1. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90082 by Timnea on November 22, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Goldy,

When you hear someone just believes in the teachings of Jesus and not so much god, its worth remembering they are supposed to be one, the same entity.

Almost the first thing Jesus said in the new testament was Mathew 4:4 Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of god.

Jesus said every word from the mouth of god. Apart from some apparent schizophrenia, it looks pretty clear cut to me.

2. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89281 by Timnea on November 20, 2007 at 7:05 am

Dr Benway
Post 520

Thanks for that Doc.

Looks like there's some tough decisions coming up for the Dianelos household.

I always enjoy reading your posts

Tim

3. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89242 by Timnea on November 20, 2007 at 4:55 am

Dianelos
Reply to post 419

What God wants is for us to grow in virtue

How does that fit in with killing thousands, including small children, with tsunamis, hurricanes, earth quakes etc.

on average all people will get about the same deal.

If you can do the mental gymnastics to believe this I think you would be susceptible to believe anything.

The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death

To use "life after death" as the basis for a simple argument you will need to prove it. It's a very big claim and your argument rests on it. Don't tell me to disprove it because I could make a thousand statements you couldn't disprove, that doesn't make them true.
Killing innocents because the victims will get a better deal after death sounds like the excuse of a psychotic serial killer.

4. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88780 by Timnea on November 19, 2007 at 1:49 am

Dianelos

mindless objective reality should produce a phenomenal reality that is so deeply mathematical, whereas a mathematician God can well account for it.

I guess it could just as easily be a mathematical giant snake of Australian dream time belief, the Mansi's earth mother or the Bakuba's mathematical vomiting white giant. What makes you think it was the christian god and not one of these others. They all have faithful believers and equal evidence to support there existence, none.

People inventing supernatural beings to explain things they don't understand is quite common.

5. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88339 by Timnea on November 16, 2007 at 5:05 am

Dianelos

God directly causing our experiences of the physical universe, without the benefit of an actual objective universe being there

Assuming what you've said above, if god causes our experiences in the physical universe why does he kill thousands of men, women and children with earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It all seems a bit sadistic to summon them up if they're not actually objectively there in the first place. He must be causing us to experience these disasters followed by our own suffering and deaths. Looks like we have just proved a compassionate, merciful or loving god doesn't exist.

6. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #88303 by Timnea on November 15, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Unspecified things could be intelligently designed in an unspecified way by an unspecified designer who lives in an unspecified place and who might return at an unspecified time to maybe take his worshipers to an unspecified location while torturing every one else for an unspecified length of time.

Now thats my kind of hypothesis :-)

7. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87061 by Timnea on November 11, 2007 at 6:01 am

Dianelos

You objectively crack me up with your objective bullshit artistry ;-)

8. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85761 by Timnea on November 7, 2007 at 3:02 am

Ok Dianelos. I didn't read your post properly. Thanks for that.

The question still stands (#216) if you want to have a crack at it.

9. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85747 by Timnea on November 7, 2007 at 2:11 am

Dianelos

If you don't stone adulterers you've transcended gods command. How did you do it?

10. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85551 by Timnea on November 6, 2007 at 6:23 am

Dianelos

"he (Dawkins) lacks the standards on which to base the claim that the moral Zeitgeist has in fact improved"

Not sure that's true.

Are you suggesting the bible (gods word), is the moral compass that led us to today's ethical values. Better read the bible again Dianelos because it looks more like a moral "hand break" than a compass. I think its clear we have our morality today despite of the bible, and religion in general, not because of it. Have you stoned any one recently??

"it seems atheism does not offer any standards for deciding which way is up"

Secular states of Sweden and Finland look to be good high points on a moral compass and the ethics of the bible, particularly the old testament (again the word of god), would be a huge leap back to the dark ages and could define a low point. Sure there could be other low points but the bibles misdeeds should be sufficiently low for the purposes of our humble compass.
Now that we have a calibrated moral gauge and compass Dianelos, I have a question for you.

There are some pretty low ethical standards required by god in the bible. (I'm being kind there). Assuming, and hopefully, your moral values are better than those, how do you manage to transcend them?

11. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85154 by Timnea on November 5, 2007 at 6:33 am

Dianelos

"if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question."

Sounds like a complicated way of asking "How can one be good without god?"

By "on what standard can one appeal" I assume you mean "on what guage does on measure" the extent to which one can transcended those evolved ethical values. (hope I got that right.)

On this basis, transcending evolved ethical values would merely be bettering societies prevailing moral zeitgeist of which religious people are part.

There no need for god here.

12. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #84402 by Timnea on November 2, 2007 at 2:14 am

There's nothing wrong with religion, ok!!

Personality cult gods, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, were controlling, sadistic dictators.

whereas monotheistic gods are……umm……umm…..ok, just feck off!!

13. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81450 by Timnea on October 24, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Atheism's body count is zero

Atheism is, simply, not believing in a deity, that's it…..full stop. Nothing else required, only not believing in a deity.

American heritage dictionary: - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

How can "not believing in something" kill people?? Atheism's body count is zero. The whole body count thing attributed to Atheism is a nonsense.

Atheism is a very simple, one line concept whereas religions are unfathomably complicated dogmas. Christians, Jews and Muslims have a book in which their god actually kills and requires killing and millions of deaths have been justified for precisely this reason.

There is no argument here that I can see.

Whatever reason people kill for its not contained in the definition of Atheism!!!

Challenge:- Can anyone prove Atheism alone is responsible for even one death??

14. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81144 by Timnea on October 24, 2007 at 8:53 am

I don't think Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein etc. believed in the easter bunny (they were "A easterbunnyists"). Does that mean their crimes (and body count) were committed because of their disbelief in the easter bunny "A easterbunnyism"??

I suspected there was something sinister about people who didn't believe in that cute wabbit.