I realize you didn't just make it up. That would be thinking for yourself. Christians don't do that. They just go along with what the church and by bible say. And exactly when do we decide that this context indicates that we should not take something literally? When it would be a contradiction otherwise? So, again, we're just patching up the bible to make it make sense.



I haven't made an attempt to hide them.

Sorry if I came accross a little angry. PJ's got me wound up. Nothing personal toward you.

We don't decide what the context says. Literature my friend. Literature. Let the text speak for itself. Your presuppositions hinder your judgment of great literary works.

Is God with us??
The answer will depend on your presups. The evidence you claim against the existance of God only beg the question.
Just answer LordTonto's questions. If God doesn't exist, how do you account for evil, morality, human dignity, knowledge, science, unity amidst diversity, uniformity of nature, laws of logic, responcibility or anything in your experience? That is the question. The bible is self attesting. Throughout the Old and New Testaments God is the one testifying. The issue here is that non-christians don't like it. They don't like the fact that God demands worship and obediance. So they reason like this: "I don't like it ergo it doesn't exist". It's not about intellegence or rationalism. That doesn't sound like "free thinking" to me. So let the Bible speak for itself. Can you imagine a courtroom where the judge dismisses evidence because he doesn't like the person.

The simple proof for the existance of God is the Impossibility of the contrary. Nothing but the God of the bible can account for intelligable experience. Without this God you can't know anything. You can 't prove anything.

Continuing Tonto's point on Hitler, if God does not exist, he was not evil, wrong, right, good, bad. Just that fact that you condemn Hitler only proves that you are borrowing from the christian worldview.

Next time I will explain how doing something so simple like buying milk at the grocery store proves the God of the bible

How about I don't pretend to read your mind, and you don't pretend to read mine.



Wrong. I reason like this: "It doesn't make any sense. It contradicts absolutely everything I see around me and is counter intuitive. It makes more sense that it was written by humans than a deity, and humans are capable of lying. Ergo is doesn't exist."



First, you just did. You choose when to take things literally or not. You choose how you interpret the bible. You've admitted as much. Don't try to deny it.

And literature? My judgement of literary works is hindered? What do you know about my appreciation of great literature? The Sea Wolf, Moby Dick, For Whom The Bell Tolls, The Last Cavalier, White Fang, shall I continue? I have a great appreciation of all these literary works. The bible is not a great literary work. It is like any other crazy religion out there. It just barely falls short of the insanity Islam, and is a bit worse than Judaism. It makes less sense than the Odyssey. The bible is the greatest lie ever told.

Christian's arguments are weak. They're all just a circle of assumptions, and they're not based on hard facts. Atheists don't believe in god for a reason. They base their belief on their knowledge and their observations. Christians simply believe it because it's what they're told. It's mindless, and it's no different from gullibility.



Evil is a human adaptation. By being greedy, some humans managed to be more successful than others and pass on their genes. For some individuals, evil is beneficial.

Morality doesn't exist. It's a human illusion, and one I happen to support. There is no real morality. We're all just animals. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. There is no divine, permanent, infallible beholder, and so there is no morality. Humans developed the illusion because it benefits civilization. If people believe that helping others is somehow "good" they are more inclined to do it. A society of people who help each other is going to persevere over a society of people who don't care about each other. It's societal evolution. I go along with it because I would feel bad if I didn't. It's the way I'm genetically engineered; the way my brain works. It goes hand in hand with the way my emotions work.

Dignity? The same as morality. It doesn't exist. What proof do you have of the existence of anything called "dignity"? None. It's a word, and it's got a definition, but that doesn't mean it exists. It's just a human illusion.

Knowledge is a combination of illusion and reality. Our minds (note that these are really no different from biological super computers) "see" the world around them, and record patterns. That's all knowledge is: patterns. A way of predicting what happens next based on what happened last time. Our knowledge could be flawed; we're only human. Case in point: any "knowledge" of god is, to me, obviously flawed. So it's a combination of reality and illusion.

Science is just a method of gaining knowledge and applying it. And by the way, in case you didn't realize, science contradicts religion at every turn. That's why through the centuries, relgious leaders have opposed science. Knowledge contradicts unbased and flawed faith, so they attempt to suppress knowledge. It's human greed. They fear the loss of the power they hold over the population through the position of leadership they hold.

"unity amidst diversity" What? Are you suggesting a bunch of black panthers sticking together among the cultural mixing pot of America requires existance of a god? That's too stupid an assertion to even try to explain. If you don't see this, reason is beyond you.

"uniformity of nature" is explained by the laws of physics. It's just how things are. Perhaps you could argue that behind the scenes, it was god who decided the laws of physics and set it all in motion, but that really doesn't work. Where did god come from? That requires just accepting him as existant. It's equally well based to just assume that the laws of physics existed. Anyway, somewhere in the world M-theorists are working on explaining the big bang as I type this. And also, this uniformity of nature, as explained by physics, also contradicts god.

Laws of logics contradict god. Logic is a learned tool. It's an example of knowledge. It's how things work. And belief in god requires contradicting logic. If you don't see this, it's your fault. I've already pointed it out. It doesn't make sense to assume that something exists just because a book says it does. I could write such a book myself and write that god doesn't exist, and it would have as much merit. It's not logical to assume things without any basis in fact.

Responsibility? How does responsibility require the existence of a god? It's just a human behavior, explained by evolution. A society composed of responsible people will be more successful.

Anything else I experience is determined by my brain and the laws of physics. The actual laws of physics (not necessarily as humans know them, but I think we're getting close) are reality. What I see, hear, touch, or think is determined by the state of my brain. The brain itself is just a computer. It is almost infinitely more sophisticated than a man made computer, using chemical reactions as well as electrical circuitry, but it's still just a computer that uses indirect means to record the world in which it exists and searches for patterns.



No, you can't. Knowledge could always be flawed. Some bits are more likely to be flawed than others, but religion is one of the most likely bits to be flawed. It doesn't make any sense. Believing it doesn't automatically allow you to know anything. It actually makes you know less. It gives you an even more flawed perspective on reality. Your mind seeing patterns that aren't there is innevitable, but with such an all encompassing and made up pattern as religion, you're really handicapping yourself.

Allow me to introduce Mcaslow. My ace-in-the-hole. You just might be batting out of your league now, Valience, but I'm gonna warm the bench for now and let him do the pitching. Just wanted to jump in real quick to point out a couple things :



The seems more like it was put out to offend rather than put out as part of a debate. You feeling alright, Val?



A straight up attack on all Christians. Not even presented as opinion or possibility, but rather presented as fact. It sounds like you're angry, Val, I know you mentioned PJ has you irritated but you're going from debating like an intellectual to arguing like a child.




Amidst a post full of attacks on Christians (which I will assume are opinions and thus won't take as an attack) you have these personal attacks on Mr. Caslow. Your age is showing, Val.

I'm not trying to stir the flames here, just trying to calm you down, Val, as it seems you are irritated past the point of civil discussion. Present your points and attack your opponent's points. Don't attack your opponent directly, that's not debate.

Yeah, you're right Tonto. I was mad because of PJ. Just using this to vent a bit. If I couldn't vent, then I'd really have a problem. And obviously, those were all opinions. And also, I never attacked mcaslow himself. I just suggested that if he did not realize the obvious, reason was beyond him. I did not say that he did not realize the obvious, though. That is up to him to show.

I do apologize for any offense, I was just mad at PJ and venting on Christians. But as far as me thinking the bible is made up, you must at least allow me to express my own opinions.

And also, you should probably avoid attacks on me based on my age. I've seen people older than me and less mature. If I didn't tell anyone my age, you would have no way of knowing. My occasional immaturity really doesn't say much, since as I've said, older people act similarly all the time.

I must wonder how mcaslow is out of my league. His arguments so far have been weak from my point of view. The only way he'll be able to get me to admit to the possibility of the existence of a god, is a god on my terms. Certainly not the Christian god, but perhaps a god none the less, though I severely doubt it.

And now I invite mcaslow to respond.

I guess that's the end of this debate. Not much fun here Lord Tonto.
Is God with us? Yes! It's just how things are. So much for reason.


So much for free thinking.
Take care, and God bless
mcaslow

aww. Goodbye than, Caslow. Sorry I couldn't get you someone a little more open to the discussion.

Talk about hypocritical! Does god exist? Yes. Why? The bible says so. That's just the way it is. That's what you guys always say. But I can't support physics? I can't say my understanding of the universe is perfect, since as I pointed out, "knowledge" is nonexistant, but physics makes more sense than belief in a god.



More hypocrisy. Christians believe in the Christian god because their parents and the majority of people that live in their Christian communities do. Jews believe in the Jewish god because their parents and the Jewish community to which they're exposed do. It's the same with all religions. Atheists and agnostics are the free thinkers. They are the ones that can live in a religious would without being religious themselves.

I attended church with my devoutly religious grandmother until the age of nine or so, when I decided the whole deal didn't make any sense and contradicted what I observed in the world around me. My certainty in my rejection of the existence of god comes from experience.

Also, can you really say you expected to convert me? If not, my statement should be nothing new. I did not expect to get Tonto to give up his god when I engaged him in debate. I know he's too set in his ways. These debates never go anywhere. As Lucky pointed out, it's a "no-win".

So if you want to engage me in debate and reason with me, be my guest. But since I've seen Christians so absolutely opposed to reason, I've learnt that it's pointless. And there's also the fact that the existence of god really can't be defended by reason, since reason is the strongest attack against it. A belief in god is not based in reason, it is based in "faith," or gullibility.

Christians always, without fail, fall back on god existing just because he does. I've gotten tired of it, and see how you respond to me when I try it! If you're willing to give this up, I can't imagine any argument you could successfuly bring up, but go ahead and try me.

Back to the quote.



I honestly don't believe "it's just the way things are." I said it because I was in a bad mood, and didn't think using the same response idiot theists always use wouldn't be allowed, since, as I said, theists always use it. I do believe that if the laws of physics were at all different, it would innevitably lead to a mathematical contradiction. At the absolute highest level, I think that math (reason and logic) and physics become the same thing. The laws of physics must be as they are because anything else would lead to impossible contradiction.

Knowledge is impossible, and this is only hypothesis, but it explains why things are the way they are independant of god.

Finally, if you say that I have as much reason to believe this as I do god, you are right. That different laws of physics lead to mathematical contradiction is not based on any observed evidence. However, as I said, it does allow existence without god, and my disbelief in god is based on observation.

Stop with the ad hominins. Stop with the genetic fallacy. Please.

You said "

It's just how things are?? Those are your words. That is your argument. If it's good for you then you should have no problem with me or any Christian using it. If you are such a rational athiest superior to christians why would you become so emotionally distressed (you were mad)? It seems you are the one oppossed to reason.

Maybe my arguments are new to you. Regardless, address my arguments. I will go throught it again.

Is God with us. Yes. The God of the Bible.
How do I know?
Because If the God of the bible doesn't exist evil doesn't exist.
Morallity presupposes God. The uniformity of nature presupposes God. The laws of logic presupposes God.
If for the sake of argument atheism is true, all we are are molecules in motion in a world of chance. There is no such thing as evil or logic in such a world. Uniformity and order do not come from chance and randomness.

Why do atheists expect order and uniformity of nature? How do they account for morality or logic? Why do they treat humans differently than cows? They always beg the question on these basic real life questions. Even if the atheist claims to be agnostic on these simple questions then why does he act as if the Christian God exists? The agnostic doesn't know any answers. But yet he will have no problem with operating on the christian's assumptons (borrowing from the christian worldview). For example, the agnostic never questions that rape is wrong even though he doesn';t really know it's wrong or why it is wrong.

Take a look at Hinduism. One of the claims of Hinduism is that All Is One and differences are illusion. The problem is that they build bridges (math). 2+2=1 doesn't not make good bridges. This illustrates that hunduism can't apply its basic beliefs. The world they live in won't allow it. Atheism has the same kind fo problems. If you tried to apply an athiestic outlook on life, you couldn't make judgements that have to do with order, logic, morality.

The atheist is self-deceived. He knows God. (Romans 1) But in denying Him he is forced to explain the world and human experiance in ways that undermine the world and human experience. But he will live as if christianity is true.

Now onto buying milk, By Douglas Jones.
"When you walk down that same dairy aisle and select the same kind of milk, you assume that the world is not chaotic, but orderly, regular, and divided into set kinds of things. When you stand in line with others, expecting others to respect your space and person, you reveal your rejection of moral relativism and your deep trust in absolute ethical norms. When you calculate your available change, compare the price of the milk, and make the exchange with the clerk at the register, you engage in a complex array of thought processes involving nonmaterial rules of reasoning, thus showing your rejection of materialism and evolution.

In short, when you do something as mundane as buying milk, you accept and reject all sorts of views. You act like you reject many popular religions and scientific claims. In fact, given the sum of what you assume and reject just when buying milk, you act like you believe that you live in the world described by Christianity. The world depicted above suggests complexities and contours of reality that are only supplied in Christianity. Now, you may openly reject Christianity, but you certainly act like it is true and that your non-Christianity is false. Why such self-deception? Why don't you just confess what you appear to assume?

Non-Christian thought has no cogent answer for such evident and world-encompassing self-deception, but Christianity does. The Christian Scripture explains that the world is in an abnormal state, due to the destructiveness of our sin. We have rebelled against a holy and gracious God, and so we try to make up grand scenarios in order to evade Him. Such evasion isn't a marginal error. It is concerted warfare against our Creator, and it deserves divine capital punishment. Or, you can pray to embrace the mercy found in Christ, the God-given substitute sent to take our punishment so that we can be reconciled to God. That's the heart of Christianity -- peace with God, with no more radical self deception about the world."

Boy would you be suprised if you actually knew my "ways." Mr. Caslow has seen them though.

Mr. Caslow, any chance we can get Mr. Osgood to stop by and add his touch?

I don't know if Mr. Osgood has the time. He has a pretty full class schedule this semester. I will ask him though.

You've come a long way Hector. I hope you go farther.

Oh, you're perhaps a theology professor? This should be good.

Let's start with this, just to get things straight:



That is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. I have always in the past allowed Christians to get away with it, so I thought I'd see how a Christian responded to me doing it. You were against it. It doesn't seem to be the kind of argument you use, so it wasn't hypocrisy, but Tonto certainly relies heavily on it. And I wasn't mad, just annoyed. And my emotions arise from the inescapable fact that I'm human, governed by human evolution and human instincts.

Your argument is obviously well thought out, but I do believe it's flawed.



Correct. There is no such thing as morality. It's a human illusion.



False. I can't really attack this, since you gave me nothing to attack. You didn't justify your statement at all. Why does a god have to exist for celestial bodies to exert the force of gravity upon one another? Why does god have to exist for the opposite of yes to be no? I see no reason.



No, there is no such thing as evil. Evil, being a type of morality, is just a human illusion. Evil is one collection of molecules (a human) reducing the occurence of a chemical reaction/electrical function (I'm not a psychology expert, and science has not quite yet explained how the brain works) that is associated with "happiness" in others, so that it (the human) can cause it in its own brain. It's just a very complex interaction of chemicals and electric impulses. The eyes and ears, etc. carry messages to the brain. Other sections of the brain interpret these messages as, for example, "He stole my wallet!" Which, of course, causes negative emotions, which, again, are just chemical reactions, etc. Correct, according to science, there is no free will. People do what they do because of how chemistry and physics work in their brains.

As far as chance, that's really not the case. In such a world, things happen because of the laws of physics. The only chance at all is as explained by Quantum Mechanics. There is such a thing as logic. Logic is the way the world works without god. That's pretty much the definition I'm going to use for logic for the purposes of this debate starting now. I can understand that you think that logic exists because god decided to make it exist, but why does that have to be the case? Why should the world need god to exist?



Here you are making a bit of a mistake. These people are governed by their humanity, not their belief in god. They treat humans differently than cows because humans evolved to think that humans were better than cows. If we didn't, we would not be the fittest. We could kill each other even more than we already do, and we would die. That would disobey the law of survival of the fittest, since in such a case (a self obliterating species) would not be the fittest. Our respect for ourselves comes from evolution, not god. There is a difference between acting as one's genetic coding dictates (as a robot, as it were, as we all truly are) and acting based on the presumption of the existence of god. The agnostic thinks rape is wrong because it severely damages the emotional state of one human to give pleasure to another. Humans evolved to think that was wrong, because if we didn't think that, again, we would not be the fittest, and we would die off.



The entire first part of that is irrelevant, since atheists are not hindus. In conclusion, you say "If you tried to apply an athiestic outlook on life, you couldn't make judgements that have to do with order, logic, morality."

Well, humans possess knowledge, so they can have an understanding of logic. Why not? Morality doesn't exist, but humans, being human, act like it does, yes. Why shouldn't they? That was the way they evolved. It would be contrary to their programming to act as if there is no such thing as morality, even though there isn't.



I don't know god. If you take a baby and put it on a deserted island, and it lives, it will not know god. Of course, that would be impossible to test (they wouldn't know any language), so let's say we put it on an island with atheists who, as well as being atheists, do not ever speak of god (including just saying that he doesn't exist). If the person had never heard of god or any deity at all, they would not know god, unless they decided to make one up (which is the origin of all religions), and then convinced themselves of their own imaginary creation. And you can't prove that I know god, unless you're going to cite the bible, which was Tonto's problem as well. It's impossible to argue against the truth of a religion if you presume the religion's holy book to be true...

And really, the way scientists explain the world does not undermine it at all. Science works. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to communicate like this over the internet. If scientists did not understand electricity in a correct way that did not undermine reality, this would be impossible. You'll probably point out that not all scientists are atheists, and you're right, but science is how atheists explain the world, and as is obvious, science does not undermine reality, so your statement is false.

Finally, as to the last sentence, I remind you that christianity simply goes along with basic human instincts developed by evolution. That people follow their instincts does not mean that they believe in the christian god or anything like that.



This does not require the presence of a god.



Deep trust in absolute ethical norms? No, just obeying instincts. Actually, not liking people in your "space" is not an instinct, but rather a learned behavior in my opinion. Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with non-existant ethics, beyond that humans are "coded" in such a way that they do learn and adapt to their situation, which explains this learned behavior.



I honestly just don't understand what merely thinking has to do with rejecting materialism and evolution. In fact, I think that most of the interaction (and the ability to do math in one's head) is an adaptation, and humans exhibit this behavior because of evolution. And perhaps we're operating under different definitions of materialism, but doesn't using money and everything imply acceptance of materialism? Isn't that the definition of materialism? Owning things?

Just as a side note here, since I'm refering to evolution so much, I'd like to point out that it's really not a "law". It's really just more of a tendency in nature. This is how it usually happens, and the theory explains why it will usually happen, using common sense and logic.



No, because their behavior can be explained in different, often contradictory (as we have just demonstrated) ways. You can't assume that they are embracing or rejecting anything. The only real way to say that they do that is if the are actually making that conscious decision, which in such a case they are not. They're just buying milk.



That's mostly because atheists realize that it's not self-deception, so of course they aren't going to try to explain something that they don't think is there.



No, because it's really impossible to rebel against something that one does not believe in. As the debate I had with Tonto shows, I would rebel against him if I know that he existed, and as described in the bible. If it was some other god, not necessarily as described in the bible, who knows? I may embrace him if I found him to be just, but the biblical god definitely is not. But, again, atheists are not rebelling against god, they just don't think he exists.

Saying that atheists are rebelling against god is like me saying that you're rebelling against the giant pink alien mutant half-insect half-teddy bear monsters that dominate our world. You don't believe in them, so you can hardly rebel against them.



I can't declare war on the country known as Oozamboozamcluckcluckastan because I don't think it exists.



All reasons I explained in my debate with Tonto hold. I don't think so. Can you really punish a person for just not being persuade by very very very scanty to non-existant evidence? I don't think so. At least, not justly.

Looking back over this, I must admit, it's not the most organized argument I've ever put forward, and so I must apologize for that, but that's just the way it turned out after reading and disecting your argument.

It's hard to know where to start.

I think I'll start with your attitude towards this important question.

Why do you keep begging the question? You assume what you need to prove. This reviels too much about you. It's emotionalism that's only based on evidence you like. As for me, If you can justify anything, ANYTHING, ANYTHING at all, from an atheistic worldview I will give up my christianity. Interestingly, if the bible reveiled God as being who you think He is I wouldn't believe in him either. If you refuse to represent the God revieled in the bible fairly then that is your problem. That is called the straw man fallacy. God doesn't "punish a person for just not being persuaded by very very very scanty to non-existant evidence". Please stop the strawman arguments and the question begging.
To give you some inside information on me, and many christians, I was raised and specifically educated to reject God and only think of "religion" as something superstitious that is outside the realm of reason. My educators worked hard for this cause. Unfortunatly, for them, they failed. For such an easy task of employing common sense mixed with the obvious rediculosly zilch evidence of God they couldn't steal my thoughts. Imagine that!!
Yes I am against "that's just the way it is" argument. I am glad you are against it too. So why do you keep using it? It's just that way. It's just that way. That's just the way it is.
Again, it's just that way.

Please stop with the argument that you don't like christians to use.

Now for the good news. You are starting to grasp my argument. In an atheistic world, evil doesn't exist. Murder is not wrong. Charrity is not good. There are no catagories of good or wrong. Like you said its all coded or learned behavior.
It's evolution. I kill, rape and pillage because its my genes. Don't blame me. It is refreshing to see an atheist to grasp this.

Now the bad news. You fail to be consistant in your atheism. How can you believe in the laws of logic? You can reject morallity but not laws of logic? Isn't my brain the result of evolution too? By the way, I don't say God created logic. How can an atheist believe in laws in general. Laws are universal and non material.

Are humans better than cows? You beg the question. The whole "survival of the fittest" motto begs the question.
Please explain why humans are better than cows. Remember, morality is illusion to you. Is a wrong for the meat store to sell human hamburger too? Do humans have dignaty.

Why can't I appeal to my sources of knowlege but you can? I can't allow the Bible to explain why people reject God, but you can use evolution to explain why people believe in God? How else are Christians going to answer the question "why do people reject God"? I wouldn't expect you to appeal to the bible any more then I would a christian appeal to evolution to account for these kind of questions. This is another instance of your unfairness.

Again, I want to know how you can expect the future to be like the past. I have an answer. God created the world and he created it to function orderly and uniformly. This does not beg the question. I ask that you not beg the qustion.

Your analogy couldn't be worse. Did this giant pink alien mutant half-insect half-teddy bear monster, reveil itself?

What I am arguing is the transendental argument for the existance of God. It is not the cosmological or ontological or teleological argument. I am not arguing the intellegent design argument. It must be new to you. You should research it. I can suggest recorded debates where the Christian defender employs the transendental argument.

To be entirely honest, I'm no sort of professional debateist... debater? I don't even know the word for it! Of course I can't be one. And so no, I'm not familiar with all this, though not all of it is new either.

First I'll address the "rules" for sources. You can use the bible to supplement your argument, just don't rely too heavily on it, or this will go nowhere. It will be obvious when your reliance is too heavy, because this will go in circles so quickly.

Here is the difference I see between my sources and yours. The bible tends to assume its own correctness. It does not use reason to justify its claims. Evolution, on the other hand, or physics, are founded in reason. They are reason.

You assume that I favor reason to faith because I am an atheist, but it really is essential for a debate. You cannot argue with faith. It is impossible to point of flaws in one's faith. You can only argue with reason. To even consider the possibility of debate, you must accept reason, so in my opinion, the whole system of debate does rather favor my sources.

So again, if you want to incorporate the bible into your argument, be my guest, but don't base your arguments off faith rather than reason. It's fine if that's what you believe, but we can't have a debate with that.

Next, I'll just ask for information.



Well, that is pretty much what I've heard: that non-Christians are sent to hell for not believing in god. As I argued with Tonto, god should judge people by their morality, not their judgemental abilities or their beliefs (which basically arise from their judgemental abilities).

So, then, could you explain to me my misconceptions? I would be very grateful.

And now, on to debate.



I don't see how you can take issue with a definition. It's like complaining that "loony" means out of one's mind doesn't have enough justification. You seem in favor of logic and reasoning. Do you not think that this is the way that the world is run? Whether you think it is with god or not, you must agree that things do, put simply, make sense. The world is not an irrational place (though the people in it are )



Are going to ask me to explain, using logic and reason, why logic and reason govern the way the world works? That is impossible to do without begging the question. And how else can one explain anything in a debate, other than using reason and logic.



What's just the way it is? Are you telling me I need to justify evolution? The theory itself is not an assertion, it's an explaination. Are you saying that I need to explain why humans can have a comprehension of logic? Well, as I've said before, true knowledge is impossible, or at least impossible to verify, but it certainly seems evident that people can understand logic. Otherwise, I think the world would be very different. We'd have a lot more in common with other animals.



No, I'm not just saying that that's the way it is. I'm basing my assertion on oberservation. It make sense to assume that science works because if it didn't, we wouldn't have the internet, we wouldn't have airplanes that can fly faster than the speed of sound, and we wouldn't have nuclear submarines capable of going down into the depths of the ocean and returning. I'm not just begging the question, I'm observing and drawing conclusions.



Yes, absolutely. But I'll still punish you. It's my coding. I am programmed to be moral, and uphold the [better] values of society (can't say I love where American society is today, actually). I'm programed to uphold what my instinct accepts as right, even though my consciousness knows that there is no such thing.

I must ask at this point, have you ever read The Sea Wolf? If not, I think you would really enjoy. Of course, the whole read you'd probably be bursting with responses to the debates going on in the novel that the characters don't use, making it really very incomplete. I actually oppose the philosophy of Larsen. He misinterprets evolution to be more on an individual scale than it really is. He says that humans have no reason to help each other. If it doesn't benefit the individual, it's pointless. I think evolution governs species, and if a behavior benefits the species, then it is worth while. Just look at ants.



You're brain is the product of evolution, as is the human grasp of logic. What we "know" about logic is the product of evolution, but logic itself is not a human illusion like morality. It is independant of us.

Here is my reasoning. Before humans, there was not "right" and "wrong." Take the dinosaurs. People can look back and say that it was "evil" for carnivorous dinosaurs to eat herbivores. Others can say that it is justifed because they needed to to survive. Some could say they were doing "good," by helping to fulfill their role in the ecosystem. But the truth is, during that era, before humans, none of that was the case. The animals just did.

So there was no morality. But was there logic?

Well, when the kinetic energy of a large number of water molecules in some sort of super heated pool, for instance, reached a certain point (100 C, or 212 F at sea level) the water boiled. It did this anywhere in the world, because the laws of physics were the same all over the world. So, how could I not believe in logic? It's obvious. The sun was around then, too, which means that who hydrogen atoms fusing into helium due to extreme heat and pressure still released large amounts of energy. Logic and math are essentially the same thing, as are math and physics. So existed, but people didn't. Logic is independant of people.



Easy: the atheist sees evidence of them.



No, humans are not better than cows, mostly because there is no such thing as better. Better relies on human perspective. If it is not independant of human consciousness, it does not really exist, it is just an illusion. Maybe humans are more intelligent than cows, but we can't say we're more successful than cows. If a cow's goal is just to live, I'd say it's a draw, because they're not extinct, so they don't fail.

Would it be immoral to serve human hamburger? No. There's no such thing as morality. Humans would be opposed to it, though, despite this, because that's the way they evolved. A society that can get along will be more successful, and if they're not eating each other, they're more likely to get along.

While on the topic of cannibalism, I guess I'll explain my own thoughts on it. I think it's rather pointless to kill a person just to eat them, since there are far easier ways to get food, and less dangerous too. Also, as I human, I oppose senseless killing (though that doesn't make me a pacifist). However, I see nothing wrong with eating a human that's already dead. Especially not if the situation calls for it. And what of eating one's enemies, killed in battle, as some native islanders did? Just eating is not "wrong". If anything, it'd be the killing, but war is war. If it's come to that, it comes down to whether or not the side doing the killing and eating is "right" or "wrong". Of course, note in all this that I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. I maintain that there is no such thing as either. I'm just explaining what my human instincts would and wouldn't rebel against. It's mostly irrelevant to the debate, but I didn't think mentioning that would hurt anything.



We've got nothing better to go on than our past experiences. This does not beg the question. If we want to predict the future, we use the sources available to us, and the only sources are reason and our experiences. Reason suggests that our experiences should help predict the future. What else should we use? We've got nothing else, and this seems to work. Really, the only other options are to just make up loony predictions off the top of our heads, which doesn't make any sense at all, or to just not worry about the future. I don't like that one much either.



No, and neither did god, to me anyway. The word of the bible is not good enough for me. It could as easily have been written and fabricated by a mortal as inspired by a deity. If he could just say a couple words to me, I'd believe in him. It'd take more for him to convince me of his justice, but if I was convinced of his justice, I would worship him like any other Christian. But he hasn't done either.



As I said, I'm no professional. If Tonto hasn't informed you, I just turned 15. I do not know any of those arguments by name other than the intelligent design one, which I find weak. Weaker than this transendental one, in fact.

Val, Try this out and tell me who you see.