Sayest the christian

Sayest the Christians: But you do claim that there is no such thing as moral truth, do you not?What i mean by this is that the holocust was wrong regardless of whether any of us agree or not. You reject universal objective truth. Do you not?

Sayest I:I believe that there are things that are true. One thing that is true is that most people (regardless their religious allegiance) do not wish to live in an environment where people are allowed to harm one another without consequence (in fact the few people who do want such a thing tend to be religious extremists). Most of us wish to live in an environment where we will be allowed to live peaceful with the freedom to live as we would please, with the understanding that there are necessary limits to this freedom. People don't wish to live in chaos and do understand that actions have consequences. While I do reject universal truths in terms of morality (morality cannot be found under a microscope), I can honestly claim that the Holocaust was wrong. Now, of course the Germany and Austria in which these crimes occurred were heavily Christian at the time. I personally can see no historical evidence that moral absolutes (if they exists) have ever honestly had any impact upon our behavior as a species. I reject the holocaust for the same reason that I oppose the genocide inflicted upon the Mideanites and the inhabitants of Jericho (read the OT if you are wondering about these references); a world in which such behavior is permitted is a very dangerous world for all it's inhabitants (that would include me).

Sayest the Christian:This is basically true; but i would add, that while some people don't want to be harmed personally and might practice acts of charity, i doubt that most people generally care about those outside their immediate family and chosen freinds, though they might like to make others think so for the sake of appearences.There are violent people who use religion as a banner of truimph.There has also been many people in history that have used atheism and naturalism as a banner of truimph and as an excuse for evil. In fact, in a world where people do not believe in the truth of moral values, there is more then enough fertile grounds for the growth of inhuman ignorance. I suggest you read history, and then you will not make such biased misrepresentations.

Sayest I:While I don’t agree that all instances of charity or kindness are for premeditated Darwinian purposes, there is some truth to the claim that people will act for the sake of appearances. Evolutionists make this claim routinely and view this tendency as a key aspect of sexual selection. There are benefits to appearing to being a good, kind, moral person, which exist both within a Darwinian point of view and a theistic point of view.While I agree that there have been atheists who have committed acts of “evil”, I can think of few (none actually) who have done so in the name of atheism; history is filled with atrocities committed in the name of a god.Sayest the Christian:No you cannot claim that the holocaust is evil. You can merely say that you personally dislike that kind of behavior. The holocaust, in a world without objective moral truth, is taboo; nothing more.

Sayest I:Yes I can. Again, the permission of such behavior has consequences for us all. A world in which such disregard for human life was considered the norm or acceptable would not be a world in which I would choose to live. Such a world would be chaotic and extremely dangerous to us all. Ultimately, my morality is a selfish one; as I for my own selfish reasons do not wish to live in a world where cruelty and hatred are considered acceptable. One never knows when one will be the victim of such cruelty and hatred.

Sayest the Christian:The world in which you wish to believe in, human beings have no more objective value then an slug has; so you cannot expect people to treat your existence with any more respect then they choose to.

Sayest I:True I selfishly attach value to the species to which I am a member, so in a sense you are correct...so what? You are correct that I “cannot expect people to treat (my) existence with any more respect then they choose to”. I’m not sure what that statement proves, as it’s true whether there is a god or not. Ultimately I can say this: history provides us with little evidence that religion improves our existence on this tiny rock, orbiting a tiny star, drifting along with the whole of the Milky Way, inside our ever expanding universe. At best, religion has the opiate effect as described to us by Marx; perhaps it allows us to endure with the hope that we are somehow special while existing inside a universe that cares for absolutely nothing. Ironically, if humanity is to find salvation from the likely inevitable death that awaits our species it will not be a god providing it, but rather the very science that most theist now accuse of villainies. I will say this: if I could be convinced that religion is in fact of value to our species; that we are better off with it than without it, then I would stand aside and allow our species to enjoy the bliss of its ignorance. However, I have not been convince of this and in fact have been convinced of very much the opposite and I believe that as is typically the case that bliss does not come with ignorance. With ignorance comes: fear, hatred, superstition and suffering; not bliss. Ultimately, human life has the value we give it, and I value my life and the lives of those that I love and care for and thus it can be said that I am a humanist.

Sayest the Christian:There are clues that point toward theism. For instance; All healthy minded people experience a capacity for guilt, which is activated when we are given reason to believe that something about our behavior is immoral. Though it is true that one can be deceived about right and wrong, we all have a basic understanding of it. We universally agree and take for granted that there is such a thing as right, wrong, honor and virtue. Thus the mere fact that we have a moral conscience would suggest that there is such a thing as an objective wrong despite a universal disagreement about what that might be. It seems a rather bizzare coincidence that among the other senses we have a sense of guilt which, like the others, coincides with an objective reality, more specifically with that aspect of reality concerning our "free choices". It seems to me that we have a "sixth sense". Its called a moral conscience".

Sayest I:The existence of a moral conscience can be and has been explained in completely evolutionist terms. Obviously, if we were each sociopaths (i.e. unrestrained in our willingness to inflict harm and death upon our fellow humans) that would undeniably have a tremendous and negative impact upon our survivability as a species. The fact that 90% of us have an innate urge not to inflict harm upon our neighbors can not only be explained in Darwinian terms, but can best be explained in Darwinian terms. Certainly you can admit that a species that co-exists peacefully and works collaboratively has a better chance of survival than a species that indiscriminately preys upon itself. Guilt would be just one of the mechanisms through which this reality is accomplished. But what precisely is guilt? You have claimed that quote: “It seems a rather bizarre coincidence that among the other senses we have a sense of guilt which, like the others, coincides with an objective reality, more specifically with that aspect of reality concerning our "free choices". It seems to me that we have a "sixth sense". Its called a "moral conscience".” End quote. You are correct, as most most humans do in fact feel quilt when they believe that they have harmed another. How is it that we feel this and just how is it that we know just what it is we should feel guilty about? Well in Essence guilt is nothing more than a variety of empathy which as defined by the Merriam-Wester online dictionary is: “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner”. Guilt is the sorrow we feel when others suffer because of our actions. But as you point out, how is it that our feelings of guilt always seem to correspond with our knowledge of right and wrong? The answer is almost laughably simple. We know when to feel guilty because we know what harms us personally. In other words, I know that I do not like being punched in the face; because of this knowledge I rightfully assume that others have the same attitudes and experiences when being punched in the face. Were I to punch someone in the face I am able to empathize with the victim of said punch (i.e. I can identify with the pain the victim has experienced when it was punched) and for that I feel a certain degree of sorrow. To one degree or the other, I would share in the suffering of the victim regardless as to whether I threw the punch or not (this is empathy); however this sorrow is amplified by the fact that I personally inflicted the pain upon the unfortunate victim. This amplified sense of sorrow is precisely what guilt is, and it can range anywhere from a mild sense of melancholy to a life long sense of anguish. As you can see, there's nothing magical about how it is we know what to feel guilty about. We know when to feel guilt because we have an understanding of just how our actions would effect others because we know how those same actions would effect ourselves. Essentially guilt is empathy plus personal responsibility. Now, a better question than why it is we feel guilt would be: why do we feel empathy? There is still much to be learned about empathy about what it is and why it is. The scientific consensus appears to be that it is an autonomic bio-chemical response and that it is an essential component to social discourse and interaction (most autistics would tell you (if they can) that it is extremely difficult to become socially integrated when you are completely oblivious to the concerns and feelings of others). How exactly it resulted from evolution, is and will always remain a mystery; but why it evolved should be obvious to each of us. The most fundamental benefits of empathy are made clear in the following example: you see a fellow human dangling from a cliff; your empathy for the plight of the dangling human leads you to rush over and pull him to safety, and in doing so you have just saved the life of a human who may later go on and propagate sexually (thus increasing the survivability of the species). Furthermore, by having saved a fellow human, you become viewed as a hero and more desirable to members of the opposite sex and thus increase your chances of propagating sexually yourself. Empathy has a direct effect upon a species' survivability and an effect upon an individual's social status which can directly improve his (usually it is the male) chance of passing on his genes. Let's look at another possible event where multiple emotions are at play: you happen upon a fellow human who is being attacked by a bear; because of empathy you have a strong desire to save the man from his gruesome fate; fear on the other hand makes you hesitant to risk the same fate to save another human; on this occasion you flee for safety and while you feel guilt for your inaction you are still very much alive yourself. In this situation, fear trumps empathy and as a result only one human is eliminated from the genetic pool whereas had you rushed in to play the hero likely two genetic agents would have been eliminated.A willingness to act for the betterment for one’s entire culture or species cannot help but to have improved our chances of surviving, and these facts remain relevant even today. Of course, not all of our “urges” conform to the accepted Christian notion of morality. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins (or however many there are now), they each stem from our innate tendency to “sin”; our internal tendency to fall short of what your god demands of us. Any claim that we have a “sixth sense” leading us to do good must be then countered by the notion the we also have (in the eye's of most Christians) a “seventh sense” leading us to do evil.

Sayest the Christian:The fact is, most of the freedoms we enjoy is based on a belief in transcendental ethics. If people avoid wrong, they avoid it because they believe that their behavior is truly wrong and thus they cannot stand to be wrong. The atheist is the same, accept they hold these ethical beliefs irrationally.

Sayest I:To the uneducated, such an inference may seem the case, but a modest understanding of the truths of evolution quickly and easily provide an alternative the theist’s favorite explanation for everything: “god did it”. There’s nothing irrational about the knowledge that one’s greatest hope to live a happy and peaceful life is to live in a happy and peaceful world.

Sayest the Christian:When they are forced to see the irrationality of it, rather then accept the inference of Gods existence, they choose to disbelieve in moral truth altogether. Now imagine a world where people no longer infer those values on people; such is the danger of promoting naturalism; and even more foolish is such an endeavor when we have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view. I find it quite disturbing that people would want to promote it. Perhaps they believe naturalism provides certain freedoms that they would not have in a strictly moral climate?

Sayest I:This is a completely different argument all together. Now, I’ve already briefly explained just how it is that morality could and did develop via Darwinian methods, but now you’re arguing that there are frightful consequences to “a world where people no longer infer those values on people”. Perhaps, but as you’ve already asserted these values are intrinsic and found in each of us given to us by God; so how could such a thing actually occur if your theory is correct? The claim that we have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view is true in much the same manner as the claim that we have no evidence as to the existence of the sun. In truth, what we have no evidence of is the existence of a god. Now, a god may very well exist, but I see no evidence of that fact. We naturalists promote naturalism for two reasons: A) it is in fact the truth and accepting that fact just makes sense; B) we’ve seen the “benefits” of religion and quite frankly we wish to have nothing more to do with it. We’ve seen the Jihads and crusades, the witch burnings and the hatred of knowledge that comes with a belief in a god and we’ve had enough. We believe (and evidence seems to confirm this) that a superior morality (i.e. a morality in which life is actually respected and treated with compassion) comes in the absence of a god. Mankind’s greatest hope lies not in our superstitions, but in science and knowledge. Again, the claim that evolution explains nothing is a claim made in ignorance. Evolution can and has explained everything that you have just suggested it does not; you just have to be willing to open your mind to the truth.

Sayest the Christian:Pointless debate to confuse the unwary. God is Truth. What is not Truth is a lie. Lies are from The Liar. Do not give The Liar a moment of your time. Do not engage The Liar in debate for he is very old and very clever and he wants your soul very much. All The Liar has to do is have you cast your eyes momentarily from The Truth. The Liar temps us to imagine a Truth without God. There is no Truth outside of Truth Himself. God is that Truth.

Sayest I:Initially I was taken back by the inanity of your comments, but then I realized that it allowed me the opportunity to segue to what I feel is the basis for most religious belief: I believe that it is to varying degree's a product of a mental disorder. Like your typical theist, a person with a personality disorder cannot recognize the condition in themselves (though they can see it in others) and are almost always incapable of admitting their condition; in fact, ironically the best indication that a person does not have a personality disorder would be for them to admit that they do. In the same manner, theists can determine if their beliefs are intellectual in nature or the result of a disorder if they can honestly admit that they might be wrong. Most theist are perfectly capable of understanding the absurdity of every competing faith but utterly unaware of the absurdity of their own. As a non-believer I personally have no problem honestly admitting that there might actually be a god. Now, as a theist ask yourself this question: Is it possible that my god does not exists; not that it doesn't exist but just that conceivably it might not? I suggest that if you honestly lack the ability to concede the possibility that there might not be a god, then you faith is the result of a disorder.

Sayest the Christian:exactly why do you find the Aquainian proofs invalid, do you know of something physical which is self creating? I would say that there simplicity is indicative of their truth.

Sayest I:Taking your predisposition to believe in a god out of the equation for a second: do you know of anything that isn't physical? As far as the origin of the universe is concerned, one of two things happens to be the case: A) The universe exists in and of itself or B) there exists or existed a non-physical entity that resides in some other reality than our own and has or had both the ability and desire to create our universe. Now, based upon our experiences and observations, both are completely impossible; however one of them had to have happened. If one denies one of these possibilities based upon the fact that it could not (to our knowledge) have happened; then they must affirm an equally impossible alternative. On the other hand, as an agnostic, I do neither. I confess that I don’t know and acknowledge that our universe could conceivably have a creator; however, it is worth noting that even if this creator exists he/she/it is almost certainly not the absurdly ridiculous god of the bible.

Sayest the Christian:What do you mean when you ask me to take my belief in a god out of the question for a second?Sayest I:I mean, that if you don't start with the assumption that a god exists, can you think of anything that is not physical.Sayest the Christian:Why yes i do, the first cause. As nothing physical can cause itself, that means that the first cause must necessarily be non-physical. As such, the existence of the physical is the proof of the non-physical.

Sayest I:There is at least one exception to your claim that nothing physical can cause itself; that of course being the universe itself. True, our experiences (apart from this one example) indicate that nothing physical can cause itself, but our experiences also indicate that everything that does exist is in fact physical. Based upon our experiences, the existence of a non-physical being is no less improbable than a universe that has just always existed. For the record, I'm not saying that you're wrong; I'm merely saying that your solution to the question “why do we exist” is just as impossible (to our knowledge) as that of the atheists.

Sayest the Christian: Everything requires a cause. unless you know of some reason that the universe should be different, it does too.

Sayest I:Ultimately, something exists without a cause, be that god or the universe. It is no more absurd to believe that the universe might exist without a cause, than it is to believe that a being (your god) could exist without a cause.

Sayest the Christian:Why do you feel the only other possibility is accurately described as a non-physical being in another dimension?1. dimension is a quality of physicality2. dimension is a quality of our universe.So this other dimension in which your non-physical being resides, is self creating?Already you violate causality in your premise.

Sayest I:First of all, by “some other dimension”, I meant to imply a reality separate from ours. I'm not sure that there is actually a word for that. Since a being responsible for the creation of our universe could not at the same time be from our universe, it would have to exist in a reality separate from our own; that is what I was attempting the describe with the word dimension. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but at the same time I'm not sure which word would have worked better. Ultimately, this first cause of yours would owe it's existence to itself which, which to all of our experiences, is as impossible as a universe doing the same. Let's not forget that likely since the early days of our species' we have sought an answer to every question, and that answer has always been god. Why does it rain: god. Why is there lightening: god. Where are there earthquakes: god. Where do babies come from: god. Rather than ever admit that they just didn't know the answer to the questions, our forefathers always responded with the universal default. Literally, god was the answer to every mystery and this is an attitude that exists very much unto this day. But as human knowledge has steadily advanced, science has replaced god as the answer to every question save one: why does anything exists as opposed to nothing? This is the last substantial question that remains unanswered by scientists. While we now know why it rains, what causes earthquakes and where babies come from; the origins of our universe is a question that continues to elude scientific explanation and our ancient urges to assign an ancient explanation remains firmly intact. Fortunately, as has always been the case, knowledge seekers have never been content to shrug their arms and walk away; and if there is ever to be discovered an answer to this last question, it will be found. At that point, god will have gone from being the answer to every question to an answer without a question; and thus we will be forced to wonder: why does god exist?

Sayest the Christian:self causation is logically impossible, while a non-physical cause is the only possible first cause for the observable universe.

Sayest I:Again, to our experiences, self causation is no more impossible than is a non-physical existence. Clearly one of these two impossibilities must be true.

Sayest the Christian:I am interested in your reasoning for the assertion that if there is a god then it is not the god of the bible. why do you think that?

Sayest I:It's inconceivable to me that a being with the wisdom and power to create an entire universe could at the same time being the hate and rage filled, genocidal, hell-casting, jealous freak the bible describes him as. Seriously, out of respect for god (if it exists) I would never think so poorly of it to believe that the bible paints an accurate picture of it's character.