Bahnsen-Tabash debate

why don't you guys advertise the Bahnsen vs. Tabash debate? is it "illegitimate" (as if atheists have some basis for determining what is and is not legitimate aside from their own subjective predilections) because Tabash got smoked in that debate? if you want to see your "Warrior Lawyer" squirm, and grow quite nonsensical during a debate-watch this one.

[-DM-]

I cannot help but wonder why it is that you didn't phrase your question and your insinuations such that they would have been more appropriate to what I assume is your Christian faith, but be that as it may, I'm not sure whether the Bahnsen vs. Tabash debate is or is not available to us to advertise and sell.

Whether it is or not available to us, I think it highly unlikely that--if it were available--we would decline to advertise and sell it for the reason that we or anyone else thought that "Tabash got smoked." If you look around the Secular Web and it's offerings, you will find that--unlike most of the Christian apologetic websites--we publish rebuttals to our side of the story. We also handle debate tapes and transcripts where theists might think that the nontheist debater "got smoked."

In any case, I'll try to get someone who knows the answer to your question to respond to that question. You might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this.

-Don-

[-DM-]

One of my correspondents, one of the original members of the Board of Directors of Internet Infidels, tells me that the subject of offering or advertising the Tabash-Bahnsen debate never came up, thus no decision was ever made to either offer or not offer the tape of the debate.

Further, that debate took place in 1992 or 1993 (depending on which source of information has it right)--a few years before there even was an Internet Infidels or a Secular Web.

The debate video tapes are sold by the Apologia Book Shoppe; the chances are that the tapes are copyrighted by Bahnsen and/or Apologia.

-Don-

[Bill]

You can find <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1996/july.html#personal" target="_blank">a reference to the Bahnsen - Tabash debate</a> in our archives. Here is a relevant excerpt: [quote]Those of us who were followers of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's ministry know that a large portion of his time was spent defending the Christian faith. He is particularly known for his interaction with atheist opponents including a formal debate with Dr. Gordon Stein in 1985 at University of California, Irvine, and with Edward Tabash in 1993 at University of California, Davis. He was also scheduled to debate Professor Michael Martin (Boston University) at Rhodes College in 1994. This last event never took place because of an eleventh hour pull-out by Dr. Martin for what seem to be ambiguous reasons.[1]

The result of both debates was the same-Dr. Bahnsen's trenchant defense of Christian theism appeared to many to overwhelm both opponents. <hr></blockquote>The above words were written by a Christian, and yet, because of the ongoing debate over who kicked whose ass and why, and particularly why Dr. Martin refused to go forward with his debate, we published the above remarks by a Christian writer in the spirit of engagement across the philosophical divide between our two camps.

Anyway, it should be obvious to anybody who is familiar with the overall situation with Greg Bahnsen, his TAG argument, and Michael Martin's TANG argument in response (some of which is indexed <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/presup.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>), that in about 1993 when the Bahnsen - Tabash debate took place, few people outside of Bahnsen and his immediate followers really understood the argument he was making with any clarity. Accordingly, any believer in the TAG approach, in evaluating the Bahnsen - Tabash debate, would probably assert that Bahnsen did, as the Christian writes above, "overwhelm" Eddie Tabash.

The Internet Infidels weren't founded until 1995, which was two years after that debate took place. Thus, we were in no position to acquire any copy of the debate in any form whatsoever. If one exists, it would be in the hands of one of the participants. Eddie has never mentioned that he might have a copy. However, Bahnsen and his followers clearly do have copies of both audio and video tapes, and they clearly do sell them to the general public to this day. For instance, the audio tapes are available <a href="http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm" target="_blank">HERE</a> and VHS video tapes are available <a href="http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=8945" target="_blank">HERE</a>.

Anyway, as a matter of policy, we participate in selling tapes only where we obtain at least equal rights to the profits. Both of the debate tapes that we sell now are sold on that basis, under specific written contracts between the necessary parties. It would be financial suicide for us to buy the above tapes at full retail from Bahnsen's followers.

Besides, the real debate never actually happened. By the time that Dr. Martin published his refutation of Bahnsen, Greg Bahnsen was dead. It is rather interesting, though, that none of Greg Bahnsen's followers have stepped up to challenge Dr. Martin in Bahnsen's stead. I really do have to wonder why.....

== Bill

[Unregistered1002]

Bahnsen rocks! If you are one of his immediate followers and do understand what he was saying in the Bahsen-Tabash debate, Tabash did get smoked. And yes I am a theist. Please stop stealing my worldview to argue against my God.

[-DM-]

Bahnsen rocks!Bahnsen died in 1995, of course.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[whiskey the hedonist]

Bahnsen rocks! If you are one of his immediate followers and do understand what he was saying in the Bahsen-Tabash debate, Tabash did get smoked.

Wow... its a real spanking when people who already understand and agree with your position think you won a debate... that's truly impressive.

Here's a link for interested parties: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/Apologetics.htm

I read the debate. Bahnsen failed on a number of points:

1. Tabash's point is that, given god, he's an evil bastard. The counterpoint that evil only has meaning if we take god as a given is meaningless, because god already is a given in the original point. So Bahnsen's entire rebuttal is a red herring.

2. It isn't true that all possible rational ethical constructs start with God. Rationalism, for example, starts with the existence of living creatures. So we don't actually need to believe in god in order to have ethics, or at least, it is not a given that we need god in order to have ethics. Bahnsen's rebuttal is therefore based on, as it were, facts that are not in evidence.

3. Since there is no rational or logical reason to believe in god--and he provides none--if god is his only reason to have ethics, his ethics are irrational by default and suffer from the same flaws that he attempts, wrongly, to put on the ethics of rationalism.

BTW, "smoked" in a debate would imply that an uninterested observer, based solely on statements made in the debate itself, would consider one debater to have unqualifiably defeated the other. By your own statements, therefore, Tabash did not get smoked, as the "smoking" is only evident to those who have extensive previous knowledge of Bahnsen's work.

[Cross Examiner]

Wow... its a real spanking when people who already understand and agree with your position think you won a debate... that's truly impressive.

Here's a link for interested parties: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/fa...Apologetics.htm

I read the debate. Bahnsen failed on a number of points:

1. Tabash's point is that, given god, he's an evil bastard. The counterpoint that evil only has meaning if we take god as a given is meaningless, because god already is a given in the original point. So Bahnsen's entire rebuttal is a red herring.

2. It isn't true that all possible rational ethical constructs start with God. Rationalism, for example, starts with the existence of living creatures. So we don't actually need to believe in god in order to have ethics, or at least, it is not a given that we need god in order to have ethics. Bahnsen's rebuttal is therefore based on, as it were, facts that are not in evidence.

3. Since there is no rational or logical reason to believe in god--and he provides none--if god is his only reason to have ethics, his ethics are irrational by default and suffer from the same flaws that he attempts, wrongly, to put on the ethics of rationalism.
I haven't read the Bahnsen-Tabash debate transcript (though I did read some of the Bahnsen-Stein debate transcript). And I wouldn't call myself a Calvinist, much less a presuppositionalist, but I do think I understand TAG (generally at least). With respect to (1) you say Tabash argues, and I presume you agree, that given God, God is then evil. But I ask: by what standard is He evil? You may say again that, given God, God is evil by God's moral standard or law. Questions about your understanding of this standard aside for now, I'd simply ask: how do you know God is evil by His own standard? My angle here is more epistemological than metaphysical at this point. I bet Bahnsen would angle likewise.

In (2) you point to some form of ethical naturalism and say we don't need God for ethics. I think Bahnsen would agree that you can have ethics without God but would challenge the idea that without God we could have knowable and/or known objective moral truths, which are necessary to make ethics more than mere competing and conflicting systems of human opinion (if cognitive/propositional in the first place) about what matters in life and what one/we should do with it/in it. I should add that a major problem with ethical naturalism is in locating the greatest good that might act as the ordering principle for all other goods. Of course, there is no such problem for theistic morality (e.g., ethical non-naturalism).

In (3) you say there is no rational basis for theistic belief and that Bahnsen offers no such basis. I disagree strongly that there is no rational basis for theism (that for another time, I guess) but, more to the point, I think Bahnsen would say he offers no such basis for belief in God in the context of a discussion on morality because all moral judgments a non-theist might make (e.g., 'God is evil') presupposes a standard or law above man by which such judgments may be true in relation to, all of which implies a Lawmaker above man, namely, God. I suppose the best angle to take in response here would be to try to show a standard or law rooted in man or nature (or some naturalistic property like pleasure) that can somehow account for binding, objective moral truths. Martin tries to do just this though I wouldn't say he succeeds.

[whiskey hedonist the]

(1) you say Tabash argues, and I presume you agree, that given God, God is then evil. But I ask: by what standard is He evil? You may say again that, given God, God is evil by God's moral standard or law. Questions about your understanding of this standard aside for now, I'd simply ask: how do you know God is evil by His own standard? My angle here is more epistemological than metaphysical at this point. I bet Bahnsen would angle likewise.

In (2) you point to some form of ethical naturalism and say we don't need God for ethics. I think Bahnsen would agree that you can have ethics without God but would challenge the idea that without God we could have knowable and/or known objective moral truths, which are necessary to make ethics more than mere competing and conflicting systems of human opinion (if cognitive/propositional in the first place) about what matters in life and what one/we should do with it/in it. I should add that a major problem with ethical naturalism is in locating the greatest good that might act as the ordering principle for all other goods. Of course, there is no such problem for theistic morality (e.g., ethical non-naturalism).

In (3) you say there is no rational basis for theistic belief and that Bahnsen offers no such basis. I disagree strongly that there is no rational basis for theism (that for another time, I guess) but, more to the point, I think Bahnsen would say he offers no such basis for belief in God in the context of a discussion on morality because all moral judgments a non-theist might make (e.g., 'God is evil') presupposes a standard or law above man by which such judgments may be true in relation to, all of which implies a Lawmaker above man, namely, God. I suppose the best angle to take in response here would be to try to show a standard or law rooted in man or nature (or some naturalistic property like pleasure) that can somehow account for binding, objective moral truths. Martin tries to do just this though I wouldn't say he succeeds.

My point is that Bahnsen spends a huge amount of time proving the trivial and given point that Tabash's point presupposes god, hence his (Bahnsen's) argument is a red herring. Tabash's original point isn't a point I would make, so I really can't respond to the substance.

Bahnsen specifically states that the atheist has "no rational basis" for believing in evil--yet he provides no rational basis for believing in god, nor does he provide any support for his premise that an objective moral code presupposes god. This premise, that an objective moral code presupposes god, was thouroughly refuted by Ayn Rand about 80 years ago, by many others since--one of my favorites is Pirsig--and is therefore hardly a given, so I think it requires at least a little support from Bahnsen. But given that he doesn't back up that statement or provide any rational basis for the belief in god, and hinges his entire argument on the fact that a discussion of god's evil presupposes the existence of god, this hardly qualifies as a "smoking" of Tabash.

If you have a rational reason to believe in God, you could post it in the "suffering" thread, where I am attempting to argue this point.

[One Who Replies]

whiskey, you speak a lot in absolutes, eg. "thoroughly rebutted" etc. All the very skilled apologetical debates on these same topics would seem to disagree with your conclusory and unsupported premise that these have all been "thoroughly rebutted". And p.s. Tabash did indeed get "smoked"!

[hedonist the whiskey]

whiskey, you speak a lot in absolutes, eg. "thoroughly rebutted" etc. All the very skilled apologetical debates on these same topics would seem to disagree with your conclusory and unsupported premise that these have all been "thoroughly rebutted". And p.s. Tabash did indeed get "smoked"!

1. Ayn Rand posited a thorough system of thought, called objectivism, something like 80 years ago. This is historically verifiable.
2. The ethical system claims an objective, god-free, absolute basis for human behavior: http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/explained/page6.htm
3. Rand specifically rejects theological and naturalist ethics as subjective.

Therefore, the claim that god must exist in order for their to be an objective, absolute system for human morality is demonstrably false. Tabash takes it as a given that this is a false argument and makes that point in his rebuttal.

Bear in mind that you don't have to agree with Rand to make this statement. You merely have to agree that she made the argument and that it was logically self-consistent. If this is so, Bahnsen has been thoroughly refuted. His argument is that you absolutely cannot have an argument such as Rand's, that such an argument cannot exist. By its existence, it refutes him. Thoroughly.

Look, OWR, it isn't my fault that people stick to thoroughly refuted positions in their desperation to find a reasonable argument that god exists. Just because they keep saying it doesn't make it true.

[Heartbroken]

Besides, the real debate never actually happened. By the time that Dr. Martin published his refutation of Bahnsen, Greg Bahnsen was dead. It is rather interesting, though, that none of Greg Bahnsen's followers have stepped up to challenge Dr. Martin in Bahnsen's stead. I really do have to wonder why.....

== Bill

Why did Martin wait until Bahnsen was dead to write a rebuttal? Martin's "refutation" has been answered by both Frame and Butler. However, Frame and Butler did not agree with Bahnsen on many points so their defense would differ slightly.

The point that seems to be prevalent around infidels is, 'if you get the last word, you obviusly refuted an argument.'

Martin has not even begun to answer the many points that TAG produces as can be seen by reading Bahnsen's book Van Til's Apologetic. Why has Martin not offered a rebutall to the many points this book mentions? Further, Bahnsen has a lecture series (Michael Martin Under The Microscope) in which he tackled Martin's book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification as well as Martin's worldview as a whole. The series can be found here:

http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=207

Where are the refutations to these? I even had an atheist (HRG) say to me that Bahnsen did not rfeute Martin's points. When asked if he had listened to the series, HRG said no but he still knew that Bahnsen did not refute Martin! You see, arguments from silence offer very little, so my suggestion to the 99.999% of infidel atheists whoi think that getting the last word = offering a sound rebuttal is to look at the actual arguments being made, not who got the last word in.

[-DM-]

Why did Martin wait until Bahnsen was dead to write a rebuttal?Another way of putting it might be: "Why did Bahnsen die before Martin finished his rebuttal?"

... my suggestion to the 99.999% of infidel atheists who think that getting the last word = offering a sound rebuttal is to look at the actual arguments being made, not who got the last word in.This is obviously a straw man inasmuch as there are actually only five Infidels (the members of the Board of Directors). Not all of them are necessarily atheists, and not all of them necessarily agree that Martin offered a sound rebuttal. Even if you were to include all those atheists who participate in the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as "infidel atheists" it wouldn't likely be close to 99.9% who would think "that getting the last word = offering a sound rebuttal."

In any case, you might be interested in the following. There is some relevant information: Internet Infidels Newsletter, July 1996 (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1996/july.html).

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[One Who Replies]

I think atheists would gain a bit more intellectual credibility if they would occasionally concede when theists make valid arguments.

[-DM-]

I think atheists would gain a bit more intellectual credibility if they would occasionally concede when theists make valid arguments.This is a rather pointless assertion given that atheists do occasionally concede that theists sometimes make a valid argument, and, of course, what you imply regarding atheists is likely just as true of theists.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.shtml

[Cross Examiner]

Why would the given that Ayn Rand offers a non-theistic objective morality sink Bahnsen's premise that objective morality presupposes God? Wouldn't such an offering also have to be sufficient as a moral thesis? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Kimpatsu]

I haven't read the Bahnsen-Tabash debate transcript (though I did read some of the Bahnsen-Stein debate transcript). And I wouldn't call myself a Calvinist, much less a presuppositionalist, but I do think I understand TAG (generally at least). With respect to (1) you say Tabash argues, and I presume you agree, that given God, God is then evil. But I ask: by what standard is He evil?
Any... thing that could prevent the indiscriminate suffering of the Asian Tsunami and failed to do so is evil.

[Cross Examiner]

Any... thing that could prevent the indiscriminate suffering of the Asian Tsunami and failed to do so is evil.
Unless of course that Thing has a morally sufficient reason for permitting said suffering.

[WTH]

Why would the given that Ayn Rand offers a non-theistic objective morality sink Bahnsen's premise that objective morality presupposes God? Wouldn't such an offering also have to be sufficient as a moral thesis? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Because Bahnsen states unequivocably that such an argument is not possible--not that the argument is wrong. If the argument exists, is consistent, and does not presuppose god, then Bahnsen is arguing from a false premise.

[Steven Carr]

Unless of course that Thing has a morally sufficient reason for permitting said suffering.

You mean there is a morally sufficent reason for pemitting evils? What morally sufficient reason is there for permitting abortion? What morally sufficient reason is there to permit a baby to be tortured for fun? Please tell us what you consider morally sufficient reasons for permitting children to be tortured to death.

And, of course, a being that allows 230,000 of his beloved creatures to die without ever explaining why he passed by on the other side is an evil creature.

Perhaps God is fattening us up to act as slaves for his true chosen peopl. In God's eyes that would be a morally sufficient reason why it hardly matters what happens to a few slaves.

[DerekSansone]

Mr. Guest,

why don't you guys advertise the Bahnsen vs. Tabash debate? is it "illegitimate" (as if atheists have some basis for determining what is and is not legitimate aside from their own subjective predilections) because Tabash got smoked in that debate? if you want to see your "Warrior Lawyer" squirm, and grow quite nonsensical during a debate-watch this one.

Can you show one proof that Eddie got smoked? What squirm?

In the words of Bahnsen, "Show the proof, not just your ridicule...."

So, please give us ONE example of Tabash's failure......

For those who have not listened to it, here's a link to my site.....

http://www.dereksansone.com/page2.html

My only complaint with the debate was the format. When Bahnsen would ask a question, Tabash would answer, but then there was no additional rebut. You almost would have rather seen them just have one more step in the cross...

Bahnsen, like always, wants to move away from the bible, because he knows that he is a special pleading empiricist in disguise, trying to hide the fact that his own means to knowledge was prescribed in the bible, and Bahsen has to arrive at the bible first to then criticisms the vary means to it's content. The very content that says that fear is the beginning of knowledge. And also, like other Presuppsers I have dealt with, he does not understand metaphoric language and figure of speech.

Inductive inference is a derivative of sensory input. The observations we interact with are the building blocks of such concept abstraction. I wonder how much Bahnsen would suppose or deliberate with if he was all alone with no external input from other humans....

Presuppositions are mutable. And propositional acceptance is contingent. So, Bahnsen wants to ignore that his own epistemic paradigms are base solely on his assuming a God, first. That’s not any different from the Kalaam Cosmo argument, because both work backwards from reality to arrive at the bible.

:down:

[Cross Examiner]

You mean there is a morally sufficent reason for pemitting evils? What morally sufficient reason is there for permitting abortion? What morally sufficient reason is there to permit a baby to be tortured for fun? Please tell us what you consider morally sufficient reasons for permitting children to be tortured to death.
I think you mean to say suffering exists, not evil. Evil is the privation of good and the term 'good' seems to be a very sticky one for the naturalist (e.g. metaphysical, methodological etc.). So what say we stick with suffering as the operative term? I'll grant without argument that the naturalist need not justify that before swinging it around like a sword. Anyway, my response is simple and reiterative but I think it highlights the epistemic challenge the atheologian faces in posing a problem of suffering to the theist. If God does not or cannot or is unlikely to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting _____ (e.g., painful deaths) then upon this fact alone are we justified in doubting God's existence.

[Steven Carr]

If God does not or cannot or is unlikely to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting _____ (e.g., painful deaths) then upon this fact alone are we justified in doubting God's existence.

So now all you need to do is show that there are very good reasons why people should permit others to torture innocent children for fun.

[Cross Examiner]

So now all you need to do is show that there are very good reasons why people should permit others to torture innocent children for fun.
Well, if we humans have a real, objective moral duty to refrain from torturing innocent children for fun and if there is no basis for such a duty on an atheistic view then theism obtains, necessarily.

[Minnesota Joe]

I think you mean to say suffering exists, not evil. Evil is the privation of good and the term 'good' seems to be a very sticky one for the naturalist (e.g. metaphysical, methodological etc.).
Hardly. You are just dogmatically defining what you mean by "good". Well, right back at you. I know evil when I see it, therefore, there is evil...assuming God exists at all. Therefore, it isn't problematic at all for naturalists.


If God does not or cannot or is unlikely to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting _____ (e.g., painful deaths) then upon this fact alone are we justified in doubting God's existence.

No. Let's give the problem some perspective, shall we.


If it could be logically shown that there were no "morally sufficient reason" then the undeniable conclusion would be that God, as defined, does not exist.
Better, if it can be shown - and I think it has - that it is logically possible for God (if it exists) to both eliminate evil and obtain whatever greater good or goal he plans, then that God, as defined, does not exist.
On the other hand, if 1 and 2 fail, then it follows only that God as defined is not incompatible with evil - it doesn't say God as defined exists (see the many other problems with God's coherency).

[On Who Replies]

maybe the theological question of the moment is this: If there is no God to help, why is Richard Carr wasting his time sitting at a keyboard, when he could be, should be ,would be actually helping rescue these children from being tortured?

[-DM-]

maybe the theological question of the moment is this: If there is no God to help, why is Richard Carr wasting his time sitting at a keyboard, when he could be, should be ,would be actually helping rescue these children from being tortured?Maybe the theological question of the moment is why "God" doesn't motivate believers (would that include you?) to quit "wasting their time sitting at a keyboard" when they could be, should be, would be actually helping rescue these children from being tortured--if "God" is unwilling to do it "himself," that is.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Steven Carr]

Well, if we humans have a real, objective moral duty to refrain from torturing innocent children for fun and if there is no basis for such a duty on an atheistic view then theism obtains, necessarily.

And if God has a real, objective moral dutyto save children from being tortured for fun.....

[Steven Carr]

maybe the theological question of the moment is this: If there is no God to help, why is Richard Carr wasting his time sitting at a keyboard, when he could be, should be ,would be actually helping rescue these children from being tortured?

I find my lack of omnipotence a handicap in the cause.

[Cross Examiner]

Hardly. You are just dogmatically defining what you mean by "good". Well, right back at you. I know evil when I see it, therefore, there is evil...assuming God exists at all. Therefore, it isn't problematic at all for naturalists.
Oh? Well, if you deny that evil is privative then you implicitly affirm it is substantive. That is, if evil is not merely the absence of good, as you say, then it is some positive thing (e.g., a quality, property, substance, entity etc.) in it's own rite. So now you not only need to explain what this queer thing 'good' is from a purely naturalistic standpoint, but you've also signed on to explain a second, independent queer thing, 'evil', which you intuit or somehow and otherwise know directly. Just so my point is not missed let me say frankly that, in light of your revealed position, I challenge you to give an account of both good and evil that is compatible with naturalism. Bonus points if your account doesn't willy-nilly reduce good and evil to evolutionary and culturally conditioned personal preference ... you know, the sort of reduction that in no way accounts for real moral truth and duty.
No. Let's give the problem some perspective, shall we.


If it could be logically shown that there were no "morally sufficient reason" then the undeniable conclusion would be that God, as defined, does not exist.
Better, if it can be shown - and I think it has - that it is logically possible for God (if it exists) to both eliminate evil and obtain whatever greater good or goal he plans, then that God, as defined, does not exist.
On the other hand, if 1 and 2 fail, then it follows only that God as defined is not incompatible with evil - it doesn't say God as defined exists (see the many other problems with God's coherency).

1 sounds right enough but I find the wording of 2 confusing. Are you able to rephrase it? Between 1 and 2, it looks like you're trying to distinguish the inductive and deductive forms of the problem of suffering from one another but I'm not entirely sure. With respect to 3, it should go without saying that no inference to God's existence follows from the failure of arguments against God's existence. Anyway, I need to amend my earlier response to the problem of suffering. It should read:

If God cannot or is unlikely to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting _____ (e.g., painful deaths) then upon this fact alone are we justified in doubting God's existence.

[Kimpatsu]

That is, if evil is not merely the absence of good, as you say, then it is some positive thing in it's own rite.
What does "...in it is own ceremony" mean, anyway...?
Bonus points if your account doesn't willy-nilly reduce good and evil to evolutionary and culturally conditioned personal preference ... you know, the sort of reduction that in no way accounts for real moral truth and duty.
Good and evil ARE evolutionary and culturally conditioned attitudes. Absolute moral truth does not exist. The one consistent thread throughout human history that binds together all subjective moralities is the Golden Rule, but even then, it is not total. For example, the Romans only extended the courtesy of "do unto others" to fellow Roman citizens (their in-group, or uchi), and felt morally justified in enslaving non-citizens (their out-group, or soto). Absolute morality is a pathway to the committing of evil acts, such as the Roman Catholic church's intransigence on contraception in AIDS-ridden Africa, or the moral certainty of the Islamic suicide bomber. As such, we can conclude that even if absolute morality is not itself a priori evil, it engenders evil, and as such, is a long way off from the angels...

[-DM-]

The one consistent thread throughout human history that binds together all subjective moralities is the Golden Rule, but even then, it is not total. For example, the Romans only extended the courtesy of "do unto others" to fellow Roman citizens (their in-group, or uchi, and felt morally justified in enslaving non-citizens (their out-group, or soto).According to what I have read in more than one source, the same was true with regard to the Israelites: for example, the "Old Testament" commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" [Leviticus 19:18] applied only to fellow Israelites.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Cross Examiner]

What does "...in it is own ceremony" mean, anyway...?
Good catch. Please read the sentence as 'in its own right' instead.Good and evil ARE evolutionary and culturally conditioned attitudes. Absolute moral truth does not exist. The one consistent thread throughout human history that binds together all subjective moralities is the Golden Rule, but even then, it is not total. For example, the Romans only extended the courtesy of "do unto others" to fellow Roman citizens (their in-group, or uchi), and felt morally justified in enslaving non-citizens (their out-group, or soto). Absolute morality is a pathway to the committing of evil acts, such as the Roman Catholic church's intransigence on contraception in AIDS-ridden Africa, or the moral certainty of the Islamic suicide bomber. As such, we can conclude that even if absolute morality is not itself a priori evil, it engenders evil, and as such, is a long way off from the angels...
Why should we think that just because humans don't agree on what the answer is that there is no one right or true answer? Why should we think that just because there are many moralities that there is no one right or true morality? Anyway, I've been talking about objective morality (as contrasted with subjective morality) not absolute morality (as contrasted with moral relativity). An objective truth, moral or otherwise, is one that is true irrespective of subjective belief (e.g., human belief) on the matter. An absolute truth is one that is true irrespective of circumstance: time, place, culture, situational context etc. Did you mean to change topics on me?

[Kimpatsu]

Why should we think that just because humans don't agree on what the answer is that there is no one right or true answer? Why should we think that just because there are many moralities that there is no one right or true morality? Anyway, I've been talking about objective morality (as contrasted with subjective morality) not absolute morality (as contrasted with moral relativity). An objective truth, moral or otherwise, is one that is true irrespective of subjective belief (e.g., human belief) on the matter. An absolute truth is one that is true irrespective of circumstance: time, place, culture, situational context etc. Did you mean to change topics on me?
Give me one example of an objective morality. Any such example would be axiomatic; everyone reading your post would automatically agree with it. So, just one example, please...

[Cross Examiner]

Give me one example of an objective morality. Any such example would be axiomatic; everyone reading your post would automatically agree with it. So, just one example, please...
Why must an objective truth, moral or otherwise, be something everyone agrees with? You do understand what objective means, right? 2 + 2 = 4. This is an objective truth; it is an objective analytic truth. But must everyone agree for this to be so? Of course not. The earth revolves around the sun. This is an objective synthetic truth. But must everyone agree for this to be so? Of course not. It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun. This is also an objective truth; it is an objective moral truth. But must everyone including child-torturers agree in order for this to be so? Of course not. If some truth P is objective then it doesn't matter in the least what anyone believes or doesn't believe about P. This is what objective means. However, the value of a subjective truth turns on human agreement/belief/preference and the like. It sounds like you're mixing up subjective and objective.

[Kimpatsu]

Why must an objective truth, moral or otherwise, be something everyone agrees with? You do understand what objective means, right? 2 + 2 = 4. This is an objective truth; it is an objective analytic truth. But must everyone agree for this to be so? Of course not. The earth revolves around the sun. This is an objective synthetic truth. But must everyone agree for this to be so? Of course not. It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun. This is also an objective truth; it is an objective moral truth. But must everyone including child-torturers agree in order for this to be so? Of course not. If some truth P is objective then it doesn't matter in the least what anyone believes or doesn't believe about P. This is what objective means. However, the value of a subjective truth turns on human agreement/belief/preference and the like. It sounds like you're mixing up subjective and objective.
Not torturing children for fun is most definitely NOT an objective moral truth; it is subjective. The Kurgans of the ancient Russian steps threw children to the wolves for fun. In their morality, this was a perfectly acceptable thing to do. If an objective moral truth really existed, it would be apparant to all people. No such moral truth exists. Even modern-day child torturers fall into two categories; those who believe their actions to be wrong, but torture children anyway (like Roy Whiting, who abducted and murdered eight-year-old Sarah Payne), and those who beleive their actions to be right, as in the members of an African church in London, who tortured an eight-year-old girl to death because they believed her to be possessed by the Devil, and they beleived themselves to be performing an exorcism. Although they've all now received prison sentences, none of them believe that they did anything wrong. Ergo, claiming that it is wrong to torture children is an objective moral truth is flat-out wrong; it is clearly subjective.
BTW, that the Earth orbits the Sun is not truth; it is a fact. I think you're mixing up facts (which are divined by science), and truth (which is the province of philosophy).

[primate]

BGic wrote:If God cannot or is unlikely to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting _____ (e.g., painful deaths) then upon this fact alone are we justified in doubting God's existence. More question begging.

[trh]

Not torturing children for fun is most definitely NOT an objective moral truth; it is subjective. The Kurgans of the ancient Russian steps threw children to the wolves for fun. In their morality, this was a perfectly acceptable thing to do. ...members of an African church in London, who tortured an eight-year-old girl to death because they believed her to be possessed by the Devil, and they beleived themselves to be performing an exorcism. Although they've all now received prison sentences, none of them believe that they did anything wrong. Ergo, claiming that it is wrong to torture children is an objective moral truth is flat-out wrong; it is clearly subjective.
You're assuming what you're trying to establish. That is, you're trying to establish that there is no objective morality, but your use of "their" morality assumes that morality is subjective.
The moral realist would simply reply that there is no such thing as "your" morality and "my" morality, anymore than there is "my" physical universe and "your" physical universe. There may be subjective concepts of morality, but that does not preclude there being an objective morality that exists independent of those concepts.



If an objective moral truth really existed, it would be apparant to all people.

You need an argument to support this. There is no necessary link between something being both metaphysically real ("objective") and epistimically self-evident or "universal". I can't even imagine an argument that would try to establish such a link.

that the Earth orbits the Sun is not truth; it is a fact. I think you're mixing up facts (which are divined by science), and truth (which is the province of philosophy).

The terms may have been used loosely on this thread, but making a distinction won't do any work for your argument. By moral "truths", BGiC meant (I assume he would agree) moral "facts".

A clearer way to make the distinction is to say that "facts" are part of objective (i.e. not mind-dependent) reality, whereas "truth" is a linguistic property: it only applies to declarative statements.

-trh

[Kimpatsu]

You're assuming what you're trying to establish. That is, you're trying to establish that there is no objective morality, but your use of "their" morality assumes that morality is subjective.
The moral realist would simply reply that there is no such thing as "your" morality and "my" morality, anymore than there is "my" physical universe and "your" physical universe. There may be subjective concepts of morality, but that does not preclude there being an objective morality that exists independent of those concepts.
If you can demonstrate a physical universe different from the one I inhabit, you'll win a Nobel prize. Once again, you are conflating physical fact with moral truth. It is not incumbent upon me to demonstrate that morality is relative; it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that morality is absolute.
Any objective morality would de facto be recognizable as such, even if not all people chose to abide by it. (Even criminals serving jail sentences will admit that their acts were wrong.) So, why can we not agree on what is moral?
As to my "assumption", as I don't agree with the Kurgens' stance, I can tell you right now hat my morality is different from theirs+ i.e., both our moralities are subjective.
You need an argument to support this. There is no necessary link between something being both metaphysically real ("objective") and epistimically self-evident or "universal". I can't even imagine an argument that would try to establish such a link.
If any truth (not fact, note) is universal, it would be de facto axiomatic. That you can't see a link is only more evidence that objective morality doesn't exist.
The terms may have been used loosely on this thread, but making a distinction won't do any work for your argument. By moral "truths", BGiC meant (I assume he would agree) moral "facts".
There is no such thing as a moral fact; facts are for the empirical world alone. Truth is for philosophy, and mathematics. Using one when you mean the other doesn't help YOUR argument.
A clearer way to make the distinction is to say that "facts" are part of objective (i.e. not mind-dependent) reality, whereas "truth" is a linguistic property: it only applies to declarative statements.
In other words, no morality can ever be factual, whereas science can only ever be. Which illustrates my point: morality is a philosophy, and as such, can never be factual.

[trh]

Kimpatsu-

I am an agnostic/atheist Darwinist, so I'd love to see you win this argument. But I regret to say that your most recent comments seem to me to be quite poor.

I said:
The moral realist would simply reply that there is no such thing as "your" morality and "my" morality, any more than there is "my" physical universe and "your" physical universe.and you replied:
If you can demonstrate a physical universe different from the one I inhabit, you'll win a Nobel prize.
What's your point, Kimpatsu? I was explaining that the moral realist would take issue with the notions of "my" morality and "your" morality, as these notions presuppose the falsity of his position. Therefore you had better not presuppose them in an argument against his position, lest you beg the question. Simple enough? Reply to this point if you want, but your claim about the Nobel prize is both platitudinous and irrelevant, I also find it annoying and - if I could understand how it even addresses my remarks - a bit angry.

It is not incumbent upon me to demonstrate that morality is relative; it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that morality is absolute.
It is not incumbent on me to demonstrate any such thing, since I did not argue that the moral realism (or absolutism or whatever - BGiC brought in some additional distinctions that I don't want or need to delve into for the present argument) is correct.
Is it incumbent on the moral realists (/absolutist) to demonstrate his claim? Perhaps that burden is his, but in either case I don't see how that is even relevant. My only claim was that your support for this assertion:
Not torturing children for fun is most definitely NOT an objective moral truth
begged the question by presupposing that morality is subjective. I stand by that, and you haven't managed to address my claim yet.

any objective morality would de facto be recognizable as such
Okay: either this is your assumption, and as such, it is not your burden to prove it, (as you claim above) or else it is a premise in your argument against moral realism, in which case it is fair for someone to ask you to support it.
I don't see why you claim that "any objective morality would be recognizable as such", and I would indeed like to see why I should be motivated to agree. Here is a hypothetical counterexample to rebut your claim:

All morality is derived from the will and commandment of a deity, as most monotheists believe. As such, morality is objective. Yet some people are unaware of the will of this deity, so they do not recognize all of her laws as the objective moral truths that they are.

Now, I don't have to believe in such a deity in order to think that your initial claim - that any objective morality would be recognizable as such - is dubious at best. So, again, please give me some reason for thinking that it is correct.

You also said:
I can tell you right now hat my morality is different from theirs+ i.e., both our moralities are subjective.
I mentioned in my previous post that the moral realist would say that there is no such thing as "your" morality and "their" morality: only your conception of morality differing from their conception of morality, or perhaps you have different beliefs regarding morality.
If morality is indeed objective, then a difference in belief, or moral intuition, does not suffice for you and I having our "own moralities".

Now, as I said above, perhaps you are entitled to assume this without a burden of proof. But if you are using it as an argument to disprove moral realism, you should offer something more convincing than "I can tell you right now..."

Next clash: I wrote:
There is no necessary link between something being both metaphysically real ("objective") and epistimically self-evident or "universal". I can't even imagine an argument that would try to establish such a link.
and you responded:
That you can't see a link is only more evidence that objective morality doesn't exist.
This is a quite slippery of you. You claimed that if the moral realist is right, there would be such a link. I said I don't see why there should be such a link, so your argument doesn't work. You replied that the fact that I can't see it is evidence that there is no objective morality. Are you even being serious?

There is no such thing as a moral fact; facts are for the empirical world alone. Truth is for philosophy, and mathematics. Using one when you mean the other doesn't help YOUR argument.

I'm beginning to think you're being a bit antagonistic, but perhaps you just missed my point. Or perhaps I somehow manage to miss yours (though I doubt it, at this point).

First, the only argument I've offered is that an argument you presented against the existence of 'objective morality' presupposed its own conclusion. I haven't seen you even address this. Second, I don't see that I've even once used "truth" when I meant "fact". Give me an example of this.

I also want to take issue with your account of the truth/fact distinction: "facts are for the empirical world alone. Truth is for philosophy, and mathematics."
Your distinctions do not line up with standard usage in philosophy or science. Certainly most scientists believe that there are scientific truths (which would refer to correct theories, or propositions that are parts of theories). Standard usage holds physical facts to be things in the world, whereas scientific theories depend on us for their existence, and are not facts, and are the sorts of things that can be true, and are nonetheless scientific. Note that your account is completely at odds with all of this.

All of this lines up with my earlier account of the truth/fact distinction: facts are that which make up objective (mind-independent) reality, and truth is a property of declarative statements. Perhaps you differ, but as far as I know, this is the generally accepted view, with good reason.

Oddly, you responded to my earlier statement accounting for this distinction with this bold non-sequitor:
In other words, no morality can ever be factual, whereas science can only ever be.

Further, you should be more careful than to correlate "factual" with "empirical", lest you maintain that there can be no objectively real facts that lay outside of your potential realm of experience (e.g., physical objects outside of your light cone).

Also, the notion that there are no mathematical "facts" is highly controversial, so it won't due to assume it without any argument. This is all pretty basic stuff in metaphysics; even physicalists tend to be wary about nominalism, pace David Lewis .

-trh

[Kimpatsu]

Get as angry as you want; it just proves my point that in the absence of reasoning, you resort to emotional comfort.
I can cite numerous ewxamples that demonstrate the relativity of morality; for example, the Golden rule only applies to your [/I]uchi[I]. As you are the one claiming that absolute morality exists, the onus is on you to demonstrate this. A single example will do. Just one...

[Cross Examiner]

More question begging.
Oh? Which question do I beg, exactly? I write something like this:

If it is impossible or improbable that a completely loving, powerful and wise creator-deity (e.g., God) has a morally sufficient reason for allowing and/or decreeing creaturely suffering (e.g., painful deaths) then such a deity as described cannot or is unlikely to exist.

and you say I beg the question? I must question your grasp of things as this, a simple iteration of the unknown purpose defense, is a pretty standard response to two pretty standard forms of the problem of evil/suffering, stated simply as:

the deductive:

1. A perfectly loving, powerful and wise God is logically incompatible with
2. the existence of any suffering.
Suffering exists
3. God cannot exist

and inductive, respectively:

1. If God exists, then there can be no gratuitous (i.e., morally unjustifiable) evil.
2. There is gratuitous evil, probably.
3. God probably does not exist.

I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time here but please do prove me wrong. Kindly let me know which question I beg so I may amend my ways posthaste.

[trh]

Get as angry as you want; it just proves my point that in the absence of reasoning, you resort to emotional comfort.
I can cite numerous ewxamples that demonstrate the relativity of morality; for example, the Golden rule only applies to your [/I]uchi[I]. As you are the one claiming that absolute morality exists, the onus is on you to demonstrate this. A single example will do. Just one...
Kimpatsu-

You clearly didn't even read my post, it looks to me like you just skimmed it.

1. I did not get "angry", I commented that your cheap rhetoric seemed angry, and therefore inappropriate.

2. I am not the one claiming that absolute morality exists; in fact I couldn't have made it clearer in my previous post that I am not advocating that position: I am simply pointing out a weakness in your argument.
Refer especially to the part when I said: I did not argue that the moral realism ... is correct and My only claim was that your support for your assertion...begged the question I also said: I am an agnostic/atheist Darwinist, so I'd love to see you win this argument

3. You accuse me of resorting to "emotional comfort" in the "absence of reasoning". I don't know what you consider my "emotional comfort" to be, but since you didn't even read my post, I don't care either.

But in response to my dismantling of your argument, setting straight your silly assumptions about the point of my post, and showing that the conceptual distinctions you tried to draw were neither standard (even among us atheists) in science and philosophy, nor especially good on their own merits, you respond with a personal attack.

4. What is an "uchi"?

I suggest you try to do better. If you can't even constructively participate in discussion with a fellow nontheist, you are going to be an embarassment in any more serious arguments that you incite.

-trh

[One Who Replies]

the sociologists's test: the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, prisoners, children, laborers, the sick......historically, have Christian cultures treated these groups better than non_Christian cultures? and how does this figure into your moral relativity calculus?

[Kimpatsu]

Kimpatsu-

You clearly didn't even read my post, it looks to me like you just skimmed it.

1. I did not get "angry", I commented that your cheap rhetoric seemed angry, and therefore inappropriate.

2. I am not the one claiming that absolute morality exists; in fact I couldn't have made it clearer in my previous post that I am not advocating that position: I am simply pointing out a weakness in your argument.
Refer especially to the part when I said: and I also said

3. You accuse me of resorting to "emotional comfort" in the "absence of reasoning". I don't know what you consider my "emotional comfort" to be, but since you didn't even read my post, I don't care either.

But in response to my dismantling of your argument, setting straight your silly assumptions about the point of my post, and showing that the conceptual distinctions you tried to draw were neither standard (even among us atheists) in science and philosophy, nor especially good on their own merits, you respond with a personal attack.

4. What is an "uchi"?

I suggest you try to do better. If you can't even constructively participate in discussion with a fellow nontheist, you are going to be an embarassment in any more serious arguments that you incite.

-trh
To start with, an uchi is your in-group, and contrasted with your soto, which is your out-group. The words are Japanese, but used in anthropology frequently. I defined the terms in an earlier post in this thread. I can only conclude that you didn't read it.
You claim that there is such a thing as objective reality. Any such morality would be an absolute, and hence, you are indeed arguing for moral absolutism. You have yet to supply any example of an objective (i.e., absolute) morality, however. Instead, you claim that you are not arguing for an absolute morality, only for an objective morality, and yet they are really one and the same thing! Now, the $10 million question is: can you or can you not supply an example of absolute (i.e., objective) morality? We're waiting...

[trh]

Kimpatsu-

an uchi is your in-group, and contrasted with your soto, which is your out-group... I defined the terms in an earlier post in this thread. I can only conclude that you didn't read it.Correct conclusion. I only skimmed the earlier parts of this thread, since my initial post only concerned a particular formulation of your argument against objective morality. But now I'd like to ask why you keep making these odd assumptions about my "in group". They're worse than assumptions, actually, since they run contrary to things I have already said - nay, reiterated at least thrice - in my earlier posts.

Kimpatsu said: you claim that you are not arguing for an absolute morality, only for an objective morality

:banghead:


Kimpatsu, for the last time: I am not arguing for the existence of objective moral facts. I wrote in my last post:

I am not the one claiming that absolute morality exists; in fact I couldn't have made it clearer in my previous post that I am not advocating that positionand I did not argue that the moral realism ... is correct If you tell me one more time that I am "arguing for objective morality", I will have no choice but to conclude that you are mentally retarded.

Can I spell it out clearer, still? Let me try: I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY, and I am even inclined against believing that there are moral facts that exist independently of our minds. Got it? I probably agree with your position, more or less. My gripe with you has never been over your position, it is over your employment of a bad argument. Got it now?

Please let me know if this is less than 100% clear, at which point I will attempt the impossible, and try to make my point even simpler. Forgive me if I seem to dwell too much on this important point, but this is my third emphatic attempt to explain something very simple to you, and each time you persist in your habit of responding according to the mistaken assumption that I am a moral realist who only believes what I believe because all my Christian (or moral realist/absolutist) buddies do - my "uchi" - and this is indeed a very hard thing for an atheist to hear without being a bit put off.

You said this:
Instead, you claim that you are not arguing for an absolute morality, only for an objective morality, and yet they are really one and the same thing!Perhaps I have discovered the source of your confusion. I never claimed I am "not arguing for an absolute morality, only for an objective morality". In fact, if you read my posts carefully, you might notice places where I say things like "I did not argue that the moral realism... is correct" and "I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY". I realize those statements might be too subtle, but if you take a moment to think about the deeper meaning, it might sink in. :banghead:

In fact, it is "Billy Graham is Cool" who said I've been talking about objective morality (as contrasted with subjective morality) not absolute morality (as contrasted with moral relativity). Not only did I not try to make this distinction, I even explicitly steered clear of it when I said ...moral realism or absolutism or whatever - BGiC brought in some additional distinctions that I don't want or need to delve into for the present argument If this is still unclear to you, then I give up. But perhaps you could reread my posts, keeping in mind that "Billy Graham is Cool" and I are not the same person. I would have thought this obvious, since we spell and pronounce our names differently. See if that helps at all. If not, then - despite the comedic value of your responses - I will have to move on to other things.

-trh

P.S. If you feel a need to respond to my post with some challenge about providing an example of objective morality, please reread my post until that feeling leaves you.

P.P.S. In the above post, I neither argue for, nor advocate, belief in the existence of objective moral facts.

P.P.P.S. (really!)

[One Who Replies]

why must this debate be so abstract? seems to me we should cut to the chase and compare real world examples/models of different groups/cultures and see which ones have done better (morally speaking) than others and figure out why, if causation can be determined. Does religion help reduce rape and abuse of women? or make it worse? (for example)

[trh]

Originally Posted By One Who Replies: why must this debate be so abstract? seems to me we should cut to the chase and compare real world examples/models of different groups/cultures and see which ones have done better (morally speaking) than others and figure out why, if causation can be determined. Does religion help reduce rape and abuse of women? or make it worse? (for example)

A few comments that should at least explain why my posts deal with relatively "abstract" arguments:

1. I jumped into this thread to point out a weakness in a specific argument. That argument was mostly a priori (it took a completely non-controversial empirical fact and tried to draw a very substantial conclusion). My subsequent 'abstract' posts would have been completely unnecessary had Kimpatsu actually taken the time to read what I was saying (see previous posts to see the ensuing absurdity).

2. The link between the truth of a belief system and the practical effects of that system is pretty tenuous. The sorts of arguments surrounding this link tend to be very messy, with each side working to claim or disown certain alleged "members" in order to bolster the argument. I am hesitant to rely too heavily on the conclusions of this sort of investigation. Instead, the conversation was centering on a sort of conceptual analysis that might yeild conclusions that were not so tenuous.
To put it more simply: even if belief in objective moral facts tend to create morally superior people (hypothetically, this is a conclusion you might intend to establish with your "cut to the chase" point), it still might be the case that there are not and could not possibly be any objective moral facts.

3. The sort of debate you suggest is one that, due to my limited knowledge of history and other cultures, I don't think I could do justice to. Perhaps a new thread (which may be appropriate anyway at this point) could raise this question, and someone better qualified could respond.

-trh

[Gamut]

I think atheists would gain a bit more intellectual credibility if they would occasionally concede when theists make valid arguments.

I think people who don't believe in elves would gain a bit more intellectual credibility if they would occasionally concede when elf worshippers make valid arguments.

See the problem?

[One Who Replies]

respectfully, no. I dont see the problem. But if you can summarily dismiss centuries of archaeological, textual, historical,experiental-research and charitable work of thousands of seminaries, universities, and church groups, and say there is no evidence supporting Christianity then you may wish to evaluate yourown a priori bias. I'm not worried, the Christian church will be here going strong long after you and your elves are gone. And in a way, Christianity, b ahteist admission, must surely be a miracle in and of itself...if, as you say, there is no evidence for Christianity, yet Christianity is such a profoundly influential force in the world. 97% of the world's population have been and remain "theists" by the way. There is not a single atheist senator, college president, generalor flag officer, or Division I coach either! Your "elf" team aint doing so well, my friend!

[Cross Examiner]

Oh come on, trh, everyone knows you're really my hand-puppet. No one's going to fall for that 'BGic and trh are not the same person' bit. Anyway, you're the rare nontheist honest enough to challenge other nontheists while theists are in the room. Kudos and welcome to IIDB. Kimpatsu, seriously. How are you still confusing objective with absolute? Let me again try to ham-fistedly distinguish the two for you: an objective truth is one that is true irrespective of what people believe about it. An absolute truth is one that is true irrespective of circumstance. Now apply that distinction to morality and you should then be able to see how if I talk of objective morality I do not necessarily talk of absolute morality as well. But since you appear to want to talk only of absolute morality, I'll go ahead and dance to your tune.

First, I should say that I don't see how it follows from the given that different cultures have different ideas about morality that there is no absolute morality against which all these cultural ideas are either true or false. In order for this to stick, I think one must make the assumption that the existence of an absolute morality would probably manifest itself as widespread moral agreement. So if you can successfully argue that we should think this true then your argument from moral disagreement to the non-existence of absolute morality might be worth a darn. But as it stands, it's just the classical non-sequitur secular anthropologists and sociologists make when they move from their areas of expertise and into moral philosophy. And in any case, I don't think we can so quickly conclude on the issue of moral disagreement. As Lewis notes in The Abolition of Man, no culture has ever valued cowardice in battle, general dishonesty and so forth. If it were relevant, I think we could make a compelling case for a kernal of moral agreement and shared moral knowledge across time and place.

[Kimpatsu]

respectfully, no. I dont see the problem. But if you can summarily dismiss centuries of archaeological, textual, historical,experiental-research and charitable work of thousands of seminaries, universities, and church groups, and say there is no evidence supporting Christianity then you may wish to evaluate yourown a priori bias. I'm not worried, the Christian church will be here going strong long after you and your elves are gone. And in a way, Christianity, b ahteist admission, must surely be a miracle in and of itself...if, as you say, there is no evidence for Christianity, yet Christianity is such a profoundly influential force in the world. 97% of the world's population have been and remain "theists" by the way. There is not a single atheist senator, college president, generalor flag officer, or Division I coach either! Your "elf" team aint doing so well, my friend!
What charitable work? Charity is defined as good works with no strings attached, and yet the Xian workers always insist on proselytising as a condition of their involvement. A case in point is when Cafod withdrew from feeding the homeless after the tsunami in Indonesia last Xmas because they were forbidden from rounding up the kids and sending them to Xian indoctrination by the Indonesian government.
The econtinued existence of Xianity isn't a miracle; it's a testament to the folly of humankind, but no miracle. If Xianity is a miracle, then so is Judaism, which has been around for longer and suffered greater persecution, and so is Islam, which has more practicing members.
Just because 97% of the world's population believes something doesn't make it true; once, 100% of people thought the world was flat. Belief and fact are not the same... as evidenced by Xianity. You can believe it, but it sure ain't true...

[-DM-]

Considering the billions of dollars and the billions of man-hours that have been spent advertising, promoting, promulgating and propagating Christianity, it isn't surprising that it has done as well as it has. It has a challenger, though, in Islam given that Islam is reportedly the fastest-growing religion--and that is in spite of the fact that atheists and Christians alike would say that Islam is a false religion.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Gamut]

respectfully, no. I dont see the problem. But if you can summarily dismiss centuries of archaeological, textual, historical,experiental-research and charitable work of thousands of seminaries, universities, and church groups, and say there is no evidence supporting Christianity then you may wish to evaluate yourown a priori bias. I'm not worried, the Christian church will be here going strong long after you and your elves are gone. And in a way, Christianity, b ahteist admission, must surely be a miracle in and of itself...if, as you say, there is no evidence for Christianity, yet Christianity is such a profoundly influential force in the world. 97% of the world's population have been and remain "theists" by the way. There is not a single atheist senator, college president, generalor flag officer, or Division I coach either! Your "elf" team aint doing so well, my friend!

OK so, replace "elf" with "x belief" same result.

By your standards of evidence, the Bhuddist ideology surely must be true, as well as every other ideology that has withstood the test of persecution and time.

Ever thought that maybe you are in a country with a Christian majority? It ain't so in every nation.

In some parts of the world, your "Chrisitan" team aint doin so well my friend!

Indeed I'd say in a few cultures...my elves would be accepted far sooner than your sky-daddy.

[One Who Replies]

well thank you gamut for your kind reply, ...I have done a fair amount of Christian charitable work in third world countries and I will bet you gamut that if gamut should ever go to such places and find him/herself injured and out of money, odds are pretty good that it will be one of those "proseltyzing evangelical" Christian medical clinics that will be most likely to help gamut, and they will help you no matter your caste/color/creed or political beliefs. If so, gamut will find himself the beneficiary of a kindly man who once said "go throughout the entire world healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and helping widows and orphans and the oppressed".....aka Jesus Christ. Then again, these medical missionaries could just be a bunch of physican con artists out to make millions building those medical clinics and helping the poor!!!!!

[Kimpatsu]

Kimpatsu, seriously. How are you still confusing objective with absolute? Let me again try to ham-fistedly distinguish the two for you: an objective truth is one that is true irrespective of what people believe about it. An absolute truth is one that is true irrespective of circumstance. Now apply that distinction to morality and you should then be able to see how if I talk of objective morality I do not necessarily talk of absolute morality as well. But since you appear to want to talk only of absolute morality, I'll go ahead and dance to your tune.
You are ducking the reality that any objective morality would be recognised as such, i.e., it would be known to all people from all lands and times, regardless of whether they subscribed to it or not. That no such morality exists is evidence that morality is subjective.
First, I should say that I don't see how it follows from the given that different cultures have different ideas about morality that there is no absolute morality against which all these cultural ideas are either true or false. In order for this to stick, I think one must make the assumption that the existence of an absolute morality would probably manifest itself as widespread moral agreement. So if you can successfully argue that we should think this true then your argument from moral disagreement to the non-existence of absolute morality might be worth a darn. But as it stands, it's just the classical non-sequitur secular anthropologists and sociologists make when they move from their areas of expertise and into moral philosophy. And in any case, I don't think we can so quickly conclude on the issue of moral disagreement. As Lewis notes in The Abolition of Man, no culture has ever valued cowardice in battle, general dishonesty and so forth. If it were relevant, I think we could make a compelling case for a kernal of moral agreement and shared moral knowledge across time and place.
CS Lewis is wrong.
Many native American tribes favoured discretion as the better part of valour, and as foe general dishonesty, the white man lied through his teeth to cheat Maoris out of their ancestral lalnds through the treaty of Waitangi, and again cheat the Aborigines of Australia, and again many native American tribes. Hence all the lawsuits for redress today. The point being, any white man behaving is such a thoroughly dishonest fashion was feted by his peers as shrewd and practical; his dishonesty was respected. So your argument falls at the first hurdle.

[Gamut]

well thank you gamut for your kind reply, ...I have done a fair amount of Christian charitable work in third world countries and I will bet you gamut that if gamut should ever go to such places and find him/herself injured and out of money, odds are pretty good that it will be one of those "proseltyzing evangelical" Christian medical clinics that will be most likely to help gamut, and they will help you no matter your caste/color/creed or political beliefs. If so, gamut will find himself the beneficiary of a kindly man who once said "go throughout the entire world healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and helping widows and orphans and the oppressed".....aka Jesus Christ. Then again, these medical missionaries could just be a bunch of physican con artists out to make millions building those medical clinics and helping the poor!!!!!

Whether you are right about this or not has absolutely nothing to do with conceding a debate to someone who is arguing in favor of a fairy tale.

I too have done my share of Christian work and directly supported missionaries on nearly every continent, all of whom were very close personal friends of mine. I know these people well. I was one of these people. Their kindness is not relevant in this discussion.

Indeed, I have had many a heathen friend be very, very kind to me.

[-DM-]

Their kindness is not relevant in this discussion.This is true, so far as I am concerned. If, however, the kindness of Christians is going to be held to somehow be relevant to this discussion, than the unkindness of Christians could also be held to be relevant; one could then mention such matters as inquisitions, witch hunts, child molestation, etc., at the hands of Christians.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Kimpatsu]

well thank you gamut for your kind reply, ...I have done a fair amount of Christian charitable work in third world countries and I will bet you gamut that if gamut should ever go to such places and find him/herself injured and out of money, odds are pretty good that it will be one of those "proseltyzing evangelical" Christian medical clinics that will be most likely to help gamut, and they will help you no matter your caste/color/creed or political beliefs.
Are you see that they will indeed "help you no matter your caste/color/creed or political beliefs"? Without attempting to proselytise or even mention their religion? For, if just one word about their religious motivation comes out of their mouths, the treatment is a conditional action, and hence, not charity.
If so, gamut will find himself the beneficiary of a kindly man who once said "go throughout the entire world healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and helping widows and orphans and the oppressed".....aka Jesus Christ. Then again, these medical missionaries could just be a bunch of physican con artists out to make millions building those medical clinics and helping the poor!!!!!
No person called Jesus Christ ever said any such thing. The quotes attributed to Jesus are mostly from the legend of the Egyptian god Osiris, and the virgin birth is that claimed by the Roman emperor Tiberius. As to physician con artists, Doctors without Borders is a non-proselytising charity that is the biggest meical relief organisation in the world!

[-DM-]

No person called Jesus Christ ever said any such thing.Unless you are omniscient, you cannot know with certainty what someone, including the person called Jesus [the] Christ, never said.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[trh]

Posted by Kimpatsu: You are ducking the reality that any objective morality would be recognised as such, i.e., it would be known to all people from all lands and times, regardless of whether they subscribed to it or not.
Kimpatsu: You have reduced me to begging. Please, please offer something resembling an argument to support this claim.

In all fairness to BGiC, he did not "duck" this issue. He actually addressed it pretty eloquently when he said:I don't see how it follows from the given that different cultures have different ideas about morality that there is no absolute morality against which all these cultural ideas are either true or false. In order for this to stick, I think one must make the assumption that the existence of an absolute morality would probably manifest itself as widespread moral agreement.
Did you read that? He just did about third of your work for you, by telling you what assumption you have to justify. It is amazing to me that even when someone specifically addresses something you accuse them of avoiding it. Is it not amazing to you that you do this over and over? If not, I am truly baffled as to what it is like to be Kimpatsu.

I also adressed this claim of yours when I said:

You need an argument to support (your claim: "If an objective moral truth really existed, it would be apparant to all people"). There is no necessary link between something being both metaphysically real ("objective") and epistimically self-evident or "universal". I can't even imagine an argument that would try to establish such a link.
and My only claim was that your support for this assertion: "Not torturing children for fun is most definitely NOT an objective moral truth" begged the question by presupposing that morality is subjective. I stand by that, and you haven't managed to address my claim yet.
I still stand by it, and you still haven't addressed it. No one is trying to duck anything. In fact, though I'm sure I differ strongly from BGiC in many ways, I believe we are both trying to face your point as directly as possible. Please trust my sincerity in this.

(I also addressed it here):

I don't see why you claim that "any objective morality would be recognizable as such", and I would indeed like to see why I should be motivated to agree. Here is a hypothetical counterexample to rebut your claim...(see original post for the counterexample)
You never dealt with my counterexample. It (definitively, to my mind), refuted your point that any objective morality would be recognized as such. (By the way, this response of mine is not the sort of stuff that an impartial judge would never call "ducking". This is the opposite of "ducking".)

Here I make the same point again in a different way:If morality is indeed objective, then a difference in belief, or moral intuition, does not suffice for you and I having our "own moralities"...perhaps you are entitled to assume this without a burden of proof. But if you are using it as an argument to disprove moral realism, you should offer something more convincing
And here again:(the) argument you presented against the existence of 'objective morality' presupposed its own conclusion. I haven't seen you even address this.

All of these quotes of mine, and the one from BGiC, are ways of saying the following:

Your claim, that "any objective morality would be recognized as such" is
1. Not self evident
2. Not intuitively plausible
3. (Apparently) Demonstrably false

So (he and) I keep asking you to:
1. Explain why you believe it is true
2. Offer some rebuttal for our replies, or counterexamples

And yet, each time, you:
1. Offer uncharitable ad hominem assessments of why I/we don't just accept that you're right
2. Reassert your original claim as if it was never challenged
3. Accuse me/us of failing to face that claim (!)

I am glad that you didn't respond to my last post with ad hominem attacks. Yet this was not all that satisfying, because you didn't respond at all. So I am asking as explicitly as possible: Why should anyone believe that "any objective morality would immediately be recognized as such"? I am not ignoring, or ducking, anything. I am asking in all sincerity. I assume you would agree that this claim is central to your argument, and I would love to be convinced, so work with me here.

-trh

[Kimpatsu]

Unless you are omniscient, you cannot know with certainty what someone, including the person called Jesus [the] Christ, never said.
So if somebody thinks that Santa Claus said that reindeer can fly, you'd beleive that, too?

[-DM-]

So if somebody thinks that Santa Claus said that reindeer can fly, you'd beleive that, too?This is not about what I believe, but about what you believe, namely that you believe that you can know with certainty what someone never said. It is a simple fact: unless you are omniscient you cannot know what someone never said.

The fact that you make a claim as to what the person called jesus [the] Christ never said indicates that you do not recognize what is obviously a glaring reasoning fallacy.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Kimpatsu]

This is not about what I believe, but about what you believe, namely that you believe that you can know with certainty what someone never said. It is a simple fact: unless you are omniscient you cannot know what someone never said.

The fact that you make a claim as to what the person called jesus [the] Christ never said indicates that you do not recognize what is obviously a glaring reasoning fallacy.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html
I can know for certainty that my mk0other never said anything before Parliament in the 18th century.
I can know for certainty that I never lied about WMD (unloike Bush and Blair).
I can know for certainty that the Sun is hotter than the Earth.
There are many things I can know with certainty, even though I am not omniscient.
---
PS* WTF is going on with my posts? Half of them get deleted before posting!

[-DM-]

I can know for certainty that my mk0other never said anything before Parliament in the 18th century.Perhaps, but that is hardly the same thing as saying that you can know with certainty that your mother never (in her lifetime) made a specific statement, one that someone else claims that she did make (which is the case with Jesus). And with this erroneous example you demonstrate once again that you do not recognize a very obvious reasoning error.

I can know for certainty that I never lied about WMD (unloike Bush and Blair).If you take a strict definition of "lie," namely that a lie is an untruth purposefully and knowingly told with the intent to deceive, you cannot know with certainty that Blair and Bush "lied," although you could with a very high degree of certainty say that they were mistaken about WMDs. You could go on to say that you believe that they lied.

I can know for certainty that the Sun is hotter than the Earth. There are many things I can know with certainty, even though I am not omniscient.Given that no one said that you couldn't know anything at all with certainty unless you were omniscient, this is a straw man if ever there was one. The fact that you even make this statement tends to indicate that you do not understand the argument: you cannot know with certainty what someone never (ever) said unless you are omniscient. If you believe you can, then you are mistaken.

-DM-

P.S. It is a gross misstatement to claim that half your posts have been deleted. (Were I you, I might classify your statement as "a lie.") And this is yet another example of something that you could not possibly know with certainty given that there are other explanations for missing posts. Keep in mind that there is a possibility that the problem is at your end of the line.

In any case, looking back through the posting notices that I receive automatically via e-mail for posts that are submitted, I don't see any of your submissions during the last thirty days that have been deleted. I could be mistaken, of course, but the fact is that I delete very few posts that are not spam, and then only if they provide little or no substance, contain mostly personal attacks or that sort of thing. Even at that, I usually send a courtesy e-mail to a registered user who submitted a post that was rejected to let him/her know why the post was rejected.

In any case, you should e-mail me if you have a concern about missing posts. If you could provide the content of missing posts, or sufficient clues as to the content, I could check my posting notices.

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Gamut]

Unless you are omniscient, you cannot know with certainty what someone, including the person called Jesus [the] Christ, never said.



I don't disagree with you directly, however:

I believe his point was that Jesus never existed, therefore could not have said such a thing. Hence his reply about Santa Clause.

I believe a more appropriate reuttal may have been to show evidence that Jesus did exist and did indeed say that comment.

If someone never existed, I can say without a doubt that they never said anything, and I am not omniscient.

[-DM-]

I believe his point was that Jesus never existed, therefore could not have said such a thing. Hence his reply about Santa Clause.You are reading between the lines. While you MAY be correct, that is not what he said. What he said, of course, is: "No person called Jesus Christ ever said any such thing. The quotes attributed to Jesus are mostly from the legend of the Egyptian god Osiris, and the virgin birth is that claimed by the Roman emperor Tiberius." I go by what he said, not by what he MIGHT have meant. Further, he cannot know with certainty who never existed--unless he is omniscient. Belief, however, is another matter; if he wants to say what he believes and disbelieves, rather than stating his beliefs as if they were fact, then that is fine with me.

If someone never existed, I can say without a doubt that they never said anything, and I am not omniscient.Yes, "if" someone never existed. Problem is you cannot know with certainty that someone called such and such never existed--unless you are omniscient.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[One Who Repiles]

Mr Gamut, you say that kindness of missionaries is not relevant. I respectfully disagree. I think many atheists miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the spiritual side of "forensics"....Christianity has as its foundation the idea of noble sacrifice, the expending of one's life, energy, and bounty, for others. Faith, hope, charity, compassion, empathy for the suffering of others, even outside one's kinship, cultural or social group. There is a reason why Mother Theresa is different from Adolph Hitler. JUst because somehting cant be measured on a gas chromatograph doesnt mean that it cant be real. The french philosophical school of "probabailism" wisely posits the argument that few, if any, humans -within the biological and cognitive limits of our existence, will ever have the luxury of absolute certainty (that which resolves even outlier contrarian possibilities), thus we have every right, both logically and forensically to factor in spiritual,emotional, noetic and 'gnosis' based data in that evidentiary calculus concerning the reasonableness of our belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who told his followers to go unto the world feeding the hungry, healing the sick and comforting widows, orphans and the oppressed. Moreover, I see this as a pareto-optimal "win-win" aspirational command.

[Kimpatsu]

Mr Gamut, you say that kindness of missionaries is not relevant. I respectfully disagree. I think many atheists miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the spiritual side of "forensics"....Christianity has as its foundation the idea of noble sacrifice, the expending of one's life, energy, and bounty, for others.
Really? I thought that was Buddhism, or Humanism. Xpianity is about reverencing Christ. That is the defining point that makes it different from, say, Judaism, or Islam.
Faith, hope, charity, compassion, empathy for the suffering of others, even outside one's kinship, cultural or social group.
Leaving aside "faith", which is merely superstition, all the other qualities mentioned are held in abundance by those of us who don't believe in sky gods, pixies, or the tooth fairy, either.
There is a reason why Mother Theresa is different from Adolph Hitler.
What on earth do you mean by this statement? Both MT and AH were Catholics, and Mother Teresa was an evil bitch who killed millions.
But maybe you admire Adolf Hitler.
JUst because somehting cant be measured on a gas chromatograph doesnt mean that it cant be real.
Strawman argument as to the nature of science.
Everything can be measured, even if we don't yet have the capability to measure it.
The french philosophical school of "probabailism" wisely posits the argument that few, if any, humans -within the biological and cognitive limits of our existence, will ever have the luxury of absolute certainty (that which resolves even outlier contrarian possibilities), thus we have every right, both logically and forensically to factor in spiritual,emotional, noetic and 'gnosis' based data in that evidentiary calculus concerning the reasonableness of our belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who told his followers to go unto the world feeding the hungry, healing the sick and comforting widows, orphans and the oppressed. Moreover, I see this as a pareto-optimal "win-win" aspirational command.
Again, a strawman, this time conflating rights with your own particular brand of superstition.
You have no LOGICAL right to factor in "spiritual" (what on earth does that word mean, anyway?!) when determining facts. As the the balance of probabilities, I can tell you right now FOR CERTAIN that if Jesus ever really lived at all (which is doubtful), he was at best an uppity Rabbi. The legends surrounding him--walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, and raising the dead--are in fact a reworking of the earlier Egyptian legend of Osiris, right down to the betrayal, murder, and rising again on the third day. As to the virgin birth, anyone who claimed any sort of divine powers had to be born of a virgin back then; it was de riguer. The emperor Tiberius claimed virgin birth, and so did many other would-be messiahs and saviours.
As to "win-win", you still have the problem of avoiding the wrong Hell, so that's not as win-win as you would claim it to be...

[-DM-]

You have no LOGICAL right to factor in "spiritual" (what on earth does that word mean, anyway?!)Spiritual: transcendental doubletalk signifying nothing meaningful.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[One Who Replies]

Thank you Kimpatsu and others for your kind replies. I have been out with the flu and have been unable to post. First, one observation...Napoleon said that the spiritual is as to the physical in battle as six is to one. Call it semantically whatever you like but there are "black box"(emotional, endocrinal? biochemical,"spiritual"/transcendental {Factors}in the calculus. In the "Selfish Gene"(Dawkins) genetic predispositions are cited,etc. As a Christian theist, my default setting is on God when it comes to explaining the furthest "pushbacks" in the debate over God/No God. Same for intellignet design and fine tuning,etc. I fully understand the atheist/agnostic default setting to be naturalistic and non-transcendental, I think it is wrong, but not necessarily inherently illogical (pro tanto). Much of the evidence in this debate is subject to subjective weighing: much of it can be said to be glass half empty or glass half full. The fulfillment of the Israel restoration prophecies, for example: Fulfilled By God as the text indicates or self-fulfilled by western Christians ......half empty or half full? However, I dont beleieve it is inherently illogical to choose the glass half full option! (more to follow when i have time)

[Kimpatsu]

Thank you Kimpatsu and others for your kind replies. I have been out with the flu and have been unable to post.
I hope you are feeling better now.
First, one observation...Napoleon said that the spiritual is as to the physical in battle as six is to one.
What's so great about Napoleon? He lost in Russia, lost at Waterloo, and died in exile. He also viewed religion as a useful tool for the oppression of that masses. (FYI, so did Hitler, but that's another story.)
I certainly would regard him as a reliable source for anything.
Call it semantically whatever you like but there are "black box"(emotional, endocrinal? biochemical,"spiritual"/transcendental {Factors}in the calculus. In the "Selfish Gene"(Dawkins) genetic predispositions are cited,etc.
But clearly "semantics" is the issue here! If you are going to redfine natural biological processes as "spiritual", what word do you reserve to define the (non-existent) paranormal?
If you're going to quote Dawkins, first read his essay on "The Great Convergence" in "A Devil's Chaplain".
As a Christian theist, my default setting is on God when it comes to explaining the furthest "pushbacks" in the debate over God/No God. Same for intellignet design and fine tuning,etc. I fully understand the atheist/agnostic default setting to be naturalistic and non-transcendental, I think it is wrong, but not necessarily inherently illogical (pro tanto).
Then you are wrong. To quote Dawkins again... well, read my signature block...
You do not need a god to explain the existence of the universe, or of life. In fact, the universe is exactly as we would expect it to be if there were no god. Adding a god violates Occam's Razor, so my default stance is the only rational one. If you are going to posit an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity, you must justify why, and "I just feel that way" (whis is really code for, "I would prefer things to be that way, so if I wish hard enough and click my heels three times, Lo! it must be that way") is not an argument. You must justify your unnecessarily complex and irrational viewpoint scientifically and... rationally. But that puts you in a bind, because then you are resorting to the very reasoning process that you eschew to adopt your default position!
Much of the evidence in this debate is subject to subjective weighing:
Only in your imagination. It is your opinion that the Tooth Fairy in the Sky exists; it is a fact that you do not need to posit the Great Juju to explain the existence of matter, or of life. See the difference?
...much of it can be said to be glass half empty or glass half full.
That is a bifurcation fallacy; the two are not mutually exclusive. What you are really describing is the subjectiveness of the optical illusion of the Necker cube, or the famous 2D illusion of the candlestick/old woman's face. The actual shapes in question don't change; only your perception of them does. That, however, has nothing to do with the reality that the shapes present.
The fulfillment of the Israel restoration prophecies, for example: Fulfilled By God as the text indicates or self-fulfilled by western Christians ......half empty or half full? However, I dont beleieve it is inherently illogical to choose the glass half full option! (more to follow when i have time)
As no Biblical prophecy has ever been fulfilled, your argument is moot. Worse, it is pointless. I would just ask one question, though: if your god created life, why on earth did he create the virus that struck you down? Or could it be that he just doesn't like you?

[One Who Replies]

Thank you kimpatsu for your kind reply. Because you have raised many different issues I suppose it best to address your issues one post at a time.1.You make an interesting argument when you say that Napoleon is not reliable as a source because he was unsuccessful ultimately as a General. That is fair enough I suppose as a deciding factor, after all, survival of the fittest and species competition determine who survives and who is dominate and who are slaves. I point out that in America there is not a single atheist college president, not a single atheist General or Flag rank officer, not a single atheist U.S. Senator and that 97% of Americans are theists. The American military is a profoundly Christain institution. Barna indicates that the officer corps of the American military is over 95% Christian(protestant, Roman Catholic or other). The American Military has 12 Nuclear Carrier Battle Groups and the world's foremost global fighting capability. At present, the American miltary is capable of defeating any peer competitor, both strategically and tactically. In my community the mayor, the presidents of all the major banks and investment firms are Christians. In fact a great deal of business is done based on referrals within and among the Christian churches, civic and fraternal organizations and country clubs, etc. There is not a single atheist Division I coach in all of America. In America, atheism is a marginalized, politically and economically weak movement with very little public support. Evangelical Christians recently handed the liberal left their greatest political defeat in recent memory. Therefore, I find that atheism and atheists and atheistic ideas are unreliable. part 2 to follow.

[Kimpatsu]

Your argument is just one long appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy. You'll need to do better than that.
Oh, and survival of the fittest has absolutely nothing to do with society; it's to do with Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS); or are you a social Darwinist?

[whiskey the hedonist]

92%, not 97%. If you must make pointless statements about how popular your totally unfounded and utterly unreasonable belief system is, at least get the numbers correct.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

[One Who Replies]

Thank you all for your kind replies. 2. ad populum/bandwagon fallacy would apply unless the Holy Spirit (one part of the trinity) was in fact at work compelling mankind to seek out the creator God who hard wired mankind to do so and to have the spiritual hunger to commune with God. The Bible says that the gospel will be preached unto every nation,kindred, tongue and people. When I checked last, Wycliffe Bible Translators and two other groups are about seven unwritten languages away from translating the Bible into every extant language/dialect, including the few unwritten remaining ones.This process is expected to be completed within fourteen years. No other religion now or in history has come even close to doing this. This Bible prophesy has been fulfilled(pro tanto). The fulfillment of this prophecy is direct evidence of the validity of the Bible,and the "God seeking" propensity of human beings and the power of the trinity which undergirds the gospel.

[-DM-]

The Bible says that the gospel will be preached unto every nation,kindred, tongue and people.The Bible also says that Jesus gave instructions to do exactly that in his so-called "Great Commission" speech, thus it is not surprising that Christians would do so.

No other religion now or in history has come even close to doing this.Has any other religion in history had this practice as one of its main tenets? Has any other religion in history spent so many billions of man-hours and $$$ promoting, promulgating, and evangelizing?

This Bible prophesy has been fulfilled(pro tanto). The fulfillment of this prophecy is direct evidence of the validity of the BibleIf you consider this a genuine prophecy, and if you believe that fulfilled prophecy validates the Bible, then you must also believe that prophecy which is unfulfilled and which can not now ever be fulfilled invalidates the Bible. If so, then you have a problem. For starters, see: Prophecies: Imaginary And Unfulfilled (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html) by Farrell Till (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/), an ex- minister, evangelist, and missionary.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[One Who Replies]

Thank you Mr. DM for your kind reply and for your link to Mr. Till's article on prophecy. As you may know, it can get a bit time consuming to respond in toto to links used to support a particular argument, thus I will focus for the moment on just one of Mr. Till's prophecy arguments; Tyre. Respectfully, Mr. Till is quite and utterly wrong on the Tyre prophecy. The Biblical prophecy concerning Tyre has been accurately fulfilled. I have seen it in person. The city state of Tyre was destroyed and reduced to rocks which the fishermen used to spread their nets on. Tyre was a "city-state." It was a mighty empire unto itself, it had a massive army and navy and its own "marine corps" and it ruled the sealanes much as Great Britain did until WWII. Tyre had a KIng and subdued and conquered vast surrounding territory,it was a sovereign state which had ambassadors and sent them to other empires and received ambassadors from other empires.TYre made treaties and so forth. Tyre was destroyed and has never been rebuilt. The present day town of Tyre(about 25,000 people) with an erstaz "starbucks" is not a "city state"/soveriegn empire. Have YOU been there? I suggest you go, you will understand! Till, is, regretably, incorrect. Till's other prophecy arguments have been soundly debunked as well. See Glen Miller at Wittengenstein's net and Ravi Zecharias website. (I havent posted links as I dont know if I am permitted to do so as a guest here).

[-DM-]

I will focus for the moment on just one of Mr. Till's prophecy arguments; Tyre. Respectfully, Mr. Till is quite and utterly wrong on the Tyre prophecy.Perhaps. However it only takes one prophecy which is unfulfilled and cannot now be fulfilled to negate your argument regarding prophecy fulfillment.

Till's other prophecy arguments have been soundly debunked as well. See Glen Miller at Wittengenstein's net and Ravi Zecharias website. (I havent posted links as I dont know if I am permitted to do so as a guest here).I disagree that Till's other prophecy arguments have been "soundly debunked." And yes, you can post offsite links which are specific to an issue currently under discussion.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[One Who Replies]

thank you. I dint know I was allowed to post off site links. I will try to get the cites and post them, or you may also do a simple google search and they will readily be found.Perhaps, in the interest of time saving, you could pick a particular unfulfilled prophecy of Till that we might discuss as opposed to having to labor through them all. As you surely know, we Christians can also cite long laundry lists of allegedly fulfilled prophecies (over about 1,000), some of which are quite valid and evidentiarily strong and some which are poorly chosen straw. 100fulfilledprophecies.org

[Kimpatsu]

If any Biblical prophecies had actually been fulfilled, they would be axiomatic. So how come so many of us still have doubts...?

[-DM-]

If any Biblical prophecies had actually been fulfilled, they would be axiomatic.I don't think that this assertion is in any way self-evident, and you have offered no supporting evidence and/or argument. It looks to me to be dubious--at best.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Kimpatsu]

I don't think that this assertion is in any way self-evident, and you have offered no supporting evidence and/or argument. It looks to me to be dubious--at best.
If a prophecy were to be fulfilled, surely we would all be able to see that it was so? Unless, of course, the original prophecy is so vague that almost any event can be twisted to supposedly fulfill the prophecy...

[-DM-]

If a prophecy were to be fulfilled, surely we would all be able to see that it was so?How, in the case of ancient events, could we "all" see that it was so? (Keep in mind that you said "axiomatic," which means something like "taken for granted," or "self-evident.")

Unless, of course, the original prophecy is so vague that almost any event can be twisted to supposedly fulfill the prophecy...Well, you have a point here. Some so-called prophecy has undoubtedly "come to pass" with the stroke of a pen or by means of creative apologetic "reasoning." Other so-called prophecy is vague enough that almost anything fits; "End Times" prophecies, for example, can be made to fit almost any period in history. One of the most important "prophecies" of all is that of Jesus' return; it didn't happen in the time-frame that he allegedly said it would, but apologists have been making excuses based on other inconsistent Bible verses ever since. The Lowdown on God's Slowdown (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=86) is a rather thorough discussion of the delay in the Second Coming.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Kimpatsu]

Yes, axiomatic means "self-evident". I think that if a genuine prophecy were ever fulfilled, such as Jesus's long-delayed return, we would see it for what it is; the fulfillment could not be gainsayed.
I have no idea why Jesus is so long overdue, however. Maybe the angels who have to prepare his way are on strike...?

[-DM-]

Yes, in the case of some specific prophecies, especially prophecies that were fulfilled in our own time, they might well be axiomatic. You didn't answer the question, though, about how we "all" would recognize that some ancient event had fulfilled some so-called prophecy.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Kimpatsu]

If some guy called Jesus did indeed come back to Earth from Heaven, who would be able to gainsay that?

[-DM-]

You realize, I hope, that there are some religionists who say that the Second Coming has already taken place. Some of us wonder, however, how we could recognize Jesus if he had returned without all the fanfare described in the Bible.

In any case, Kimpatsu, you haven't answered the question about how ancient events that had allegedly filled prophecy could be confirmed, let alone be considered axiomatic today.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Cross Examiner]

This is probably unwise, but I'll go ahead and interject myself into this thread again.
If some guy called Jesus did indeed come back to Earth from Heaven, who would be able to gainsay that?
I hear this from infidels all the time. But suppose Jesus did come back to Earth. Suppose we had video. In a thousand years, future skeptics would be saying that the video was doctored and that they'd love to believe but just can't do so without, say, holographic documentation of the event. The point being that the goalposts move as time moves along. The only thing that will satisfy each skeptic will be a direct and personal encounter with the reality of Christ as the committed skeptic will find a way to dismiss anything less than this.

[-DM-]

I hear this from infidels all the time.It looks to me as if you don't know what the word "gainsay" means, therefore it is highly unlikely that you "hear this from infidels all the time." (You might want to look up the meaning of the word and then provide a revised response.)

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Kimpatsu]

You realize, I hope, that there are some religionists who say that the Second Coming has already taken place. Some of us wonder, however, how we could recognize Jesus if he had returned without all the fanfare described in the Bible.

In any case, Kimpatsu, you haven't answered the question about how ancient events that had allegedly filled prophecy could be confirmed, let alone be considered axiomatic today.
[/url]
If the Second Coming has already taken place, why is the world not convinced? This is my point exactly.

[Kimpatsu]

This is probably unwise, but I'll go ahead and interject myself into this thread again.

I hear this from infidels all the time. But suppose Jesus did come back to Earth. Suppose we had video. In a thousand years, future skeptics would be saying that the video was doctored and that they'd love to believe but just can't do so without, say, holographic documentation of the event. The point being that the goalposts move as time moves along. The only thing that will satisfy each skeptic will be a direct and personal encounter with the reality of Christ as the committed skeptic will find a way to dismiss anything less than this.
No, the goalposts don't move; you are attacking a strawman. The reason you are unable to supply evidence is because there isn't any. It's as simple as that.

[-DM-]

If the Second Coming has already taken place, why is the world no