Question for Atheists/Naturalist

[For_The_Kingdom]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

[Bust Nak]

What is this topic doing in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma?

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

It's somewhere in the middle. None of them are supported by empirical evidence but I suppose tooth fairy and Santa Claus is more childish.

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

In some ways it is worse. Tooth Fairy don't have rules that conflict with other people's rights.

Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

All of the above.

[For_The_Kingdom]

What is this topic doing in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma?

It is just one of those things, ya know.

It's somewhere in the middle. None of them are supported by empirical evidence but I suppose tooth fairy and Santa Claus is more childish.

There you go with the empirical evidence stuff again. SMH.

In some ways it is worse. Tooth Fairy don't have rules that conflict with other people's rights.

But you see, on naturalism, there is no....

Um, never mind...

All of the above.

Figured as much.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 116 by For_The_Kingdom]

What I claimed was; all possible necessary truths must be actually true. That point still stands.

Why do you use the phrase 'possible necessary truths'? The first word is superfluous. Actually, in my eyes, it muddies the meaning of the phrase. Something that is necessary cannot be something that has a possibility of not existing (i.e. contingent to use your wording from the MOA thread).

A necessarily existing rikuoamero wouldn't make it pass P2 of the argument. Why? Because it is not POSSIBLE for rikuoamero to exist necessarily.

Run that by me one more time? Even if you define rikuoamero as necessarily existing in a preamble, just like you did with God in the MOA, somehow it is possible for this being to not exist?
Here, I'll do the work for you, in this case.
Here's your MOA

definition of God. God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)…an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

Okay, let's pretend we have a section like the above where rikuoamero is defined as necessarily existing and plug that into the MOA. I'm not certain how the preamble would be worded, but you've already said in earlier comments that rikuoamero has been defined as necessarily existing.

1. It is possible that a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists

2. If it is possible that a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists, then a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in some possible world.

3. If a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists.

As far as I can see, the MOA if we replace the term maximally great being with my user handle or anything at all (and especially if we pre-define the noun as necessarily existing) then guess what? It necessarily exists, according to the argument.
It's still invalid, because we cheated.

Nonsense. In the preface, the defined being is alleged, ok? An alleged being, who may/may not exist is defined. That is no different than someone defining Big Foot or the Lochness Monster.

Nope. One does not say of Nessie or Big Foot and to quote you

such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

That is what you did in your MOA thread. You wanted to present to us a logical argument that somehow proves the existence of God and before the argument was even presented, you said that the thing in question cannot fail to exist. In other words...you are not treating it like an alleged being who may or may not exist. You did not allow for the possibility that it does not exist.
You stacked the deck in favour of it existing to the point where it not existing was not even allowed as a possibility.
If you say you did not do this, then I await your explanation as to where and how your MOA gives the possibility for God not existing, allows for the possibility.
I don't see that possibility.

--------
To address something you said in a previous comment that I missed

And now when I go through the trouble of actually defining terminlogy before the argument is presented...it is still a problem?

SMH.

The problem here isn't us blanketly having problems with defining terminology. The problem I had in particular was that you said you were giving us a logical argument to prove that X is Y (God exists/God is real/God has the attribute of existence) and you defined God in such a way that God already has the attribute in question before the argument is presented.
It'd be the same problem if you wanted to present a logical argument to prove that God is good, or God is the perfect judge. You cannot define the thing under consideration as already having the attribute you're discussing.
Is my car a four wheel drive? How about I define my car as a necessarily four wheel drive, and then run through an argument that 'proves' such? Wow, look at that! My car is a four wheel drive! How about that?

------

Jesus was human.

My little quips about Jesus here are to show the contradictions in your theology. Remember, it was yourself who said (post 71)

all humans are sinful

.
You did not give an exception there. So apparently, all members of the set that is labelled 'human' have this attribute 'sinful' (I'm thinking Venn diagrams here, really love set theory, so useful!).
When you were talking about how human sacrifice wasn't allowed because humans are sinful, I was quipping about Jesus not being human because that is the only way it could logically make sense for why his sacrifice was allowed i.e. he wasn't human, according to the summation of the Christian theology you gave me.
Oh you might say, he has a divine nature...that sounds like special pleading to me. You wouldn't accept a human sacrifice (and neither would I) from any other person, but this one you do accept, and the reason for it is...a reason that applies to this person and this person alone.
Is any other person divine? Can any other human be divine? If you say yes to these two, then this again is another contradiction with that earlier 'all humans are sinful'.

I read carefully what I said, and I have no IDEA how you could have drawn that conclusion based off of what I said. Straw man.

I just explained up above. I wasn't seeking to straw-man you, I was pointing out the contradiction.

He apparently had to be sacrificed, so it would only make sense if it's something he's atoning for.

You questioned this, wondering what I meant. My line of thought is...actually can't remember now. I'll have to get back to you on this line, sorry.

Unless you want to get into the realm of human A sacrificing human B to make up for something A did...but still a problem there, because in Christian theology, sin isn't necessarily anything to do with what a human actually does themselves.

You questioned this as well, and fortunately, I do remember. Whenever I discuss sin with Christian theists, I'm told its all sorts of things. I'm told by some people it's responsible for changing herbivores into carnivores, I'm told it can be inherited like genetic traits, etc.
Basically, sin doesn't necessarily have to mean 'bad thing a person does themselves'. Apparently, in Catholicism (cannot remember off the top of my head if this applies to the various Protestant sects), we inherit Original Sin and have to be baptised as children as some sort of way to deal with it, almost like the baptism is a cure for a genetically inherited disease.

In order to fully understand what it is like to buy in "bulk", you have to be part of the club (Sam's Club).

Your analogy doesn't wash, because 'buying in bulk' is an action one does. I can be someone who knows nothing about Sam's Club (something to do with Walmart, am I right? I could Google but eh...), or who doesn't believe John's claim that Sam's Club have the best prices.
In other words, it is not something I have to believe. I can test out Sam's Club by buying in bulk, while I do not have a belief in it's prices.
I cannot test out God.

Right, and unbelievers don't accept the concept of a physical hell...but just because you don't accept it doesn't mean can't/won't go, does it?

When I wrote the bit there you're replying to, I was pointing out that Jews don't believe in a conscious afterlife.

Hmm..Yet, Saul spoke to a very "conscious in the afterlife Samuel".

Another contradiction. To point out, you are not correcting me by pointing out something from the Book of Job, which is what you and I were discussing here and what I quoted from when discussing the likely beliefs an historical Job would have had, but from a different book entirely.
You have made claims that Job would have been accepting of the deaths of his first batch of children (the ones killed by Satan) because he, being a man of God, would have believed he'd see them again later in heaven. To whit, I pointed out passages from the book itself in question that depict what Job believes happens after one dies i.e., it is a place of unconscious sleep, for all. He wouldn't have believed in a conscious afterlife, a heaven and hell.
Indeed, the Samuel quote you give here doesn't actually refute my point, if read in a different way. It could be that Saul 'woke up' Samuel in that sleepy grave (called Sheol, if I remember correctly).

Right, so things like rape/torturing kids for fun isn't objectively wrong in your eyes...gotcha.

Not what I said. I believe raping/torturing kids for fun to be wrong for a multitude of reasons. In fact, you shot yourself in the foot there because of two key words 'for fun'. That means you exclude any other reasons one might have for raping/torturing kids. I have seen discussions where people hypothesise whether there can be reasons that justify raping/torturing kids, and those who tried the mental exercise never suggested 'for fun'.

And what if they say they did? Then what?

Then they have proven that they exist, at the very least, and that yes, there is some sort of connection between them and the person who has the cert.

Notice I can't do this with God. I've tried asking God in the past for all sorts of things, and not once did I get a reply.

My belief that God is good is based upon preponderance of the evidence..

Still contradicting yourself buddy. Remember, earlier, you claimed to not know that God is good, to not be able to explain it.

Now, if there was no God, then I would NOT believe in objective moral values, just like you don't.

I don't think that belief in objective moral values is necessarily tied to belief in God. For you maybe they look tied to you, but not for all people.

Well, you don't believe in objective moral values...so how you define "good" is entirely dependent upon you and wherever you get your moral values from.

This same problem applies to you. Meaning that you're not dealing in objective moral values at all. How FtK defines 'good' is entirely dependent upon FtK and wherever he gets his moral values from.
When FtK communicates his morals to another member of the human race, that is two people discussing their own subjective moral values (even if FtK thinks his are objective).
Also, who said I don't believe in objective moral values? What I said earlier was

and I'm not convinced by you that objective morality even exists, or that it requires a lawgiver.

I recognise the possibility for objective moral values, just that you are doing a poor job of convincing me of them.
I have an emotional desire for them, but I'm not going to let my emotions cloud my judgement. I want rape to always be wrong (I'll explain later), but simply rushing headlong into declaring a system of morals 'objective' without being able to validly explain why simply won't do.

No, I didn't. I basically said that I don't have to know everything about everything to know some things.

I'm going to come back to this a little later below, so keep reading.

Some things...not everything.

What you think is clear is not what all people think is clear, or what I think is clear. I think its clear that God in the Old Testament is a bloodthirsty warmonger. I wouldn't be surprised if you think otherwise.

Sure, believers have in-house debates all of the time. Nothing new. But regarding the Biblical subjects that WE are discussing which involves human sacrifice, that is not one of the subjects that we (believers) are in conflict with.

So I am not aware of any chapter/verse that would contradict anything that I said, and if you have it...POST IT.

Remember earlier when you said humans, if they weren't sinful, wouldn't have anything to atone for if they were to sacrifice each other? That's a reference to Adam and Eve's in in disobeying God and eating the fruit. Those Christian personalities I mentioned say that extra-terrestrials are not descendants of A&E, so Jesus's sacrifice, his atonement, wouldn't be for them.
If you disagree, this opens the door to a discussion as to whether or not sin can be inherited at all, whether Jesus had to be human at all etc.

In OTHER WORDS; I cannot verify whether, if a man kills another human being and he said "God told me to do it"...I cannot verify whether God ACTUALLY TOLD THE MAN TO DO IT OR NOT.

Okay, that's in the present day, with someone you can actually talk to, in a situation involving yourself and another human being.

So to sum it up; I cannot verify what God said or didn't say in every individual case (if any at all) of someone saying "God told me to do it".

That was the context of OUR DISCUSSION. That has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the case/argument that I can make regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ and what he (Jesus/God in the flesh) said or did.

But somehow, you're able to verify that God did indeed speak via/as Jesus Christ in a series of events 2,000 years ago?
I could've sworn that the more recent an event is, the easier it is to verify. You seem to be the exception to that 'rule', then.

I don't know...but in the animal kingdom, a lion will kill a hyena any chance it gets..which is no different than the Crips gang killing a members of the Bloods every chance they get.

Will the lion do that? Are there reasons the lion might have for killing the hyena other than 'it simply can'? What about the Bloods and the Crips? Are they naturalists? I wouldn't be surprised if there were some who where and some who were Christians.
Anyway, my question was about myself, and your implication that someone who is a naturalist should see no wrong with killing and pillaging. Well...I do see some wrong with killing and pillaging, so your implications are based on falsehoods.

But if you were out killing..nothing would be wrong with it. See?

This isn't an argument. This is an assertion and I can tell you that the assertion is incorrect. Even without trying to appeal to an objective moral value system, the situation is far from 'nothing wrong with it'. How about the fact that I'd be ending people's lives with no permission from them? Isn't that one thing 'wrong' with me going out and killing, irrespective of whether or not we're talking objective or subjective morals?

[rikuoamero]

FtK
When you claimed 'God is good' and claimed not to know that or be able explain it (maybe after posting this I'll look for your exact wording on this subject and edit it in), what happened in my mind was this. I'll try to lay it out as simply as I can.

1) FtK says of this entity, called God, that it is good.
2) Ftk says he doesn't know all of God's ways.
3) FtK says that any acts that would ordinarily look like heinous acts to us humans, God must have had a good reason to do them. He doesn't know the reason, but believes that it must be good.

I, in my mind, recall my father. Please pay attention here. I don't know if you've read earlier posts from myself in other threads where I mention this, but I will be as short and sweet as possible, because even to this day, it is still painful.
I grew up loving my father. I believed he was good. I defended him to other people. I told those other people he was good, I heavily discounted, nay even outright dismissed the possibility that he couldn't be good.
Then one day, as an adult, I discovered that he had sexually abused at least two of my sisters.

My childhood self, who crowed about my father being good, who would have admitted to not knowing everything about my father (just like you have done with regard to God) would have been unknowingly wrong.
Now, I am not going to say God is most definitely evil (not here at least). I am simply pointing out that when you say 'God is good' while at the same time admitting to not knowing all his ways, that doesn't mean that God is actually good. I have first hand experience that not knowing all about someone means that they could have a side hidden to you, a sadistic side.
For all you know, God doesn't have good reasons for the heinous acts depicted in the Bible.
You simply declaring him to be good doesn't necessarily make him so. It only weakens your position here in debate when you do so.

Because it would only be contradictory if I said "I know everything about God, but I don't know why he acted X way".

My childhood self would have said of my father 'He is good, even though I don't know everything about him' and my childhood self would still have been incorrect.
Perhaps contradictory isn't the best criticism that should have been levied at you here for this. Perhaps...unfounded is the word that should have been used?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 120 by For_The_Kingdom]


Moderator Comment

Hello For the Kingdom!! Your response, I believe, is too personal, and adds nothing to the debate. Please stick to the topics!!

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Why do you use the phrase 'possible necessary truths'?

Why not? Any of you who have ever uttered the words or pondered the thought of "Sure, God COULD exist, but that doesn't mean that he does".

I believe that a large percentage of atheists take that stance...well, when admit that God COULD exist...you are essentially saying "God's existence is possibly necessarily true".

Same thing.

The first word is superfluous. Actually, in my eyes, it muddies the meaning of the phrase.

Well, it shouldn't. If you admit that God's existence is possible...which, in my opinion, most of you did before the presentation of the argument...you are saying "God's existence is possibly necessarily true".

Again, same thing.

Something that is necessary cannot be something that has a possibility of not existing (i.e. contingent to use your wording from the MOA thread).

I agree...but what does that have to do with anything?

Run that by me one more time? Even if you define rikuoamero as necessarily existing in a preamble, just like you did with God in the MOA, somehow it is possible for this being to not exist?

Right, which means that the concept of a necessarily existing rikuoamero is internally incoherent.

Okay, let's pretend we have a section like the above where rikuoamero is defined as necessarily existing and plug that into the MOA. I'm not certain how the preamble would be worded, but you've already said in earlier comments that rikuoamero has been defined as necessarily existing.

1. It is possible that a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists

2. If it is possible that a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists, then a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in some possible world.

3. If a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a [strike]maximally great being[/strike] rikuoamero exists.

As far as I can see, the MOA if we replace the term maximally great being with my user handle or anything at all (and especially if we pre-define the noun as necessarily existing) then guess what? It necessarily exists, according to the argument.
It's still invalid, because we cheated.

It can't necessarily exist in the argument but not necessarily exist in reality.

If we gave you, rikuoamero, all of the attributes that were ascribed to the MGB in the argument, with necessary existence included...then P1 would be true as it relates to, RIKUOAMERO.

However, since P1 is FALSE as it relates to RIKUOAMERO, then it follows that simply defining rikuoa as necessary doesn't mean anything if it isn't possible for rikuoa to exist necessarily.

Nope. One does not say of Nessie or Big Foot and to quote you

such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

Completely irrelevant. You make it seem as if the term "necessary existence" has magical powers and that if anyone who is defined as such will magically become necessary.

It is just a word used to describe a concept of "failing to be otherwise". If person can define Big Foot or Nessie however they want...but the question would become; does this definition reflect reality.

And if the answer is no, then that would simply mean the definition is false/flawed.

That is what you did in your MOA thread. You wanted to present to us a logical argument that somehow proves the existence of God and before the argument was even presented, you said that the thing in question cannot fail to exist.

LOL. Funny you mention that, because lets hypothetically take God out of the equation. Lets assume that there is absolutely no God or supernatural reality whatsoever...if that were the case, wouldn't it follow that the universe exists necessarily? Meaning that natural reality, regardless of where it is, is all there is, and cannot fail to exist?

The point is simple, bruh; Look, "existence", the state of being is necessary. That does NOT mean that human beings are necessary or that certain objects are necessary...it simple means that existence, by the very definition of the word..is NECESSARY.

Something had to have always been there...and either that was God, or the universe...but something had to have always been there.

It it is based on the argument from contingency that we can conclusive say that the universe is NOT necessary in its existence...which only leaves a supernatural personal creator as the only alternative...and that is not a coincidence given the fact that P1 of the MOA is true...it is POSSIBLE that a MGB exist.

In other words...you are not treating it like an alleged being who may or may not exist. You did not allow for the possibility that it does not exist. [l/quote]

Because you see, with necessary propositions, if something is established as possibly necessarily true, then there is no possibility of it also being possibly necessarily false. They aren't on equal terms.

You stacked the deck in favour of it existing to the point where it not existing was not even allowed as a possibility.
If you say you did not do this, then I await your explanation as to where and how your MOA gives the possibility for God not existing, allows for the possibility.
I don't see that possibility.

--------
To address something you said in a previous comment that I missed

And now when I go through the trouble of actually defining terminlogy before the argument is presented...it is still a problem?

SMH.

The problem here isn't us blanketly having problems with defining terminology. The problem I had in particular was that you said you were giving us a logical argument to prove that X is Y (God exists/God is real/God has the attribute of existence) and you defined God in such a way that God already has the attribute in question before the argument is presented.
It'd be the same problem if you wanted to present a logical argument to prove that God is good, or God is the perfect judge. You cannot define the thing under consideration as already having the attribute you're discussing.
Is my car a four wheel drive? How about I define my car as a necessarily four wheel drive, and then run through an argument that 'proves' such? Wow, look at that! My car is a four wheel drive! How about that?

------

Jesus was human.

My little quips about Jesus here are to show the contradictions in your theology. Remember, it was yourself who said (post 71)

all humans are sinful

.
You did not give an exception there. So apparently, all members of the set that is labelled 'human' have this attribute 'sinful' (I'm thinking Venn diagrams here, really love set theory, so useful!).
When you were talking about how human sacrifice wasn't allowed because humans are sinful, I was quipping about Jesus not being human because that is the only way it could logically make sense for why his sacrifice was allowed i.e. he wasn't human, according to the summation of the Christian theology you gave me.
Oh you might say, he has a divine nature...that sounds like special pleading to me. You wouldn't accept a human sacrifice (and neither would I) from any other person, but this one you do accept, and the reason for it is...a reason that applies to this person and this person alone.
Is any other person divine? Can any other human be divine? If you say yes to these two, then this again is another contradiction with that earlier 'all humans are sinful'.

I read carefully what I said, and I have no IDEA how you could have drawn that conclusion based off of what I said. Straw man.

I just explained up above. I wasn't seeking to straw-man you, I was pointing out the contradiction.

He apparently had to be sacrificed, so it would only make sense if it's something he's atoning for.

You questioned this, wondering what I meant. My line of thought is...actually can't remember now. I'll have to get back to you on this line, sorry.

Unless you want to get into the realm of human A sacrificing human B to make up for something A did...but still a problem there, because in Christian theology, sin isn't necessarily anything to do with what a human actually does themselves.

You questioned this as well, and fortunately, I do remember. Whenever I discuss sin with Christian theists, I'm told its all sorts of things. I'm told by some people it's responsible for changing herbivores into carnivores, I'm told it can be inherited like genetic traits, etc.
Basically, sin doesn't necessarily have to mean 'bad thing a person does themselves'. Apparently, in Catholicism (cannot remember off the top of my head if this applies to the various Protestant sects), we inherit Original Sin and have to be baptised as children as some sort of way to deal with it, almost like the baptism is a cure for a genetically inherited disease.

In order to fully understand what it is like to buy in "bulk", you have to be part of the club (Sam's Club).

Your analogy doesn't wash, because 'buying in bulk' is an action one does. I can be someone who knows nothing about Sam's Club (something to do with Walmart, am I right? I could Google but eh...), or who doesn't believe John's claim that Sam's Club have the best prices.
In other words, it is not something I have to believe. I can test out Sam's Club by buying in bulk, while I do not have a belief in it's prices.
I cannot test out God.

Right, and unbelievers don't accept the concept of a physical hell...but just because you don't accept it doesn't mean can't/won't go, does it?

When I wrote the bit there you're replying to, I was pointing out that Jews don't believe in a conscious afterlife.

Hmm..Yet, Saul spoke to a very "conscious in the afterlife Samuel".

Another contradiction. To point out, you are not correcting me by pointing out something from the Book of Job, which is what you and I were discussing here and what I quoted from when discussing the likely beliefs an historical Job would have had, but from a different book entirely.
You have made claims that Job would have been accepting of the deaths of his first batch of children (the ones killed by Satan) because he, being a man of God, would have believed he'd see them again later in heaven. To whit, I pointed out passages from the book itself in question that depict what Job believes happens after one dies i.e., it is a place of unconscious sleep, for all. He wouldn't have believed in a conscious afterlife, a heaven and hell.
Indeed, the Samuel quote you give here doesn't actually refute my point, if read in a different way. It could be that Saul 'woke up' Samuel in that sleepy grave (called Sheol, if I remember correctly).

Right, so things like rape/torturing kids for fun isn't objectively wrong in your eyes...gotcha.

Not what I said. I believe raping/torturing kids for fun to be wrong for a multitude of reasons. In fact, you shot yourself in the foot there because of two key words 'for fun'. That means you exclude any other reasons one might have for raping/torturing kids. I have seen discussions where people hypothesise whether there can be reasons that justify raping/torturing kids, and those who tried the mental exercise never suggested 'for fun'.

And what if they say they did? Then what?

Then they have proven that they exist, at the very least, and that yes, there is some sort of connection between them and the person who has the cert.

Notice I can't do this with God. I've tried asking God in the past for all sorts of things, and not once did I get a reply.

My belief that God is good is based upon preponderance of the evidence..

Still contradicting yourself buddy. Remember, earlier, you claimed to not know that God is good, to not be able to explain it.

Now, if there was no God, then I would NOT believe in objective moral values, just like you don't.

I don't think that belief in objective moral values is necessarily tied to belief in God. For you maybe they look tied to you, but not for all people.

Well, you don't believe in objective moral values...so how you define "good" is entirely dependent upon you and wherever you get your moral values from.

This same problem applies to you. Meaning that you're not dealing in objective moral values at all. How FtK defines 'good' is entirely dependent upon FtK and wherever he gets his moral values from.
When FtK communicates his morals to another member of the human race, that is two people discussing their own subjective moral values (even if FtK thinks his are objective).
Also, who said I don't believe in objective moral values? What I said earlier was

and I'm not convinced by you that objective morality even exists, or that it requires a lawgiver.

I recognise the possibility for objective moral values, just that you are doing a poor job of convincing me of them.
I have an emotional desire for them, but I'm not going to let my emotions cloud my judgement. I want rape to always be wrong (I'll explain later), but simply rushing headlong into declaring a system of morals 'objective' without being able to validly explain why simply won't do.

No, I didn't. I basically said that I don't have to know everything about everything to know some things.

I'm going to come back to this a little later below, so keep reading.

Some things...not everything.

What you think is clear is not what all people think is clear, or what I think is clear. I think its clear that God in the Old Testament is a bloodthirsty warmonger. I wouldn't be surprised if you think otherwise.

Sure, believers have in-house debates all of the time. Nothing new. But regarding the Biblical subjects that WE are discussing which involves human sacrifice, that is not one of the subjects that we (believers) are in conflict with.

So I am not aware of any chapter/verse that would contradict anything that I said, and if you have it...POST IT.

Remember earlier when you said humans, if they weren't sinful, wouldn't have anything to atone for if they were to sacrifice each other? That's a reference to Adam and Eve's in in disobeying God and eating the fruit. Those Christian personalities I mentioned say that extra-terrestrials are not descendants of A&E, so Jesus's sacrifice, his atonement, wouldn't be for them.
If you disagree, this opens the door to a discussion as to whether or not sin can be inherited at all, whether Jesus had to be human at all etc.

In OTHER WORDS; I cannot verify whether, if a man kills another human being and he said "God told me to do it"...I cannot verify whether God ACTUALLY TOLD THE MAN TO DO IT OR NOT.

Okay, that's in the present day, with someone you can actually talk to, in a situation involving yourself and another human being.

So to sum it up; I cannot verify what God said or didn't say in every individual case (if any at all) of someone saying "God told me to do it".

That was the context of OUR DISCUSSION. That has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the case/argument that I can make regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ and what he (Jesus/God in the flesh) said or did.

But somehow, you're able to verify that God did indeed speak via/as Jesus Christ in a series of events 2,000 years ago?
I could've sworn that the more recent an event is, the easier it is to verify. You seem to be the exception to that 'rule', then.

I don't know...but in the animal kingdom, a lion will kill a hyena any chance it gets..which is no different than the Crips gang killing a members of the Bloods every chance they get.

Will the lion do that? Are there reasons the lion might have for killing the hyena other than 'it simply can'? What about the Bloods and the Crips? Are they naturalists? I wouldn't be surprised if there were some who where and some who were Christians.
Anyway, my question was about myself, and your implication that someone who is a naturalist should see no wrong with killing and pillaging. Well...I do see some wrong with killing and pillaging, so your implications are based on falsehoods.

But if you were out killing..nothing would be wrong with it. See?

This isn't an argument. This is an assertion and I can tell you that the assertion is incorrect. Even without trying to appeal to an objective moral value system, the situation is far from 'nothing wrong with it'. How about the fact that I'd be ending people's lives with no permission from them? Isn't that one thing 'wrong' with me going out and killing, irrespective of whether or not we're talking objective or subjective morals?

[Bust Nak]

It is just one of those things, ya know.

The topic could be moved if you like.

There you go with the empirical evidence stuff again. SMH.

Well, empirical evidence is rather important to me, I don't know why you would shake your head at that.

But you see, on naturalism, there is no....

Um, never mind...

I want to know, on naturalism, there is no what? There is no rules that conflict with other people's rights? Sure. No Tooth Fairies? Maybe?

Figured as much.

Glad to help confirm that particular speculation.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

Thanks For_The_Kingdom for your questions. As a former evangelical Christian, I cannot think badly about Christians. After all, there was something in their message that took me in and kept me for fifteen years. I respect every person's right to worship God or not to worship god. I do get a little perturbed with dogmatic fundamentalists who will not even investigate alternative views. To me, that's too much like a cult. It's a little scary to see so many good people buying into the mind control. So, when I pass a church parking lot full of cars I miss my former friends in church but I neither disparage them nor envy them, I'm just happy that coming out has freed me to think for myself. Life has more meaning now. Life is good.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

Thanks For_The_Kingdom for your questions. As a former evangelical Christian, I cannot think badly about Christians. After all, there was something in their message that took me in and kept me for fifteen years. I respect every person's right to worship God or not to worship god. I do get a little perturbed with dogmatic fundamentalists who will not even investigate alternative views. To me, that's too much like a cult. It's a little scary to see so many good people buying into the mind control. So, when I pass a church parking lot full of cars I miss my former friends in church but I neither disparage them nor envy them, I'm just happy that coming out has freed me to think for myself. Life has more meaning now. Life is good.

That's a good way to see things, amortalman. I attended a church service this morning -my boyhood church in fact - for the funeral of a childhood friend. I have absolutely no doubt that sincerity, comfort and consolation were all packed into the pews and the poor coffin was surrounded by human love. I remembered a little boy making his first communion there and realised what a long journey I had made.

Were those days of Christian faith bad? Not at all; they were milestones on a journey. And if this assembly of faith supports those who had lost my one-time school-friend, amen to that. I am sure that if God is peeping out of the winter clouds, he will forgive my blindness or reward my willingness to make my own assessments.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

The only real difference between belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy and belief in God and Jesus is that children are expected to, nudge-nudge wink-wink, catch on that these things are not realistic. Not God though. God is real, and you are supposed to continue believing in God and Jesus. In all logic and reason however, there is very little obvious difference in believing that Santa has a team of flying reindeer, and believing that Jesus came back from the dead and then flew away.

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

You could drive past a Muslim Mosque or a Hindu temple and see roughly the same thing. Statistically non belief is the fastest growing intellectual discipline in the US, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. Currently roughly 70% of the American population subscribes to some form of Christianity. Twenty years ago that figure was about 90%. What exactly do these figures prove?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

What do you think of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Jainists, etc? In fact, what do you think of the devoted believers of past religions that have now gone extinct? "Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?"

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

Something like that. I was raised Christian but stopped believing it when I was 13 for no better reason than it became apparent to me that Christianity is too silly to be viable. I wasn't angry at anyone. It was like losing faith in the Easter bunny. Once you recognize that it is a silly notion you drop it and move on. I just considered it a part of growing up.