Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

Great Debates
241

So how do we tell those who understand the word of God from those who don’t?
Pay close attention to what they do and say. If their belief is exclusionary/prejudice to things like other religions, sexual preferences, etc. If they are careless of other people’s feelings, if they lie, cheat ,steal, kill, etc., they are suspect. I realize it’s subjective and you never know for sure what’s in other people’s hearts, but how they live is a good indication. No perfect indication exists. And it’s really not up to us to decide. We really do know what’s right and wrong(well most people). Someone who is a good person with good values may not literally know God, but is living the same or a better life than the professed believer is IMHO going to be just as favorable to God. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do. Lame answer, but I’m holding God up to the same standard that he’s holding us up to.

Are there world-wide moral absolutes, or loads of systems depending on culture?

IMHO I would say there are some differences, but the basics are fairly universal. That doesn’t mean they aren’t tossed aside to fit polital needs, pretty much everywhere. A moral person tries to be good to other people. Even with all the other older religions, the basis is usually built on pretty high ideals. Attacking people in one way or another who don’t share your beliefs is universal, yet not moral by most standards. There’s definitely diversity of applied moral absolutes. Not really familar with enough other cultures for this to be a fair assesment though.
Do you not obey the Pope?
I do not. Not in all things. I am Catholic out of respect for my husband’s beliefs and because the building I sit in has very little to do with my interaction with God. I used no deceit to join. They knew I didn’t accept all of their beliefs. I baffled them and they probably decided they could help me.

Then why does a large part of the Christian Church say He does?
I can only guess. Fear of change, fear of people different than they are. Stubborness. Unwilling to admit being wrong because they fear it will somehow invalidate their religion. Doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t believe in God. Change threatens many people.
Then why do some Christians say it is a punishment from God?
Because they’re idiots and they “heard it from somewhere”. They’re part of the same people who believe it came from having sex with green monkeys. Ignorance and cruelty. I trully believe they better have a good explanation for that kind of thing, wait there isn’t one.
Then why do some Christians say it is forbidden?
Ignorance again, but they are entitled to their own opinion there, unless it affects someone else. They would have a hard time explaining why they were being punished by God, if they contracted aids from a transfusion.

So all religions are faulty?
They all have faults. It would be unreasonble to expect man to administrate religion and not have some problems.

**Add to this that there is no evidence for any God, and I wonder how you can be so sure God exists, let alone what He wants.
If there is a God, why is He so bad at communicating with us? **
I get in trouble on these because they aren’t provable, so IMHO(witness alert) there is only personal evidence. He wants us to love each other. He’s not here in person, so the best way to show your love and respect is to love and repect all the other people he loves. Sorry. We’re not really listening very well. I’d let God know he has a bad sound system, but he’s so much bigger than me.:eek: IWLN

242

This is not an analogous situation at all. Saying, “I am an atheist” means “I deny the existance of a God or gods.” Yes, saying you are an atheist who believes in God is contradictory. You are correct there. However, you can’t claim someone who says “I believe in God” is not really a believer, simply because they don’t conform to your moral standard.

IMHO is going to be a given on this whole post. If I say I believe in God but follow none of the precepts, it is also contradictory. If you really believe in God, you will try as hard as possible to not harm anyone else in anyway. It’s not my moral standard, it’s Gods. If a “Christian” tells you they bombed an abortion clinic to let people know killing is not okay, you’ve got to see a contradiction. Killing to show killing is wrong? Killing unborn babies in their bomb blast too. Hmm…I believe it invalidates their claim too.

Are you saying that the second a God-believer lies they no longer believe in God?
No. We’re fallible. You should be sorry.
Do you have to believe in the ten commandments to be a God-believer? Do you have to believe that anyone who disobeys any of the commandments is a non-believer?
I’m guessing yes to being open to believing in them, commandments seem a little stronger than suggestions. No we’re fallible. But if you really do know God, you’re not going to be doing this with reckless disregard. If you care about someone, you’re sorry if you hurt them.
If someone says “I believe in God” the only thing they are saying is that they believe in God. They aren’t saying they won’t bomb buildings or kill babies. You are the one saying that these types of actions are contradictory to belief in God. Please explain how you know that those actions imply they are non-believers. Please explain why you think that those types of actions are contradictory to belief in God.
A belief in God contraindicates violence, not only in the Bible, but by our laws and our basic human instincts. You personally know these things aren’t moral, as a non-believer. If you just say “I believe in God”, then I agree you can still do any of those things. If you really do believe in God you are accepting some authority. You don’t become perfect, but you try harder. You can’t tell someone you love and believe in them and then do horrible things to them or the people they love.

**But following these cultural moral absolutes is a prerequisite for belief in God? **
Probably not. You ask for help. It’s a learn as you go world. You just keep trying till you get it right. Morals are personal and collective issues. If God didn’t exist, we would still need some basic morals for human existence. IWLN

243

So, in your opinion, there are certain rules that one must follow before they can truthfully claim to believe God exists?

But you certainly would inflict harm upon someone to prevent greater harm to an innocent person, would you not?

How has it been communicated to you? Did you read it somewhere, did someone tell you, or did God tell you?

Perhaps they think the harm they do to others will prevent greater harm to innocents. Perhaps they think the evil they do now will prevent even more evil in the future.

Pretend there is a Christian who, on every cloudy day, looks outside and says: “It is not cloudy today.” Can that Christian truthfully claim to believe in God?

What does “being open to believing in them” mean? Do you think you are supposed to follow the ten commandments, or not? Do you think the ten commandments are part of God’s moral standard?

Please explain how our laws and instincts indicate that belief in God contraindicates violence.

What do you think about violent sports? Do any boxers truly believe in God?

But those things invalidate the claim “I believe in God?”

Are you saying that people who believe in God try harder to be better people than non-believers?

244

You seem to have the idea that the mere hypothesis of an idea automatically lends it some sort of default weight or credibility which must be overcome. It’s not a question of “liklihood,” it’s a question of necessesity.

If you see a broken window, do you consider the possibility that it was broken by goblins or a poltergeist or do you assume it was humans? Is there any circumstance under which you would consider goblins? If you see an airplane flying overhead would you assume that it is flying under normal mecahanical power or would you insist that the possibility of a miracle could not be ruled out? If I were to suggest that maybe the plane was being carried by invisible angels under the wings would you say that my hypothesis deserved any consideration?

Once again, Occam’s Razor in this discussion is not about ruling out the unlikely, it’s about ruling out the supernatural as long as the natural is viable…or to put it another way, to rule out the impossible as long as the possible is viable.

Can you show a reason why “God” is any more likely than multiple gods or aliens or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other completely unsupported hypothesis which humans can imagine?

Can you show anything in the universe which would could not have occurred without God? Until you can do that, there is simply no logical reason to postulate God, and God is no more rational than any other supernatural hypothesis anyway.

245

IWLN, it looks like you’ve pulled out of our part of this debate. I still want an admission that you’re a liar or an explanation why you’re not, and since you did say it would be simple to poke a hole in my logic (which sounds strange since you haven’t come close once yet) I’m expecting you to do that as well.

246

From what you have said thus far in this thread, I don’t see how that is the case at all. You have stated that the Bible is not infallable, and that you only accept certain parts of it, so that can’t be where these supposed indisputable facts come from. If you can pick and choose what parts to believe, it’s hypocritical to claim claim others are not Christians because they didn’t pick and choose the same things you did. You also claim to differ in your beliefs from mainstream Christians; every time we offer an argument against a specific characteristic of God, you claim that we can’t know everything about God. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too; you want God to be this nebulous concept that can’t be proven or disproven, yet want Him to have very specific characteristics when it’s convenient to the argument.

The only fact inherent in saying I’m an atheist is that I don’t believe in any gods. That’s it - period.

Hmmm…what’s that called again when people only focus on the “hits” and ignore the “misses”? Wait…it’s on the tip of my tongue…oh, yeah - confirmation bias. Hee, hee - now you know how we feel.:smiley:

247

No. Only so many hours in the day and since we seem to be going around in circles, thought I’d take some time off for good behavior. Look up the difference between an observation and an accusation. I’ll be back.

248

No, I don’t. I have no expectations of my “hypothesis” carrying any weight or credibility. Process is still not applicable for myself in this instance. I am not trying to come up with a solution to an answer I already have. I can’t deny what I know, even if it does not fit a formula. You can determine with your process that I am mentally ill, brainwashed, playing a joke on you, lying or really know God. Your process will not come up with a correct answer, because the last one is an unknown, therefore unbelievable option for you. I respect that.

If you see a broken window, do you consider the possibility that it was broken by goblins or a poltergeist or do you assume it was humans? Is there any circumstance under which you would consider goblins? If you see an airplane flying overhead would you assume that it is flying under normal mecahanical power or would you insist that the possibility of a miracle could not be ruled out? If I were to suggest that maybe the plane was being carried by invisible angels under the wings would you say that my hypothesis deserved any consideration?

Neither to start with. If I personally knew a goblin and saw him in the neighborhood, he might be included on the list of possible reasons for the broken window. I may never know who or what broke the window. I’ll go with you on the plane. I would assume normal mechanical power. I have never said that I don’t understand why you use this process. I would always give someone else’s hypothesis consideration, but my conclusion would be based on my own experiences. My point of reference is different than yours for God. Actually I should say you have none. That makes us look at some things differently.

Once again, Occam’s Razor in this discussion is not about ruling out the unlikely, it’s about ruling out the supernatural as long as the natural is viable…or to put it another way, to rule out the impossible as long as the possible is viable.

I understand. If I didn’t know God, he’d be out the door. I would not be an atheist, I would reserve judgment. He is above our understanding, as is the timeless universe. We learn more everyday. He is an unnecessary to the equation for anyone who doesn’t know him. That’s fair.

Can you show a reason why “God” is any more likely than multiple gods or aliens or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other completely unsupported hypothesis which humans can imagine?
No. Only to myself. I realize that just because many people believe something, it in no way indicates that it is fact. You chose to explain it away with “hardwiring” theories, etc. I just find it interesting that so many people still seek a divine being, with no “logical data” available.
**Can you show anything in the universe which would could not have occurred without God? Until you can do that, there is simply no logical reason to postulate God, and God is no more rational than any other supernatural hypothesis anyway. **
No. Not with proof. But we know relatively little about the universe. Science and knowledge of the universe isn’t in conflict with a divine being. It just doesn’t prove one. My belief isn’t contigient on a compilation of hard facts about the universe. My knowledge isn’t affected by someone else not knowing. Again, I don’t disagree with your reasons for coming to your conclusions. They’re sound.

249

IWLN, this humble bystander wishes to commend you on your calm and patient demeaner in the face of some pretty aggressive debating styles.

For the record, I disagree with you more than I agree with you. I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist though, which generates its own set of vehement arguments on this board.

I kind of like your style. You don’t belittle people for not believing in God, even in the midst of being belittled for believing in God.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why some people tend to get so upset about someone’s illogical belief in God. Illogical doesn’t equate to irrational, in my book anyway.

250

I still don’t think you’re understanding the razor. You’re correct that it’s not a proof; it’s merely a reasonable choice between alternatives. It says that, all other things being equal, and given competing explanations for a given phenomenon, we choose the simplest, or most likely explanation. If you reject this idea, you are in effect saying that you don’t choose the most likely explanation. It is simply nonsensical to deliberately choose a needlessly complex explanation, all other things being equal.

The razor does not prevent us from acting on contingency. It is perfectly logical to get a mammogram. While it is more likely than not that you have breast cancer, there still is a significant possibility that you could get it. Since getting a mammogram entails relatively little risk, it is worthwhile.

A better example might be if you had cancer, and needed to choose a treatment. One doctor tells you that the tumor is operable, and has a good chance of being eliminated via surgery and chemotherapy. He points to objective studies on success rates of such treatment, and tells you that the prognosis is good.

You also talk to a faith healer, who tells you that he can cure your cancer by simply touching you and “channelling the positive energies of your body” or some other such meaningless jargon. He admits that there are no objective studies that show a greater than random chance of success with this method, but assures you that he “believes” it will work.

Now, let’s say that for whatever reason, you will only choose one treatment or the other. If you reject Occam’s Razor, and insist on picking the least probable explanation, you will go with the “channelling energies” explanation that has no evidence backing it up, and will most likely die.

Now you have unwittingly arrived at what’s called “Pascal’s Wager”, another staple in the theist’s bag of arguments.:wink: The premise is basically that the question of God’s existence is SO important, with so much at stake, that it should behoove one to believe, even if it’s not the most likely choice. In simple terms, “hedging your bet”. Here’s one of those atheist websites you were talking about that explains in great detail why Pascal’s Wager is an invalid argument.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

251

So, in your opinion, there are certain rules that one must follow before they can truthfully claim to believe God exists?

IMHO ad nauseum. What’s in your heart and basic belief system will allow you to believe in God. If you are inherently evil, you would not believe in anything that held you up to a standard of decency.

But you certainly would inflict harm upon someone to prevent greater harm to an innocent person, would you not?
My intent would not be to harm them, but yes, I would try to stop them.
How has it been communicated to you? Did you read it somewhere, did someone tell you, or did God tell you?
I do believe in the Bible, even though I accept it’s fallibility. There is a lot you can glean from it with common sense and logic. Did I hear a booming voice. No. Does my knowledge of him add to me? Yes. It helps me try to be good to other people. Makes me feel shame, if I’m not. But so does my mother.
Perhaps they think the harm they do to others will prevent greater harm to innocents. Perhaps they think the evil they do now will prevent even more evil in the future.
We were instructed to follow the laws of our land(government) in the Bible. That is telling me that we are supposed to make those types of changes legally, not with murder. The people who take the law into their own hands(with bombs) know they cannot affect a change with law, so they have determined they will have their own way, no matter what. They’re not listening to God. I don’t like abortion, who does, but I’m not going to become a murderer to prevent something that is legal.
Pretend there is a Christian who, on every cloudy day, looks outside and says: “It is not cloudy today.” Can that Christian truthfully claim to believe in God?
What is the intent of their statement? Wishful thinking, do they have a vision problem? Are they harming anyone? I can only form an opinion about this action, not verify their belief. Not my job.
What does “being open to believing in them” mean? Do you think you are supposed to follow the ten commandments, or not? Do you think the ten commandments are part of God’s moral standard?
Believe in God is a gradual process, at least it was for me. I learn every day. Yes, but you’re not always going to be successful.
Please explain how our laws and instincts indicate that belief in God contraindicates violence.
They don’t. But if you don’t have some humane basics, you’re not going to believe in God.
What do you think about violent sports? Do any boxers truly believe in God?
Some do, some don’t. The intent there is the point. They are trying to win a contest, not inflict permanent damage.
But those things invalidate the claim "I believe in God?"
I can only have an opinion, not a judgment. Believing in God aren’t just words. They’re acceptance of certain principles. Why would you say you believe in God and not live it?
**Are you saying that people who believe in God try harder to be better people than non-believers? **
Some do, some don’t. You need morals to believe in God, but you don’t need God to have morals. No person is better than another for whatever group or belief they’re affiliated with. It’s back to the old “actions speak louder than words.” IWLN

252

Thanks. This is not about anyone being better than anyone else based solely on a belief. Pretty much everyone here is quicker and obviously more intelligent than I am. I continue to be humbled. I respect anyone’s right to disagree with me. I think that my style of communicating probably contributes some to the aggression. It is so hard to convey the intent behind the question or comment. I am guilty of making flip comments that are not meant to convey any form of criticism. Then I forget to use “Mr. Winky”. Luckily for me, I am not that likely to jump to the conclusion that someone is attacking me. I can definitely laugh at myself. I’m sure you would never believe it from reading them, but I spend hours on a post sometimes, because I am trying not only to be honest, but careful. I am worn out, but not worn down. :cool: IWLN

253

BLOWERO, You’re three or four posts ahead of me. Go watch TV or something.:wink:

PRICEGUY, Still working on the reply. Life keeps getting in the way. Sorry(and I’m not lying about that either).:smiley:

254

Imagine you saw someone driving a bus towards a group of children, intent on killing them. The only way you could stop this murder from happening is to blow up the bus (thereby harming the driver). In that case, your intent would most certainly be to harm the driver, preventing the murder of innocents.

So are you admitting that some Christians who knowingly commit murder really do believe God exists?

But you just said:

(bolding mine)
Did I mis-interpret this statement? Did you mean to say something other than “Belief in God contraindicates violence, as indicated by our laws and basic human instincts?” If I mis-interpreted, please forgive my thickheadedness and explain this quote further.

This is my point, too. Those abortion clinic bombers intended to murder the guilty to save the lives of innocents.

God wills us to obey the law? What about when the law changes? Does the will of God change, then, too?

255

No, it’s not. God is what you believe in; he cannot possibly be the basis of that belief. You stated earlier that the basis of your beliefs is feelings and emotions, plus some “personal proof” that you refuse to divulge and therefore has to be treated as nonexistent by me.
God is the noun, the topic, everything else has to do with my reasons, the justification of my belief. My “personal proof” would serve no purpose, as it is not easily explained or understood. I am not expecting you to consider it or change your belief. I could put any label I chose on my actions. It would not mean it was true, factual. If I was a Shriner and declared that I was killing for them or at their request, it would be a lie. They would not be the basis for my belief. They could not be my reason, but I could lie and say they were. Shriner’s don’t advocate killing or violence either.

And I’d still like to know how you can be so sure that you’re right and they’re wrong.
You are sure that you’re right and I’m wrong. There has to be at some basic level an acknowledgement that taking away someone else’s life is wrong. It’s certainly not rational under almost every circumstance.

I definitely don’t want some ancient ghostwritten books dictating my morals and thoughts.
That is your right and understandable. We all have the same rights to make those decisions, or should. Right or wrong, many of our laws were based on those old morals. You have the freedom to try and change those laws.

No, they can have value, and they don’t have to be destructive. If, for example, a Christian nurse goes to Africa to help sick children because she believes God wants her to, that’s just as good as if an Atheist nurse does it just because she wants the children to be better.
The Christian nurse is going for the same reason as the atheist. They both want the children to do better. God didn’t make her, she chose. A Christian nurse may be more likely to go because of God. She is feeling compelled for more than one reason.

Here’s your own definition of your basis for belief:Since you still refuse to tell me about the personal proof, I’m forced to ignore it. What’s left is feelings and emotions. That’s the same basis any religious person has, including the people you call evil. It’s an exact correlation.
I’m good with that. If you still don’t understand why I don’t agree with “the same basis”, I have failed to communicate with you on this and will accept defeat. Your tone does not leave much room for sharing what is special to me.

I did explain why it’s not valid. It does provide a “best guess”, but not always the right answer. It has it’s uses, but not for all situations.
Why not? Can you give me anything but unfounded assertions?
I have explained to you that IMHO it has no value in matters related to God. So, no, nothing for you there.

Bull. Shit. Sorry if I offended you. You asked me why I held up the source as some kind of validation. That is a direct accusation towards me of holding up the source as some kind of validation. I trust you’re able to see that. Throughout my posts I made very clear that William of Occam was utterly irrelevant and not even the source of the principle, just of its name. You cannot possibly have missed that, and the only conclusion I can make is that you lied.
You don’t offend me. I stated an opinion(right or wrong), you heard an accusation. You are entitled to decide my statement is false, but if you believe you heard an accusation, you are mistaken. That is not my style of communication. I continue to be sorry that you misunderstood my intent. Your conclusion that I lied is your choice. It is not true.

This seems like a good point, but you have to agree that it’s miles and miles away from not accepting Occam’s Razor because one guy who liked it was kicked out of the Catholic church.
What did you do then? You uttered a demonstrably false statement that you, provided your brain was working at at least half capacity at the time, knew was false. What is that if not a lie?
Awh. Gee thanks. Half capacity is better than falling out, right?

I don’t actually know if it was sarin, just that it was some kind of nerve gas. It was the Aum Shinrikyo cult. Not that it matters, they’re just an example.
So, it wasn’t a bomb. Did you lie or were you just mistaken. I picked the second because I could not detect an intent to lie.

I have. There’s no reason to believe he exists.
For you, I agree

You added “with proof”. Besides, you do realise the impossibility of proving a negative, don’t you? You do realise that the burden of proof lies on the person introducing the extraordinary claim, don’t you? You do realise that the baseline assumption has to be that a certain entity (in this case God) does not exist until we have evidence indicating that it does, don’t you?
I understand why you feel that way. I try to avoid assumptions on extremely important matters. I realize that something you don’t believe exists can’t be important. That’s rational.

Of course I don’t know. I’ve never claimed to. But you have to explain why you, without a shred of evidence, believe in something incredibly unlikely.
If it’s something you don’t know, why can you say God doesn’t exist. I can understand why you could say it doesn’t seem likely or even probably not. From what I understand(and I am confident you’ll correct me if I’m wrong), Atheists in general say there is no God, not it’s unlikely. Why the statement of fact from so many?

Why? What rational reason is there to be evil? If everyone were to understand that the good of the group is the same as the good of the one and were able to view the world rationally, I can’t see why evil would exist. Of course, there’d still be emotions and mental illness and I’m not saying it would be a perfect world. But you don’t see too many secular humanists killing people.
Religion doesn’t kill, people do. Evil is the opposing force of good. I could be getting my political groups mixed up, but doesn’t the good of the group thing remind you of Marx. He wanted to rid the world of idealistic thought and had a very rational approach to how things should be. Anyway, it’s either that or a line from Star Trek.:slight_smile: So you don’t believe in personal freedom? With rational thought coming from a person’s frame of reference? Do you not believe it exists? Again, who’s interpretation of rational would we adhere to?

Such as? If they were rational, they’d stop dividing themselves into Israelis and Palestinians and just live together. Problem solved.
There is not a workable standard. Worldwide rational agreement is illogical.

Believes in, you mean?
Knows, without a doubt.

Cite?
IMHO Because feelings run a lot stronger on abortion and yet it exists. Laws are difficult to change. We have not been allowed to vote on same sex marriage because it would not be opposed. This is about powerful bigotry. It is fairly simple to keep this decision out the general publics hands. Should we get rid of politics too?

Maybe you meet such people because you are one? That does not, emphatically not, mean that such people are in a majority in any way.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. I would love to be able to vote on this.

One data point doesn’t prove anything, a controlled study does. I’m sure I can find someone who claimed he cured his obesity by eating goose grease. That doesn’t make goose grease an obesity cure.
True. Can you cite statistics on homeopathic medicine not working. There are quacks in both traditional and non-traditional medicine.

I am indeed.
:dubious:

That’s not what you said. You got into stuff about respecting your right to believe and the like and telling me how mean and nasty I was, just because I attack something close to your heart. Well, I’m sorry, but you did start this debate about religious beliefs. You have to expect them to be attacked.
IMHO I expect to be disagreed with, not attacked. Your anger seemed irrational, but it is your right. I was puzzled, not offended.

No, because it would be much better for everyone.
Cite statistics for this or indicate it is an opinion only.

Irrelevant. Please don’t introduce unnecessary elements into the debate.
You introduced the rapist, did you not? Am I somehow required to live by your standards of unnecessary on all topics.

Depends on what you mean by “life”, exactly.
Our mental perception of life.

If I’m wrong I’ll go to Hell and show God the finger on the way there for giving me this brain and then punishing me for using it.
You won’t have a finger, but you’ll have a lot of catching up to do. We’ll have to agree to disagree on how much you’re using it.

If enough people do it, it’ll be enough.
People in general have become more educated and intellectual. We have access to help for just about any problem we could have, but still the world hasn’t changed much. IMHO it will never be enough.

Yes. We agree.
Twice now.

**Taking all irrationality, including God, will. I have explained why above. **
You said God doesn’t exist. Don’t you mean taking away freedom of religion? How would you implement this again? IWLN

256

I hate to keep nitpicking but this simply isn’t true. Nothing in American law is derived from the Bible. As a matter of fact, the Constitution forbids lawmakers from codifying religious rules into law.

257

Well… not really. It forbids, under the currrent interpretation, laws with purely religious purposes. However, just because a new blue law might be religiously motivated doesn’t per se make it Unconstitutional, if even a lame attempt at finding a merely rational (no need for a compelling state interest in this csae) secular purpose is made.

Certianly, saying that nothing in American law is derived from the Bible is a bit of an overstatement as well.

258

Imagine you saw someone driving a bus towards a group of children, intent on killing them. The only way you could stop this murder from happening is to blow up the bus (thereby harming the driver). In that case, your intent would most certainly be to harm the driver, preventing the murder of innocents.
I’m trying to picture strolling down the street and I just happened to have a bomb in my hand? Sorry. I would try and stop him. My intent would be to stop him and I would hope not to harm him, but yes would pick the children. Police run into this all the time. This is different than willfully committing murder.

So are you admitting that some Christians who knowingly commit murder really do believe God exists?
Of course. They are subject to the same problems as everyone. What I was trying to say is someone who claims to be murdering in the name of God is lying or delusional.

But you just said:
Did I mis-interpret this statement? Did you mean to say something other than “Belief in God contraindicates violence, as indicated by our laws and basic human instincts?” If I mis-interpreted, please forgive my thickheadedness and explain this quote further.
Our laws and instincts don’t necessarily indicate anything about God. People are moral without God. When you believe in God, laws and basic human instinct help guide and are still part of the equation. What I’m saying is the sentence is not interchangeable. I’m not saying this well, sorry.

This is my point, too. Those abortion clinic bombers intended to murder the guilty to save the lives of innocents.
I don’t agree with that. Their intent is to make a huge statement. What they are really doing does nothing to save the lives of innocents. They kill some people, including the innocents they profess to be so concerned about and cause the women who were lucky enough to not be in the building, to reschedule with another dr. So they cause death and inconvenience and make the news. I still advocate following the law. If the bombers were really so noble and intent on saving innocents, they would kidnap the women and force them to have the children. No more rational than bombs, but too time consuming.

**God wills us to obey the law? What about when the law changes? Does the will of God change, then, too? **
No God still wants us to obey the laws. I’m not sure where the idea comes from that there can never be a change in God’s will though. IWLN

259

Ha, ha - that’s because we’re ganging up on you.:wink: You’re responding to a lot more posts than I am. I just keep seeing things you wrote that I want to respond to; I guess you can tell I like to argue. You’ve been a good sport about it, so sorry if we’re overwhelming you. I promise I won’t add anything until you get a chance to respond.

260

Again: How convenient for you.

No, I’m not, as I’ve explained to you before. You really have to start reading my posts.

“Wrong” is an abstract. I don’t like working with abstracts. I agree that killing should be illegal.

Amazing. I made up this nurse as an example of a person who made a good but irrational decision, and now you know her better than I do! You know her reasons beyond a doubt, even though she’s entirely my imaginary construct. How do you do it?

Besides, this is totally irrelevant (boy, am I getting tired of using those words). She was just an example of an irrational action that I did not find destructive or worthless.

I haven’t seen you trying to communicate on this. You’ve just said that they don’t have the same beliefs as you do, which I never contested. I would like you to explain the difference between the basis for those beliefs, not the differences between the beliefs themselves. I can see those on my own.

Why? Of all the concepts I could pull out of a hat, why is God special? Why would Occam’s Razor apply to faeries or leprechauns or Invisible Pink Unicorns, but not to God?

In what way is the question “Why hold up the source as some sort of validation?” an opinion?

You’re saying it’s not?

Who said it wasn’t a bomb? All I know is that they released a nerve gas in the Tokyo subway somehow and have been referred to “gas bombers” and the like in the media. I therefore used that label since it would give you the best chance of instant recognition.

It’s not a feeling. It’s pure logic. If you don’t agree, tell me why.

Kindly show me where I did that, or admit to being a liar. Twice.

Would you say Santa Claus doesn’t exist? The Easter Bunny? The Midgard Serpent? Great A’Tuin? I believe you would. But you don’t know, do you?

Correct. People kill for reasons, most of them irrational, many of them religious.

Another reverse argument from authority. Amazing how you rack these up. Totally irrelevant, of course, as you have been told.

Pure reason needs no interpretation.

Explain why.

Then you should be able to explain how.

No they’re not. People make it difficult to change them. It’s not a natural law.

Sprung from religion.

First of all, it is up to the proponents of homeopathic medicine to show it works, not the other way around. It’s always that way.

Second of all:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000225.html
http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html
http://www.google.com/u/JREF?q=homeopathy&sa=Go!

The Skeptic’s Dictionary entry reads in part:

Impossible to show statistics for something that hasn’t happened yet, but it does follow logically. For example, we agree that it is irrational (most of the time) to kill. If people were rational, there’d be much fewer killings. See?

I introduced the rapist as an example of why I’m angry. That rapists with mental illnesses exist is completely irrelevant. Tell you what, choose a crime or wrongdoing of some kind whose perpetrators you do not believe to be mentally ill to a significant degree, and substitute that crime for the word “rape” in that statement. The statement works, we can move on.

You don’t think the world has changed much? Since when, exactly? I for one think that women voting (anyone voting, really), abolition of slavery in much of the world, democracy in much of the world and so on are pretty strong indicators that things are going the right way.

When?

Nope. Wouldn’t work. People would get all pissed and start secret churches and plot to overthrow the government and stuff. We’ll just have to do this slowly and get rid of religion like we got rid of belief in elves and leprechauns.

So because you think I’m unlikely to succeed, there’s something wrong with the concept? And the answer to your question is this: One day at a time.