Challenge for Atheists

[Achronos]

The murder of another is characterised as what then? Rape of another is characterised as what then? Theft of another is characterised as what then? Adultery of another is characterised by what then? And on and on and on.

So from what I have gathered we wouldn't know the certainty of which is bad and which is good, heck it's all subjective anyway right?

[Asmodean]

The murder of another is characterised as what then?

Depends on circumstances and the perspective.

Vengeance, justice, necessity, murder... A bunch of other things one can characterize a killing as, depending on who does it, for what reasons and who is doing the characterizing.

Rape of another is characterised as what then?

Depends on who you ask. The rapist? The victim? Society? Me?

Theft of another is characterised as what then?

Read above

Adultery of another is characterised by what then? And on and on and on.

Read above

So from what I have gathered we wouldn't know the certainty of which is bad and which is good, heck it's all subjective anyway right?

Highly subjective, yes. The closest we've ever come to objective good or objective bad is still only on society scale. (Larger propositions just don't work)

[Achronos]

Murder is murder, let's not change the definition of what murder is:

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Again that is not out of necessity, vengence or justice.

Rape again the defintion:
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation:

So I am to assume the one who commits the act is not in the wrong? But the very definition contradicts it.

[Asmodean]

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The murderer may, however unlawful, be able to subjectively justify his actions and justify them well. This is a matter of perspective. For a given society, it's bad. For the victim, it's bad. For the murderer, possibly for whoever he's working for, it can be a very good thing indeed.

Again that is not out of necessity, vengence or justice.

Ah! A revenge murder is, by your definition, not a murder..? Ok. (Sorry, but you did start a definition game with me, so I'm going with it) And how do you know the person was not murdered out of necessity or justice..? Maybe the asshole killed your dog and, according to you, deserves to die for it..? Or maybe killing him will get you out of bankrupcy..?

A matter of... What was the word again..? Perpesc... Persec... Ah! Perspective.

So I am to assume the one who commits the act is not in the wrong? But the very definition contradicts it.

As the society and the victim (at least) see it, he most likely is. As he sees it, is another story. And another story still are all the people who don't give a flying duck whether or not he wronged somebody as long as the somebody wronged is not too close to home.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem I have whenever someone says they don't have to prove God doesn't exist, well that is fallacy because you would make a positive claim about the existence of God; He doesn't exist.

Wrong.  My atheism is not a positive claim that your god cannot or does not exist; the only positive claim I'm making in saying that is that I find the utter lack of evidence entirely telling, and that I live my life without any god.  

Do you believe in unicorns?  Why or why not?  

Doesn't match with 'reality/history', please explain further.

The Bible says that Tyre was to be wiped off the face of the earth, never to be occupied by residents again.  Of course, it is a thriving town.

Also, your Bible states that there are waters above the firmament, which is obviously not the case, as shown by mankind's many space probes.

Additionally, you bible states that plants were grown before there was a sun to nourish them.  

The Bible refers to whales as fish, bats as birds, and asserts, indirectly, that the value of π is an even three.

I could go on (and on  and on and on ...) but I'll let you challenge your own beliefs by giving you some points to consider  and seeing if you're brave enough to ask questions of your own faith.

 

You tell me why I should consider this ridiculous Bronze-Age mythology as anything more than a historical curiosity now being sold on television.

[Davin]

Murder is murder, let's not change the definition of what murder is:

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Again that is not out of necessity, vengence or justice.

I don't think you want to use "unlawful" in your definition of murder if you're going to discuss morality, because then even if O.J. killed his ex wife and her dude, he'd not have committed "murder" by this definition (because he was found not guilty in a court of law). When you're discussing morality, even the laws should be under scrutiny. Because when you're discussing morality, I doubt the concern is whether someone made a law about it or not, but more likely whether you agree or not that it is a good or bad thing to do. Using "unlawful" in your definition of murder also creates the problem of subjective societal opinion that goes against the very idea that morality is objective and murder is one of those objective morals.

Case in point: most people would think that killing someone who was trying to kill you (killing in self defense) would be morally justifiable, however with having "unlawful" in your definition of murder, this scenario would be murder in some places and not in others, would be different if the person killing in self defense was a woman or not. It's not very objective to have the same thing be murder in one place and not in another or to be murder if a woman does it but not a man.

Rape again the defintion:
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation:

So I am to assume the one who commits the act is not in the wrong? But the very definition contradicts it.

Again, I don't think you want to bring something so subjective as "crime" for your definition, because it creates the same problems with your argument as "unlawful" because they essentially mean the same thing. By using "crime" in your definition: in the middle east it's not a crime for a man to force his wife to have sex with him, however in the U.S. it is a crime. So your definition intrinsically has problems with subjectivity where it seems that you want objectivity.

[Achronos]

As the society and the victim (at least) see it, he most likely is. As he sees it, is another story. And another story still are all the people who don't give a flying duck whether or not he wronged somebody as long as the somebody wronged is not too close to home.

I bring you this scenario

"Your honor. my client John Smith is innocent of Murder. As you can see by this chart, the movement of his arm is merely a series of electrical and chemical connections resulting in the plunging of a knife into the decedents chest."

"Plus, what we are calling a "knife" is merely a collection of minerals and bonding agents in a particular sequence that we label as "A Knife", but in reality the term has no meaning in the absolute sense. It is just inanimate stuff."

"In fact, the so called person who stands before you accused, is not "really".. John Smith. That is just a conventional label put upon him by his parents ( so called) in order to identify him. However, he is just a collection of chemicals and reactions and electrical impulses, without any sort of "soul" or existence outside these chemical  and electrical reactions. The same goes for the decedent, "Mary Smith" who has no identifiable existence apart from being a big bag of chemicals."

"In sum, there was no "murder" because there is no independent existence of either objects or persons. Everything and everyone is a soulless object whose every action is the result of friction, electrical impulses or chemical reactions"  

"Plus, his cousin did it."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nice straw man.  Where's my torches?

[Achronos]

It is a fallacious conclusion that there is nothing more to existence when a chemical reaction can be detected. There is no reason that the reaction is the be all and end all of the event.

Science has already demonstrated that there can be ex-dimensional existence. Science has already demonstrated the malleability of time and space.That lays out the context in which claims of spiritual existence are based. Therefore, an objective inquirer must admit that existence of Spiritual Beings up to and including the existence of an Ultimate Supreme Being is plausible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is a fallacious conclusion that there is nothing more to existence when a chemical reaction can be detected. There is no reason that the reaction is the be all and end all of the event.

And this is a straw-man of the position of most atheists, which is why I'm pointing out your fallacious thinking.

Science has already demonstrated that there can be ex-dimensional existence.

"Ex-dimensional"?  Do you mean "extra-dimensional"?

Science has already demonstrated the malleability of time and space.That lays out the context in which claims of spiritual existence are based.

This is no more evidence of spirituality than the existence of stars is evidence for starships.  You are staking everything on a hypothetical.

Therefore, an objective inquirer must admit that existence of Spiritual Beings up to and including the existence of an Ultimate Supreme Being is plausible.

Were it not for other, more serious objections to most versions of said Being.

[Achronos]

It is more than well established that it is likely that we live in a "Multi-Verse" where there are many if not infinite Universes. Here is a simple explanation from the History Channel's show "Universe". There are many more clips on you tube like this one if you want to see more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmyrE9I8 ... re=related

So here we have the valid scientific framework you have asked for. It is plausible that existence is far more complicated than the mechanical model you seem to like so much.

Therefore, all that we propose is plausable. No longer can you rely on 19th century Science to say if something is "invisible", it cant be real.

Why did Science delve into metaphyics? Starting with Einstein, scientists have desired to formulate a theory that would explain everything, the so called Unified Theory. This has led to the discovery that existence is not what we thought it was. The possibility of things like Multiple Universes and Super Strings were discovered.

These things impact Religion which describes existence based on Revealed Truth. Things that were thought of as nonsense previously, like being two places at the same time, or life in another dimension of time and space, are now plausible...Go figure.

So I guess the truth is not an idea but a person.

[Asmodean]

I bring you this scenario

"Your honor. my client John Smith is innocent of Murder. As you can see by this chart, the movement of his arm is merely a series of electrical and chemical connections resulting in the plunging of a knife into the decedents chest."

"Plus, what we are calling a "knife" is merely a collection of minerals and bonding agents in a particular sequence that we label as "A Knife", but in reality the term has no meaning in the absolute sense. It is just inanimate stuff."

"In fact, the so called person who stands before you accused, is not "really".. John Smith. That is just a conventional label put upon him by his parents ( so called) in order to identify him. However, he is just a collection of chemicals and reactions and electrical impulses, without any sort of "soul" or existence outside these chemical  and electrical reactions. The same goes for the decedent, "Mary Smith" who has no identifiable existence apart from being a big bag of chemicals."

"In sum, there was no "murder" because there is no independent existence of either objects or persons. Everything and everyone is a soulless object whose every action is the result of friction, electrical impulses or chemical reactions"  

"Plus, his cousin did it."

:|

EDIT: I will make a bit more out of this post after all, I think.

Who exactly is the solicitor (I suppose) preaching to..? A judge..? Who exactly does the judge work for? So who is it that says that the said product of electrochemical reactions and all the other cool stuff straight out of science books was actually wrong..? Apparently, the solicitor, at least, thinks it was perfectly reasonable. So to him, the named act was not a bad thing, now was it..? Besides, he does get paid for defending people who do "bad" things, yes..? So would not "bad things" inflicted of on others be "good things" for him and his?

[Persimmon Hamster]

It is more than well established that it is likely that we live in a "Multi-Verse" where there are many if not infinite Universes. Here is a simple explanation from the History Channel's show "Universe". There are many more clips on you tube like this one if you want to see more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmyrE9I8 ... re=related

So here we have the valid scientific framework you have asked for. It is plausible that existence is far more complicated than the mechanical model you seem to like so much.

Therefore, all that we propose is plausable. No longer can you rely on 19th century Science to say if something is "invisible", it cant be real.

Why did Science delve into metaphyics? Starting with Einstein, scientists have desired to formulate a theory that would explain everything, the so called Unified Theory. This has led to the discovery that existence is not what we thought it was. The possibility of things like Multiple Universes and Super Strings were discovered.

These things impact Religion which describes existence based on Revealed Truth. Things that were thought of as nonsense previously, like being two places at the same time, or life in another dimension of time and space, are now plausible...Go figure.

So I guess the truth is not an idea but a person.

I do not find it in the least surprising that you expect to win your argument by picking and choosing popular contemporary scientific hypotheses that seem to validate it from a sea of other contemporary scientific hypotheses that do not seem to--this is precisely how you have operated on the Bible in convincing yourself of your argument.  I emphasize the word "seem" because even if what you said above were wholly inerrant (which it isn't) it would not point to a religious conclusion.

You have made some key mistakes in your word usage in the above, let me list some:
- more than well established
- likely
- valid
- plausible
- mechanical model
- invisible
- metaphysics
- Unified Theory
- discovery

Make an effort to understand the commonly accepted definitions of these terms, and you should find your entire post falls apart.

[Cycel]

What I'm trying to ask is this: If, for the sake of argument, the infinite God of the Bible exists

And... you lost me right there. To atheists, the god of the bible does NOT exist. Therefore, your question doesn't even deserve an answer. As you say, "for the sake of argument".. Are you feeling a little contentious today?

So would you say that it isn't possible?

I used "for the sake of argument" because that is how the first atheist responded.

Atheists of course don't accept the existence of a deity, but for the sake of discussion I will agree that if such a god exists then yes, it should be possible for that god to communicate with humans of his choice.  Do you think you've been communicated with?  Is that why you asked the question?

If we look at the subject of comparative religion it does become apparent that numerous contradictions exist among people of faith, in regards their faith.  Given these numerous discrepancies why would you think that a single god had ever communicated his will to humanity?  He must have left the native aborigines of many lands to fumble around in the dark without divine assistance for thousands of years.  Where is the evidence that he ever communicated to them what he communicated to the Christians?  Maybe he is selective in who he communicates with?

How can you (and the rest of humanity) know anything for absolute certainty?

I was reading yesterday of the success of the Japanese Hayabusa space probe.  They sent the probe to the asteroid Itokawa, placed it in orbit, descended to the surface, collected dust, and returned the sample safely to Earth.  They could do this even though the asteroid was tumbling and moving at some 25 km/sec.  It occurs to me that to carry out such maneuvers the scientists, who are part of humanity, must know a great deal with considerable certainty, maybe with near absolute certainty.  It seems to me it is possible to know a great many things and maintain considerable confidence in the accuracy of that knowledge.

Maybe you could clarify which things you don't think it is possible to know; and given the disagreement, regarding details of faith, how can you claim -- as a person of faith -- to know anything for certain when what you believe contradicts what others of faith believe?  I think you have something of a dilemma on your hands.

[Cycel]

It is more than well established that it is likely that we live in a "Multi-Verse" where there are many if not infinite Universes. Here is a simple explanation from the History Channel's show "Universe". There are many more clips on you tube like this one if you want to see more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmyrE9I8 ... re=related

So here we have the valid scientific framework you have asked for. It is plausible that existence is far more complicated than the mechanical model you seem to like so much.

Therefore, all that we propose is plausable. No longer can you rely on 19th century Science to say if something is "invisible", it cant be real.

Ah, I wondered where this was going: God is invisible so he too might be real.  Multi-verses are intriguing, and I see no reason to discount them, but where can you find the God hypothesis in scientific circles?  I don't think there are any credible scientific hypotheses for the possible existence of deities.  Besides, if one deity might exist then why not many?  Also, why must a deity possess those characteristics that Christians find admirable?  

I think this kind of reasoning for the possible existence of an invisible deity gets one no where.  You might then also contemplate the existence of invisible fairies.  I'll stop there, but I think the list of invisible, supernatural things could be made quite long.

This has led to the discovery that existence is not what we thought it was. The possibility of things like Multiple Universes and Super Strings were discovered.

Oops!  Multi-verses and string theory are not proven.  They have not been discovered.  They are hypothetical only.

These things impact Religion which describes existence based on Revealed Truth. Things that were thought of as nonsense previously, like being two places at the same time, or life in another dimension of time and space, are now plausible...Go figure.

Where in science is there any room for revealed truth?  The thing about revealed truth is that it speaks different things to different people and is dependent on religious beliefs and interpretation of religious scriptures.  Revealed truth has the bad habit not requiring confirmation beyond received holy texts.  

I can see, however, how this argument became necessary.  There is no evidence of God in the world.  Nothing points conclusively to his existence, nothing at least that anyone not of faith can recognize. Hence the growing need of believers to find arguments showing that invisible things, that we cannot detect, might actually exist.  Thus, like multi-verses and string theory, God might or might not exist.  Believers, I think, still need a working hypothesis to explain how a deity could come into existence.