Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[lightbeamrider]

Theism assumes justice for all. Atheism does not.

Justice for all is potentially an attractive thought, depending on what a persons considered to be justice.

Why don't you ask a victim of rape or a surviving relative of a murder victim in which the perp is still at large?

Just because theism assumes justice for all does not mean that this ideal exists.

Does not mean it does not. Theism better explains human sense of justice. Atheism fails.

Abiogenesis as taught in non theistic environments assumes self assembly for no reason.

No, it doesn't. This is a grossly false claim on your behalf. There are not only many physical reasons for self-assembly, but self-assembly is actually a natural result of the natural properties of the elements and the forces of nature. In fact, we can see self-assembly in the lab of rudimentary parts that are used in biological entities.

First off you select edited my post. No intelligence no reason. That is the part you deleted. Did your car self assemble? How about your house? Do you know anything about engineering, or mechanics? Things do not self assemble and they do not self fix. Gasoline has to be put into the gas tank. Your car will not run if gas is thrown on it or the energy from the sun will not fix your car. If things self assemble in the lab as you claim why do they not self assemble anywhere else? Such claims are absurd. Absurd claims do not have to be taken seriously anymore than assuming monkeys will fly out of your behind on demand or for no reason. When that happens give us a call. If there is design and information transfer then those have to have a source. Your no intelligence assumptions for both design and info transfer is grossly inadequate.

If there is no intelligence then there is no real reason for the beginning of the universe.

Not true.

Absent intelligence, what is the reason?

There is no reason that any intelligence would need to be involved. Can you please provide evidence for your claim here?

None that you would accept since you delete Intelligence from the get go.

Atheism does not claim to be an explanation for anything.

Exactly. Atheism explains nothing.

Atheism is simply a philosophy that does not embrace any particular theism.

No evidence required.

Well theism typically asserts that this magician is intelligent, conscious, sentient, and even had an ego along with human failings like jealousy etc.

God depicted is described in human terms. Does not necessarily mean God is jealous like humans are jealous. Language has limitations.

Christian theism claims that this entity spoke to people from a burning bush, and again from a cloud. Probably in some other cases too. Clearly this God has appeared to many in their dreams. But people have also dreamed of faeries too, so there's nothing unique there.

Those people writing those accounts believe those events actually happened and wrote about them. You are free to reject or believe. You have a right to be wrong so long as you are willing to deal with the consequences and even if you are not.

That's hardly and explanation for anything.

You got a better one? We are all ears?

--------------

I don't need a 'better'' one since no coherent explanation has been given other than "The Wizard of Oz Did It".

I am not claiming the wizard of Oz did it and you are being snarky to the point of blasphemy. Is blasphemy by non believers allowed here? If we are required to be civil to each other why are non believers given a pass for taking cheap shots at God? So you have no better explanation. Come back when you do.

Whatever the cause of the big bang it had nothing to do with Intelligence or with God? Effects have Causes. If you do not believe the Cause has anything to do with Intelligence or with God then what is the Cause? We say God. You say?????

----------------

The current evidence points to a random quantum fluctuation. No sentient intelligence, design, or purpose required.

Well the next time a donkey pops into your living room for no reason you can assume random fluctuations. Those assumptions has zero ancient precedent what so ever and really is gobbledygook. Along the lines of baffling with BS as opposed to dazzling with brilliance. This is going no where.

[Jashwell]

God belief assumes human rights derive from God and not men as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.

Not necessarily - belief in a God does not require belief that rights come from a God.
But still, you don't need to believe in a God to think that rights descend from something other than man.

If human rights do not come from God and they do not come from men, then where do they come from?

Hmm?
Someone could easily believe that they are fundamental and exist in their own unique plane, for example, and are facts that just exist abstractly.

I'm not saying they don't come from either, just that they don't have to.

Mathematics and logic descend from man.

What? Man is the source for math and logic? Was there ever a time the simple equation 1+1=2 not true? Man discovers what is already there. You have man down as the source.

Yet the numbers 1, 1 and 2 were invented. Yes there is a way in which you could say the relation was "discovered" but the fact is it's a relation between invented ideas.

Addition was also invented. So were subtraction, division, multiplication, integration, differentiation, etc.

If these were discovered, why were they (in most places) discovered in one of the patterns we'd expect to see under invention: Non-zero Integers, Fractions, Zero, Negative Numbers, Imaginary Numbers & Complex Numbers. (I think that's accurate though I haven't checked in a while, I know the first and last are correct)

For instance, 1+1=2 is only true in ternary and up.
In binary, 1+1=10.

The best analogy I can think is a poor one but kind of leans towards what I'm saying. The personality of two imaginary characters are invented. The way they interact with each other is determined by their personality, but is in a way discovered.

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.

It does add weight. The majority report is not always wrong.

It does not add weight.
The majority of scientists are not religious. Literally all the people who lived over 3000 years ago were definitely not Christian.
(I'd also point out atheism is ore was growing quite quickly)

Why would human justice be necessary anyway?

Ask Ted Bundy. Charlie Manson is probably asking the same question.

You think they'll be dealt with in the afterlife.
Unless God doesn't care, surely he'll deal only the necessary punishment, not unnecessary punishment like a sadist will. The amount they deserve in full, and not a bit more.
So surely human justice for you is just unnecessary punishment at best, and at it's worse can punish the wrong people.

It literally serves no purpose.

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

No it isn't. Emergence is the process by which order arises out of chaos without personal agency.

Snowflakes are ordered. Snowflakes aren't designed.

Good ole snowflakes. There is a world of difference between a DNA molecule which shows Intelligent design and information transfer.

It doesn't show intelligent design, but it does show how subjective information is.
DNA would mean nothing without it's compiler - in point of fact, a different molecular structure could've been used, and a different coding definitely could've been used (i.e. a different amino-DNA map, and in some cases is used e.g some viruses).

Of course, nobody thinks DNA itself came out of a single reaction, but there are many plausible abiogenesis theories that do not involve a personal agent, such as protocell theory.

You can use a snowflake to assume your car self assembled absent intelligence or the sun will fix your self assembled car and remove the rust at the same time.

We know a car is designed because we see people making them all the time and never see them in nature.
We never see people making life without pre-existing processes of life and see life in nature.

Generally speaking most can draw a distinction between the Grand Canyon and Mt. Rushmore. To assume Intelligent Design is based on what we know about design and information.

And we know Mt Rushmore was built.
It's not about information. Information is subjective, and doesn't inherently exist. It's only information when there's someone to be informed (or someone informing), a compiler.
You could take the position of sands of grain in a desert, and with the right compiler, it might be the correct information for an orchestra.

It is your camp who must assume the possibility your own posts are the result of natural forces and not intelligence. Which is more reasonable? What is the source of the natural forces?

Why would they need a source?
Natural forces exist, and can plausibly create life and other things.

And Greek mythology explains why Zeus can throw lightning bolts.
And the tides. (if only Bill O'Reilly believed in the ancient Greek pantheon)
As Sidney Morgenbesser said (paraphrasing somewhat), "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining"

Not arguing for Zeus and i know of nobody who does. The non existence of Zeus does not invalidate the real existence of God anymore than Spiderman does. The comparison is trivial.

Ignoring the fact that the comparison isn't trivial - a claim for the non-existence of Zeus is positive and requires proof (and majority opinion isn't proof):

You said "God explains why there is something rather than nothing".
I said "Greek mythology explains why Zeus can hurl lightning bolts".

If I believed there was creative intent for something, I might care what it is and why it was there rather than nothing. Or if I thought the same thing and there was nothing, (this is a thought experiment, obviously if there were nothing I could not think), I ask instead "Why is there nothing rather than something?".

So, here are the major problems with this.
1) It is begging the question to assume purpose or creative intent.
The only way you can prove that the Universe has a reason for being is if you prove it was created, which means it's counter-productive to then use that to prove it was created. (Not that what God had in mind has anything to do with what we should actually do)

2) It does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. If we are talking about all things except God (which we are), it does not explain why he didn't choose not to create anything.

3) It does not explain why there is something or nothing. God is something. God does not and cannot explain why he would exist (if he did)

Strong atheism (unlike weak atheism) assumes that God does not exist. Is this what you mean?

If there is no God then there is no accountability to God. That means if a Ted Bundy type goes out and rapes and kills and escapes human justice there is no justice for the victims who are innocent or to Ted Bundy for his crimes. Under atheism, justice is a sham. That is counter intuitive to human experience.

There are a lot of things wrong with this.

1) Just because the real world isn't perfect, doesn't mean there must be a God that exists to try and fix it in the parts that you can't see. This is merely dreaming, nothing more.

2) Have you read the Bible? God tells multiple people to rape and kill. God kills all the time. When will God be judged?

3) Who put God in charge? What qualifications does he have? Why would we trust his judgement? Even the most well trusted people aren't given sole domain over the concept of justice, let alone a single court. This is why we have a Jury.

4) You could still believe in an afterlive, you could still believe in "justice" after death, without believing in a God.

5) Making the bad people suffer isn't justice. It's retribution and revenge.
Justice is helping the victims recuperate their losses, and then turning the bad people into good people.

[Divine Insight]

Justice for all is potentially an attractive thought, depending on what a persons considered to be justice.

Why don't you ask a victim of rape or a surviving relative of a murder victim in which the perp is still at large?

Are you suggesting that vengeance is "justice"?

I don't see where vengeance amounts to justice.

True "justice" would be that no innocent people were harmed in the first place. Clearly we don't see a world like that. Therefore there is no such thing as justice and theism is nothing more than wishful thinking, in terms of revenge no less.

Just because theism assumes justice for all does not mean that this ideal exists.

Does not mean it does not. Theism better explains human sense of justice. Atheism fails.

If the human sense of "justice" is nothing more then revenge, then theism explains precisely why there is no actual God behind theology and it is indeed nothing more than a human desire for revenge.

This just confirms the theology is man-made.

Abiogenesis as taught in non theistic environments assumes self assembly for no reason.

No, it doesn't. This is a grossly false claim on your behalf. There are not only many physical reasons for self-assembly, but self-assembly is actually a natural result of the natural properties of the elements and the forces of nature. In fact, we can see self-assembly in the lab of rudimentary parts that are used in biological entities.

First off you select edited my post. No intelligence no reason. That is the part you deleted. Did your car self assemble? How about your house? Do you know anything about engineering, or mechanics? Things do not self assemble and they do not self fix.

Excuse me? Biological bodies do self-assemble. They also self-repair.

Yet here you are comparing man-made objects with things that naturally evolved. And you ask me if I know anything about engineering?

Gasoline has to be put into the gas tank. Your car will not run if gas is thrown on it or the energy from the sun will not fix your car. If things self assemble in the lab as you claim why do they not self assemble anywhere else?

They do.

In fact when you take a bath bubbles self assemble all the time. It's a natural property of the chemistry of soap and water.

Such claims are absurd. Absurd claims do not have to be taken seriously anymore than assuming monkeys will fly out of your behind on demand or for no reason. When that happens give us a call. If there is design and information transfer then those have to have a source. Your no intelligence assumptions for both design and info transfer is grossly inadequate.

My statements are true and they are well understood in terms of chemistry, and occur right before your very eyes every time you take a bath in soapy water. The proof of what I say is all around you.

If there is no intelligence then there is no real reason for the beginning of the universe.

Not true.

Absent intelligence, what is the reason?

Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't require intelligence to run.

There is no reason that any intelligence would need to be involved. Can you please provide evidence for your claim here?

None that you would accept since you delete Intelligence from the get go.

It's not required and you haven't provided any reason why it should be required.

Atheism does not claim to be an explanation for anything.

Exactly. Atheism explains nothing.

No kidding. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theism.

Atheism is simply a philosophy that does not embrace any particular theism.

No evidence required.

That's right. There is no evidence required for atheism.

Atheism is simply the rejection of theisms that have no evidence.

Well theism typically asserts that this magician is intelligent, conscious, sentient, and even had an ego along with human failings like jealousy etc.

God depicted is described in human terms. Does not necessarily mean God is jealous like humans are jealous. Language has limitations.

You either accept what the dogma says or you don't. That's up to you.

If you argue for a literal rejection of the Bible I'm with you all the way on that one.

Christian theism claims that this entity spoke to people from a burning bush, and again from a cloud. Probably in some other cases too. Clearly this God has appeared to many in their dreams. But people have also dreamed of faeries too, so there's nothing unique there.

Those people writing those accounts believe those events actually happened and wrote about them. You are free to reject or believe. You have a right to be wrong so long as you are willing to deal with the consequences and even if you are not.

I'm more than willing to deal with any consequences. I'm quite confident that if a supremely intelligent benevolent creator exists I would have no problem having an intelligent discussion with it and it would be no threat to me.

That's hardly and explanation for anything.

You got a better one? We are all ears?

--------------

I don't need a 'better'' one since no coherent explanation has been given other than "The Wizard of Oz Did It".

I am not claiming the wizard of Oz did it and you are being snarky to the point of blasphemy. Is blasphemy by non believers allowed here? If we are required to be civil to each other why are non believers given a pass for taking cheap shots at God? So you have no better explanation. Come back when you do.

A cheap shot at God?

If God truly is the magician pulling levers behind the universe I think he would probably think it's cute that he is seen as the Wizard of Oz.

Unless of course he's a big jerk who gets his dander up easily and takes wrathful temper tantrums like described in the Bible. They he might hurt someone. But a God like that could not be trusted.

Whatever the cause of the big bang it had nothing to do with Intelligence or with God? Effects have Causes. If you do not believe the Cause has anything to do with Intelligence or with God then what is the Cause? We say God. You say?????

----------------

The current evidence points to a random quantum fluctuation. No sentient intelligence, design, or purpose required.

Well the next time a donkey pops into your living room for no reason you can assume random fluctuations. Those assumptions has zero ancient precedent what so ever and really is gobbledygook. Along the lines of baffling with BS as opposed to dazzling with brilliance. This is going no where.

I'm well educated in Quantum Mechanics so I have no reason to believe that a donkey will randomly pop into my living room. But I do understand how a universe can be created from a quantum fluctuation and then evolve to contain donkeys over 14.5 billion years.

If there is a designer God behind the universe I wonder why he didn't just create humans right off the bat if creating human souls was his main goal? Why bother designing dinosaurs and countless other species that have since become extinct?

Evolution by natural selection makes far more sense.

[lightbeamrider]

Justice for all is potentially an attractive thought, depending on what a persons considered to be justice.

Why don't you ask a victim of rape or a surviving relative of a murder victim in which the perp is still at large?

Are you suggesting that vengeance is "justice"?

No. You are. That is since you bought vengeance up. Not me.

I don't see where vengeance amounts to justice.

Under your atheism your assumptions carries no more weight than your opinion. Another could very well consider vengeance justice. Seems atheists here do not want to deal with the natural consequences of their assumptions.

[lightbeamrider]

2) Have you read the Bible? God tells multiple people to rape and kill. God kills all the time. When will God be judged?

Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong? That is in a world without God? Is there not plenty of precedent in history for slavery raping and killing? Are these things out of line with nature?

Christians view the Old through the lens of the New. If you want to fixate on the Old exclusively then you would have to consult someone who practices Judaism. In the Old Judgement from God always and eventually comes down. Now, as it relates to the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites critics ignore the fact those were given 400+ years to turn things around and a partial list of their crimes are recorded. I don't see where force rape is condoned by God in Scripture. Non believers and hyper critics assume force rape in a lot of cases where force rape is not explicit. I can see two examples of force rape in Scripture. In both cases the rapists is killed. In the Dinah case, not only is the rapist killed, a whole bunch of men is killed with the rapist. Dinah is in Genesis. Off to work.

[Jashwell]

2) Have you read the Bible? God tells multiple people to rape and kill. God kills all the time. When will God be judged?

Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong? That is in a world without God? Is there not plenty of precedent in history for slavery raping and killing? Are these things out of line with nature?

"In line with nature"?
What do you even mean by that?
What relevance does that have?

Why would I care what precedence there is for slavery, raping and killing? What relevance does it have?

You do realise that a moral system based on God isn't objective, right? That it's subjective? Based on one individual?

I'm no moral nihilist, and I'm no moral subjectivist. I also don't believe that morals 'exist as facts' in the same sense Plato seemed to think numbers did. I'm a moral universalist.

None of this matters of course - this thread is about good reasons to believe a God exists. Not about secular morality.

Christians view the Old through the lens of the New. If you want to fixate on the Old exclusively then you would have to consult someone who practices Judaism. In the Old Judgement from God always and eventually comes down. Now, as it relates to the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites critics ignore the fact those were given 400+ years to turn things around and a partial list of their crimes are recorded. I don't see where force rape is condoned by God in Scripture. Non believers and hyper critics assume force rape in a lot of cases where force rape is not explicit. I can see two examples of force rape in Scripture. In both cases the rapists is killed. In the Dinah case, not only is the rapist killed, a whole bunch of men is killed with the rapist. Dinah is in Genesis. Off to work.

Need not be explicit.

Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Exodus 21:7-11

It doesn't seem sensible to view these passages as anything other than the treatment of women as property (inc. the implication of intercourse), and what exactly do you think is meant by "take only the virgin girls"?

I don't know about you, but none of these seem particularly benevolent.

[Zzyzx]

.

] In my opinion what is regarded as "human rights" VARIES greatly through time and place because societies decide such things " basically a human process.

Then slavery for profit is equally as valid as the alternative.

Slavery is deemed valid in bible writings and was accepted as valid by US Christians until the 1860s. Now most societies declare slavery invalid (or illegal) and many individuals of all theistic positions regard slavery as invalid and immoral.

So, what exactly is your argument?

Single objects existed prior to human existence; however, the concept of "one" or "two" and the concept of addition are of human origin " our means of describing objects.

I asked if the equation of 1+1=2 ever not exist?

Equations are human products, defined in mathematics as "an expression or a proposition, often algebraic, asserting the equality of two quantities."

In other words it is a symbolic representation of a relationship observed by humans. Did individual items exist prior to humans being conscious of them? Of course. Did two or more of some items exist? Of course. Did the equation itself exist? No " not until human (or pre-human) understanding progressed sufficiently to develop the equation / symbolic representation.

It is a simple question. If you are saying man invented 1+1=2 then i suppose you are assuming there was a time 1+1=2 did not exist.

There was a time when the equation ("expression or proposition") did not exist.

Why does math work if there is no God?

Math "works" to the extent that it has been developed by humans to describe what occurs in nature. Nature does not conform to fit mathematics. Mathematics conforms to nature. No "gods" required.

That is, since mathematics is the foundation and language of science and is not science?

Perhaps it would be useful to state this more clearly.

The majority opinion (or report) is not always right. Evidence and reasoning can often be used to determine truth and accuracy. Those who lack evidence that their position is true often argue that "it is widely believed so therefore it must be true" (or words to that effect).

Evidence is not the problem

Evidence is not a problem for those who base decisions on emotion (such as wanting to believe) or happenstance (whatever happens was "intended").

in the first place since atheist assumptions require no evidence. Nor can any be provided.

To what "Atheist assumptions" do you refer " specifically?

Does "Without belief is fairies" require assumptions? Or does it just require declining to believe fairytales? Exactly the same can be applied to tales about the thousands of proposed "gods."

Atheism, "without belief in gods" does NOT require assumptions at all.

Perhaps you (generic term) prefer to define Atheism as "Denial of gods" " in which case YOU are responsible for any assumptions arising from the definition you supply or prefer.

The majority at one time probably thought that disease was caused by demons and that droughts were caused by displeased "gods" (and some still believe that). Did that make them right?

Prove it wrong.

Do you seriously think that belief that demons cause disease and displeased gods cause drought is RIGHT? If so, I am willing to debate that topic in a separate thread.

Are you asking in honorable debate that I prove that demons do not cause disease and that gods do not cause drought? Notice very carefully that I did not make that claim. You (generic term) can INFER that from my statement, but I have taken no such position because I realize that proving absolute non-existence is a fool's errand (and asking for such proof is not much better).

I think you are assuming these things are never a factor at all times in all places. I don't live in that box. You do.

The "box" I live in is the real world of an advanced, information based, technological society in which modern medicine has identified causes of nearly all diseases.

Of course, demons MAY exist and cause disease " just as "gods" MAY exist and make demons or cause disease themselves (and droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc). All that is lacking is evidence that either is true.

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

This is the logical fallacy known as Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic) -- a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Well i am assuming there is an intelligent source behind this post i am responding to. You know why? It indicates intelligent design. That is circular according to you and i am right since you are an intelligent source.

Do you, therefore, maintain that human intelligence indicates or requires "intelligent design?"

I do not disagree with those who do not consider their posts to be a product of their own intelligence.

Nonsensical.

Many of the "arguments" presented to support god-worship appear nonsensical.

"I don't believe you" is not nonsensical when evidence to support claims and stories is scant to non-existent (or consists largely of testimonials that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination or psychological episodes).

If some or all Theist posts represent "intelligent design" they often reflect very poorly on the designer " when they contain logical fallacies, inconsistencies, unwarranted assumptions, faulty conclusions, etc " and when they fail to be at all convincing except possibly to some Theists.

Am sure you meant that snarky criticism for our own benefit.

Do you claim to be able to read minds?

The criticism reflects experience debating proponents of "Intelligent Design" and helping them demonstrate that arguments they present contain logical fallacies, inconsistencies, unwarranted assumptions, faulty conclusions, etc

I trust that readers evaluate the merits of what is presented " and that unverified claims and stories are not convincing except to those who are gullible (easily duped or fooled) or preconditioned or indoctrinated to believe "on faith" what cannot be substantiated.

Perhaps the supposed "designer" was not fair to "his" supporters when / if they do not fare well in debate?

Are you trying to provoke or give a grade?

Will Rogers said "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." I follow his example here. Imperfections in the product indicate deficiencies in design (or designer).

Justice, if it is achieved, seldom accrues to victims. Murder victims are not brought back to life and no one is un-raped.

Justice is never achieved under atheism

That statement is known in debate as a positive claim. Claims are expected and required to be supported if challenged. I challenge the claim.

since no one is brought back to life and no one is unraped and no one is accountable to God since God does not exist.

I agree that no one is brought back to life after days being dead, no one is un-raped AND no one is accountable to God. Whether any of the "gods" exist is a matter for separate threads.

By the way. In Christianity one murder victim is brought back to life.

According to Christian lore, tradition and literature dead bodies being brought back to life occurred several or many times.

That is a lot easier to believe than it is to believe in abiogenesis in which life is from non life and intelligence is from non intelligence for no reason.

Are you debating here against abiogenesis? If that is the intent, it would be appropriate to start a separate thread.

I do not debate "origin of life" or "origin of the universe" or accept any related hypotheses (scientific or religious) because those are purely speculative areas at the present time.

Also in violation with established science of biogenesis which conforms with Theism. From life comes life and from Intelligence comes intelligence.

Biogenesis does not preclude evolution (genetic change through generations).

With resurrection you have sufficient Cause since God is the source of all life.

There is "sufficient cause" ONLY if one presupposes "God is the source of all life" " which has not been demonstrated to be truthful or accurate.

Not all that hard to understand if even in theory.

God theories are generally not difficult to understand " they are difficult to SUPPORT.

That some religions propose that justice is achieved in a proposed "afterlife" may be comforting to believers; however, neither the "afterlife" nor the "justice" has been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking cuts both ways. Plenty find comfort they can live any way then choose. Say anything they want. Hurt anybody they want to.

Yes, irrational / wishful thinking can take many forms.

Blaspheme the Living God and there are no consequences. Like i said.

Since the proposal of a "Living God" has not been demonstrated to be anything more than human imagination, how can blaspheming "him" be shown to have consequences (beyond imagination, opinion and conjecture)?

Theism better explains the universal human sense of justice far better than does atheism.

Societies are the best explanation for a sense of justice in my opinion. Societies that value justice and strive toward that as a goal seem to be more stable and successful than those that devalue justice " no "gods" required.

Under atheism, justice is a sham. That is counter intuitive to human experience.

There is no such thing as "under Atheism". How can anything be under "I don't believe you?"

Ok. You are quibbling about word meaning and ignoring the argument. That means you have no answer.

The meaning of "Atheism" being applied in the claim "under Atheism" is important in the argument. If it implies that Atheists are a unified body of Non-Believers the argument is invalid because the ONLY requirement in Atheism is "Without belief in gods."

[lightbeamrider]

Need not be explicit.

Your accusation was explicit. You wrote, ''God tells multiple people to rape and kill. So yes it needs to be explicit Especially regarding force rape.

Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Exodus 21:7-11

Where did you get these verses? What site? Evilbible? Either way none of these verses support your claim.

It doesn't seem sensible to view these passages as anything other than the treatment of women as property

It simply means they had a far different way of doing things. Even if they treated women as property then, as an atheist what is your beef? You appear to be assuming a moral absolute with no objective basis to do so. You are judging an ancient Theocratic culture in a far away land by 21st century American standards.

(inc. the implication of intercourse),

In Hebrew culture intercourse with the female was marriage. The non Hebrew slave/servant is elevated in status to wife. Females were conditioned for all of this. There was nothing abnormal about it. In non Hebrew cultures male and female slaves could be sex slaves, sex on demand. Killed at any time for any reason. In Exod. 21:10 (referenced above) females had conjugal rights. That means they had the right to demand sex from their husbands. Children were a big deal to those females at that time.

and what exactly do you think is meant by "take only the virgin girls"?

Never married non virgins not marriageable in that culture. They had to be virgins.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 577 by lightbeamrider]

Numbers
"7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man."
"15 Have you allowed all the women to live? he asked them."
"17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Moses, either on behalf of God or not exactly told no)

Deuteronomy.
"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you." (slavery)
"2 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it." (kill all the men)
"14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies." (Take the women, children + livestock)

Deuteronomy (pt 2)
"10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her." (You can rape her and force her to be your wife)

Deuteronomy (pt 3)
"23 If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." (stoning a rape victim)

2 Samuel
"11 This is what the Lord says: Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. "

Exodus of course discussing slavery and how exactly to go about selling your daughter.
"7 If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed."

Could you find a quote from the bible that mentions a female's consent to sex or marriage? I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just surprised I haven't seen one yet.



But aside from this,

It doesn't seem sensible to view these passages as anything other than the treatment of women as property

It simply means they had a far different way of doing things. Even if they treated women as property then, as an atheist what is your beef? You appear to be assuming a moral absolute with no objective basis to do so. You are judging an ancient Theocratic culture in a far away land by 21st century American standards.

No, I'm judging it by 20th and 18th century standards of multiple countries and it's still failing. "It simply means they had a far different way of doing things", Yeah, keeping slaves, no respect for a woman's choice and stoning almost any criminal, even someone who commits the heinous crime of "not screaming loud enough [when being raped]".
These people were supported and supposedly instructed by Moses, who was instructed by God.

Is your argument "yeah it's bad but you can't judge!" because first, you've just assumed I have no objective basis for morality. You haven't demonstrated this, you've claimed it.
Is your morality based on God? Is it God's will, nature, word, wish or whatever that you think makes things moral? If so, your morality is subjective, being based on a single subject.

Not to mention, that I don't need to be in a position to judge. I don't need to have a problem with slavery, sexism and rape because I'm guessing you do, and you think your morality is sufficiently 'objective', yet conflicts with your own beliefs.


But once again, this thread is about good reasons to believe a God exists, NOT secular morality. If you have an argument make it.

[Divine Insight]

Under your atheism your assumptions carries no more weight than your opinion.

Same can be said for any theism.

Another could very well consider vengeance justice. Seems atheists here do not want to deal with the natural consequences of their assumptions.

I have no problem with that. In fact, anyone who believes in either Christianity or Islam must necessarily believe that vengeance = justice.

The irony there is that supporters of those religions don't even have the option of holding an opinion that differs from their dogma unless they choose to rebel against the very dogma they claim to be supporting.