INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Humans are flawed for sure, but the scientific method is the most reliable method we have for discovering how reality operates, thanks to its built-in mechanism for self-correction. And it works.

There is nothing exclusive or scientific about fixing mistakes eventually. I do not find that noble I find it normal and part of virtually all disciplines.

Have all the faith in your religion that you want, you certainly have a right to it. Just don’t expect others to share your faith when they see no good reason to do so.

I expect nothing as it is mostly by desire. Christians speak of a calling. I have no idea if I am called but if I am called to anything it is apologetics. As young Christian; evolution, dinosaurs, historical claims etc... used to throw my experience born faith for loops and it took me years to find the great philosophers and scholars I have, and they answered my questions so completely that I resolved to learn to do the same myself. I am required only to give the truth I am not required to make sure it's accepted. I want to eventually be able to provide to young Christians what I found with those scholars and apologetics is starting to be acknowledged as a necessity in churches. A defense far more adequate than any attack I have ever seen. Faith is under attack and needs adequate defense. I really do not even think about whether you convert or not.

I hate to tell you, but it’s pretty boring and mostly inaccurate. Most of the scientists interviewed in the film feel like they were misled and their comments taken out of context. PZ Myers and his family were kicked out of the screening before the movie even started, even though he has a special thanks at the end of the movie.

Many of the efforts of apologists especially no scholars contain way too much optimism in their claims but they usually also have a few very good arguments as well. With the exception of a few trusted scholars I usually reject what is not conclusive (most) but retain what is and I expect the movie will be the same.

Okay, cool.

You may think I am unreasonable as I do about most atheists but I attempt to be as honest with myself and others as possible. You made a good case for that specific issue and I buy it. A faith based on rejection of fact is of no eternal use to anyone. Fortunately most of non-theists claims are not fact and most Biblical ones are or at least very likely facts.

First of all, atheism is not a philosophical position any more than a lack of belief in fairies is a philosophical position. It speaks to only one specific claim – the claim for the existence of god(s). Atheists can be conservative, liberal, nihilistic, humanistic, etc., etc. Atheism isn’t a philosophy or a world view. So this person is just wrong about that particular claim.
Secondly, he’s not exactly saying what you apparently think he is saying (see below).
So here’s a more comprehensive and detailed quotation from the interview that was taken from (bolded parts are Dawkins words):
“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity.
There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued.
“We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.”
He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject.
“I’m actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist. If you travel anywhere in the Western world, you find a consensus of opinion which is recognizably different from what it was only a matter of a decade or two ago. You and I are both a part of that same zeitgeist, and [as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like ‘it’s in the air.’”
I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”
“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”
I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.
Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest.
“Now you have to remember where I am from,” I objected. “Birmingham, Alabama—the home of the civil rights movement. Many there would argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was motivated by his Christian convictions. And what of William Wilberforce?”
But Dawkins would have none of it. Christianity, in his view, had contributed nothing worthwhile to Western civilization, morally or otherwise. Moral advances—and, curiously, he did consider them advances—were matters for further scientific inquiry.
Dawkins sat back again. “I think that’s the best answer to your question, although I agree that it’s a complicated answer—it doesn’t come from anywhere simple—and it is necessary to say that whatever else it comes from, it most certainly doesn’t come from religion.” He considered me for a moment. “Anybody who thinks that they get it from religion really is deluded. Certainly nobody could maintain they seriously get it from the Bible. I take it you agree with that, because if you got it from the Bible you’d have to cherry pick which bits of the Bible you accept and which bits you don’t.”
It was a provocation intended to flush me out. I obliged.
“I would disagree,” I began slowly. “I believe you can get your morality from the Bible.”
“Well, which bits of the Bible?” His eyes flashed. “Presumably not Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy?”
As I began to explain the function of Old Testament law, Dawkins pounced.
“You’re not telling me that as a civilized 21st-century man that you get your morality from the Ten Commandments?” He was incredulous. To him, it was as if I were saying, “The Easter Bunny gave us these laws, and they fall into three categories … .”
http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/?comment=1705

I have actually researched this one quite a bit. He did say what I said he did and in the proper context and he is absolutely right. There are no moral absolutes in atheism. There is no framework to make Hitler’s actions wrong even theoretically possible without God. This issue is the easiest to prove I know of. It is a well conceded fact by philosophers and theologians on both sides and is inescapable. Without God morality is pure opinion and preference.

Does that help?

It did not help your case. What he said was in context and is an unavoidable fact (which there are not all that many in these issues). Mostly your additional context are false statements about theology. They do not change the truth of his remarks about Hitler and morality.

 

[1robin]

The full context for the above quote can be found here (it’s a good read, actually):http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

There exists no context by which that statement cannot be used for the purpose I employed it for.

I don’t think he’s a madman at all. He doesn’t say there is no morality or there should be no morality. He says what appears obvious to people like me – that morality comes from us. The world is what we make it. The part about choosing bits and pieces from the Bible drives that home, I think.

It is absolutely impossible that we can make any action right or wrong by declaring it is. Did I call him a madman? He is an idiot when it comes to theology and philosophy but he is a competent Biologist, I believe. Moron maybe, but madman is a label only God could apply (not me). If you get a chance watch any of his debates with Lennox. Lennox is hit and miss but when he hits it is profound and like a thunder clap.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This was not the point I was making although Dawkins is wrong here and the point would be true.

I was saying that when God is eliminated from the equation morality becomes an ambiguous illusion. I used his statement as an example of that, I was not attempting to equate Nazism and Darwinism. I can show that in Hitler's own words he used evolutionary principles to justify his actions.

What’s he wrong about? Hitler clearly did not understand the mechanisms of evolution. Social Darwinism isn’t biological evolution. At most you could say Hitler espoused the beliefs of Herbert Spencer.

And what about the pesky little fact that the Nazi regime banned books described as, “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.”

Hitler took actions for reasons of greed and power, he used theology to claim they were right, and he used evolution to make them logical. However theology that includes thou shall not murder can't be accurately used to justify killing but evolution can. Al the justification for chattel slavery, racism, inequality, oppression, and tribal warfare can be found in evolution but his is a separate issue.

How can a scientific explanations based on observations of the world be used to justify murder?

And sorry, but the justifications for chattel slavery, racism, inequality, oppression and tribal warfare can all be found in the Bible. You, yourself have justified slavery and oppression. Explanations of biological processes can’t be used to justify these things.

Not always but I am getting off track debating this issue.
Modern is relative statement with no clear line of demarcation but being that it is within the last .002 of human existence the line is way older than my claim.

Sure, whatever. This is off track.

They are skeptical of most things for various reasons (some good some very bad). They however are most rabidly skeptical for mostly terrible reasons against God. It's degree.

Well, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Why wouldn’t people be a tad bit more skeptical when it comes to claims of the supernatural when there is virtually no good evidence indicating that the supernatural even exists at all? We know there are natural explanations that work without having to insert god into the equation so yeah, they’re probably going to be a tiny bit less skeptical when it comes to natural explanations over supernatural ones.

The point was in the 80's they were addressing the UN and congress and saying it was global cooling Armageddon.

Who did this?

You are missing the point so many times here it looks intentional. I can grant all this and it even makes science look worse. Why were professional surgeons (scientists interested in infection) killing millions because they did not know what you claim all these ancient civilizations did.

Sometimes it’s thousands, sometimes it’s millions. Make up your mind already. What exactly is the point, then?

If you are talking about military deaths on the battlefield as you seem to have indicated (??) I have no idea how you think there’s any comparison to be made there. Of course surgery on the battlefield isn’t going to be sanitary most of the time, just given the fact that they’re in the middle of a war zone. If the ancient Hebrews knew so much, tell me about all the successful surgeries they performed. Otherwise, I guess I don’t know what you’re talking about and I still contend that they didn’t know anything beyond what we would expect of a bronze age civilization of desert dwellers. In other words, I don’t see how you can tell me that their knowledge had to have come from divine revelation. Isn't that your claim that I originally challenged?

It does seem that a great wealth of knowledge was lost during the dark ages.

I have been getting off track in order to show that science even in these mundane local issues has a successful but very flawed track record that in the theoretical arena where anti-God science exists it is almost meaningless. I believe I have done so even if you have sufficiently contended a couple of my claims. That is the extent of my purpose and have realized just how far from God this discussion has gotten. Science has no evidence inconsistent with Biblical faith is the original position I started with and where I am headed again.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Science has an amazing track record! Practically everything we have and everything we know comes from science. We wouldn’t know practically anything we know today about ourselves, our world and the universe we live in, without science. Gimme a break.
There is no anti-god science. There is only science.

 

[Skeptisch]

Gimme a break.

You expect a lot. After all s/he is:
Ignorant --- lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
misguided --- misled and mistaken
unreasonable --- not in accordance with practical realities
illogical --- contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic

Also, s/he does not seem to know intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:
One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You expect a lot. After all s/he is:
Ignorant --- lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
misguided --- misled and mistaken
unreasonable --- not in accordance with practical realities
illogical --- contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic

Also, s/he does not seem to know intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:
One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another.

:yes:
And that the people in these fields are trained to know how to do these things.
If they don't do these things, they aren't taken seriously in their field of study.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dawkin's (responsible for what has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought) is not the source I would appeal to in a sincerity and common sense point.

If you are a Dawkinite then you can explain this as well:

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."[1]
Larry Taunton, the interviewer wrote, regarding Dawkins' Hitler comment:
“I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point. Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest.
Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia

You have hitched your wagon to one sick pony. If I were on your side I would insist he never be allowed out of a lab.

Dawkins is saying that questions of morality aren't easy. What he's not saying is that it's impossible to determine morality using science, reason, logic, compassion, etc. He's saying morality involves a whole lot more than just reading an ancient text and obeying the words within it. And I agree with him on that.

So how come you don't stone people to death for working on the Sabbath?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree with this. Why did you post it? BTW homosexuality has been condemned by all cultures, religions, and even atheist regimes (the most dysfunctional by far) at many times in history. The difference is that only with God can anything actually be termed right or wrong with justification. The atheists do so without any justification and even deny a need for any. Whatever short comings (correct or not) you invent for God they are infinitely worse for atheism.

So? What does that mean? Homosexuality has also been accepted by many cultures throughout history as well, including our current one.
I and many other atheists have explained where morality comes from without god. We've explained how things can be termed right or wrong with justification. You don't just get to dismiss those answers and instead declare that atheists deny a need for morality!
How do you determine that god is good?

It would be an infinitely worse place without that God because morality has no actual meaning without him. All that is left that is even theoretically possible is opinion, preference, assumptions, and self-centered specieism.

Then why is it that countries which are more secular in nature score higher on indicators of societal health? Why is it that highly religious countries like the US have such high homicide rates, high STD infection rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, racial inequality, social inequality, etc., as compared to more secular countries? That doesn’t seem to support your argument.

That is why people more honest about it like the Philosopher of science and Dawkins have said morality is an illusion without God or that on evolution who can say Hitler was not right. What about either is better than calling sin what it is?

I don’t think Dawkins says morality is an illusion without god, and I honestly can’t really picture him saying that. What he says is that it’s a complex issue that requires thought and reason, and that it’s clear we don’t get our morality from the Bible.

Sin is a religious construct.

As modern moral progressivism and relativism takes the place of traditional morality society has nose-dived and your side calls this progress.

Yeah, you know what? I would call our lack of slavery, lack of stoning people to death for committing minor offenses, lack of marginalizing and judging gay people, lacking of delegating women as mere chattel, as progress, rather than a nosedive. Silly me.

It is one thing to try a new way and find it faulty and give it up. It is quite another to dismiss the old and substitute the new if it has no application then when it fails you blame everything but it and condemn the traditional system that worked far better than it does. That is not ignorance or a mistake; it is intentional sabotage with intent and using delusion. Was the moral landscape of the US better in Christian 1950 or secular 2013?

The traditional system you speak of didn’t work better than what we have now, in my opinion. Unless you enjoy oppression. Traditionally, women couldn’t vote, were considered property of their fathers and husbands and had no say in anything; traditionally teens who got pregnant had to hide away and live in shame from a judgmental society and their child had to suffer for it as well; traditionally gay people had to hide who they were from the world and pretend to be something they weren’t; traditionally a women couldn’t divorce from a husband who beat the crap out of her and her children every day of their lives; traditionally married couples were forbidden from using birth control and so the woman was not much more than a baby making machine; I could go on and on. All of these things equate to human misery, in my opinion. So I would have to say that the moral landscape is better in secular 2013 than it ever was in Christian 1950. So excuse when I say I have no idea what you’re talking about when you make these silly claims about tradition. And I don’t think you do either, if you really think about it.

We got cell phones and yet kill 10,000 times more innocent babies a year than homosexuals persecuted in the entire history of Israel. We are now so open minded we think very little is wrong, like two men raising a young girl, yet a large and increasing number of children spend their childhood doped up for problems that arrose with the inability to call sin what it is. The man that calls that progress is delusional on purpose.

Your first sentence while a bit strange, isn’t grounded in fact, unless you can provide some evidence for that.

Secondly, what’s wrong with two men raising a girl? Do you think there’s something wrong with a single father raising a girl? Is it better for an orphaned child to be raised in a loving household, or to grow up alone in an orphanage?
My female cousin, who has wanted to be a mother her entire life is raising a young girl with her wife, is that wrong too? And if so, why? Furthermore, are you implying that kids are “doped up” because they’re being raised by gay couples? I don’t know where you’re going with that one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why would anyone be limited by the narrow scope of science alone. There is historical, philosophical, experiential, logic, reason, rationality, and moral evidence etc....... Science is not the arbiter of all truth. Since I do not agree with any of those claims I am not a good source for explaining them but there proponents claim volumes of evidence of many types.

Well, if someone is going to assert that aliens built the pyramids, lizards inhabit Congress or that Atlantis is a real place, sorry, but I’m gonna need some empirical evidence before I even begin to consider such things to be true. There’s no way I’m going on someone’s experience, philosophical arguments, moral evidence or whatever else. People used to think gods bombarded them with lightning when they disobeyed or that they had to sacrifice a human being so that the sun would come up the next day. In other words, anybody can claim or believe anything they like. I need evidence. The scientific method is an excellent way to go about gathering evidence. In fact, it’s the best and most reliable method we’ve got. Logic, reason and rationality are all great things, of course, and they can go hand in hand with science.

I’ve seen many shows discussing the types of examples you’ve given, and I’m sorry, but those guys may claim they have a ton of evidence, but all it really amounts to, as far as I can tell, is wishful thinking, guesswork, supposition and argument from ignorance fallacies. I once read a book by Erich von Daniken (I think) where he claimed that aliens made us and seeded earth with us and the evidence for that is … there is no evidence! Obviously the aliens would have been clever enough to remove all evidence so that we’d never know they were here!

Universes do not come from nothing, nothing does if hippie song lyrics or everything ever observed is relied upon.
I have explained this more than sufficiently.
Atlantis and aliens building the pyramids are possible and have evidence according to hundreds of people yet you think it inadequate. Why do you have a separate standard when it comes to claims (in many ways far more fantastic) if they contend with the Bible.

That’s your opinion. Which is why I suggested you read or watch Lawrence Krause’s, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.

Why do you think universes can’t come from nothing, but that either your god can created universes from nothing, or that you god could have come from nothing? Are you sure I’m the one operating under a double standard here?

Sure, it’s possible that aliens built the pyramids – anything is possible. But is it likely, is the question. If we know that it is quite possible for humans to have built the pyramids without any help from extraterrestrials (and we do) then why bother positing such a thing at all?

What separate standard are you talking about?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Prove that murder is wrong using it. prove that reality is not 5 minutes old with the appearance of age. Prove life has meaning with it. Heck prove science is true with it. Explain teh fine tuning and origin of the universe with life. When used it does not indicate life came from non life. I think it is a tool that is selectively used, violated, or set aside as is needed.

First of all, I have already explained murder many, many times. And I think in the process, I’ve also shown that morality is not absolute in the sense you’re discussing, since in some cases such as in self-defense, murder can be justifiable, thus reinforcing what I said about morality being dependent on the situation, in many cases.

Secondly, again, it is possible that reality came into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, but is it likely, in light of the evidence? Not really. And if it is indeed the case that existence was created 5 minutes ago, why is your god playing games with us?

Thirdly, life has whatever meaning you give it. You don’t need a Christian god to give it meaning. The evidence for this comes from atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. who all lead what I bet they would tell you are meaningful lives.

Fourthly, I don’t know how anyone can get off saying that the universe is fine tuned for life, given that as far as we know, life only exists on this one tiny planet in the vastness of the universe, and even on earth there are many areas that are not habitable at all. So where’s the fine-tuning? Also, on this point I would direct you to the example of the puddle imagining that the hole it sits inside of was created for the puddle because it fits just so into that hole.

Fifthly, the scientific method has shown us that it’s possible at least, that life could come from non-life, given the right conditions. If, as you say, science had utterly failed in this regard, experiments should have produced NOTHING rather than the amino acids (which are used to make proteins), adenine (one of the 4 bases in DNA and RNA), and others, that were produced. So is it possible that this is how life could have arisen? Yes. Is it likely that this is how life could have arisen? It’s looking more and more like it.

Well who could argue with "not really" trumping their own simple words.

That isn’t really what those quotes indicated, as already discussed.

As well as theological preference.

That’s what Francis Collins does. And just like any other good scientist, only to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with their academic honesty.

What? I never said anything about no evidence. I said an equation that should have included evidence also included what it should not have: preference. No matter what conclusion was reached the equation included what it never should have and there is no defense and attempts at one make it worse.

Evidence overtook preference. As it should. End of story. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, based on a small portion of a Wiki entry.
And I further submit that big bang theory isn’t automatically evidence for a Christian god, which appears to be your assumption.

Exactly but I have to operate on common ground and that includes concepts as you take them to be.

I was just throwing your own quote back at you.

They used evidence and something they should not have (preference) in an equation that equaled truth. In this case maybe evidence was the more persuasive but that does not make preference go away or valid. As I have said we have left the realm of anything I think worthy of debate and I will steer the discussion back to relevance concerning God hopefully. You have not done a bad job defending my example of scientific error but you have not even touched God and that was the issue.

If this is your contention then why do you not have a problem with “creationist scientists” who absolutely use personal preference and bias (as many will readily admit!) in interpretation of the evidence? If you’re going to keep throwing around this double standard business, then go take a look in a mirror.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is like saying the only people who talk about the holocaust are non-Germans.

The point is, scientists don’t talk about it and they don’t incorporate into their scientific understanding of evolution because they know its garbage. It’s the same reason they don’t talk about the geocentric model of the universe anymore.

The people who do talk about these things are people who are trying to discredit the scientific method while not realizing that they’re proving its veracity.

Why? Organic means among other things containing carbon. I could have told you the sun can make carbon a long time ago however even that process is balanced on a razor blade so thin it was thought impossibly for a long time. BTW what do you do with fine tuning? I am sure whatever it is that is used to make it dismissible is exhausting. There are 3.2 billion bits of data in DNA. How many bits of data is the max for these experiments?

Why is it a good start to build upon? Really? Well, it’s the first step in determining how life could have formed on earth.

I say fine tuning is a strange assertion. See my earlier post on the subject.

Why do you assume early life had 3.2 billion bits of DNA?

As long as science uses them as a counter argument to the God indicating finite universe we know exists but rules out God I will continue to do so.

Science doesn’t use anything to counter god(s) of any kind, including multiverse hypotheses.

Tell Dawkins that and then explain all the quotes I have given. I not think it universal, organized, and many times it is involuntary but our stance of theology creeps into everything we do whether God exists or not and I gave evidence for it a number of times.

Dawkins knows this already.

James Randi (though not a scientist) is someone who is actually interested in the supernatural and has offered for many years now, a one million dollar prize to anyone who can provide demonstrable evidence, under laboratory conditions of anything supernatural at all. So far – nothing.

I don’t think about your god (or any god) at all when I’m doing my work. It just doesn’t come into play. I’m interested in demonstrable results.

When you’re involved in computer programming or whatever it is that you do, do you have god on your mind?

I have debated this many times and need no additional info. I have even given textbooks that included the drawings up until recent history and his embryology is still taught.
According to the Science article, Haeckel's drawings "show vertebrate embryos of different animals passing through identical stages of development. But the impression they give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong." Richardson comments on this as follows:

If so many historians knew about the old controversy [over Haeckel's drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology textbooks which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of the whole story.
Likewise Gould wrote:
[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.

Haeckel has been discredited since the 19th century.

I will say I have seen it in one textbook, on the history of science. But it was not used to support evolutionary theory. They do not teach recapitulation theory in science classrooms.

You should have read the PZ Myers article.

Can you name and quote some of these textbooks you’re talking about?

There are tens of millions of people that died as a result of infection from non-sanitary conditions presided over by men of science. Ask them this. Teaching kids that Embryos evolve in the womb is appalling and diabolical, eventually stopping that lie is not noble it is about time. It is too much to ask that my children not be taught things inconsistent with their faith until known for a fact. Keep the theories out of the class room is no too much to ask. I do not ask that the bible be taught in school in spite of the fact that is what Christians began our school system for.

Now it’s tens of millions! Why does the number keep changing? How can I take your assertion seriously when you’re apparently just making up numbers?

Nobody teaches kids that embryos evolve in the womb. I was never taught this, were you?



I’m going to quote the PZ Myers article you didn’t read, to address the remainder of your response:

“Evolutionary theory is not founded on Haeckel's observations or theories. Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19 th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics. That the biogenetic law is false has been the consensus of biologists for over 100 years, and developmental biologists have been working constructively to provide alternative explanations, which have so far all been evolutionary in nature.


The similarities between vertebrate embryos are real. We must distinguish between observations of those similarities and hypotheses about their causes. The similarities are not in doubt; there are worthwhile studies of the degree and timing of the similarities, but none that question their overall existence. What Wells has described is one hypothesis about the cause, Haeckel's biogenetic law, which failed early and spectacularly. He has not addressed any modern hypotheses, nor has he provided a better alternative.


Evidence for common descent lies in the unity of form and process. We do not use Haeckel's outmoded, invalid mechanism to argue for evolution. Instead, we look at the marvelous convergence of disparate organisms on common principles: all animals use the same genes to define regions of their bodies, all vertebrates build their faces by unlikely rearrangements of odd pharyngeal protrusions, and even tailless mammals like us have to start with tailed embryos. The best explanation for these phenomena is that they are a consequence of a common heritage.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

As America is secularized and science argues against traditional morality or morality at all millions of Babies die for convenience, as we now accept two men raising a girl or two women raising a boy and God is ripped from school systems teen pregnancy is astronomical, a large portion of kids for the first time are all doped up because reality is just too much all of a sudden, and as condoms are passed out STDs are exploding. Even if science recognizes it's mistake it is too late for these million and millions of kids led astray by modern "progress.

I for one am quite happy we don’t follow the “traditional” morality of the Bible. I’m fine with not stoning disobedient children, not killing witches or heretics, not owing people as chattel slaves, not forcing women to marry the man who raped them, not treating gay people like dirt, not committing divinely authorized genocide, not thinking mental disorders are caused by demons or that illnesses are causes by god’s wrath, etc. What’s moral about any of that?
Again I have to ask, do you have a problem with a single man raising his daughter? A single mother raising her son? What’s wrong with a loving, committed couple raising a child? And I’m sorry but how dare you say they don’t have that right. What you’re telling me is that my female cousin who gave birth to her own daughter and is married to another woman have no right to raise that child? On what basis? This is what ticks me off about “traditional” values and their apparent lack of reason and rationality.
The US is one of the most religious countries in the world, so your argument goes nowhere on this. Countries that are more secular have lower teen pregnancies rates and lower rates of STD infection. How do you explain that? I assert that at least one of the reasons your teen pregnancy and STD rates are so high has a lot to do with the “abstinence-only” garbage that seems to be taught in American schools, which does not prepare young adults in any way for the future.

There are more abortions in a decade than have been killed in all the crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, and supposed persecution of gays in the entire history of man. Yet religion must be stopped even though it is what stopped slavery, teaches against promiscuity, and homosexuality. Makes men equal, gives life absolute value and sanctity, grounds every human right, and produces the most generous demographic on earth.

That’s a highly improbable statement. Care to back that up somehow?
Religion is what helped perpetuated slavery for so long – you yourself have defended it. I would say the reason American Christians in the 19th century finally decided to fight against slavery (and not all of them either) had more to do with enlightened thought and current attitudes and values than with their own traditional religious teachings based on the Bible. Especially given that the Bible condones slavery. Religion has fought against progress at virtually every turn. Look at your own views on progress, for some evidence to that.
The Bible may make “men” equal but certainly not women. And certainly not gay men. What’s so great about the big Christian fight against homosexuality? Do you like guys enjoy oppressing , judging, dismissing and marginalizing people or something? Or just making people’s lives miserable in general? Why is preaching against homosexuality some great accomplishment?
And fighting against promiscuity, as already discussed in terms of the actions of the Catholic Church at least, has only increased human misery and suffering. And needlessly so. As Hitchens always pointed out – the Church tells us that while AIDS might be bad, it’s not as bad as condoms! Even though by withholding condoms they are effectively killing human beings. Not to mention the Church’s views on the HPV vaccine which could save many lives, but we can’t have that because that would only increase promiscuity! To me both of these things are ridiculous and sick and completely lacking in rationality, practicality or morality.
The only way you have attempted to explain to me how these things are considered moral is that you find them in an ancient book. I don’t see any rationality, any reasoning or any logic behind it. Just, “the Bible says so.” If that is not mere obedience to authority, then I don’t know what is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is nothing exclusive or scientific about fixing mistakes eventually. I do not find that noble I find it normal and part of virtually all disciplines.

It’s the method by which mistakes are identified and weeded out. Of course you’re going to see it across all scientific disciplines.

I certainly don’t see creationists doing this. I see them quoting and re-quoting tired and debunked old claims over and over again.

I expect nothing as it is mostly by desire. Christians speak of a calling. I have no idea if I am called but if I am called to anything it is apologetics. As young Christian; evolution, dinosaurs, historical claims etc... used to throw my experience born faith for loops and it took me years to find the great philosophers and scholars I have, and they answered my questions so completely that I resolved to learn to do the same myself. I am required only to give the truth I am not required to make sure it's accepted. I want to eventually be able to provide to young Christians what I found with those scholars and apologetics is starting to be acknowledged as a necessity in churches. A defense far more adequate than any attack I have ever seen. Faith is under attack and needs adequate defense. I really do not even think about whether you convert or not.

Faith is under scrutiny, like everything else. And it should be. You may not like this, but for far too long it was just accepted (in many cases forced on others) and the status quo was that you don’t question it. Well, I certainly am going to question it if creationists want to teach my kids religious material at school or if they want to create laws based on Biblical interpretation. Especially if those laws are used to oppress people. Otherwise, have all the faith you want, it doesn’t bother me. If that gives you purpose in life, then have at it. To quote John Lennon, “whatever gets you through the night …”

I guess we didn’t have the same experience, because dinosaurs, evolution, etc. always left my awestruck and wanting to learn more. Nature is absolutely fascinating, in my opinion.

Many of the efforts of apologists especially no scholars contain way too much optimism in their claims but they usually also have a few very good arguments as well. With the exception of a few trusted scholars I usually reject what is not conclusive (most) but retain what is and I expect the movie will be the same.

The movie is really about trying to discredit evolution, and not much more, I’m afraid. There really are no arguments in favour of your side. The whole thing is just one big straw man argument against evolution.

You may think I am unreasonable as I do about most atheists but I attempt to be as honest with myself and others as possible. You made a good case for that specific issue and I buy it. A faith based on rejection of fact is of no eternal use to anyone. Fortunately most of non-theists claims are not fact and most Biblical ones are or at least very likely facts.

Well, kudos to you for that.

And obviously I take issue with your last sentence.

I have actually researched this one quite a bit. He did say what I said he did and in the proper context and he is absolutely right. There are no moral absolutes in atheism. There is no framework to make Hitler’s actions wrong even theoretically possible without God. This issue is the easiest to prove I know of. It is a well conceded fact by philosophers and theologians on both sides and is inescapable. Without God morality is pure opinion and preference.
It did not help your case. What he said was in context and is an unavoidable fact (which there are not all that many in these issues). Mostly your additional context are false statements about theology. They do not change the truth of his remarks about Hitler and morality.

He’s not saying that morality is impossible without god, why would he? He’s merely saying that questions of morality are complex and not always easy to answer but that they surely don’t come from the Bible. And he’s absolutely right about cherry picking from the Bible which to him indicates that the moral progress of civilization as a whole is what informs Christians on which bits to pick and choose.

I didn’t make any false claims about theology, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I did say that atheism is not a philosophical position. It is simply a response to a single claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There exists no context by which that statement cannot be used for the purpose I employed it for.

It puts it into proper context and provides examples as to why faith-based positions are more dangerous than evidence-based ones. Suicide bombers are a good example of this.

It is absolutely impossible that we can make any action right or wrong by declaring it is. Did I call him a madman? He is an idiot when it comes to theology and philosophy but he is a competent Biologist, I believe. Moron maybe, but madman is a label only God could apply (not me). If you get a chance watch any of his debates with Lennox. Lennox is hit and miss but when he hits it is profound and like a thunder clap.

Says you. And yet atheists, agnostics, Jainists, Buddhists, etc. live moral lives and have been doing so for a long time.
I asked you this before to make a point, and you haven’t answered: How do you determine that god is good? And how do you determine which bits of the Bible to follow and which to discard?
You called him a madman and a sick person.
I’ve seen those debates and wasn’t all that impressed with Lennox, myself.

 

[1robin]

What’s he wrong about? Hitler clearly did not understand the mechanisms of evolution. Social Darwinism isn’t biological evolution. At most you could say Hitler espoused the beliefs of Herbert Spencer.

I was not arguing with his claims about evolution and morality though I believe they are inaccurate as well. I was saying that he did not do anything to make Dawkin's claims any different than what I claimed. I was trying to show that within atheism there does not exist any framework that allows Dawkin's claim to be denied. You literally have nothing to condemn Hitler with beyond preference without God.

And what about the pesky little fact that the Nazi regime banned books described as, “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.”

I will not attempt to explain why teh Nazi's did all that they did , nor should you claim they were consistent. Hitler used evolution many times to support his actions. As I have said his actions were taken for greed and profit, they were justified by evolution, and attempted to be legitimized by theology. I imagine they burned books on all subjects. That does not make Hitler's nor his henchman’s statements go away.

How can a scientific explanations based on observations of the world be used to justify murder?

Nature if used as a paradigm appears to legitimize tribal violence. If my tribes survival is the primary concern and motivation that destroying all other tribes that compete with mine for resources that do not contribute to my tribes survival should be destroyed. Keep in mind it was not used as a motivation but as a justification. The burdens are different. Racism, genocide, infanticide, killing the infirm or elderly and all manner of evil can be JUSTIFIED by evolution.

And sorry, but the justifications for chattel slavery, racism, inequality, oppression and tribal warfare can all be found in the Bible. You, yourself have justified slavery and oppression. Explanations of biological processes can’t be used to justify these things.

Why is an allowance for SERVITUDE allowed in a single culture over 2000 years ago and no longer allowed for any reason, justification for your statement. As I have illustrated it was Christianity not Darwinism or atheism that ended Chattel slavery in it's most familiar form. Atheism nor evolution have even the potential to justify the ending of any of those evils I listed. Christianity has many and by far the best and here is a single example:
New International Version (©2011)
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,
Can you provide a equally valid statement within atheism to challenge the practice of any of those issues, Dawkins couldn't.

Well, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Why wouldn’t people be a tad bit more skeptical when it comes to claims of the supernatural when there is virtually no good evidence indicating that the supernatural even exists at all?

Who is it that is not skeptical?

We know there are natural explanations that work without having to insert god into the equation so yeah, they’re probably going to be a tiny bit less skeptical when it comes to natural explanations over supernatural ones.

And I would go along with those explanations. Almost all the places where God is inserted by the Bible into reality these explanations do not work.

Who did this?

I got that from a show I saw a long time ago. I have since then looked up what was going on back then and the show was accurate with the exception of a few minor details. If you will except this as a fact or give me the criteria for doing so then I will consider providing the Who you ask for. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Sometimes it’s thousands, sometimes it’s millions. Make up your mind already. What exactly is the point, then?

You suggest that since science eventually corrects it's mistakes it is somehow off the hook. When I am thinking only of the civil war I say thousands or tens of thousands. When I am thinking of medicine in general it is millions. The point is that is science is swallowed whole and it is wrong in these areas where it contends with faith then just like the millions it killed on the operating table it will send millions to Hell and claiming it has adjusted later on will not help either. Since we wager our souls on what is "true" people should be much more skeptical of sciences claims.

If you are talking about military deaths on the battlefield as you seem to have indicated (??) I have no idea how you think there’s any comparison to be made there. Of course surgery on the battlefield isn’t going to be sanitary most of the time, just given the fact that they’re in the middle of a war zone.

Being in a war zone does not mean that simply washing the hands and instruments could not have been done. It was not opportunity it was knowledge alone that killed tens of thousands by non-sanitized surgery. Everything they needed was already on hand except the knowledge to use it.

If the ancient Hebrews knew so much, tell me about all the successful surgeries they performed. Otherwise, I guess I don’t know what you’re talking about and I still contend that they didn’t know anything beyond what we would expect of a bronze age civilization of desert dwellers. In other words, I don’t see how you can tell me that their knowledge had to have come from divine revelation. Isn't that your claim that I originally challenged?

This is getting a little ridiculous. I will illustrate my claim one last time.

1. The ancient Hebrews knew to wash before eating, medical practices, and after touching the dead etc... You say it is because of common sense and I say it was because of divine instruction. In this case it does not matter which.
2. I never said nor thought nor even hinted that they were building rockets or computers and have no idea why you think that relevant.
3. I said, as an indication of just how costly and prolific scientific ignorance can be many times that the fact the still had not learned in the interim 4000 years to wash between surgeries is a good example of where science lacks of the integrity and competence it claims for its self has cost tens of thousands their lives. The same is true with souls in our time.

It does seem that a great wealth of knowledge was lost during the dark ages.

I do not think sanitation was one but even if so why wasn't it relearned in the hundreds of years since then until 1863? I will agree that Catholics to a large degree are responsible for what was lost during the dark ages.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Science has an amazing track record! Practically everything we have and everything we know comes from science.

Ok then let's examine the most important questions of life.
1. What is the meaning of life? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
2. What is the purpose of life? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
3. What created the universe? Science has a few fantasies, the Bible has a comprehensive explanation?
4. What happens when we die? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
5. What is wrong with man? Science does not have a clue, the Bible does.
6. What is the fix for the problem? Science does not have a clue but usually insists it does and makes things worse, the Bible actually does.
7. What is morality or moral? Science does not have a clue but usually insists it does and makes things worse, the Bible actually does.

This is not a competition but it does seem the more profound the issue the less science is applicable and the more that the Bible is.

We wouldn’t know practically anything we know today about ourselves, our world and the universe we live in, without science. Gimme a break.

There is no anti-god science. There is only science.

I agree that science certainly has an important role but I do not care about debating science. I care about debating God, the Bible, and faith and only the science that applies (or is claimed to) is relevant to me. You may enjoy debating whether Boolean differential calculus can be used to model dynamic circuits, however I have taken Boolean algebra and even advanced calculus and could not care less. It will not get me to heaven.

Again my claims are:
1. Science is great but as fallible as every other human endeavor. I do science every day and went to school for it. I however do not enjoy debating it as it is tedious and in this context almost meaningless. None of life’s greatest questions are even open to science.
2. There exists nothing KNOWN to science that makes the Bible any less reliable. There exists in science many things that are very unreliable and based on little or no evidence used to challenge the Bible.

 

[1robin]

Dawkins is saying that questions of morality aren't easy. What he's not saying is that it's impossible to determine morality using science, reason, logic, compassion, etc. He's saying morality involves a whole lot more than just reading an ancient text and obeying the words within it. And I agree with him on that.

So how come you don't stone people to death for working on the Sabbath?

This is silly. He looked at the most extreme case of immorality known to modern man and said he could not even declare it wrong within atheism or evolution. That is in no way a claim about minor ambiguity of moral truths. It is an abject surrender of a world view in the face of the most obvious example of moral insanity on record. Not you so much but your color commentary buddy (Skeptish) claim I am not being rational but it is these types of obfuscation in the face of the most obvious failures of atheism that are deserving of the irrationality title. Dawkins said he did not have anything in his own moral system capable of declaring the worst acts in human history wrong. In no way is that equivalent to moral are complex issue. GimME a break.


Not one of those OT laws was ever in effect for non-Jewish people and have not been in effect for anyone in over 2000 years (and are valid moral codes given the context God and his purposes come with). I have addressed them in the sense of fair play but I do not live under a covenant that requires anything like this and have defended practices specific to a certain culture for a certain time frame, and for specific reason long enough. My attempting to explain rules governing people who lived that long ago are only exceeded in futility by your attempts to refute a deity that only with his existence could any moral act be condemned in a meaningful way. It is an inapplicable self-defeating argument and if its the best you have then you must have one weak bench.

 

[Skeptisch]

Dawkins said he did not have anything in his own moral system capable of declaring the worst acts in human history wrong. In no way is that equivalent to moral are complex issue. GimME a break.

SkepticThinker is such a patient nice guy, well I am not.
You not only show these qualities:
Ignorant --- lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
misguided --- misled and mistaken
unreasonable --- not in accordance with practical realities
illogical --- contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic
But also you lie.
To lie --- is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth.

 

[1robin]

So? What does that mean? Homosexuality has also been accepted by many cultures throughout history as well, including our current one.

You seemed to suggest it was only Christianity that condemned the practice and I was saying that no all cultures (including those that have no basis for doing so like Atheism) have condemned the practice. Yes the current culture is very accepting of homosexuality and also is also plagued by the diseases that at the very least are spread at vastly greater rates by it. I have to pay in insurance premiums and even am at risk of getting the diseases although I do not practice what they do. Nice progress - progressives. We are talking tens of billions in costs that the lifestyle produces. I have a friend who introduced me to a Navy corpsman. You can't even imagine the conditions they have had to treat since homosexuality was allowed in the military not to mention the loss of cohesion and the deaths that produced and the billions in defense dollars spent.

I and many other atheists have explained where morality comes from without god. We've explained how things can be termed right or wrong with justification. You don't just get to dismiss those answers and instead declare that atheists deny a need for morality!

I disagree. Without God you are left with a hole where the source of morality is supposed to be. You have nothing that fits the hole and must fill it anyway or admit the deficiency so you grab whatever is at hand and force it into the hole and say "there". Prove the murder of all life in existence is wrong without God. I did not say all atheists deny the need for a source for morality, I said atheism does not. Atheism has no moral input at all and in need of no source. Vast numbers of atheistic scholars deny morality exists in any objective form and there for requires no explanation. Others that morality is an illusion and there is no need for a source in that case either.

How do you determine that god is good?

I don't really. I consider that if God exists then he is correct. If I say he is good that is derived from the fact that he built me with a moral standard that also is capable of examining his actions for correlation. I have lately begun to see the label good is almost meaningless concerning good. I can say objectively he is correct and I can decide if I PERSONALLY think he is good. That is about it.

Then why is it that countries which are more secular in nature score higher on indicators of societal health?

The major factor in this equation is money per capita. These stats get a little hard to nail down. For instance the US is the most Christian nation on Earth yet it's government increasingly denies Christian values. You would have to go back to the 40's and 50's to see us as a Christian nation. The number one nation on most lists is Norway and I know someone from there. The reason they are so well off is they are sitting on more natural resources per square mile than anyone I believe. By the way we are number three and have developed very little of our resources.

Why is it that highly religious countries like the US have such high homicide rates

First of all look at the maps on this site that indicate regions where the standard of living is highest, it follows Christianity percentage almost identically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
However I don't even use stats that prove what I say because they are easily contestable. For instance your above CLAIM leaves out the much more important fact that we are also the most free traditionally of all nations. Our courts are built to let off a hundred guilty people to avoid wrongly sentencing an innocent one. I could point out that conservative Christians are the most generous charity demographic in the US which is the most generous nation.

high STD infection rates, high rates of teen pregnancy, racial inequality, social inequality, etc., as compared to more secular countries?

If you will review the curve for most of these you will see they correspond to the 60's and 70's when they began to rise exponentially and that is exactly when hippie secularism started taking over and God was torn out of schools.

That doesn’t seem to support your argument.

It is almost impossible to argue religion through the stats you are attempting to. If The US was a Christian institution like Saudi Arabia is an Islamic one then maybe. Another factor is that most of the successful secular nations were not long ago heavily influenced by Christianity especially in northern Europe. They kicked him out but kept his principles in many cases. In short without a million qualifications and a PhD in stats it is a hard argument to make for my view or yours. However it is easily seen that a religion who's primary precepts are do not murder, do not lie, and do not steal will never cause there to more of these actions. That is just not a point that can be made.

I don’t think Dawkins says morality is an illusion without god, and I honestly can’t really picture him saying that. What he says is that it’s a complex issue that requires thought and reason, and that it’s clear we don’t get our morality from the Bible.

No he didn't and I do not believe I credited him with saying that. That statement was famously made by Ruse (the philosopher of science). Dawkins was not in any way saying what you claim either. In no other example should any moral system be more able to make a concise judgment. If Hitler can't be condemned by whatever moral system you invent then that is a good reason to choose another. If it can't make an instant and total condemnation in Hitler's case I would not trust it with anything else. Of course the same system has justified killing babies by the millions and is still not abandoned, and the one that has within it the only grounds for stopping both Hitler and abortion is still not adopted. This is moral insanity, but called progress instead.

Sin is a religious construct.

Sin is a moral failing and by whatever name it is a rabid and prevalent reality. I forgot his name but the equivalent of the surgeon general for Psychiatry killed himself about 30 years ago I think. He left a note that said the concept of modern morality in psychiatry had eliminated sin as the cause of suffering and he no longer had anything to treat in many cases. He said if it wasn't physical, secular scholars now blamed society and he could not cure society and no longer believed his field meaningful. In many instances theological treatment centers have a much higher rate of cure than secular institutions.

Yeah, you know what? I would call our lack of slavery, lack of stoning people to death for committing minor offenses, lack of marginalizing and judging gay people, lacking of delegating women as mere chattel, as progress, rather than a nosedive. Silly me.

Ok one at a time is necessary I guess.

1. OT slavery was benevolent and necessary because there existed no welfare system. It was almost always voluntary and beneficial to both parties. It was the rule (though with exceptions) that slaves were treated very well and abuse was punishable by death. It was Christians who freed the US of true slavery, it still exists in secular or pagan places where we have not destroyed it. 27,000 million slaves currently exist mainly in India and Africa.
2. Do you have any idea how many people were stoned to death in Israel? There is almost no record of it anywhere. There are a grand total of three cases in the Bible. You do not include the vast number of legal issues that must be considered before anyone was killed in ancient Israel. However secular moralists argue and demonstrate for the sacred right to murder millions of babies a year. I just could not complain about the former if my side justified the latter.
3. I nor any Christian I know treats gays differently. We hate the act not the person but even if we were to we would have saved tens of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars if homosexuality was not condoned. My side's beliefs might restrict some one's self-gratification, your side allows practices that kill them by the millions and cost even the ones who do not participate billions. Hardy an argument. 4. I did not get the women reference.
If you were to add up all the people killed in the Bible by the theology, God, or God's people, even the flood, plus the inquisitions, plus the 30 and 100 years wars, and plus the crusades, it would still not add up to the number of abortions in the last two decades or what the atheist Stalin did alone. You will lose every body count argument there is. Continued below for no apparent reason:

 

[1robin]

The traditional system you speak of didn’t work better than what we have now, in my opinion. Unless you enjoy oppression.

You mean if anyone tells a person to stop a behavior that kills or harms others like homosexuality that not only do they have the right to do it anyway but the person is wrong for even suggesting the behavior be stopped. Now that is some bad propaganda and even worse logic.

Traditionally, women couldn’t vote, were considered property of their fathers and husbands and had no say in anything

There is little in the Bible to stop women from voting. In fact the Bible gives many clear instructions concerning the women’s vast importance in society.

traditionally teens who got pregnant had to hide away and live in shame from a judgmental society and their child had to suffer for it as well;

First are you saying to practice sex as a teen is not a shameful act. Your side has outlawed shame, accountability, and responsibility and then makes claims of moral superiority. First it was in many cases and still is the Church that takes in what secular society condemns. I worked on the sound system in a 7th day adv Church. I do not agree with them but during the weak I was there I must have seen 10 people come in to borrow money from the Church because no secular charity or institution would help. At least 5 of them did not even go to that Church. Shame has a purpose, it is a preventative and since outlawed by secularist’s teen pregnancy has sky rocketed. Say whatever you need to, but when God was in schools fewer teens were hurt by pregnancy because shame existed, than when shame and God were kicked out, by far. Shame is natural and has caused me to mature as much as anything else and is hardly an unjust price to keep 10,000 kids from being aborted or living with a non-educated delinquent mother of 17.

traditionally gay people had to hide who they were from the world and pretend to be something they weren’t;

Again shame is natural and merited for certain acts. Forgetting theology homosexuality kills millions that would have lived without it, and costs billions. Is that just recompense for not having to endure the shame an act deserves/

traditionally a women couldn’t divorce from a husband who beat the crap out of her and her children every day of their lives

What? I have seen those women come to shelters run by Churches by the hundreds. Churches actually have programs for them specifically.

traditionally married couples were forbidden from using birth control and so the woman was not much more than a baby making machine

That is another stupid Catholic invention and does not exist in the Bible. If you will recall it is the Bible not Catholics I defend.

I could go on and on.

It wouldn't help you.

All of these things equate to human misery, in my opinion. So I would have to say that the moral landscape is better in secular 2013 than it ever was in Christian 1950.

Is that why the 40's are referred to as the greatest generation, and now millions are asking what happened to the once strong and moral west since secularism took over? Abortion alone outnumbers all Christian wrongs ever committed even though most of them were are not allowed by the Bible. Not to mention STD's, secular gangs in Africa stealing the Christian aid sent to starving people, the Stalin’s, Pol Pot's, Mao's, or a hundred other secular genocidal maniacs. It is not even a comparison. It is complaining it is too hot in LA, from the sun.

So excuse when I say I have no idea what you’re talking about when you make these silly claims about tradition. And I don’t think you do either, if you really think about it.

If you actually don't then there is not much hope for secularism or the world it is polluting.

Your first sentence while a bit strange, isn’t grounded in fact, unless you can provide some evidence for that.

You post the number of homosexuals ever even claimed to be physically harmed by Christian's and Jewish people in the entire history of humanity and I will bet the number that actually died because of homosexuality is ten times as high within a single decade. You are arguing for their right to kill each other and even people who are not gay, and then calling God immoral? Why can't you see the absurd disparity in numbers even with vastly unequal comparisons like this? Your are basically Nazi Germany calling the Cherokee savages. No, I am not saying you are a Nazi.

Secondly, what’s wrong with two men raising a girl?

This is not a theological problem. There is no way possible two men can raise a girl as well as a house with a women as mother.

Do you think there’s something wrong with a single father raising a girl?

Yes, but it isn't the same. There have been untold problems of single parent homes and they are obvious. African Americans are both disproportionately incarcerated and disproportionate from single parent homes. The correlation is obvious. Divorce is wrong but because of our faultiness tolerated by God. That does not make it right and it is harmful in countless cases. Also incarceration is now increasing faster than population growth. Thanks again secularism.

Is it better for an orphaned child to be raised in a loving household, or to grow up alone in an orphanage?

I do not have any need to answer the question given what I am defending. God's desire is one man and one women to raise a child and that is better than any alternative. You are getting what I am defending all mixed up. If God mandated all children be raised in an orphanage then this question would apply. You are speaking about relative value not God. Murder may be better than torture but why would I have to evaluate them?

My female cousin, who has wanted to be a mother her entire life is raising a young girl with her wife, is that wrong too?

I believe the act wrong, but the damage may mitigated depending on her. I am discussing what in general is the best solution. I have never said that Al Capone and Lizzy Borden could raise a child better than a gay Mother Theresa and a gay Margaret Thatcher (how many chances does anyone get to say that). I am saying that the traditional family is the best system to raise kids in by far.

And if so, why? Furthermore, are you implying that kids are “doped up” because they’re being raised by gay couples?

Yes and about a thousand other bad things that were not held as sacred rights when I was young. When I was in school, we said the pledge of allegiance and quoted scripture every day, were whipped as standard punishment, and said yes sir and no sir. I never heard of any one on anything. No gang activity, almost no teen pregnancy, no shootings, no condoms getting passed out, no resource officers necessary, no teachers getting beat up, none of the modern crap. Now we have all of it and kids are doped up at an alarming rate, shooting each other, gangs run many schools, and teen pregnancy is through the roof, you can't paddle a kid in many places, and while spending way more than any other nation per person we have went from 1 or 2 to 9 or 10 in the world in test scores. I hope that was clear. Compare leave it to beaver and Gun smoke with SAW and desperate housewives of anywhere. The television is a good moral marker of a society and it went from innocence and humor in the 50s to violence and shows where immorality is the hero of the plot today

 

[1robin]

SkepticThinker is such a patient nice guy, well I am not.
You not only show these qualities:
Ignorant --- lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
misguided --- misled and mistaken
unreasonable --- not in accordance with practical realities
illogical --- contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic
But also you lie.
To lie --- is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth.

I have no use for your false evaluations and you unfortunately have forced me to put you on ignore. I will however give you one day to either post the proof that I have lied according to your own definition or retract the accusation. At the end of the hour when you will have provided neither I will commence. I should report this but never do so as I am not petty and have more patience than you admit for yourself as well.