And naturalistic explanations and human error or deliberate deception are very much an aspect of my belief system.  As i said already, a great deal of supposedly supernatural phenomena has already been discredited.  Seems like our approaches are not that different after all.

Unfortunately for you it's the 'great deal' when only one genuine is required that defeats you.

 Difficult to see how you would gain such evidence.

Simple reasoning. As a genuine virgin birth can only be caused by the Author of life itself.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the spirit world based on little personal experience of it.

Not really, as I've simply researched instances and behaviors where the Bible points to demonic activity or "miracles" from pagan religions.

No.  i am not assuming that the religion is false, i am saying that you can't assume it is true for the purposes of proving it is true.  That was what you were doing by citing Jesus sacrificing himself for humanity in an argument about how he couldn't have been a demon.

Problem with that is I don't assume. Even if you hold to the position that Christ's sacrifice did nothing, it's still a stated intent that Christ sacrificed himself for that purpose. Self-sacrifice in any form doesn't fall into 'demonic behavior'. But then neither does the sinless part, which I've noticed you've ignored.

Again with the not getting it.  i am not claiming that Jesus was a demon (i don't believe in demons), i am questioning your reasons for thinking that he was not one.

Yes, I'm well aware that this is just an intellectual exercise for you. Even if your computer didn't lose your original post you'd have problably resorted to this eventually as it seems to be a habit for you that when your atheism's defense has been proven useless you resort to attacking my consistency.

Anything else?

Anything else really needed?

i see.  i wasn't suggesting possession actually - just that the man Jesus might have been the demon Jesus playing a part.  Or do you have some secret information saying that demons can't live on earth and grow up like humans?

The whole being 'spiritual' entities kind of makes that self-evident.

What disadvantage?  Christianity is true or false, regardless of whether it has been used to justify attrocities. Atheism is likewise true or false, regardless of whether it has been used to justify attrocities.

Hey, you are the one who brought up 'worldly results' as if it mattered.

Christianity has a slightly harder time of explaining said attrocities, because it is supposed to be divinely inspired and a source of objective morality, neither of which can be said of atheism.  Christianity's alleged spiritual results are unverifiable, and therefore not admissable in debate.

Actually I think I already explained it: people will sin. Not hard at all. If people could have adhered to a perfect standard, Christ wouldn't have had to have been sacrificed in the first place.

Though I think the many stories of those who were in considerable bad situations in life, but excepted Christ and turned there lives around would be considered as credible evidence. It gives hope, and is often dismissed as an "opium" because of it. That would seem to give it more credibility under your 'result' system than atheism where if one is deeply in troubled all an atheist can say is "Tough breaks."

It's an SS belt buckle.  Can you translate?

"God With Us" And? That doesn't counter the fact that atheism and evolution were primary motivaters for justifying the atrocities commited. It just shows an appeal to the religious citizens for justification.

Why can you write off attrocities done in the name of god (including the Holocaust, incidentally) to 'human beings' alone, with no mention of what ideology might be to blame, whereas the blame gets placed squarely at atheism's door if unbelievers do bad things?

Well for one, you didn't mention any ideology behind it. Thus I took your post as reffering solely between Christianity and Atheism.  I write off atrocities commited in the name of God as Christianity holds mostly for the reason that in most instances the society isn't living under a direct theocracy. And as you should no full well from our past discussions when God is in direct command of the government, then such acts are no longer attrocities as life and death are His perogative. In such an instance there is a direct difference where one ideology speaks against such acts, and as such followers go against it's teaching, while the other ideology doesn't forbid or even discourage such acts, or can even hold them as 'attrocities' specifically. Guess which one is which.

 

i anticipate the response 'because there's nothing in atheism to say that it's not allowed', and i'm not sure i can cope with getting into that pointless cycle again, so let me ask another question: Are the 9/11 attacks just the responsibility of 'human beings', or is there an ideology to blame?

Well naturally because that's the answer, even if you don't want to hear it. And yes there is an ideology to blame for 9/11, but as stated I took it as purely referring between christianity and atheism. We would simply face an ideology that prohibits such acts except under a circumstance we are no longer under, and an ideology that would indeed encourage it.

Islam has an immense number of charitable organisations and aid agencies, well-funded by oil-state cash.  Charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, after all.

Good for them. It gives credibility for there being an objective morality when people can observe something that is fundamentally good.

]
Because that would mean it must be untrue?

Again, you are the one bringing this 'results' nonsense up. Do you think it would be possible for you to stay consistent with your own criterias while testing my consistency?

i disagree.  You are discussing a dimension (for want of a better word) which you have no personal experience of, and making claims about what can and can't happen there.  i don't believe that you have any support whatsoever to make such statements.  If god can be 'creatorless' then why can't angels and demons?  Perhaps they evolved.  

Actually given the fact that Man is essentially spirtual beings wrapped in flesh (i.e the soul) I have lots of experience in spiritual matters.  And so do you.

But even in your attempt at escapism, you still can't escape the fact that it still ultimately leads to an immovable Mover. Otherwise it's the fallacy of infinite regress. But even setting that aside, evolution is purely materialistc process, the very definition of 'immaterial' leaves such an explanation out. Again the existence of immaterial creatures begs the inference for an immaterial Creator.

Why?  You are happy to discourse about the precise capabilities and attitudes of demons, and i consider that no less presumptuous.  i could imagine a bunch of demons sitting around saying "i believe in humans, but i don't believe in James Bond".

It would be presumtuous if I didn't have the accounts of demons to work with, or simple reasoning. Fortunately I do, and this is all under the assumption mircles and demons are true to begin with. And your example is rather off the mark as it's referring to a person rather than a type of Being. It would be more accurate to say "I believe man-made objects exist, but I don't believe in Mankind".

EB,

As a genuine virgin birth can only be caused by the Author of life itself.

The genuineness of the virgin birth is impossible to support, since it would require you to demonstrate that an individual palestinian woman living two thousand years ago did not have sex in an undetermined time frame.  You could do it with a gynaecologist and a time machine, but otherwise it's just an unsupportable tennet of the belief system which is being questioned here.  So, nice assertion, but entirely empty.

Even if you hold to the position that Christ's sacrifice did nothing, it's still a stated intent that Christ sacrificed himself for that purpose. Self-sacrifice in any form doesn't fall into 'demonic behavior'.

Christ's 'sacrifice' did nothing concrete, and certainly nothing which couldn't have been done by the mere appearance of such a sacrifice.  That's kind of the point, if the appearance of sacrifice was all that was required to produce the effects we see today, why should i not think that appearance is all there was?  Even accepting your assumptions, an immortal being can hardly be intelligibly said to have 'sacrificed their life'.

But then neither does the sinless part, which I've noticed you've ignored.

What is there to address?  How do i know Jesus was 'sinless' - do i have any reliable data about his thoughts?

"i see.  i wasn't suggesting possession actually - just that the man Jesus might have been the demon Jesus playing a part.  Or do you have some secret information saying that demons can't live on earth and grow up like humans?"

The whole being 'spiritual' entities kind of makes that self-evident.

What would the anti-christ be then?

If people could have adhered to a perfect standard, Christ wouldn't have had to have been sacrificed in the first place.

Looks like he needs to do it again.  The fix didn't take on the first try.

Though I think the many stories of those who were in considerable bad situations in life, but excepted Christ and turned there lives around would be considered as credible evidence. It gives hope, and is often dismissed as an "opium" because of it. That would seem to give it more credibility under your 'result' system than atheism where if one is deeply in troubled all an atheist can say is "Tough breaks."

Religion as a system of ethics, as a community, and as a sense of purpose or one's place in the universe can undoubtably be helpful to people.  By your argument, every religion is true.

That doesn't counter the fact that atheism and evolution were primary motivaters for justifying the atrocities commited. It just shows an appeal to the religious citizens for justification.

And found it.  Found it in plenty of the actual doctrines of religious organisations too.  i am aware that some things which i hold to be true have been used to justify some pretty awful stuff, but my response would be to point out that no one said my belief system had any connection to objective morality.

"Islam has an immense number of charitable organisations and aid agencies, well-funded by oil-state cash.  Charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, after all."

Good for them. It gives credibility for there being an objective morality when people can observe something that is fundamentally good.

And there are many aid organisations which are entirely secular in motivation.  These things certainly point to a shared morality, but why must it necessarily be objective?  Other than the fact that you want it to be.

The genuineness of the virgin birth is impossible to support, since it would require you to demonstrate that an individual palestinian woman living two thousand years ago did not have sex in an undetermined time frame.  You could do it with a gynaecologist and a time machine, but otherwise it's just an unsupportable tennet of the belief system which is being questioned here.  So, nice assertion, but entirely empty.

Not really. In a society that commonly stones women for having sex outside of marriage the fact that it was not done in this case lends support. But it seems in your long absence, you've forgotten that your entire criticisim is founded on working within the belief system. If you're just going to back out because you've suddenly hit a wall, then there is no point in addressing the notion about Christ being a demon.

Christ's 'sacrifice' did nothing concrete, and certainly nothing which couldn't have been done by the mere appearance of such a sacrifice.  That's kind of the point, if the appearance of sacrifice was all that was required to produce the effects we see today, why should i not think that appearance is all there was?  Even accepting your assumptions, an immortal being can hardly be intelligibly said to have 'sacrificed their life'.

*snort* Actually it's the Christian contention that we are all 'immortal beings' yet this does not negate the fact that we 'die'. But that's a side issue. The fact remains that self-sacrifice in any form doesn't fit the behavior of demon's as that goes against their evil nature. As such their wouldn't even be the appearance of such a sacrifice. At all. So your contention of effect is their by useless.

What is there to address?  How do i know Jesus was 'sinless' - do i have any reliable data about his thoughts?

Sure you do. You have the data of 4 eye-witnesses that spent several years in Christ's company on a day-to-day basis.

What would the anti-christ be then?

A human being. At least as far as growing up is concerned. There's no indication that anti-christ will be demonic till he dies and is possesed by Lucifer.

Looks like he needs to do it again.  The fix didn't take on the first try.

Where does it say that was what the sacrifice would fix?

Religion as a system of ethics, as a community, and as a sense of purpose or one's place in the universe can undoubtably be helpful to people.  By your argument, every religion is true.

Not really, as you'd have to see what those individual religion's actually say to indicate hope. And it already ruled out the atheist religion.

And found it.  Found it in plenty of the actual doctrines of religious organisations too.  i am aware that some things which i hold to be true have been used to justify some pretty awful stuff, but my response would be to point out that no one said my belief system had any connection to objective morality.

Uh huh. Well in the matter of Scripture would the place where they found it be in the context of a direct theocracy to the Israel nation (rather ironic since it was to the Jews themselves), which it no longer applies? As such proving that they didn't find it, but rather made it up themselves?

And no one says anyone need be concerned about your moral belief. You have yours, and the Nazis have theirs and there's no objective standard to say otherwise. That's how it works under atheism. All you can say is "I don't agree, but that's life". Frankly it's the fact that your belief system doesn't have any connection to objective morality that allows such atrocities in the first place.

And there are many aid organisations which are entirely secular in motivation.  These things certainly point to a shared morality, but why must it necessarily be objective?  Other than the fact that you want it to be.

The same reason design points to a designer. If the evidence strongly points to something the best option is to believe it to be true. You can say theoretically it can all be random, but it's rather an escapist attempt to deny the implications because you don't like it. As such one can equally say why must a shared morality not point to an objective standard? Other than the fact you don't want it to be.

David,

Interesting post.  i have to sign off now, but i will try to get back to your points here tomorrow.

Dan

A rather common objection for skeptics when matters of miracles are brought into discussion is the issue of a person's memory. Often sighting how faulty the human memory is in order to disprove the notion of miracle's actually occuring. A point many forget is that uncommon events have a way of having a lasting an impression where one can easily recall no matter how many year's past. Seven years ago today a cowardly attack (oh snap a moral judgement) had a lasting impression for most in the US.

So where were you 7 years ago?

I remember I was a sophomore in high school 7 years ago. I woke up like it was any other day, I prepared myself for school like any other day, and I argued with my sister about how much time would be spent hanging out after school like any other day. I remember my first class for the day was calculous and it proceeded just like every other day. It wasn't until our second class in creative writing where we began to realize that the day would not be like any other day. I recall that the TV in the corner was already switched to the news channel where we saw smoke already coming from one of the towers. Speculation on it's cause was still unclear until shortly after the nation witnessed the second plane crashing into the building. Nothing much happened in school for the rest of the day as every class (save my band class) suspended lessons in favor of watching the news reports.

If one can recall an unusual event with such clarity simply by witnessing threw the television, what does that say for the reliability of those who are actually present eye-witnesses to an event? And what does it say for the truthfulness of those who never recant their testimony even when pressure and threat's on one's life is present, because the event may be so....miraculous?

I was in middle school and and a year later i started posting on thes forums. What fun!