preaching?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm, ouch, NowtheworldhasMeaning!
.
If it helps, the obvious point is that he didn’t pop out of the womb a Muslim. He’d been preached into it in the first place. Arguably, you were Unpreaching.
.
Alternatively, in a world where preaching, teaching, chatting (and other forms of what we might call memetic exposure…) compete for our adherence, yours was more successful than theirs. This is hardly your *fault*, though it may be your *achievement*. If the unhappy Muslims in this story don’t like losing out in this manner, perhaps they need a more convincing belief system.
.
Anyway, I think you deserve a badge. Perhaps little gold FSMs should be awarded for successful unconversions – whether intentional or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hmmm, I walked right into that one…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The right to life? What happened to dinosaurs? Can history repeat itself? What gave man a soul? What makes one man so arrogant and self opinionated and the other have to take a back seat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LONG – apologies, shipmates.
I’m trying hard not to get involved in this particular argument – there are so many other things I should be doing!
.
Forgive me, Nic (and all) – I have read some of your more recent posts, but I had to give up when you adopted the Argument from Mortality (or ‘You’ll Be Dead Before You’ve Finished Reading This – Therefore I Triumph’), and thus missed that and earlier posts.
.
Just quickly, then.
.
The whole question of Life and Meaning seems to me to be, if you’ll forgive me, a rather meaningless one. It’s difficult enough trying to define how something as apparently simple as a sentence ‘means’ something – who creates the meaning, how is it interpreted and so on? This in spite of the fact that a sentence’s entire purpose (or meaning!) is simply *to* mean something.
.
Without tumbling into the books, degree courses and headaches of intentionalism, semiotics and (I’m sorry to admit) occasional lucrative careers in pseudoacademic nonsense where this leads, it’s obvious enough that trying then to apply a concept like ‘meaning’ to something like ‘life’ is quite simply asking for all kinds of trouble. Who ‘means’ a life? Can a life be *intended* in any useful sense? Does the (supposed) intention behind a life necessarily have any bearing on the meaning that the liver of it might draw from it? Or any meanings that witnesses to the life might derive?
.
I want to say, very quickly and very loudly, that I am not hoping for answers to any of these questions. FSM knows you’ve been fighting this subject long enough. I fear that this entire strand has taken an unfortunate and unwise step.
.
I dimly remember learning, in A-Level history, the wise policy statement of Ignatius Loyola in prepping up his SWAT team of counter-reformationists, the Jesuits. Paraphrasing, it was that they ‘must imitate the action of the devil – go in by the other man’s door to come out by our own’.
.
This is what the FSM is all about. If we can agree that the evidence for FSM is equally rubbish as that for god, then we have the tip of an argument that topples the theistic edifice by degrees of common sense.
.
Nic appears to have turned the tables on us. We seem to have stepped into a strategy of ‘Invite the other man in through his door to send him out by our own’. A lot of time is being spent here on trying to gut Christianity (in this case) from the inside.
.
The thing about the House of Christianity is that it is very neatly arranged. Once on the inside, it hangs together rather well. I found this out back when I was one (a Christian, not a house). Once you’ve accepted the Big Stuff, you find a religion that has adapted very well to the passing centuries and, by the slightly twisted world view you’d accepted by swallowing Jesus in the first place, makes good, consistent sense.
.
(Sorry – clarification. Of course Christianity isn’t internally consistent. It has more sub-branches than the FSM has noodly appendages. Particular churches of Christianity, however, are very internally consistent indeed.)
.
Rather than thrash about trying to demonstrate that all the individual God policies don’t work alongside each other, I think we might be better off sticking to our original argument, which is still a surefire winner. There’s no need to enter the proverbial House of Christianity – or of any god – because the whole thing makes no damn sense from the outside. There is no good evidence for god. There is plenty of good evidence for a universe that exists without one. There is plenty of good evidence to make a widespread belief in a non-existent god probable.
.
Nic, for all your references to philosophical viewpoints, to quantum mechanics and to chaos – or, to keep it a little more up to date, complexity – theory, I can’t see that you’ve managed to beat this one. I’d be very surprised if you did, because it would mean unveiling the sort of evidence that would already have been all over the papers, the TV, the radio and the internet if it actually existed.
.
There’s no need to argue meaningless questions about meaning with you. There’s no need to get into fights about free will and whether god is responsible for sin. All of this presupposes acceptance of the already unacceptable hypothesis that god exists at all. Sorry.
.
Anyway, should life ever turn out to have a meaning – in any sense of that statement – I sincerely doubt that I would find it to be ‘fighting unnecessary battles with Nic’.
(PS – On the sin debate, just for fun. I am put in mind of a very experienced lecturer at my university when he was going over Paradise Lost with us – Milton’s tragically inclined attempt to justify the ways of god to men. As Milton struggles with a god who sets up the bright-eyed and innocent Adam and Eve in Eden before turning his back to allow Satan to sneak in and seduce Eve, our lecturer summed up the problem very pithily:
.
‘In the Garden of Eden, you shouldn’t have to wear a crash helmet.’)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bobby’s Last Reply,
‘The right to life?’
We’re all born with one and it’s the thing that allows us to experience everything else. Taking a life is essentially the ultimate form of theft. No mystery.
.
What happened to dinosaurs?
They died or evolved (depends which dinosaurs). There’s stacks of evidence on this which you are capable of looking up yourself if you’re capable of writing on here. No mystery.
.
‘Can history repeat itself?’
.
What do you mean? Can similar things happen more then once? Certainly. Can an actual sequence of time loop? That’s a very sci-fi thing to ask. I think the appropriate answer might be another question: would you know if it did?
.
‘What gave man a soul?’
What makes you think he has one? Can you point to yours? Just as our theories of existence require no god, our understanding of humanity requires no soul. Again, no mystery.
.
‘What makes one man so arrogant and self opinionated and the other have to take a back seat?’
This is called ‘personality’. Many of us have them. You probably have one yourself. There’s no reason to suppose personality to stem from anything other than our genetic heritage and the social circumstances in which we grow up and live.
.
If, by your last question, you actually meant ‘Why should arrogant and self-opinionated people get all the say whilst others are forced to be silent?’ then that’s different. Of course, they shouldn’t, and I think we can all agree with that. You are, in this case, posing a rhetorical question and need no answer. No mystery.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ahoy me hearties, and i swagger agog at the mighty tomes laid down in the name of his noodly appendage here…
.
had to swat the scribe to put quill to keyboard though, NowtheworldhasMeaning deserves recognition for a fine piece of “unpreaching” there. i say avast to any landlubber who dare call ye a preacher. Ye’ve taught a young human to use his own faculties and decide for himself, given him the tools (or the cutlass if ye be that way inclined) to make his own decisions and beliefs rather than lay it out for him to follow, now thats the difference between being a pastafarian and a preacher,
.
So tankards up, raise a yell to NowTWHM, and drink some grog for a fine piece of work.
.
The FSM would be proud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bobby’s last reply
“What makes one man so arrogant and self opinionated and the other have to take a back seat? ”
.
You could look at it the other way why should one man make the effort of given his opinion if everyone else is going to take a back seat!
.
46% of my country do not believe in the existance of a God or universal spirit, so 46% are actually atheists. But we have the problem that 70% of the country claim to be Christian! Now if that is not a suprising result what is?
.
Why this discrepancy? well a lot of people believe they are Christian more as a cultural thing and when despite not actually believing in God they still tick the christian box. A large portion of that 46% do not even know what an atheist is! (I was once threatened with a broken bottle by a guy who thought I was some type of Jewish person as I told him I was an Atheist, it turned out that he too did not believe in God).
.
OK part of the problem is lack of education but the other problem is complete apathy by many Atheists on the subject we have allowed Faith schools to take root, religious hatred is a huge problem in the UK now. Religious doctrine states they should spread the faith, so in turn atheist must combat this and spread knowledge and enlightenment.
.
There is more at stake than you would think, not only the truth but if atheists don’t the the laws will be passed based on Christian (or other faiths) moral codes. Gay marrage is probably the one that springs to mind so far, by not allowing it you are stating that someone how is Gay is not your equil as he does not share the same right that you have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One Eyed Jack,
You wrote, “You failed to address my original comment. In your own words, ‘He desired to have loving fellowship with beings who would obey Him.’ The key here is ‘obey’. Obey implies a master/subservient relationship, not a relationship of peers.†– Obedience is probably one of the most misunderstood doctrines in Christianity. The Bible says that women should be submissive to their husbands. Does that mean that the man is greater than the women? Not at all! Jesus was obedient to the father, yet they are equals. The Bible says that men should be the head of their household, but it also says that men should love their wives as they love themselves. Here’s the point: In a healthy relationship, as outlined in the Bible, both the husband and the wife should make decisions. However, when they come to split, and they cannot agree, the wife should let the husband make the decision. Is that because he is smarter? No. It’s obvious that someone has to make a decision or they will sit still, or worse they will separate. If my family is in anyway representative of the norm for the Christian family, then you’ll find most men deciding to go in the direction their wife feels correct. Why? Because it doesn’t take long to find out that God is teaching men something in this whole thing: Be humble and respect the woman’s intuition. Now here’s how obedience is consistent in a friendship with God: Just like Jesus was obedient to the Father in order to complete a task, we as humans should be obedient to God in order to complete a task, namely, life. The truth is that we don’t know what’s real or what’s next. God does. He instructs us in how to experience life in what as C.S. Lewis has pointed out “is not the best of all possible universes, but the only possible one.â€
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NowtheworldhasMeaning,
You wrote, “…If atheists don’t (go on the offensive) then the laws will be passed based on Christian (or other faiths) moral codes.†– As an atheist, what would you base your laws on? Let me give you the answers, which can give and still remain logically consistent with your atheistic presuppositions:
1. Common Sense – Well, that doesn’t work because what is obvious to you (cannibalism is bad) is not obvious to everyone.
2. You could appeal to that behavior, which is most consistent with the ways of natural selection, but that excludes our homosexual friends.
3. You could say that what is…is always right, but that allows John Doe to murder your family and be free of responsibility. As an existentialist, you certainly detest that possibility.
4. You could say the opinion of the majority should determine the law, but then you have local governments doing evil things in the name of the majority (e.g. Nazi Germany).
I can’t think of anything else that an atheist can point to as a canon (standard of measurement) for the creation of laws. So back to my original question: To what would you appeal?
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0