GOD IS DEAD

The word "meaning" itself implies subjectivity. The Universe has only what "meaning" we subjectively choose to ascribe to it, just as with our own individual lives. There is nothing suggesting that the Universe has any objective "purpose" of any sort, and likewise with our own existence.A creator deity could certainly have created the Universe for its own "purpose," but there is no evidence of such a thing. And insisting that God must exist else the Universe have no meaning is the very definition of an Appeal to Consequence fallacy on top of a Non Sequitur - a personally unpleasant result has no bearing on the veracity of an argument, and God/No God does not necessarily have any bearing on whether the Universe has "meaning" or not.Certainly I find meaning and purpose in my own life without presupposing the existence of a deity. I highly value learning and acquiring knowledge for its own sake, as well as improving the standards of living for myself and my loved ones as well as anyone else I'm able to help. I find these to be more than adequate answers to the questions "what is the meaning of my life" and "what is my purpose in life."I don't require the very existence of the Universe to have any purpose or meaning, of course (since such a thing is not necessary for the Universe to exist), so the prospect of the Universe in fact not having any objective meaning (I cringe at the oxymoron "objective meaning")or purpose doesn't really bother me.

Incorrect. There is nothing about the lack of any objective "purpose" for humanity that runs counter to logic.All it runs coutner to is the basic human desire to be "special." It's not logical, it's a subjective emotional delusion of grandeur that we all unfortunately have.The fact is, we are no more significant to the Universe than our constituent matter. We are imperceptibly tiny and irrelevant in teh grand scheme of things. Our species will contine to live and die, and absolutely nothing we ever do will ever stop the expansion of teh Universe or change the orbits of solar systems around the galactic center. Stars will continue to form, burn brightly, and die, and the Universe as a whole will never even notice that we were ever here.Is that depressing? Maybe. Certainly, to some. But when you say it "runs counter to human logic," you are assuming that human emotional responses are somehow rooted in rationality. They are not. Don't mistake the human desire to be significant for actual objective significance, or even a reason that such should exist.As for your claims that nobody understands what you're saying, I'm pretty sure we do, we're just mentioning that the only "purpose" and "meaning" that do exist are those that we define for ourselves. We know that's not what you're talking about, but it's still relavent to the discussion. Particularly a discussion where the religiopusly-minded frequently make arguments that God must exist so that we do have a "purpose," which is a blatant appeal to consequence.

Funny how you say that, and yet I see Stile and Kuresu saying things that are remarkably similar to what I said.And of course your ranting about hedonism is irrelevant. Hedonism is the persuit of maximum personal pleasure for its own sake with no additional considerations. This is an entirely different ethical framework from what Stile described. They do not constitute hedonsim, Agobot. Not at all. One can derive joy from meeting one's ethical goals without being hedonistic. Christians who give to the poor frequently find that they feel joy at doing so - does this make them hedonists? Devoutly religious people express joy during worship services - are they, too, hedonists?Let's paint a few scenarios here:1) John lives his life to the fullest. Every scrap of money earns, he spends to have fun. He refuses to stay tied down in a single relationship, instead having frequent sex with as many people as possible because he enjoys the experience. He doesn't care who he hurts, or whether anyone else is having as much fun as he - for him, the purpose of his life is to maximize his personal pleasure with no further considerations.2) Tom seeks education and knowledge throughout his life, beleiving that education is a virtue for its own sake and ignorance a waste of life. He also believes it's important to live responsibly, and with consideration for the people around him. As such, he leads a well-balanced life devoid of any radical expenditures, takes reasonable vacations, and tries to maximize the love in his life, including friends, family, and basic human empathy for the betterment of everyone. He finds that leading such a balanced and positive lifestyle gives him great joy.By your standards, Agobot, both John and Tom are hedonists, becasue they are both "motivated by joy." It's pretty clear that this is not the case, however - Tom may derive joy from his life, but that's not the sole definition of hedonism. Further, the joy he receives is not his motivation. He feels joy as a result of living what he beleives to be a responsible, ethical, and positive life. For a hedonist like John, the feelings of pleasure are the only goal, and the actions he takes are simply a means to that end. Further, "joy" and "pleasure" are different thing - or do you really beleive there is no difference between feeling joy at having improved the life of a loved one and feeling pleasure from having sex?Do you see the difference? I think it's pretty clear.Obviously, this has little to do with any universal "purpose," but then you were the one who called Stile a hedonist. The remainder of the threads derailment was a series of attempts to show you that you were incorrect in your assessment.Personal "purpose" and "meaning" may not be the topic you had in mind, but they are the answer to the question "why am I here?", and that question is what you were attempting to answer with a grand universal "purpose" in the first place. The fact that you're disappointed that there is no grand "purpose" from a higher power is simply an emotional reaction on your part and not in any way related to logic, reason, or reality.

As a former Theist, I feel a least somewhat qualified to answer this.While I had a deep faith and was wholly convinced of my beliefs, the teachings of my religion were never my reason for living. Certainly I believed God had a purpose for me, but as I had no way of knowing what that purpose was until it could be fulfilled, there was no real difference from having no purpose at all.I felt many things when I considered Atheists before I deconverted myself. Mostly it was personal incredulity at not believing in God, whom I was certain existed.I never thought that I would behave in a less ethical manner with or without God - I believed that God wanted us to do the right thing because it was the right thing, not out of fear of punishment, hope for reward, or just because he said so.As far as the "bleakness" of existence without a deity or the promise of an eternal afterlife...honestly, by the time I was ready to even consider renouncing my faith, I had learned to accept the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be. I'm a pragmatist. If there is no afterlife, well...nonexistence sure beats eternal torture. I'd like to live forever in paradise, who wouldn't, but I'm just not the type to "scream in horror" or become suicidal at the thought that eventually I will no longer exist, or that I may have to simply define my own purpose rather than having it dictated to me.I did not lose any driving force for living - I rather enjoy my life and being me. I suppose if I had lower self-esteem and my self-worth was entirely dependant on my religion (and I can't even conceive of how that would happen with me, even when I was extremely religious) that I may have had some trouble. Through my deconversion (and it was a slow process - I was still very much a Theist when I joined here) I felt more distressed at how I had unthinkingly believed whatever I was told without ever demanding a bit of evidence. I had never really applied critical thinking to my faith or examined it objectively as an outsider before, and the results of doing so made me feel ashamed to have ever bought into the scam. I felt (and still do) a bit angry at my family for basically brainwashing me into a belief system before I was able to make my own choice, and at the same time I felt (and still do) fear about what my family would think (there's a high chance my parents would disown me) if they found out I no longer believed in God.My motivations in life really haven't changed at all. Increasing knowledge, being generally good to people, none of that changed because I had never needed a deity to tell me to behave ethically in the first place. The same joy I found in life before losing my faith still exists in the form of friends and family and hobbies.It's an odd experience to de-convert. It's both Earth-shatteringly life-changing, and no difference at all at the same time.

I think it's interesting to note that I found the prospect of losing faith to be just as horrible as Bertot while I was a believer.The actual process of deconversion, once I was actually ready to give up faith in favor of an objective worldview (and I really think it's a matter of being ready - religious conviction is extremely resistant to critical self-examination), was quite simply not nearly as bad as I had thought it would be.

I was a very strongly-believing Congregationalist Protestant Christian. At its strongest point, I believed the Bible to be the literal Word of God - I simply never even thought to compare what I learned in science classes with what the Bible said until later. I was brought up in a devout Midwestern family. One of my grandfathers was a teacher and later administrator at a Christian private school in Michigan. I was read Bible stories instead of fairy tales at bedtime. I read the Bible on my own outside of church relatively frequently.I knew that God existed, I believed that I could feel his presence, prayed daily (not just erciting prayer, but frequent "speaking to God"), and believed that Jesus had died for my sins and risen on the third day.If someone had confronted me back then about not believing in God, my response would have been one of incredulity and ridicule. My beliefs changed over time. Through my teenage years I encountered more moral questions - I had a friend who was not Christian, and I had to ask my parents if he and his family would really go to Hell despite being no better or worse morally than any of us simply because he didn't have the same religion. My first girlfriend was Jewish, which raised similar questions. Gradually I began to interpret the Bible both through the text itself and by faith in the goodness of God. I rationalized that God wouldn't damn people who had never even heard of the Bible as that would be unjust, and I believed he would similarly not condemn people on no more basis than faith if they were good people. I used the same rationalization for all of the myriad sects of Christianity.As I got older I continued to become less and less of a literalist. I took the literal 6-day Creation and re-interpreted it as 6 non-literal days to conform with an old Earth. I still believed in the Flood (I hadn't thought about it from a skeptical perspective, and readily accepted the various claims of finding Noah's Ark on a mountain in Turkey that, gosh darn it, the Turkish government just wouldn't let us explore). I believed the basic order of Creation described in Genesis was compatible with evolution, and that science explored the "how" of God's work and expanded upon the simpler understandings of the Biblical authors, to whom concepts like evolution or modern astronomy simply wouldn't make sense. I saw a more ignorant point of view from a less knowledgeable generation instead of direct contradictions with science.Other things beyond attempting to reconcile the Bible and science played a part. In Jr. High, a group of friends and I were on a school trip to Boston and were approached by a Buddhist selling books. We were all interested in mythology and other religions, so we all pitched in and bought it. Immediately after stepping away, a rather crazy-looking man came up to us and said "you boys know you're wasting your time with that garbage, right?" and promptly shoved Chick tracts into our hands. His vehement derision of another person's faith, as well as the fire-and-brimstone Chick tract (an approach I was unfamiliar with and which made me extremely uncomfortable - the idea of frightening and threatening people into "believing" ran compeltely counter to the good, benevolent, wise, forgiving God I believed in) seriously disturbed me, and I think it laid some of the seeds for questioning my own faith. Ironic, wasn't it?My grandfather (the Christian educator) also began to grow old and started to lose his health. He became ever more zealous, once shouting at me and my cousins for playing "that Devil's game" again (dungeons and dragons, of course). We argued with him a bit, and he relented to a more simple "well, it's not a Christian game." I remember being ready to remind him that his addiction to Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and various card games were not Christian games either, but didn't say anything. He told my aunt and uncle that their family was going to Hell, despite the fact that their almost daily assistance was the only reason he was still able to live relatively independantly. The results of his religious conviction and judgmental attitude seriously disturbed and offended me.Years later, as an adult and being the general nerdy intellectual type I am, I stumbled upon this site as well as another one (CreationTheory.Org: Creationism vs Science) that first really introduced me to examining my beliefs with a critical eye.If you look at my posts when I first joined here, I was still a relatively liberal Christian.At that point I realized that faith was not a rational thing, but a blind belief. I had nothing but subjective, personal experiences to confirm what I read in teh Bible. I still believed, but considered it a choice at that point, because Christianity "worked for me." I still beleived I could feel God's presence, and still beleived the Bible was true if not a literal account of events. I can speak only for myself, but as I said I never once examined my beliefs from a critical point of view until relatively recently. I accepted the Bible and my beliefs unquestioningly, and when conflicts presented themselves I "smoothed things over" by interpretation rather than objectively determining whether any of my beliefs had any basis in the first place.When a skeptic hears about the Genesis account where teh Sun is created after light and day, for example, or the Jesus account where God basically sacrifices himself to himself to atone for a rule he made in the first place, and that only by believing that this happened does the sacrifice actually apply, and that Jesus atoned for all of mankind's sins over the three days he was dead, it sounds utterly ridiculous.When a believer hears it, especially one who's been told all of this is true and factual literally from as soon as he can comprehend the words, is somehow makes perfect sense.The real critical examination is not an incredulity test, however, but a test of evidence. As I read criticisms of Biblical accuracy and saw how the "reinterpretations" I had used didn't support the Bible with any more evidence, and that many of the claims (the Flood, Exodus) have either no outside evidence to support them at all, or are completely contradicted by the evidence we do see.I had never thought critically of my own beliefs before. When I did so, the result was a compelte change in my thinking. To this I'd say that the author is making an argument from personal incredulity. He claims the mere existence of the Earth and sky somehow prove that there is a God - that's of course not true at all. He believes that the Earth and sky were created by God, but his beleifs are not evidence. If your only argument is "wow, gee, that's incredible, ergo God" then you don't have an arguemnt at all. And yet even those who do worshp the Christian God can be homosexuals, and many are. It's plainly refuted by asimple observations of reality. Homosexuality is frequently observed in nature as well. There is no reason to accept that homosexuality is a "sin" or negative activity at all beyond the say-so of the Biblical author, so all of his ranting about "vile and shameful" acts are no more than a "yuck! that's icky!" argument that betrays his biogtry towards people different from himself. Heterosexual Christians also are isolent, proud, boastful and backstabbing. They can even be murderers and thieves and liars and general assholes as much as non-Christians and gays and anyone else. Homosexuality does not result in any of these things directly any more than heterosexuality does, so the author is frankly talking out of his bigoted ass. The only argument that homosexuals "deserve to die" is "God said so," not a reason why such acts are immoral, and since the author can't even provide decent evidence of God's existence, it comes down to "because I said so."The ethical system of the Bible is an authoritarian one, where the authority is always "good" regardless of any contradictory actions and statements and no reasoning is used to determine good from bad beyond "I said so." As an ethical system it can work (the 10 Commandments, or at least the don't steal, murder, lie, etc ones, work decently enough), but it has the significant flaw of allowing re-interpretations of the authoritative text to say compeltely different moral statements, as well as allowing any contradictory statements or bigotry and bias on behalf of the authors to spawn results like Fred Phelps who thinks gays should all be executed.I don't like that system, because in concert with the Bible it has been used to justify the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the treatment of the native Americans, slavery, and other things that modern Christians (most, anyway) would also agree are totally unethical and even evil. Any time, though I wonder at your reason for using the specific passages you did, in particular verse 21 onward. 19-20 I understand, but the others were more gay-bashing exerpts that don't seem to me to have much relavence to the topic beyond coming sequencially after two verses that were relavent.

Oh, for crying out loud!This whole argument is ridiculous. The value of a calling is entirely subjective. A calling generated by an authority figure, regardless of the identity of the authority figure, os not objectively "higher" or "lower" than a self-determined purpose.Just look at the words you two keep throwing around: "higher" and "lower."It's all subjective personal opinion based on your own values. Is "peace" more or less valuable than "love?" Is "anger" better or worse than "self-righteousness?" Is feeding the hungry a "higher" or "lower" calling than sheltering the homeless or cleaning water in undeveloped countries or providing medical care?If you really think there's an objective difference in the inherant value of a purpose due to the presence of a deity with a lightning bolt to your head, then clearly I can give you a "higher purpose" simply by forcing you to do something at gunpoint, as well.You've been going back and forth over this for days now, typically with Agobot shouting something retarded in all caps like "THIS ISN'T FOR YOU" and insisting that somehow a deity creates a "higher" purpose by default without explaining why (with the exception of this latest "might makes right" argument).Is it really so difficult to see that the value of a purpose, whether self-defined, defined by society, or defined by an authority figure, is subjective and compeltely based on the opnions and values of the individual? You can argue this until the thread fills up and start a new one and never gain any ground simply because value is inherantly not objective.

Are you kidding me? I am a former Theist. I understand very well why some theists hold God "higher" than everything else (other theists accept that morality is separate from God as opposed to defining morality as "whatever God says," but that's not the topic). It doesn't make them right.There is no objective reason to define one set of values as "higher" or "lower." The source of those values is similarly irrelevant. I see you ignored my counter to your "might makes right" argument - so let's reiterate.You posit that a purpose defined by God is "higher" than mortal-defined purposes becasue "God is more powerful." You specifically referred to God being able to defeat Stile in a fight.This means that power and strength define "higher" and "lower" purposes. Literally, if I hold a gun to your head, any purpoae I dictate to you now carries a "higher" value than if I had simply stated that I have defined that very same purpose for myself.That's utterly stupid. By that standard, the values themselves are irrelevant, and only the authority of the entity dictating the purpose matters.And while God's existence or nonexistence would be objective if it were provable either way, the objective existence of God is irrelevant, just as the objective existence or nonexistence of a gun to your head. Irrelevant, Agobot. The strength of authority is not relavent to the value of a given purpose. If you think ti is, explain why. Expect mockery if you bring up your "might makes right" argument again. The fact that many religious people hold this opinion is similarly irrelevant to whether a purpose from God vs a self-defined purpose has an intrinsically "higher" or "lower" value - it's a simple appeal to popularity. You're an idiot, Agobot. Educating myself and understanding the viewpoint of theists? I was a theist for over 20 years! I'm pretty fucking sure I understand where they're coming from! THat I don't agree with them and that I think their viewpoint is bollocks doesn't mean I don't comprehend it, you simpleminded twit!You've just done the equivalent of telling an AIDS patient they should educate themselves about the lives of people with AIDS and understand their viewpoints. More idiocy. Again, I am a former theist! I used to be a Christian. I understand compeltely the many arguments and reasonings Christians and other theists use to posit that there can be no higher purpose than that which is dictated by God - I simply think that argumetn is utter bullshit becasue it requires that might makes right, and that means values espoused by anyone with more strength inherantly are "higher" than identical vaulues held by those who are weaker. Is the US morally superior to England because we have more nuclear weapons? Because that's the line of reasoning you're using, and it's absolutely stupid. Fuck off, moron. I haven't once posited in this thread that "God is a bastard." I simply stated that (granting his existence for this argument) his power is irrelevant to the value of any purpose he may assign. I've made no assertion whatsoever to the morality of any God, I've simply stated that the value of any purpose regardless of the source is inherantly subjective.Further, I'm intimately aware of exactly what theists feel regarding the prospect of God not existing, as well as all of the experiences that go along with actually deconverting and accepting that no gods likely exist because I've personally been through it all. I'm quite capable of standing in their shoes, because those shoes used to be mine.Apparently according to you nobody can comprehend another viewpoint unless they agree with it, or at least give it some sort of validity. That just on top of your insipid assertion that power somehow brings an objectively "higher" purpose for no other reason than might makes right. Spare me the martyr routine. If you don't want to debate, feel free to stop posting. So long as you remain on a debate forum, expect to be called out when you say something wrong, and especially something outright stupid. Like asserting a former theist might not comprehend the viewpoint of theists!The value of any purpose regardless of the source is inherantly subjective, even assuming the objective existence of a deity. Even the words "higher" and "lower" require subjectivity - "Higher" or "lower" than what?! They're relative values!
This entire argument is utterly ridiculous because there is no objective reason "peace" or "worshipping god" or any other purpose whatsoever is "higher" or "lower" than any others. There is nothing here beyond personal subjective value assignments - in your case, agreeing with theists that might makes right and so God carries the "highest" purpose, which is nothing more than your own subjective opinion.

I know you do. And few peopkle around here are as blunt as I am when I'm annoyed You've gotten your point across to me, and I'm sure others. I'm not sure why Agobot can't seem to get it, but then perhaps that latest argument should be all the explanation I need.Agobot seems to be a very depressed nonbeliever, who really, really wishes he could still believe in a God because he felt that the existence of a deity gave him a "higher purpose" and a more fulfilling life. It's why he makes topics like this to explore the impact of realizing gods are unlikely to exist.

So, what content did you provide in this response, aside to attacking my age and repeating yourself?Despite my...heated tone...in my previous post, I explained myself. You angered me by insisting that I, who used to be a theist, do not understand how theists think.That's like saying a physicist doesn't understand basic physics.It's like saying an AIDS patient doesn't know what it's like to have AIDS.It is, almost literally, telling a Christian they don't know what it's like to beleive in God.It's stupid, and offensive.I know exactly how theists think of God - and it's not as uniform as you imply. Some sects view morality as "higher" than God (God does things because they are good), and others think God is higher than morality (things are good because God does them). It's just further evidence that any value assigned to a purpose is purely subjective. It's opinion. It's neither right nor wrong. It's not objective.I understand that to some theists the pospect of God not existing actually means there is no reason to be ethical, there are no values, nothing matters, and all is lost. To these people God is apparently the only thing standing between them and hedonism or nihilism.Not all theists are like that, of course. Those who believe God does things because they are good as opposed to believing thigns are good becasue God does them already accept that morality exists independantly of any deity, and these people realize that the absence of a deity is no reason to suddenly conclude that nothing matters any more.When actually losing their faith, my own experiences show me that most people from either camp eventually wind up finding a moral code relatively similar to that which they followed while being religious, minus the authority figure. I've never known of a newly-deconverted Atheist who suddenly lost all concept of morality, even if that had been a fear while believing in God. Like I said when describing my own deconversion, it's not as bad to lose faith in the ways that theists think it would be. There is no gaping wound or empty spot in my life, simply acceptence of objective reality. I still have a moral code, and its value (to me, because obviously my own moral code can have no value to anyone else) is no less than it was before I lost my faith. I explained myself in that post, Agobot. You simply seem to not see it. Stile has explained it many times, as well.The definition of a God as "higher" than everything else is a subjective one. Not all those who believe in deities agree that God is the supreme dictator of morality. Most agree that he is good, but as I said, there is disagreement over whether God is good because he behaves in a moral fashion, or if anything is good if God says so. There's a pretty big difference. In the first case, God wouldn't commit murder because murder is wrong. In the second case, committing murder could be good or bad depending on whether you had God's sanction. Biblical literalists, particularly those who focus on the Old Testament, tend to be in the latter group (there are many examples of God ordering actions that are immoral even by his own standards, so morality has to be based on the authority of God, or else God cannot be good when he contradicts his own commandments).If one person beleives that there is no higher calling than love, and another beleives that there is no higher calling than the dictates of their deity, there is no objective difference between the two. They are subjective values. Each has their own opinion, and different ways of justifiying their personal, subjective opinions on the value of ideals that wouldn't be valid for the other.You keep saying that I'm expecting theists to accept that a purpose dictated by God is "lower" than other ideals, but that's not what I've been saying at any point in this thread. It isn't what Stile has been saying, either.I'm saying that it's silly to argue about what particular ideal is "highest" (God, love, peace, whatever) because each individual will have a different subjective opinion of which of those ideals is higher than the others. If you made a list of 1000 ideals and asked 10,000 people to rank each one by the relative value of each ideal, you'd receive different responses on each. To me, obviously "God" is of a low value because I don't think he exists. To Theist A, God may be number 1 on the list. To Theist B, God may be number 2 or even 3, following whatever Theist B thuinks is more important than God.It's all subjective and defined by personal opinion, Agobot. To insist otherwise is to delude yourself. I don't require anything of them. Why are you insisting that theists must value God higher than love or peace? I guarantee you, there are theists who value other things above God, just as there are theists who value God above all else.It's subjective, Agobot. This entire argument over what ideals are "higher" than others is pointless becasue ultimately all such values are subjective and based on personal values and opinions.

(sigh)Wrong. So wholly, compeltely wrong as to be astounding.The ancient Greeks had an entire pantheon full of gods that were not omnianything. In fact, they were frequently regarded as amoral bastards. They weren't all-powerful, they weren't considered "higher" than mortals in any way beyond their power.There are many religions that don't define God the way you are defining God.Not even all Christians define God in the same way you do. As I said in my response, there are two groups of Christians with regard to God and morality - Group A thinks that God defines morality, so anything GOd says and does is good even if it's self-contradictory. The second group believes that God obeys morality.Group A would think that it's perfectly okay to murder a child if God orders you to.Group B would say that God would never ever order so monstrously immoral.You seem to agree with Group A, that God is by definition the highest authority possible.But Group B disagrees, and thinks that while God may be the highest authority, he is not higher than the ideals he values. Group B would say that love or peace, etc are in fact the highest ideals, and that humanity should strive to meet them to the degree that God does.You can't group "the religious" as a single unit in very many things, Agobot. I'm rather surprised you would think you can - they can't agree on how many gods exist, or the identity of god, or the values and characteristics of a given god, or even the gods exist at all (you can't forget those new-agey types who are "spiritual" and have religion despite not having an actual deity). How can you possibly say that "all religious people define god as x?"You're concluding that God is always considered "above" any other ideal by all religious people when that is demonstrably false. The flaw in your argument is your insistence on sweeping generalizations that simply are not accurate.Your argument is along the lines of "all white people are Republicans, so of course they favor personal responsibility over socialist policies," when obviously not all white people are actually Republican, and neither do all Republicans adhere to the same values.I can even use examples from here at EvC. We have many theists here, ranging from hardcore Biblical literalists like Buzsaw, NJ, ICANT, and Iano, to more liberal theists like Bluejay, Percy, and otehrs I'm sure I'm forgetting (and I would have been int he camp with Percy and Bluejay when I was a theist). I can't really speak for them, but by their posts I would posit that the literalists would believe that nothing is higher than God, and that he defines morality. Whatever he says is good, is good, even if that changes over time. If God says to kill someone, then that murder would be good by definition becasue it was on the orders of God. The non-literalists like Bluejay or Percy (or my a couple of years ago) would say that God would never order a person to be killed because God follows the ideals of morality and obeys his own commandments. Clearly non-literalists would value morality higher than God and the literalists the opposite. Obviously "the religious" do not all agree, as you claim they do.Let's analyze your argument further, Agobot: Does Omni-benevolent mean that benevolent actions are defined as "anything God does," or does God simply only perform benevolent acts?If God commands us to spread love (love thy neighbor and all that), then is spreading love benevolent because God commands it, or does God command it becasue it is benevolent?Your "omni-" argument doesn't really make an argument at all, Agobot. We're still left with the same questions as before.And the answer is the same one Stile and I have given you: value is subjective. Some people, religious or not, will value things above God. Some will not. It's all based on subjective, personal opinions and values.

As I've said multiple times now, I have required nothing of religious people in this thread. Not once. If you beleive I'm "forcing my opinion," quote where I do so.I have never made any statement regarding what a religious person should or should not believe. I have simply made statements regarding what some religious people do believe.For someone who instantly jumps to telling people they lack reading comprehension skills, Agobot, you really need to pick some up for yourself.So once again: Not all religious people view god in the same way. Some do value God above any concept of morality and believe that God's dictates constitute morality. Other religious people believe that God holds himself perfectly to the standard of good and we should strive to duplicate his efforts. In the first, God would be valued higher than "love" or whatever. In the second group, "love" and other ideals could be considered "higher" and separate from God.It's all subjective, and arguing about how God is or is not objectively higher is foolhardy when nothing in this discussion has been objective at all. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you'll get it:

quote:

---

And the answer is the same one Stile and I have given you: value is subjective. Some people, religious or not, will value things above God. Some will not. It's all based on subjective, personal opinions and values.

---

It's not just me, either - Stile has been saying the same thing the entire time. You have been the only one forcing your opinions on the religious be claiming that all religious people must believe that God is higher than any other ideal. I'm not even sure how you came up with that argument in a world with so many thousands of religions that obviously don't agree on much of anything.

The point is that might does not make right. Just becasue someone is stronger than you does not mean his values and ideals are better than yours. He may be able to force you to accept them, but that still doesn't make them "better."The "winner" is irrelevant. "Power" is irrelevant.During the Holocaust, many non-Jews were sent to the camps for a variety of reasons, including nonsupport of the Party and religious reasons. The German government was obviously stronger than all of those sent to the camps, and their strength didn't make their value of racial purity more right.To further the example, many of those sent to the camps for non-racial reasons were given a choice - renounce your beliefs/opposition/whatever, conform to the desires of the State, and you can go free. Many Jehovah's Witnesses held their ideals higher than their own lives and chose to remain rather than renounce their faith. Many other people (JWs or otherwise) readily valued human life above ideals like God and renounced their faith.Many Nazis and collaborators likely valued their own lives above everythign else and participated knowingly in the Nazi system of oppression and genocide for fear of personal reprisals, regardless of religious convictions.The "strength" of the Nazi government was irrelevant. The fact that they were more powerful than the Jews, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or anyone else in the camps didn't have any relavence to whether the Nazi value system was better than the value systems of those they massacred.In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses provide another insight into your analasys of human values. JW doctrine forbids the use of blood transfusions or other blood-based medical treatments, even at the cost of their own lives.Some JWs value God higher than everything else, and have given their lives for their convictions. Many have even allowed their own children to die rather than receive a simply lifesaving blood transfusion (we can dscuss how horrific and deplorable that is in a different thread).Other JWs value their children or their own lives above the teachings of their religion, and do accept and allow blood transfusions.Clearly, even within a single Christian sect there are differences in opinion regarding whether God is valued "higher" or "lower" than other ideals.So once again, it is observable factual that value systems are inherantly subjective, and are based not upon the dictates of Agobot, Wikipedia, or even religious leaders, but are instead based on personal opinions. Arguing that God is inherantly valued "higher" than anything else by all theists is demonstrably false.

So your standard of comparison is personal credulity. Wow. Way to go. Not by itself, no. But if you can't produce an objective difference between Zig-Zog and the Christian God, then they are clearly equivalent.For example, the Muslim God, the Hindu gods, and teh Christian God all seem to have similar popularity, and all have existed for a long time with supporting religious texts.What's the objective difference? I mean, aside fromt he specific doctrines, what differenciates Allah from Yahweh from Krishna or Kali? You claim the Christian deity is the "true" one, but what's the objective difference? That the Bible is "different" from the others? Irrelevant - the nature of a religious text proves nothing on its own. So far as the Bible is concerned, there's nothing differenciating it from any other collection of works of fiction or ancient mythology.If we cannot tell objectively that the Yahweh exists any more than we can tell that Kali or Allah exist, then the evidence for their existence is equivalent. But to say they are all likely made up is simple sense, for the same reason I'll say that Zig-Zog is likely made up until his existence is supported by evidence. I can't prove Zig-Zog or Yahweh or Allah or Kali do not exist, because I cannot prove a negative. Neither do I claim that they positively do not exist. I simply claim that they are not likely to exist, or at least that they are no more likely to exist than any other entity whose existence is supported by no objective evidence. The fact that fairies, goblins, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zig-Zog, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn all fall under the "unsupported by evidence" category along with Thor, Zeus, Odin, Isis, Ra, Jupiter, Quetzalcoatl, and yes, Yahweh, Allah, and Kali is reason enough for me to say that none likely exist.The burden of proof, after all, is on the one making the assertion that an entity does exist. The default position is tentative disbelief, unless you readily accept the existence of all entities that can be imagined from any religion or child's imagination until someone disproves their existence by proving a negative. Well, there was no reason to believe the Earth was round until evidence was discovered that it is, in fact, round. One can hardly fault ancients who didn't have the technology or mathematical skills to either travel around the Earth or measure the visible curvature and extrapolate from there.That's why the default position is tentative disbelief. It doesn't make sense to simply believe any and every idea put forth. But it does make sense to change your position in favor o new evidence.When you have that new evidence of the existence of a deity, please, do share. How silly. Nobody claims that God does not exist until proven. There is simply no reason to believe god exists until his existence is supported by evidence. It's certainly true that he either exists or does not, and our belief is independant of that fact. But there is no reason to believe he does exist if you cannot provide even a small amount of objective evidence to convince anyone. Once again you re-state your standard test: personal credulity. If you personally find an idea credulous, it must be true. If you find an idea to be simply outrageous and respond with incredulity, the idea must be false.Scientific models are accurate or inaccurate independantly of your personal credulity just as God exists or does not exist independantly of our belief in his existence. When those models carry a preponderance of objective evidence with experimentally confirmed predictions, it is your personal credulity which requires correction, not the scientific model. Can != likely.

You have the annoying habit of replying without using quotes from the message you're replying to. You observe facts. Personal credulity is what leads you to say "that has to have been designed[/i] without any rational explanation of why. Complexity does not necessarily imply design or intelligence. Nor does existence. You have to explain why your observations lead you to conclude that design and intelligence are required, or else you are making a bare assertion supported by nothing beyond your own personal credulity. This is logically fallacious reasoning. What miracles would those be? Be specific of jsut a few of teh best ones. I've never witnessed a miracle, unless by miracle you mean "an unlikely event." I would define miracles as direct violations of the laws of physics and the occurrance of the impossible. Some miracles are described in teh Bible, but as I said I've never witnessed any. I'm not even sure what you mean by "answers to a final cause." Are you referring to a designer as an uncaused first cause? It's certainly possible that a designer is the uncaused first cause of the Unvierse, there's simply no reason to believe so. It's also possible the Unvierse has no cause at all, or it is the result of a natural property of the greater multiverse (if such a thing exists), or any number of other possibilities. There's simply no reason to beleive any of them in the absence of any evidence, and asserting the existence of an additional entity with no evidenciary support is the very definition of "unparsimonious." Science makes no statement whatsoever with regards to religion or the absence thereof. It supports neither my atheism nor your theism. It simply explores the observable Universe through observation, expermient, and extrapolation. Occasionally it uncovers a fact that contradicts a religious belief (such as the Earth having "pillars," or the Sun being a chariot wheel being driven around the Earth, etc), but science really doesn't have anything to do with religion beyond that. Non sequitur. Information in the context of living organisms (and I presume you're talking about genetics) is entirely different from information in the context of the written word. You can't conflate the two. We only even use the same word because of the constraints of the English language. The information in genetics requires no intelligence whatsoever - it's nothing more than chemistry, and we understand it relatively well. As for your statement that the "systems in organisms and cells alone are enough to point to a designer," well, that's the very definition of an argument from incredulity. You are incredulous that living things as we observe them today could have emerged without intelligent guidance. You have not provided a reason that life as we see it today could not arise on its own, you simply assert that it must be a designer because you personally find the alternative to be ridiculous. That's not a rational arguemnt, that's an argument from incredulity fallacy.At the first test of a nuclear bomb, shortly before Hiroshima, a top-level American general who was to witness the test detonation was quoted as saying "I have witnessed every form of combustion known to man. This thing cannot and will not explode."His personal incredulity didn't have any effect on reality. He wasn't able to provide a reason that an atomic bomb could not work any more than you are able to provide a reason that life cannot exist without a designer. Until you do provide positive evidence that life cannot arise without a designer, you're making an empty assertion based solely upon your own personal incredulity, and thus your argument is invalid. Project much? I read perfectly well. I was not arguing that a Creator was impossible - that's a strawman that you've made up. It could also be called lying. Or bearing flase witness, however you'd like.I argued that Yahweh, Allah, and Kali all had similar supporting evidence - ie, popularity and ancient texts. In many cases the three are mutually exclusive, so they cannot all be true. In the absence of any evidence to support one over the other, they are all equally unlikely. There's simply no objective reason to beleive in any of them, any more than there is objective reason to believe in Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or Zig-Zog.If you believe there is objective evidence supporting one of them, please share it. Until then, I am simply unconvinced. What evidence? Be specific. I'm quite aware of what evidence is. However, the only evidence in support of the Christian God's existence that I've ever seen is the Bible. Many of the stories in the Bible (6-day Creationism, the Flood, the Exodus, etc) have been refuted by science. I can say that they didn't happen as recorded in teh Bible. This means the Bible is very poor evidence of God's existence, just as J.K. Rowling's books are relatively poor evidence of Harry Potter's existence. If Creationism or the Flood or the Exodus had been verified by science, the Bible would have been corroborated by outside evidence for its more extraordinary claims, and thus would have done a much better job of supporting the existence of teh Christian God.So what other evidence is there? Mere existence? We don't know if existence requires a deity. There's no reason to think it does beyond personal incredulity, just as there's no reason to insist that a deity is impossible except through personal incredulity. In the absence of evidence, "I don't know" is the best answer. In the absence of evidence, "probably not" is the best answer to an unparsimonious suggestion. Be specific. Instead of simply asserting "I have tons of evidence," provide that evidence. Until you do, your post is devoid of content. Many hypotheses are viable given only that information. The best answer to how the blood got there without knowing the pattern, quantity, source, or anythign else beyond "there's blood on the mattress" is "I don't know." If you were to say "someone was probably killed," you'd be asserting an additional entity (a murderer) without any reason to do so (the blood could be a drop from a bloody nose, for example). This is unparsimonious, and so I would ahve to say "in the absence of additional evidence, I don't think so." Where? What facts? Be specific. Why would you expect that? We've only discovered DNA 50 years ago. The human genome project was completed rather recently. Why would you expect that we would have found "proof" by now?Personal incredulity, perhaps? You've certainly confused me, but not in the way you think. I don't think I've ever seen someone project their logical fallacies onto others as frequently as you. I'm also confused as to how someone as irrational as you apparently are can operate a computer...but then, my personal incredulity has little to do with reality. I'm skeptical of any extraordinary claim, and the existence of a deity is certainly extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you certainly haven't provided any. My "test" is not so difficult to "pass" as you would think - or at least it shouldn't be difficult for a deity.Perhaps if you provide a few samples of the ample quantities of evidence you claim to have regarding the existence of a deity you could convince me. But simply saying "it's not impossible!" isn't enough reason for me to believe that it exists. It's possible that I'll win the lottery this week. It's also not likely. I haven't seen any irrefutable anything from you, Mike. Considering spirits are unlikely to exist, I doubt we're at anything spiritually. If you mean philisophically, in that I demand objective, parsimonious and rational arguemnts in support of extraordinary claims, and you simply require that the claims not be impossible, then yes, I would agree that we are at an impasse.