# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/421 "2010-09-05T05:55:15Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > You asked what my opinion would be if the majority agreed to remove a prohibition on child rape. I’m asking what your opinion would be if God agreed to remove it. > > Ah but God would not. Because God is morally perfect. Because the rape of a 3 year old is morally wrong. So you’re saying that morality exists independently of God? That God does not decide what is right and wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/422 "2010-09-05T05:56:58Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees (Cosmologist and Astrophysicist), Just Six Numbers). > > So is this ‘design’ or a pure coincidence? It’s neither. The argument from “fine tuning” merely attempts to draw a bullseye around the arrow. It’s sophist bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/423 "2010-09-05T06:00:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > If you can deduce that a morally perfect God “would not” do that because you already know the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong, then what’s to stop an atheist from _ **likewise** _ already knowing the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong? > > Nothing. An atheist will almost certainly know this is wrong. He just won’t admit why. I’m atheist. It’s wrong because I say so. There’s nothing to “admit.” > [@](#): > > OK. But you still haven’t explained the basis for your objection. Neither have you explained the universal abhorrence of a rape of a 3 year old. > > There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. It is an objecctive morality. I’ve explained it already. it’s neurological hardwiring. Evolution. We are naturally selected for empathy and protective instincts towards our offspring. No magic involved. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/424 "2010-09-05T10:42:16Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > Any entity needs a place ot exist, so if God is an entity He would first need a place , so who created that? If God always exised then existence would have to proceed Him, unless God and existence are the same thing! > > God is not limited by our concepts of time or space. > > So again I state…the onus of proof is on you. How do you know (or prove) that God is not limited by time or space, isn’t that just some peoples idea of what God is? It is still just a matter of Faith not fact. How does a being exist, with out first being in existence? That is your burden of proof! First one has to prove there is God before they can know anything about Him and faith can never be proof of anything. One first has to prove what they believe is true before they can state it as fact! ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/425 "2010-09-05T21:39:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Nothing. An atheist will almost certainly know this is wrong. He just won’t admit why. > > Well, enlighten us: what’s the reason why – as you see it – such a rape is wrong? I’m not following your argument. > > [QUOTE=aigonz] > There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. No, there’s an evolutionary purpose. Assume for the sake of argument that, say, your daughter is three. The odds that she’ll grow up to be a healthy adult who can pass on your genes in future generations _ **improve** _ if you sign on for a culture that enshrines a “don’t rape three-year-olds” value. So long as you weren’t planning to rape any three-year-olds, such a prohibition doesn’t really cost _ **you** _ anything; it just helps your daughter (and cousins, and siblings, and so on) not get traumatized or killed or whatever. [/QUOTE] 1\> a) The reason the rape of 3 year old is wrong is because it contravenes an a moral code that determines how we should behave towards one another. b) This code is objective or absolute; it is beyond our subjectivity, beyond our collective capability to devise. c) The reason we recognise this moral code is because it has been endowed upon us by an intelligent agent who created us with aspects of it’s intelligence. 2\> Not only do you rather flatter the evolutionary process (for it is far more blind than you suggest), you mistake it. Raping a 3 year old does not prevent the rapists genes being carried on. Indeed in an evolutionary it is more likely to be the male line one would refer to pass on, so your argument does not stand up. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/426 "2010-09-05T21:54:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> If you wish to look for deceit, study the history of evolution. The list of deceit and hoax is damning. > > Nonsense. There are however quite a few creationists who see imaginary flaws out of ignorance, or simply lie. As you seem unaware of the many fabrications by supporters of evolution, I suggest you research Ernst Haeckel’s “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” forgery, or the Piltdown Man Hoax, the Java Man claims, Pithecanthropus Erectus or Nebraska Man. There are more, but these will get you started. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/427 "2010-09-05T21:56:23Z")
[quote=“Der\_Trihs, post:416, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> > > More nonsense. Evolution explains benevolence just fine, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Nor is benevolence a moral problem for atheism. Nonsense. There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/428 "2010-09-05T22:05:28Z")
[quote=“Der\_Trihs, post:416, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> > > Ah, the classic attempt to equate Communism and atheism. They are of course not remotely the same. > > And no, I don’t agree that atheism, or even communism has caused as much evil as religion. Religion has turned humanity into a twisted, life hating, intelligence hating, knowledge hating species. A mad, crippled species primarily dedicated to a grim hatred of all forms of pleasure that aren’t gained by greed and the infliction of suffering. I doubt that humanity can ever recover from how warped religion has made it. Communism is political atheism. It was a political system that sought to suppress and ultimately eliminate religious thought and expression. I can understand your denials, however history cannot tolerate them. As to your latter claims, it’s worthy of another thread. However I would just ask you to consider removing your mind from the works of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and consider the thousands of organisations around the world who support relief and work amongst the poor and ask yyour self how many of them arre motivated by an atheistic ethos. Then consider the Salvation Army, World Vision, Tear Fund, Christian Aid Intl, the IOCC, the list could go on and on. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/429 "2010-09-05T22:06:06Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Nonsense. There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple. Just because you aren’t able to understand something doesn’t mean it is nonsense. It’s interesting that you deny the evolution of behaviors that facilitate living in social groups, but blindly and without any evidence accept the existence of a supernatural God. Are you gullible when it suits your biases and skeptical when it challenges them? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/430 "2010-09-05T22:06:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. It is an objecctive morality. > > I don’t think you understand the situation. Being protective of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous. I don’t think you understand argumentation. A statement is not argumentation. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/431 "2010-09-05T22:09:11Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 4\> If religion has been a source for evil, then atheism has been a source for infintely more. Nore people dies in the 20th century alone from atheistic/secular humanist ideology that from all religions for the history of mankind. > > Atheism is not an ideology. It’s an answer to a single question: does this person believe in a god(s)? If the answer is “no,” you can’t get from there to the motivation for any action. > > Now, secular humanism _is_ an ideology, but the only people who might die from its ideology would be people who were dying and suffering, and the secular humanist would choose to help them bring it to an end more quickly. An ideology is simply a set of ideas or concepts. Athiesm often tries to hide behind what it claims it is not, but that is simply to avoid scrutiny. Atheism is an ideology. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/432 "2010-09-05T22:10:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > And Mr Hawking again… > > > > “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” > > Hawking is an atheist. He was speaking figuratively. Hawking has published numerous statements that speak of God. I would sugggest hawkings view has vacilated considerably, between atheism and deism. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/433 "2010-09-05T22:13:45Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > God is not limited by our concepts of time or space. > > > > So again I state…the onus of proof is on you. > > How do you know (or prove) that God is not limited by time or space, isn’t that just some peoples idea of what God is? It is still just a matter of Faith not fact. > > How does a being exist, with out first being in existence? That is your burden of proof! > > First one has to prove there is God before they can know anything about Him and faith can never be proof of anything. One first has to prove what they believe is true before they can state it as fact! Ah but here we see a double standard. You (I speak broadly) require ‘proof’ of God, yet you do not require ‘proof’ of principles of quantum mechanics. You reject an argument from authority when it supports design, yet you accept what those same physicists say about virtual particles or the quantum vacuum. Do you see a problem here? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/434 "2010-09-05T22:17:24Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > I don’t think you understand the situation. Being protective of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous. > > I don’t think you understand argumentation. A statement is not argumentation. I’m having trouble understanding what you are unable to grasp? We have non-precocious children. They need a decade and a half of training and protection before they’re ready to be on their own. It is obvious that protecting children is a behavior that would be built into humans by evolution. This isn’t some far out thought. It’s pretty simple. If you’re having trouble accepting it, blame your ideology. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/435 "2010-09-05T22:20:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Nonsense. There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple. > > Just because you aren’t able to understand something doesn’t mean it is nonsense. > > It’s interesting that you deny the evolution of behaviors that facilitate living in social groups, but blindly and without any evidence accept the existence of a supernatural God. Are you gullible when it suits your biases and skeptical when it challenges them? It is interesting that you continue to misrepresent me. I have not denied the evolution of behavours per se, indeed I have not denied evolution as a biological mechanism at all. My position is that evolution cannot explain many aspects of human behaviour, including benevolence and objective morality. Benevolence cannot be adequately explained by purely evolutionary repsonses, because there is no place in a purely naturalistic development for unrewarded assistance of ones fellow man. This is an intrinsic response that actually costs the individual who gives. When I travel to a third world country to provide aid and sustainance, I do so at my own cost, risk and discomfort. I gain nothing material at all. Now if you want to argue that I I receive a feel good factor, then you will need to provide naturalistic proof for that, because it has no scientific foundation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/436 "2010-09-05T22:21:28Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Nonsense. There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple. Wrong. It has been explained to you again and again how evolution can produce benevolence; the fact that this doesn’t fit your parody version of evolution isn’t our fault. > [@aigonz](#): > > Communism is political atheism. It was a political system that sought to suppress and ultimately eliminate religious thought and expression. I can understand your denials, however history cannot tolerate them. Again, nonsense. Communism is a belief system - a religion in all but name - that professes atheism for the same reason Christianity denies all gods but its own. Neither belief system likes competition. That doesn’t mean communism = atheism. Believers like yourself bring it up and pretend that they are the same because otherwise you don’t have anything to bash atheism with. Where are the horrible atheist atrocities in places where atheists are common but communism isn’t? > [@aigonz](#): > > As to your latter claims, it’s worthy of another thread. However I would just ask you to consider removing your mind from the works of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and consider the thousands of organisations around the world who support relief and work amongst the poor and ask yyour self how many of them arre motivated by an atheistic ethos. Quite a few. And they are by nature more genuinely benevolent than any religion. > [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> a) The reason the rape of 3 year old is wrong is because it contravenes an a moral code that determines how we should behave towards one another. b) This code is objective or absolute; it is beyond our subjectivity, beyond our collective capability to devise. c) The reason we recognise this moral code is because it has been endowed upon us by an intelligent agent who created us with aspects of it’s intelligence. Nonsense. There is no such entity much less communication from one. And the effects of evolution explain why we protect children just fine. > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> Not only do you rather flatter the evolutionary process (for it is far more blind than you suggest), you mistake it. Raping a 3 year old does not prevent the rapists genes being carried on. Indeed in an evolutionary it is more likely to be the male line one would refer to pass on, so your argument does not stand up. More nonsense. It prevents the rapist’s genes from being carried on when the father of the child guts him and sets the corpse on fire. Or in more modern societies, when he gets tossed into prison, possibly chemically castrated, and shunned if he ever gets out. “Child molester” is NOT a label that is going to help you attract women. > [@aigonz](#): > > An ideology is simply a set of ideas or concepts. Athiesm often tries to hide behind what it claims it is not, but that is simply to avoid scrutiny. Atheism is an ideology. No, it’s not. It is one belief, not a “set of ideas or concepts”. It has no goals, no commandments, no plan; it’s just a disbelief in gods. > [@aigonz](#): > > Hawking has published numerous statements that speak of God. I would sugggest hawkings view has vacilated considerably, between atheism and deism. No, he just pretended to respect religion for a time in order to avoid offending his first wife and out of fear of the believers. > [@aigonz](#): > > Ah but here we see a double standard. > > You (I speak broadly) require ‘proof’ of God, yet you do not require ‘proof’ of principles of quantum mechanics. > > You reject an argument from authority when it supports design, yet you accept what those same physicists say about virtual particles or the quantum vacuum. > > Do you see a problem here? Only in your own mind. We have consumer electronics that use quantum mechanical principles to function. The proof that the physicists know what they are doing is overwhelming. On the other hand, there’s no evidence for even the possibility of gods, much less their reality. And the people who claim otherwise have a relentless history of being wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/437 "2010-09-05T22:21:46Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Atheism is not an ideology. It’s an answer to a single question: does this person believe in a god(s)? If the answer is “no,” you can’t get from there to the motivation for any action. > > > > Now, secular humanism _is_ an ideology, but the only people who might die from its ideology would be people who were dying and suffering, and the secular humanist would choose to help them bring it to an end more quickly. > > An ideology is simply a set of ideas or concepts. Athiesm often tries to hide behind what it claims it is not, but that is simply to avoid scrutiny. Atheism is an ideology. Not believing in Unicorns is an ideology? Not believing in Vampires is an ideology? Not believing in Zombies is an ideology? Not believing in Santa Claus is an ideology? Not believing in Mermaids is an ideology? Not believing in Zeus is an ideology? Not believing in the Power Rangers is an ideology? Not believing in Superman is an ideology? You don’t understand what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/438 "2010-09-05T22:22:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I don’t think you understand argumentation. A statement is not argumentation. > > I’m having trouble understanding what you are unable to grasp? We have non-precocious children. They need a decade and a half of training and protection before they’re ready to be on their own. It is obvious that protecting children is a behavior that would be built into humans by evolution. > > This isn’t some far out thought. It’s pretty simple. If you’re having trouble accepting it, blame your ideology. Perhaps this will help you understand. Your example above relates to sane people. What of those who do not behave in this manner? Have they somehow missed out on the evolutionary journey? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/439 "2010-09-05T22:25:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > What of those who do not behave in this manner? Have they somehow missed out on the evolutionary journey? Yes. That’s pretty much how evolution works in the first place. People who do things like get themselves imprisoned or killed for child molestation leave fewer offspring than those that don’t, therefore child molestation is a rarity, not the norm. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/440 "2010-09-05T22:27:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > An ideology is simply a set of ideas or concepts. Athiesm often tries to hide behind what it claims it is not, but that is simply to avoid scrutiny. Atheism is an ideology. > > Not believing in Unicorns is an ideology? > Not believing in Vampires is an ideology? > Not believing in Zombies is an ideology? > Not believing in Santa Claus is an ideology? > Not believing in Mermaids is an ideology? > Not believing in Zeus is an ideology? > Not believing in the Power Rangers is an ideology? > Not believing in Superman is an ideology? > > You don’t understand what you’re talking about. And you don’t understand athiesm. For unless you want to hide behind the softening of the ideological withdrawl of the recent decades, athiesm is an affirmative statement that there are “no gods”. This is an ideology that has developed a political foundation, it comprises national and international organisation, much like any religion. It’s advocates write books, attend conferences, lobby for political influence, arre activists within the eduxation and legal systems. Anything like this for superman? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=23)