# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/501 "2010-09-06T22:40:29Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The opening post of this thread was based on a misundersting of the Biblical text. As is this claim. > > > > The Hewbrew term used for ‘kill’ in the Bible fits closely with my definition, and is similar to how we would today define ‘murder’ in a court of law. > > Okay, first, you’re incorrect. Kill means kill, and no amount of weaseling will change that. > > But second, you’re missing the point. People don’t all have the same abhorrence toward killing you claim they do. Some people abhor war, others do not. Some people abhor infanticide, others do not. Some people abhor honor killings, others do not. Some people abhor abortion, others do not. Some people abhor the death penalty, others do not. Some people abhor euthanasia, others are not. > > If there was one objective morality about killing, why would there be _so much_ disagreement about the morality of killing, eh? 1. To understand any work of literature, you need to understand the language usage of the time. Do you read the words of Shakespeare exactly based on 21st century english? Of course not. If you desire to understand the true meaning, you wil need to take the time to look for it from the original languages. 2. Amongst sane people, there is a universal abhorrence towards murder. ---
**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 6, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/502 "2010-09-06T22:47:07Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > See, this is “shifting the goal posts”. > > > > You’ve said, repeatedly – and after being corrected, even – that: > > > > “There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition.” > > “This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose.” > > “There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple.” > > “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.” > > “We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.” > > “None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers.” > > “The notion that evolutionary impulses alone accoount for benevolence or objectove morality is full of self contradiction.” > > > > I’m merely telling you there’s _ **no** _ contradiction. I’m merely telling you a purely naturalistic explanation _ **could** _ serve an evolutionary purpose. You say it’s a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple; I’m telling you it’s _ **not.** _ You say it’s unrelated to any supposed biological response, and has no place in a purely naturalistic development; I’m telling you to _ **stop doing that,** _ because you’re utterly mistaken. > > > > Now, if you’d like to move on from denying it’s even possible to discussing evidence that it’s actual – look, that’s fine, we can do that. But I first want to make sure you’re reversing all those prior comments; that’s a _ **huge** _ step. > > > > That said, I’m not especially interested in moving on to that next step; it’s not what concerns me either way. I primarily care about the moral code that both atheists and Christians are perfectly capable of recognizing and living by: I want to stop Christians who don’t live up to it (say, those who’d rape a three-year-old), and I want to stop atheists who don’t live up to it (ditto), and it’s a matter of profound indifference to me whether the ability to recognize such a code stems from evolution or an outside agent or whatever; living up to the code is what’s important, IMHO. But if _ **you** _ (a) care, and (b) can grant that it could of course stem from evolutionary processes, then, yeah, we could look at the evidence. > > > > And we often don’t show empathy toward wounded people from a competing group either. Of course, we also cooperate plenty _ **more** _ than lions, and so we accomplish more – but we’re also capable of genocide, which lions don’t quite get worked up enough to manage. As always, it’s tricky work to derive an “ought” from an “is”; what’s moral isn’t always what we do. > > > > I mean, take religious types who put homosexuals to death, or stone blasphemers, or enslave people from a competing tribe! Monstrous! Horrifying! My sympathies are with their victims. My moral code is outraged. Some people crash planes into office buildings. Others practice female genital mutilation. Religious types can be worse than lions. What can we extrapolate from that? > > > > Well – me, I don’t try to extrapolate much of anything; I was _ **already** _ on board once my sympathies and my moral code lined up. I don’t much care whether their evil stems from evolution or religion; I just want to stop it. > > 1\> You can tell me what you like, but you have provided no argument to refute my points you quote above. All are valid. > > 2\> You again return to the claim that atheists and christians can both recognise the moral code. Of course they are. If not, it would not be objective, surely? My question has consistently been not whether it is recognised but how and where it came from. I have made the claim that an objectove moral code can not have come from mankind. The only rebuttal I have seen is a very long bow of opinion about evolutionary theory. I have demonstrated the problems with this both as to the development of this from tribe to nation, and as to the extension of this from family to stranger. You claim evolution has the answers. Well I ask again, provide the 2 key scientific requireemnts, observation and repetition. > > 3\> You final comments about ‘religious types’ is just irrational raving. We can all agree to the inappropriateness of certain behaviour. The question the atheist must adddress is why? The atheists have already addressed it. You have ignored it because you don’t listen to things that challenge your beliefs. It almost seems like you aren’t here to debate, but to give testimony to blind, unthinking faith. Also, since I have you here for a moment, who created your God? His complexity suggests creation, doesn’t it? This is where you’re supposed to realize that your argument falls apart and is meaningless. 😃 See above for much on the evolution front. Again, there has been much evidence given to you, but you are ignoring it. Just so you’re clear, you’re losing this debate so utterly I feel embarrassed for you. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/503 "2010-09-06T22:49:53Z")
> [@BadgerHunter](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> You haven’t ‘shown’ anything. You have ‘claimed’ much, but supported very little. > > > > 2\> Complexity begs the question. Is an intelligent agent more likely than a random series of obscure chances that are, for the most part unable to be repeated or observed? The answer is yes. > > > > 3\> Of course morality is presnt in the brain,…this is simply another red herring you present for lack of argumentation. > > I am curious about #2. This seems to be a purely emotional argument. What empirical evidence is there of Intelligent Design? Specifically: show me _proof_ that _something_ was designed. Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to tell me that ID is more likely, or neater, or simpler. I’m also not terribly interested in hearing emotional arguments, or arguments that demand a theist’s perspective. > > This is where this type of discussion goes down the drain. You believe because you want to believe. Evidence, proof, etc, is only ever a way of keeping score for you; if any evidence ever contradicts your belief you’ll always shift to “a wizard did it” explanations. The problem with your argument is that science frequently appeals to such ‘wizards’ without critique. ‘Science of the gaps’ is all too common. Evolution is a classic at this, with assumption built upon assumption, which is why the numerous hoaxes and deceit that have clouded evolutionary history have gone so long without challenge. Earlier a poster recorded an evolutionary explanation as to behavior and benevolence. This was mere opinion, unsuppported by any empirical data. Indeed this was more wishful thinking than science. The point I make is simply than most of what we discuss here we cannot know for certain. However we can surely compare competing world views in the light of good science, empirical data and observation, and then chose to accept what we see as providing the least possible leap from fact to faith. ---
**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 6, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/504 "2010-09-06T22:55:50Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@BadgerHunter](#): > > > > I am curious about #2. This seems to be a purely emotional argument. What empirical evidence is there of Intelligent Design? Specifically: show me _proof_ that _something_ was designed. Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to tell me that ID is more likely, or neater, or simpler. I’m also not terribly interested in hearing emotional arguments, or arguments that demand a theist’s perspective. > > > > This is where this type of discussion goes down the drain. You believe because you want to believe. Evidence, proof, etc, is only ever a way of keeping score for you; if any evidence ever contradicts your belief you’ll always shift to “a wizard did it” explanations. > > The problem with your argument is that science frequently appeals to such ‘wizards’ without critique. ‘Science of the gaps’ is all too common. Evolution is a classic at this, with assumption built upon assumption, which is why the numerous hoaxes and deceit that have clouded evolutionary history have gone so long without challenge. Earlier a poster recorded an evolutionary explanation as to behavior and benevolence. This was mere opinion, unsuppported by any empirical data. Indeed this was more wishful thinking than science. > > The point I make is simply than most of what we discuss here we cannot know for certain. However we can surely compare competing world views in the light of good science, empirical data and observation, and then chose to accept what we see as providing the least possible leap from fact to faith. There is more evidence for evolution than almost anything else in the universe. Evolution is used and tested, makes predictions on a daily basis. There is however no evidence for the existence of a God. And you think that God is the intelligent person’s answer to the question of morality? It has already been shown to you numerous times that other animals have morality. It has been laboriously explained to you that we are social animals and protecting children is obviously something that would be instilled in us by evolution. But in defiance of the actual real world evidence pointing to evolution being the root of morality, you’d rather embrace ignorance and assert that a God that has no evidence at all, not even one bit in all the universe, is the answer? Doesn’t that seem silly? Also, who created your God? You think that complexity calls for creation. So who did it? Is it a super-God? Are there Gods all the way down? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/505 "2010-09-06T22:58:25Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Are you suggesting that the organisations, conferences, books, websites, articles etc etc run, written and operated by atheists are a figment of the imagination? > > You’re one level too far up. > > There are religious organisations , conferences, websites, articles etc etc, run, written and operated by theists. But we do not tend to lay those things at the foot of theism, or polytheism; those are simply the answer to the question “Do you believe in gods?” with “yes, one” or “yes, more than one”, just as atheism give the answer “no”. We lay those things at the foot of the particular brand of idealogy that permeates those events. When the Pope holds a mass, we tend to call it a Catholic event, not a theistic event; although it would be accurate to call it such, theism in that case is still merely the base answer. It doesn’t explain why there is a mass, why there is a Pope, why he uses the words he uses. In the same way, it’s not really correct to call organisations or events or books atheistic, because even though that’s correct it, too, is simply an answer to the base question; being an atheist alone doesn’t explain why there are those events, why atheists say what they say, why the content of those books is not simply “God does not exist”. > > It isn’t reasonable to say that atheism compares to Christianity, or whatever particular religion, in this way. Atheism compares to theism. It is secular humanism, or utilitarianism, or even some forms of Buddhism, that are comparable in the sense you’re drawing; they provide the explanations and rationales that people are living by or trying to convince other people of. I’m not sure I really see what you are arguing. Atheists hold meeting and conferences, write books and pamphlets, they debate their ideology with those who hold other beliefs. Systematic works on the ‘doctrine’ of atheism have bbeen written. I fail to see how athiesm can be considered anything other than an ideology, or for that matter why there is so much opposition when it is. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/506 "2010-09-06T23:02:17Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > > You’re one level too far up. > > > > There are religious organisations , conferences, websites, articles etc etc, run, written and operated by theists. But we do not tend to lay those things at the foot of theism, or polytheism; those are simply the answer to the question “Do you believe in gods?” with “yes, one” or “yes, more than one”, just as atheism give the answer “no”. We lay those things at the foot of the particular brand of idealogy that permeates those events. When the Pope holds a mass, we tend to call it a Catholic event, not a theistic event; although it would be accurate to call it such, theism in that case is still merely the base answer. It doesn’t explain why there is a mass, why there is a Pope, why he uses the words he uses. In the same way, it’s not really correct to call organisations or events or books atheistic, because even though that’s correct it, too, is simply an answer to the base question; being an atheist alone doesn’t explain why there are those events, why atheists say what they say, why the content of those books is not simply “God does not exist”. > > > > It isn’t reasonable to say that atheism compares to Christianity, or whatever particular religion, in this way. Atheism compares to theism. It is secular humanism, or utilitarianism, or even some forms of Buddhism, that are comparable in the sense you’re drawing; they provide the explanations and rationales that people are living by or trying to convince other people of. > > I’m not sure I really see what you are arguing. Atheists hold meeting and conferences, write books and pamphlets, they debate their ideology with those who hold other beliefs. Systematic works on the ‘doctrine’ of atheism have bbeen written. I fail to see how athiesm can be considered anything other than an ideology, or for that matter why there is so much opposition when it is. The only thing that ties atheists together is not believing in God. Which is sensible, because as I said, there is no evidence for him. A group of atheists only speak for that group. A book by an atheist only speaks for that writer. There isn’t anything but the lack of a delusion that ties them together. Atheists don’t necessarily share any beliefs. You’re going to squawk about sharing the belief that there is no God, but that isn’t a belief, it’s the lack of one. All people start out not believing in God. Then they are indoctrinated into it, usually by their parents. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/507 "2010-09-06T23:03:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> You can tell me what you like, but you have provided no argument to refute my points you quote above. All are valid. > > > > 2\> You again return to the claim that atheists and christians can both recognise the moral code. Of course they are. If not, it would not be objective, surely? My question has consistently been not whether it is recognised but how and where it came from. I have made the claim that an objectove moral code can not have come from mankind. The only rebuttal I have seen is a very long bow of opinion about evolutionary theory. I have demonstrated the problems with this both as to the development of this from tribe to nation, and as to the extension of this from family to stranger. You claim evolution has the answers. Well I ask again, provide the 2 key scientific requireemnts, observation and repetition. > > > > 3\> You final comments about ‘religious types’ is just irrational raving. We can all agree to the inappropriateness of certain behaviour. The question the atheist must adddress is why? > > The atheists have already addressed it. You have ignored it because you don’t listen to things that challenge your beliefs. It almost seems like you aren’t here to debate, but to give testimony to blind, unthinking faith. > > Also, since I have you here for a moment, who created your God? His complexity suggests creation, doesn’t it? > > This is where you’re supposed to realize that your argument falls apart and is meaningless. 😃 > > See above for much on the evolution front. Again, there has been much evidence given to you, but you are ignoring it. Just so you’re clear, you’re losing this debate so utterly I feel embarrassed for you. 1\> There is a common event in these discussions where atheists claim they have answered various questions which they have not. The only explanation offered by atheists has been the tribal/evolutionary argument. I have refuted this, and asked for empirical evidence. I await it with interest. 2\> Why is the notion of an uncaused cause so hard for you to grasp? Is it so hard to contemplate the possibility that the natural universe cannot explain everything about itself? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/508 "2010-09-06T23:07:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The problem with your argument is that science frequently appeals to such ‘wizards’ without critique. ‘Science of the gaps’ is all too common. Evolution is a classic at this, with assumption built upon assumption, which is why the numerous hoaxes and deceit that have clouded evolutionary history have gone so long without challenge. Earlier a poster recorded an evolutionary explanation as to behavior and benevolence. This was mere opinion, unsuppported by any empirical data. Indeed this was more wishful thinking than science. > > > > The point I make is simply than most of what we discuss here we cannot know for certain. However we can surely compare competing world views in the light of good science, empirical data and observation, and then chose to accept what we see as providing the least possible leap from fact to faith. > > There is more evidence for evolution than almost anything else in the universe. Evolution is used and tested, makes predictions on a daily basis. > > There is however no evidence for the existence of a God. And you think that God is the intelligent person’s answer to the question of morality? > > It has already been shown to you numerous times that other animals have morality. It has been laboriously explained to you that we are social animals and protecting children is obviously something that would be instilled in us by evolution. > > But in defiance of the actual real world evidence pointing to evolution being the root of morality, you’d rather embrace ignorance and assert that a God that has no evidence at all, not even one bit in all the universe, is the answer? > > Doesn’t that seem silly? > > Also, who created your God? You think that complexity calls for creation. So who did it? Is it a super-God? Are there Gods all the way down? 😃 Your claims about evolution are laughable. 1\> There is not a shred of evidence that all of the life on earth is evolved from one common ancestor. Micro evolution, yes. The greater theory of evolution? No. It is neither testable, obersabl, nor repeatable. 2\> Evolution does not explain morality or benevolence. Indeed it contradicts it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/509 "2010-09-06T23:10:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’m not sure I really see what you are arguing. Atheists hold meeting and conferences, write books and pamphlets, they debate their ideology with those who hold other beliefs. Systematic works on the ‘doctrine’ of atheism have bbeen written. I fail to see how athiesm can be considered anything other than an ideology, or for that matter why there is so much opposition when it is. > > The only thing that ties atheists together is not believing in God. Which is sensible, because as I said, there is no evidence for him. > > A group of atheists only speak for that group. A book by an atheist only speaks for that writer. There isn’t anything but the lack of a delusion that ties them together. Atheists don’t necessarily share any beliefs. > > You’re going to squawk about sharing the belief that there is no God, but that isn’t a belief, it’s the lack of one. All people start out not believing in God. Then they are indoctrinated into it, usually by their parents. Atheism is not merely a ‘lack of belief’, as you suggest. The word means the rejection of belief. And because you cannot prove there is no God (and I don’t expect you to), the most that can be claimed is you do not believe that there is a God. Atheism is a belief. A systematic belief, that has been expounded and defended no less vigorously than religious belief. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/510 "2010-09-06T23:12:35Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > The atheists have already addressed it. You have ignored it because you don’t listen to things that challenge your beliefs. It almost seems like you aren’t here to debate, but to give testimony to blind, unthinking faith. > > > > Also, since I have you here for a moment, who created your God? His complexity suggests creation, doesn’t it? > > > > This is where you’re supposed to realize that your argument falls apart and is meaningless. 😃 > > > > See above for much on the evolution front. Again, there has been much evidence given to you, but you are ignoring it. Just so you’re clear, you’re losing this debate so utterly I feel embarrassed for you. > > 1\> There is a common event in these discussions where atheists claim they have answered various questions which they have not. The only explanation offered by atheists has been the tribal/evolutionary argument. I have refuted this, and asked for empirical evidence. I await it with interest. You haven’t refuted it. You’ve claimed victory without actually offering anything but impotent strutting. Animals possess morality. Humans are animals. Morality is seated in the brain. This is evidence. What intelligent people do when they seek answers for things is look at the evidence and see what it suggests. In this case, your silly dream is that God did it. But you possess no evidence at all. It’s pathetic who evidence-less you are. And you still claim that you, possessing no evidence have the correct answer. You = 0 Evidence Science = A metric shitload of evidence Sorry, but you lose. > [@](#): > > 2\> Why is the notion of an uncaused cause so hard for you to grasp? Is it so hard to contemplate the possibility that the natural universe cannot explain everything about itself? Again, your argument is that the universe is too complex to simply exist. Yet to answer that you posit a God, who is also too complex to simply exist. Who made your God? Why won’t you answer that simple question? ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/511 "2010-09-06T23:16:47Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Your claims about evolution are laughable. > > 1\> There is not a shred of evidence that all of the life on earth is evolved from one common ancestor. Micro evolution, yes. The greater theory of evolution? No. It is neither testable, obersabl, nor repeatable. This is not a dig, but you’re uneducated. You don’t understand the issue you’re talking about. Evolution is a fact. It is observed in among other things fruit fly experiments and virus mutation. You might as well argue against orbital mechanics. Up until this point I had assumed you were at least moderately educated. > [@](#): > > 2\> Evolution does not explain morality or benevolence. Indeed it contradicts it. See? You’re just stating that without thinking. It’s a reflex that doesn’t even engage your brain. This has already been tied together. You need to stop raging against the night and light a damn candle already. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/512 "2010-09-06T23:22:15Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > As to faith…I know of no ‘ideology’, including athiesm, that does not rely on faith to some extent. Atheism is not an ideology or even a belief. It is the absence of a belief. It has no reliance on “faith” whatsoever. Neither does scientific method. > [@](#): > > Man seeks for answers to the great philosophical questions of life, origins, meaning, morality and destiny. Not all of those are philosophical questions. “Origins” is a scientific one. So is the source of what we call “morality.” Science does not attempt to answer questions about “meaning” or “destiny” because we have no scientific reason to believe either one of those things necessarily has to exist. > [@](#): > > There are no satisfactory answers to these from purely naturalistic sources. There are to the scientific question. There are not to the philosphical questions because it is not necessary to ask those questions in the first place.We have no reason at all to believe that the universe exists for any “meaning” or that we have any “destiny” other than whatever is dictated by the laws of physics. > [@](#): > > My position is that an intelligent agent, outside of mankind, is the explanation that best fits the facts. What facts? Name one fact that can only be explained by a wizard. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/513 "2010-09-06T23:23:34Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Atheism is not merely a ‘lack of belief’, as you suggest. The word means the rejection of belief. And because you cannot prove there is no God (and I don’t expect you to), the most that can be claimed is you do not believe that there is a God. Atheism is a belief. A systematic belief, that has been expounded and defended no less vigorously than religious belief. You were born an atheist. So was I. For a time my mother told me there was a God. I assume, so did yours. We were converted from Atheists to Theists. And added set of beliefs and ideology were bolted into our minds. However, in my case the bolts were loose, and eventually they fell out. I realized that there is utterly no evidence for God. You claim some goofy thing about watchmakers, but it is logically indefensible, as I showed you for the last several posts. Try and hope as you might, the fact of the matter is that no one anywhere has evidence for God. And why would an intelligent person believe something without evidence? There is no evidence for vampires. Why don’t you believe in them? Atheism is a lack of a belief. If that’s an ideology not believing in vampires is an ideology. Laughable, and utterly without merit. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/514 "2010-09-06T23:28:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > As to faith…I know of no ‘ideology’, including athiesm, that does not rely on faith to some extent. > > Atheism is not an ideology or even a belief. It is the absence of a belief. It has no reliance on “faith” whatsoever. Neither does scientific method. > > …snip… Tell me then, what do you believe regarding the presence of the Judeo-Christian God? ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/515 "2010-09-06T23:32:51Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Atheism is not an ideology or even a belief. It is the absence of a belief. It has no reliance on “faith” whatsoever. Neither does scientific method. > > > > …snip… > > Tell me then, what do you believe regarding the presence of the Judeo-Christian God? I’ll answer this. There is no evidence for him and he’s an outlandish claim, so until there is evidence I’ll say he doesn’t exist. Before you get all excited. There is also no evidence for Cthuhulu. Is not believing in him a belief? There is no evidence for Santa Claus. Is not believing in him a belief? There is no evidence for Voltron. Is not believing in it a belief? There is no evidence for Thor. Is not believing in him a belief? There is no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is not believing in him a belief? Not believing in things with no evidence isn’t a belief, it’s the standard condition of Man. You didn’t believe in God until someone told you about Him. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/516 "2010-09-06T23:33:27Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > There is more evidence for evolution than almost anything else in the universe. Evolution is used and tested, makes predictions on a daily basis. > > > > There is however no evidence for the existence of a God. And you think that God is the intelligent person’s answer to the question of morality? > > > > It has already been shown to you numerous times that other animals have morality. It has been laboriously explained to you that we are social animals and protecting children is obviously something that would be instilled in us by evolution. > > > > But in defiance of the actual real world evidence pointing to evolution being the root of morality, you’d rather embrace ignorance and assert that a God that has no evidence at all, not even one bit in all the universe, is the answer? > > > > Doesn’t that seem silly? > > > > Also, who created your God? You think that complexity calls for creation. So who did it? Is it a super-God? Are there Gods all the way down? 😃 > > Your claims about evolution are laughable. > > 1\> There is not a shred of evidence that all of the life on earth is evolved from one common ancestor. Micro evolution, yes. The greater theory of evolution? No. It is neither testable, obersabl, nor repeatable. > 2\> Evolution does not explain morality or benevolence. Indeed it contradicts it. If you’re going to persist in this kind of patent faleshood and error despite an abundance of explanation and linked cites, then you are showing that you are not interested in debating anything in good faith, but simply want to witness, to stick to your boilerplate creationist scripts (which I ASSURE you are completely fatuous). It’s important for you to understand that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you try to talk about evolution, physics or scientific method. You don’t understand what the words mean, you don’t understand what the evidence is, you don’t understand what the facts are. You compound this by also not knowing how to argue syllogistically, and your posts are filled with logical fallacies, false premises, arguments from assertion (your favorite), excluded middles, special pleading and the list goes on. If you’re going to try to confront people in a forum like this, you should really try o prepare yourself better. You’re getting destroyed and you can’t even tell. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/517 "2010-09-06T23:37:30Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Atheism is not merely a ‘lack of belief’, as you suggest. This is factually incorrect. The word simply means an absence of theistic belief. It does not necessarily imply a positive assertion that gods don’t exist. That is a subset of atheism called “strong atheism,” but not all theists are strong atheists. I think most probably are not. It might shock you to know that Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist. You are not going to win arguments by accusing your opponents of holding positions they do not hold. Atheism is not an ideology or a belief. Saying it is so does not make it so. ---
**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 6, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/518 "2010-09-06T23:43:53Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Atheism is not an ideology or even a belief. It is the absence of a belief. It has no reliance on “faith” whatsoever. Neither does scientific method. > > > > …snip… > > Tell me then, what do you believe regarding the presence of the Judeo-Christian God? I have no reason to believe that God (or any other god) exists, therefore I presume it does not exist unless and until it can be proven otherwise. I have the exact same postition regarding smurfs. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/519 "2010-09-06T23:44:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@raindog](#): > > > > Tell me then, what do you believe regarding the presence of the Judeo-Christian God? > > I’ll answer this. I suspect Diogenes will muster a better effort. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence for him and he’s an outlandish claim, so until there is evidence I’ll say he doesn’t exist. _This_ is a belief. So as to not incite (although we;ll get there anyway…) I’ll not use the word ‘faith.’ In any event, it is a _subjective_ belief. Unlike the following… > [@](#): > > Before you get all excited. There is also no evidence for Cthuhulu. Is not believing in him a belief? This is not a belief. A non-belief in him is not a subjective belief. Going a step forward, and \*saying affirmatively that he doesn’t exist \* **is** a belief. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence for Santa Claus. Is not believing in him a belief? This is not a belief. A non-belief in him is not a subjective belief. Going a step forward, and \*saying affirmatively that he doesn’t exist \* **is** a belief. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence for Voltron. Is not believing in it a belief? This is not a belief. A non-belief in him is not a subjective belief. Going a step forward, and \*saying affirmatively that he doesn’t exist \* **is** a belief. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence for Thor. Is not believing in him a belief? This is not a belief. A non-belief in him is not a subjective belief. Going a step forward, and \*saying affirmatively that he doesn’t exist \* **is** a belief. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is not believing in him a belief? This is not a belief. A non-belief in him is not a subjective belief. Going a step forward, and \*saying affirmatively that he doesn’t exist \* **is** a belief. > [@](#): > > Not believing in things with no evidence isn’t a belief, it’s the standard condition of Man. You didn’t believe in God until someone told you about Him. Correct. But given the simple fact that science is silent on the matter, when you go from non-belief to "I believe he/she/it **does not exist** , you have taken a position with a subjective belief. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/520 "2010-09-06T23:49:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@raindog](#): > > > > Tell me then, what do you believe regarding the presence of the Judeo-Christian God? > > I have no reason to believe that God (or any other god) exists, therefore I presume it does not exist unless and until it can be proven otherwise. I have the exact same postition regarding smurfs. Ahhhh, you _presume_. While a softer and gentler word than the ones I’ve seen used in these parts, it too is a _subjective belief._ The Missouri “show me” position is a non-belief. Once you cross the line and say “He/she/it doesn’t exist”------in the absence of proof either way------ you’re sharing with us _your subjective beliefs._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=27)