Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

6 Reasons Why Rational Thinkers Choose to Believe in God

These five-minute Prager University videos just might change your life.

by
Dave Swindle

Bio

April 22, 2013 - 3:45 pm
Page 1 of 6  Next ->   View as Single Page

1. Belief in God Is Logical. God’s Fingerprints Cover the Universe. It Is Irrational to Believe That the Universe Was Created Out of Nothingness.

Dear [Insert Name of Your Secularist Friend or Family Member Who Does Not Understand Why You No Longer Share Their Hatred of Traditional Religion Anymore],

It seems like our arguments on Facebook and over email have been increasing lately with all the horrific news stories. And again you continue to misunderstand why I approach the stories of the day from Kermit Gosnell to the Boston Bombers with a good and evil, Bible-based perspective.

One of the best places online you can go to better understand my approach to these issues is Prager University. Every month they release two five-minute courses designed to educate people in a quick, entertaining way about history, philosophy, religion, and politics. I discovered Prager University’s videos when I noticed that they decided to start featuring every new one at PJ Lifestyle, a publication that I enjoy reading which shares the same goals of reaching out and engaging with the culture at large instead of just preaching to the choir.

I’ve collected six of Prager University’s videos on God and religion, starting with their newest one above that they just released yesterday featuring Boston College philosophy professor Peter Kreeft answering the question “God or Atheism — Which is More Rational?” I hope if you want to understand better how it is that I’ve come to reject your ideology and returned to faith in the God of the Bible you would consider these videos along with these six points I’ve written in relation to them.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
You've got to be kidding. Why should anybody be impressed by the umpteenth recycling of the same old tired lines, most of which come down to "God must exist because we'd be sad if he doesn't?"

I don't doubt that this rhetoric is convincing if you already are a believer; but then if you already believe, you hardly need arguments. For grown ups, even grown ups who are serious theists, this stuff is just childish.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, points 2, 3, 5, and 6 are fundamentals of modern so-called liberalism.

There is no absolute good and evil - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Human life is not sacred, and can be destroyed for the convenience of the state or somebody's sexual freedom.

Life is meaningless, and therefore "Just do it." Acquire power, wealth, and pleasure for purely egocentric reasons. If my life is meaningless, certainly yours is.

And freedom is indeed an illusion: you belong to the state.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (175)
All Comments   (175)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Typical strawman arguments as most of us who are not religious are in fact agnostic. Most of us could be said to believe in god if given the right definition thereof. With respect to your six points:

1) Who thinks the universe was created out of nothing? No one does. We just don't know many of the details nor are we willing accept any of the mythologies of the world's religions to explain it.

2) Notions of good and evil have evolved as we evolved and religions, social mores, legal systems, etc. are all part of that evolution. Pretty arrogant (and lacking in self awareness) of you to think that religions are alone responsible.

3) yep.

4) Why not? And please, the rest of this is pure gobblygook.

5) Because if you live like a criminal in most societal groups, you will not live a very long or comfortable life yourself.

6) Sorry, I read this three times and cannot understand your thought process. How does mother nature create us to live as her slaves?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
-- Most of us could be said to believe in god if given the right definition thereof.

Then you are making a strawman argument as the arguments presented don't apply to you. With regard to your question "who thinks the universe was created out of nothing?" just look at some of the comments. The notions that "universe always existed" or "the universe can be explained without design" are strongly and vocally held by many influential people.

As you noted, they are not rational.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps you might appreciate this article I wrote last year explaining why I am no longer an agnostic after a decade or so of embracing that as one of my primary religious identities: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/02/27/6-varieties-of-the-agnostic-experience/?singlepage=true

Responses to a few of your points so you can better understand my perspective:

"1) Who thinks the universe was created out of nothing? No one does. We just don't know many of the details nor are we willing accept any of the mythologies of the world's religions to explain it."

I don't understand who this "we" is that you are framing your comments around. Who are you speaking for other than yourself? By saying "nor are we willing to accept any of the mythologies of the world's religions to explain it" are you positioning yourself to speak for all agnostics as though you are defining the agnosticism religion?

" Pretty arrogant (and lacking in self awareness) of you to think that religions are alone responsible."

Actually I have both. I am self-aware of the arrogance of my position. I am saying that it is better to choose to be an ethical monotheist with the Bible as one's moral foundation rather than an agnostic, atheist, polytheist, or just a theist who makes their feelings the source of their values. I have experienced all 5 identities over the last 15 years and these are my tentative conclusions, which perhaps you can assist with revising.

"4) Why not? And please, the rest of this is pure gobblygook."
Did you also make the mistake of just reading the points and not bothering to watch the videos? Because there's a reason why I put them together in juxtaposition with the great Prager University videos. My points make more sense when viewed in the context of the videos they accompany.

"Because if you live like a criminal in most societal groups, you will not live a very long or comfortable life yourself."

So what? What if the goal isn't to live long or comfortable but to achieve fame or vengeance or God's love or redemption or 70 virgins? Heard the motto "We love death more than you love life" right?

"How does mother nature create us to live as her slaves?"
There are 2 different perspectives: either man is a part of nature or man is above nature. Those who choose to have faith in the God of the Bible know that man is above nature because that is what God has proclaimed. The life of a human being is sacred, infinitely valuable. All other forms of life are not and have more limited value. This only happens -- human life magically transforms into something sacred -- if one chooses to have faith that it happens. Otherwise Peter Singer is logically correct and it is permissible to murder unwanted infants.

See also this continued discussion here I posted today which you might find relevant:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/04/25/why-you-should-stop-wasting-your-time-doing-philosophy/
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
If someone said, "If I had cancer, I would die soon, therefore I must not have cancer", you might feel sympathy for him, but you'd instantly spot the failure in his reasoning. Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) is a fallacy, and five of the six "reasons" given are exactly that.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not my fault that one of the logical consequences of atheism is that it allows you to murder infants with a clear conscience. Why is Peter Singer wrong? Why is it evil to murder unwanted infants in a secular material universe?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure that atheism per se allows or disallows infanticide. I am a Christian, as best I can understand the term relative to others. But, affirmatively, I am a Christian who was an atheist. It is wrong to murder infants in a secular material universe if we posit that human life has pentultimate value. If we posit "God," we understand that and more. Being an atheist is not the same as believing nothing. An atheist is without God. God is not at issue. A true atheist does not rail against God or anyone who embraces God.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Being an atheist is not the same as believing nothing."
The conclusion that I'm at these days is that it is. An atheist is one who believes that they were created not by God, but by nothingness. They believe the universe and humanity originated by chance out of nothingness. The word for this is "nihilism." That is the worship of nothingness, which atheism logically leads to.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I swore I wasn't going to go here...

Many people don't worship anything---ANYTHING. They have needs and they have wants. Again, and I say this as someone more than familiar with atheism, of which worship of anything is not a requirement. Atheists and believers clash because one gets in the way of the other frequently. If you want to say, obviously, that atheists and believers don't share a value system, or only coincidentally share some values, it's a fact. If you want to say that some atheists,i.e. Stalin, Mao, see belief as a thing to be wiped out in pursuit of their goals, it's a fact. But that is not the raison detre of atheism. Conversely, the biggest existential threat we currently face is not from non-believers, but from believers, and not just islamists. The green movement is more than willing to sacrifice, literally, the lives of my sons on the alter of some greater environmental good. Atheism can be, I'm almost afraid to say, morally neutral. Atheism tells us little because we aren't looking at even dark matter. We are reifying non-belief into belief, a thing.

"An atheist is one who believes that they were created not by God, but by nothingness."

An atheist believes no such thing. You or I may believe. A true atheist does not expend the energy to assert one way or the other.
God is not at issue. So, even as the atheist does not consider God, he does not worship nothingness. After all, the "stuff" is already here.

50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why is it good, to murder infants in a Godly universe, if God says it's ok? It is the word of the Lord, is it not?

Or, could it be, that God expects us ALL, to use our brains?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
@Dave Swindle - It's not the theistic or atheistic property of an ideology that sanctions infanticide. Even Christianity's God sanctioned ripping open pregnant women as punishment in Hosea 13:16 (King James)

"Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why not just talk about Passover? Or Hell?

God commands us to be good. He doesn't have to be -- although once you understand who Jesus is you will most certainly understand that God is wholly good.

Your problem is that you think man is "good". Are you one who sees himself as "good" and sets himself in judgement on others such as those who participated in a war three millennia ago. Maybe you say that you yourself would never kill an unborn baby although maybe you'd pay for an abortion if you really, really had to; or that you would never kill a pregnant woman, unless maybe she was in the way of a drone strike.

If you read the Bible fairly and accurately you will conclude that in both the Old and New Testaments, God does not want us to kill people.

In fact, there is a pretty famous commandment about in the OT.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not here to try to reconcile God being "wholly good" with God sending an army to cut fetuses from their mothers' wombs or to judge Christianity, just to reply to Dave Swindle's claims, including that "the logical consequences of atheism is that it allows you to murder infants with a clear conscience".

You say my, "problem is that [I] think man is good". Actually, I said that things that promote human life are good. Trust me, I have much bigger "problems" than that.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
OK, how does "the logical consequences of atheism" not allow you to murder infants with a clear conscience?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you're confusing a property of an ideology with an ideology. Atheism is no more an ideology than is theism. Neither prevent the killing of infants, i.e. Satanists, Aztecs, Islamists. If by infants you mean abortions, I suspect most of them (or at least many of them) are initiated by Christians, just not the kind you aggree with.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Strawman argument. I have not asserted that it is the theistic property of an ideology that prevents infanticide. I am not arguing on behalf of theism. I am encouraging others to consider Dennis Prager's articulation of ethical monotheism, Judeo-Christian values, and Americanism.

And you're right that the Bible can be very problematic if so-called Christians choose to just yank out a verse out of context and misinterpret what it means in the context of the entire book. The main reason why I do not identify as a Christian today is that American Christianity by and large has lost its Jewish foundation. Too many Christians on both Right and Left care more about the New Testament than the Old and use the Bible as a little answer book, yanking out a verse that feels good to them to help them win their argument.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think it's a fair reading, but I take you at your word that it's not what you mean. I'm sorry to run with it and add to add to the confusion.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's tempting to misrepresent the source material of your ideological opponents but as conservatives we should refrain from the temptation.
Context is everything, of course. God sanctioned the ripping open of pregnant women? A preposterous claim. Hosea was a prophet; the book is warning Israel of the consequences of sin. Bad things do happen when a people become wholly unrighteous. Hosea is prophesying about the cause and effect relationship of sin and misery. Something we see in the newspapers daily, no?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
@ddcan - Not being a biblical scholar, I used the analysis off Hosea 13:16 sited in my last post. It's a Muslim web site, but the original source is John Calvin (1509-1564), reportedly one of the Reformation's best interpreters of scripture. He claims that Hosea 13:16 is a continuation of a previous passage and that the profit is warning that the massacre will be “punishment” for “provoking their God”, justice applied by using the “Assyrians as instruments” to “execute God's own judgment”.
Original source:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom26.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom26.xx.xvi.html

That's a far cry from your suggestion that Hosea 13:16 is just “prophesying about the cause and effect relationship of sin and misery. Something we see in the newspapers daily”. I'm not qualified to reconcile your differences, but I want to remind you that it's also tempting to misrepresent source materials that are potential weaknesses in our own ideology, something to refrain from as well.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bill, it is not God's wish or action that causes atrocities to occur. He allows man to make good and bad choices. The description in Hosea is explaining the consequences of bad choices. God is telling the Israelites what will happen when the Assyrians sack the city.
Let's put it this way. If I warn my child of what will happen to him if he drives drunk, am I sanctioning bad things to happen to him? Is it a punishment because he chooses not to obey me? That's all this is about. There is no smoking gun or 'gotcha' moment here.
Besides, why do you care so much about the nature of a being you don't believe exists? It's like me being insensed by Santa's treatment of the elves.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
@ddcan, You're right. Hosea 13:16 is not my battle. Feel free to resolve that with the followers of John Calvin. I'm still trying to get a handle on the elves :-)
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I respect the followers of John Calvin but I disagree with them on major points. I don't think the Bible says what they think it says. But there is room for different flavors in the body. Thank you for your respectful responses. I enjoyed the discussion.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've enjoyed our discussion too ddcan. You have a very soothing style of disagreement that's very helpful.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bill Carson, There is not a single correct way to interpret the Bible.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is only a single correct way to interpret everything. Reality is not subjective.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
And that single correct way to perceive and interpret everything just happens to be your way, right?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ha! You're the first (and undoubtedly the last) to suggest that.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Take a walk through your local "animal shelter" (dog pound). Those who don't get adopted end up in a "gas chamber" (how they do it here locally). These are "beings" conscious of their own lives. They can't "think" to the same degree as we humans can, but they are "self aware" of themselves. Yet they are killed just because no one wants them. We humans have inflated views of our own importance. We are the planet's dominant predator today. We consider it our right to kill any other form of life. Greeks and Romans of the Classical era practiced infanticide and thought nothing of it. No more than we view the "disposal" of cats and dogs today.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
So you think it's okay if we do that?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
The six points set forth in the article are well stated and contain some truths difficult to deny.

However, they are as consistent with belief in Unitarianism, Islam, or the ancient Egyptian pantheon as they are with orthodox (as distinct from Orthodox) Judaism or Christianity.

Come to think of it, I suspect that the Egyptian concept of the weighing of the soul is actually a better way of encouraging "good" versus "evil" behavior. Please pardon me while I go and arrange for my mummification.....
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, the beliefs are not consistent with Polytheism and nature-worship. But neither are they a support of purely "Orthodox" Judaism or Christianity. Prager is an advocate of ethical monotheism and Judeo-Christian values, not a specific theology within Judaism or Christianity.

But the weighing of the heart is one of my favorite myths and it's entirely possible to integrate it in with the Judeo-Christian tradition:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/10/20/23-books-for-counterculture-conservatives-tea-party-occultists-and-capitalist-wizards/9/
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
1. Not believing that universe was created by God does not equal not believing that "the universe was created out of nothingness". We don't know what was "before" the big bang.

2. God is not necessary to recognize the simple to complex progression in matter, biology and civilization. That which furthers our lives (as the apex of that evolution) is good, impedes it is evil.

3. Simple life is not equal to man's life (see #2).

4. The lack of conclusive proof of God is no more a reason to believe in him than it is to believe in anything else.

5. God is not necessary to find meaning in a life that productively promotes good in the way of our choice (see #2).

6. God is only necessary for free will to exist if there has been absolutely no randomness anywhere or at any time in the in the universe, something that's unproven. If something in the interplay of our neurons and our environment introduces a random component into our consciousness, our thoughts are our own rather and unpredictable. Unless convincing evidence that randomness has never existed in that process, we are not "slaves" to mother nature .
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"That which furthers our lives (as the apex of that evolution) is good, impedes it is evil."

What impedes or furthers our lives is an entirely subjective determination. What you are articulating is moral relativism, also known as subjective morality. In real world practice this means that if someone determines that murdering their unwanted infant would further their life then that would be good and they can do it.

"3. Simple life is not equal to man's life (see #2)."
PETA and Peter Singer disagree with you. Why are they wrong? I see no fault in their logic. If God does not exist then PETA is correct and the Holocaust of the Jews is morally equal to the factory farming of chickens. We're just a part of nature too.

"4. The lack of conclusive proof of God is no more a reason to believe in him than it is to believe in anything else"
Actually it is. There's lots of other things that you don't have conclusive proof of that you choose to believe in because doing so will make your life better.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dave, somehow I missed your post earlier...
Because we best thrive in social systems, following unprincipled socially destructive subjective ethics is not in anyone's personal interest. Society requires behavior boundaries for it to prosper, so many that we organize and conceptualize them by principles. We accept and promote some voluntarily out of our self-disciplined self-interests. Others we enforce by law, ideally those that's positive values are certain. Some moral issues are so difficult to prove right or wrong that we just treat them as if they are morally subjective (such as the person-hood of an embryo in its first few weeks). That doesn't mean they are subjective, just that there is insufficient agreement to outlaw them. Others actually are relative to someone's personality or condition (such as extreme sports or even age of consent across centuries and societies).

PETA is to atheism as Christian Identity is to theism - feels good but rationally indefensible. I don't remember anything about Singer; there's probably a reason for that.

I see that I misread #4, Sorry. That is IMO the best reason for believing in God. If you reach a point that the evidence is fairly convincing, you don't want to spend more time questioning and you think you'll be happier and more productive as a believer, more power to you. That's why I try to never proselytize beyond giving information (and correcting misinformation). That decision is too personal.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Re: #2 - Evolution doesn't have an apex. Even if it did, how would you know we're at it?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
@Monster from the Id - Evolution of the universe displays an overall patter of going from simple to complex organizational structures across billions of years. Life is a continuation of that, and Man is at the apex of complexity among species. That's how we recognize it. Curiously, we appear to prosper from the evolution of more complex social systems involving nation states, democracy, capitalism, international trade and now advanced information systems. But both man and our civilizations are just a blip in time, and will almost certainly evolve into or be followed by something better.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Man is at the apex of complexity among species."

Complexity isn't the "purpose" of evolution. Survival is. The species at the "apex" of evolution is the one which is best adapted to its habitat and survives the longest. On Earth, that means things like bacteria, which are simple structures that have existed across billions of years.

I'd bet that in a billion years, "complex" "apex" humans will be gone but pond scum will still be here - and it won't be writing poetry or building spaceships.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
@Monster from the Id
Purpose? Evolution doesn't have a purpose, only a “pattern” as I said. Stars do not create themselves and implode themselves for the purpose of creating complex elements... created for the purpose of creating amino acids... for the purpose of creating simple life,... to complex life,... to intelligent life etc... . That's the pattern of the universe, not the purpose. Purpose begins with free will in the animal kingdom, some time after the development of instincts and conditioning.

Through observation and reason, we are more or less free to align “our own” purpose with that pattern, choosing its known "apex", human life, as the fundamental value behind it. We identify that value as “good”. Others mistakenly IMO choose the opposite, bits from both, something else or nothing for the fundamental value of an infinite number of theistic and atheistic ideologies. But only one is of those is right (or the most right), something that will not be proved in our lifetime.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"1. Belief in God Is Logical. God’s Fingerprints Cover the Universe. It Is Irrational to Believe That the Universe Was Created Out of Nothingness."

Ok then, what created God? See, no matter what your belief system is you have to allow that at some point something came from nothing. And look, for who doesn't understand astrophysics decides to say "Ok, God did it" is the exact opposite of reason.

"2. If God Does Not Exist Then There Is No Objective Definition of Good and Evil. Everyone’s Subjective Feelings Of Good and Evil All Have the Same Level of Authority."

This statement is true. However, not liking the implications of reality doesn't make it not real. I personally hate that if I leap out the window I'll fall to my death, that doesn't give me license to reject the idea of gravity.

And even if you DO believe in God there's still no objective standard of good and evil because there are so many different religions. Islam and Christianity have the exact same amount of empirical evidence backing them up, yet they have nearly opposite definitions of "good".

"3. If God Does Not Exist Then Man Is Just A Part of Nature, Of Equal Value to Anything Else. If God Does Not Exist Then Human Life Is Not Sacred."

That's true. But it's not proof of a God. This, again, is deciding there's a God because you don't like the implications of there not being one. You have the right to do so, of course, but that doesn't make it rational.

"4. There Is Nothing That God Could Do to Prove His Existence Conclusively."

Of course there is, don't be absurd. He could personally appear to every single person on Earth. And not in a grilled cheese sandwich or the knots on a wooden door, I mean personally appear and lay on some miracles. Unambiguous, old-testament miracles.

Which reminds me, have you ever noticed that God's miracles get less dramatic in direct proportion to our ability to document them? Ever wonder why that is?

"5. If God Does Not Exist Then Life Is Meaningless. What Difference Does It Make If You Live Like a Saint or a Criminal..."

And AGAIN, not liking the implications of reality doesn't make it not real. And frankly if you need to be coerced into living a good life by some outside power while we atheists do it just to do it, well, that says a lot more about you than about us.

"6. If God Does Not Exist Then Freedom Is An Illusion. We’re Just the Pawns of Mother Nature, Programmed Like Robots. It is More Rational To Choose To Believe That God..."

No. Wrong. Maybe it feels better to you to think that but that doesn't make it rational.

Picking the answer to life's questions that makes you feel better isn't rational. Here's an example: If Barack Obama is lying about Benghazi then we can't trust the man who's leading our nation to do his duty and defend our nation. Therefore Obama is not lying about Benghazi. Anyone here actually believe that?

I have no quarrel with anyone's faith, as long as that faith isn't telling them to fly planes into my office. But trying to call faith rational is wrong. It also misses the whole point of having faith.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
God created time. so there is no before and after with Him.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Physical matter needs a beginning--spiritual "matter" does not. Mathematicians have theorized about the existence of many dimensions beyond the four that physical beings operate within. Could God not be "in" these other dimensions? What could a being that exists within, say 5 dimensions be capable of? What about 10 dimensions? The truth is, we can't possibly wrap our minds around the nature of God.
What created God is a silly question. The definition of God IS non-created being.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm no physicist, but I recall that matter can be created from energy, and visa versa. I think that we don't know what creates most forces or how they are related to laws, and we don't know if or how that existed before the big bang. Perhaps “before” is not even a relevant term being that “before” is dependent on time, and time is just a measurement of change – something that may or may not have existed “before” the big bang. The ambiguity of how anything can exist at all is disturbing. Like you, most choose to believe it was constructed by the “non-created being”. Many others are not convinced, and just choose to tolerate the ambiguity.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I knew that god created time, then one day I realized that He created space, also. How can we even conceive of a being that exists outside of Time and Space?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Ok then, what created God?"
God. God is a verb. God is the verb To Be.
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/01/12/10-secret-reasons-why-the-avengers-is-the-best-superhero-film/10/

"This, again, is deciding there's a God because you don't like the implications of there not being one. You have the right to do so, of course, but that doesn't make it rational."

I acknowledge this. A world without slavery, infanticide, and the rape of children is better than one with it. I do not understand why it is rational to choose to live in a world where evil needs to be tolerated and defended. Why is Peter Singer's logic about infanticide wrong?

"But trying to call faith rational is wrong. It also misses the whole point of having faith."
Did you watch all the videos first or did you just respond to the sentences I wrote?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
The degree to which societal belief in a good God is -beneficial- (and I do not dispute that for a moment) is by no means dependent upon the degree to which that belief is -true-.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't care about "societal belief" I care about individual belief. Proof of God's existence is demonstrated every time someone chooses to believe and then their quality of life improves. The data is clear that the very religious are more likely to be very happy than the very secular.

But actually, yes, the fact that belief in God and earnest worship of God makes people better IS in fact evidence on behalf of his existence. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's still evidence that cannot be dismissed. Most people who worship God every week and strive to be more like God are more enjoyable people to be around than people who just sleep in every Sunday and live for their own pleasure.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, and the placebo effect is proof that Doctors have magical powers.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or is God 'Good' and have nothing to do with the universe?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I don't want to believe there are consequences for my disgusting, degenerate lifestyle therefore there is no god."

Every atheist I've ever met is hiding from their own guilt. That, or they believe saying "I'm an atheist" makes them an instant intellectual, oozing with sophistication.

This sums up atheism. http://i.imgur.com/duIMgHP.jpg
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've been an atheist all six decades of my life.

And I would gladly challenge you to follow me through a typical weekly routine, observing my interactions with family, friends, and co-workers for signs of "disgusting, degenerate" behavior.

In fact, I would challenge you to distinguish between a week of my behavior and a week of any Christian's, setting aside the time spent in explicit religious observance.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
You may be a good person but how does your goodness come from your atheism? What is the source of your values? How do you determine Good from Evil?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"What is the source of your values? "

Personally, I've managed to live a reasonably long and happy life, stay married to the same woman for thirty five years, raise three well-read and polite children, serve a turn in my country's service, and do reasonably well in my career, while hardly losing a minute's sleep fretting over "the source of my values".

Believers seem to think that we atheists are constantly waking up in the middle of the night, shaking the cold sweat from our brows and asking ourselves in a panic, "What's it all about?? Why am I here?? Where does it all end??" I assure you that at least from my experience and that of my parents and my children, that this is far from the case.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
You didn't answer my question. What is the source that tells you to value marriage, parenthood, military service, and high career performance more highly than divorce, hedonism, absolute pacifism, and theft?

Why is the atheist who values the things you value correct, but the atheists Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger who advocated the opposite wrong?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
In answer to "what is the source of my values?" I really don't have the faintest idea. Nor do I feel obliged to search for and defend such a source.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
So you really have no idea why you chose marriage and parenthood instead of hedonism and criminality? You have no idea why a life of marriage and parenthood is objectively better than a life of crime, murder, and prostitution?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's correct Dave, I do not know why I have the values I do.

But I am convinced that my values cannot be the result of an objective moral code implanted in me by a moral Lawgiver.

The reasons being twofold:

First, I have many times experienced moral quandaries, in which I am faced with choosing between two "rights" or two "wrongs" with no clear internal guidance to choose one of them.

In my time, I felt it appropriate to lie to a child rather than to tell him the truth about a family friend who was convicted of a vile crime. I would do so again. And although I did serve proudly in the Air Force, there are times and places (World War I being the most obvious example to me) in which I very well may have taken the conscientious objector's role.

And moral quandaries are a common enough situation encountered in my readings and in personal conversations that I feel safe in concluding that it's not just me - this is a near-universal condition of mankind.


Second, there are the very examples of the Singers and Sangers (g) who advocate actions which I consider wrong, not to mention the Mengeles and Pol Pots who not only advocate, but act. Why were they excluded from the line wherein the morals were being passed out??

My conclusion is yes, I suppose it's possible that our morals were imposed upon us by some creator. But my powers of observation tell me that if this is so, the moral code so imposed is not objective. It contains elements of ambiguity. And further, I observe that by selective implantation of this moral code, the creator has chosen for whatever unfathomable reasons to set a few monsters loose among us.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"But my powers of observation tell me that if this is so, the moral code so imposed is not objective. It contains elements of ambiguity."

These sentences here lend me to believe that you don't understand the difference between Objective morality and Subjective morality. What makes objective morality objective is not that it's "absolute" or "black and white" or clearly defined. What makes it objective is that the moral standards of what is Good and Evil originate somewhere outside of the human brain. It does not mean that Good and Evil are always obvious and there is never any confusion or ambiguity about what the Right decision actually is. It just means that there is one moral standard that applies to all people.

(And BTW, lying to a child because they are not yet mature enough to understand something is not a violation of the 10 Commandments. The Commandment is "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" which does not mean the same thing as "thou shalt never tell a lie" which is a common misinterpretation of the teaching.)

"That's correct Dave, I do not know why I have the values I do."
Your have subjective moral values. You determine what is Good and Evil based on your own subjective feelings. That's why you cannot point to any tangible primary source that helps you value Good over Evil. Those who embrace subjective morality can just pick and choose what they want to be Good and Evil. You have made yourself your own god and written your own 10 commandments.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
That does sum up atheism. I'll plan to feature it at PJ Lifestyle sometime soon and give you a hat tip.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
And every Christian I've ever met is a self-righteous, abusive jerk. That sums up Christianity.

See, if that's the level of discourse you want we can all do it.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's actually part of the reason why I'm not a Christian either. Most of American Christianity both Right and Left has devolved into a kind of Jesus idolatry that has forgotten its Old Testament roots. I do not practice Christianity or identify as a Christian. Christianity is one of the sources of my values and I acknowledge the divinity of Christ but that does not make me a practicing Christian. I still hold the position that I articulated as a teenager abandoning Evangelical Christianity: I am sick of Christianity but still in love with Christ.

I am a Judeo-Christian Hermeticist. The Bible is the source of my values, the Hermetic tradition is the source of my personal rituals, philosophy, and theology. In this fashion I seek to revive the Bible-based, Renaissance Hermeticism of men like Isaac Newton and John Dee. Do you have any emotional baggage against those who practice my more obscure religion that would prevent you from considering the arguments I'm making on behalf of the Judeo-Christian tradition?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know what you believe. But you are a Christian if you believe in the Holy Trinity; if you believe that Jesus is a member of said Trinity; if you believe He came to Earth in order to extend mankind a lifeline; if you believe He rose from the Dead and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you want to define "Christian" based on what's in somebody's head then I suppose you could call me a Christian in that I do believe Jesus was divine. But I no longer choose to embrace this belief-centric model of what defines a religion. I think with religion it is more important what one DOES, rather than what one claims to BELIEVE. Me maintaining some Christian beliefs does not make me a Christian. I would need to practice the Christian religion in order to be a Christian.

I agree with you and believe "He rose from the Dead and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father" but not in the same way I believed in it 15 years ago when I was a Christian idolater. I am not a Christian because Christ is not the center of my worship. (And I do not believe he should be.) I recognize the divinity of Christ and that God inspired the writing of the New Testament but I am not a Christian because I do not go to a Christian church or practice Christian rituals. Too many Christians worship their idea of Jesus and the feelings that Christ gives them instead of actually worshiping God. Just focusing exclusively on Jesus as most American Christians do has caused many of them to become cruel idolaters. This same thing happened in Europe and was one of the reasons why Old Testament Christians fled for the New World.

These days I choose to describe my approach to religion as, "I have a Pagan Soul, a Christian Heart, a Jewish Mind, and a Secular Spirit." Another way of saying this is that I am a Judeo-Christian Hermeticist. This will confuse most people. That's fine. It confuses me some too.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
> But I no longer choose to embrace this belief-centric model of what defines a religion. I think with religion it is more important what one DOES, rather than what one claims to BELIEVE.

Well, I respect you, Mr. Swindle, and have no wish to antagonize you... but we're here for a discussion, right? :)

I think the Bible emphasizes faith, whlie here and there (e.g., the Book of James) emphasizes good works -- that's close to your distinction between belief and doing, right.

Of course, faith can be evidenced by works. Or, rather, works are a sign of faith. Maybe not an exact quote, perhaps, but James said that faith without works is dead.

But that does not mean, therefore, someone's beliefs are unimportant. E.g.,

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

John 6:29 "Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”"

John 6:40 "For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”"

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."

I Corinthians 1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

And so forth and so on...

> Just focusing exclusively on Jesus as most American Christians do has caused many of them to become cruel idolaters... Too many Christians worship their idea of Jesus and the feelings that Christ gives them instead of actually worshiping God.

Well, Christians believe Jesus is one person in the Triune God, so that worshiping Jesus *is* worshiping God. How does worshiping God make someone an idolater?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I respect you too Trombonist and appreciate your kind efforts toward interfaith dialogue.

"I think the Bible emphasizes faith, whlie here and there (e.g., the Book of James) emphasizes good works -- that's close to your distinction between belief and doing, right."

My choosing to identify as a Judeo-Christian Hermeticist instead of a Christian has nothing to do with the debate about whether one gets to heaven through faith or good works. And I understand this debate within Christianity well.

"Well, Christians believe Jesus is one person in the Triune God, so that worshiping Jesus *is* worshiping God. How does worshiping God make someone an idolater?"

If you're just worshiping one aspect of the Triune God then you are not worshiping all of God. If we are to understand God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then we need to worship those three incarnations of him with equal devotion, never getting hung up on just one aspect of God.

Too many Christians today just focus on Jesus and the New Testament. They idolize the Son aspect of God and how good it makes them feel. In doing this they do not devote adequate time to understanding and worshiping God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In practical terms the majority of Christians I've known don't know enough about Judaism and the Old Testament (the gateways to God the Father) and Judeo-Christian mystical practices (the gateways to God the Holy Ghost.) I prefer Judeo-Christians, and Old Testament Christians who understand themselves as Israelites. They are more advanced than the the Christians who just idolize the compassionate Buddy Jesus who washes away their sinful nature.

(And BTW, there are Christians who focus too much God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. Father God Christians primarily see God as an angry parent figure. And Holy Ghost Christians just wander in the mystic wilderness without a strong foundation in Judeo-Christian values and philosophy. But these Patriarchal Christians and Mystic Christians are not as big of a problem -- in my humble opinion -- as the Jesus idolaters.)
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just one more thing, Dave... check out Reformed Christianity. I.e., the tradition of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Reformed Christians do not ignore the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, and they believe the Bible, all of it. R.C. Sproul is the name I hear bandied about the most by my fellow Reformees, though I really can't claim to follow his writings. The Westminster Confession is probably still a good summary of Reformed Bible interpretation. It's online, with Biblical proofs.

Most denominations in America that weren't Catholic once had a Reformed outlook. The Puritans did. The United Church of Christ (UCC), now a sinkhole of liberalism, did. So did the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) -- not anymore.

We are a minority within Protestant Christianity now. It's a hard theology for an individualistic culture like America to warm up to. But there are still a few of us left. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is Reformed, and so is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, both spinoffs of PCUSA. I think some of the Lutheran synods are Reformed, and occasionally I spot a Reformed Baptist church.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Believers in God may end up having their own personal agenda :proof they are smarter than the atheist or agnostic. Where does that get them ?
ancient 2000 year old text
"But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
The beginning of a dead end road
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let me put it this way. If there is no soul, then we are just chemical machines with no free will, and it really does not matter what we happens to us, or what we do to each other. The destruction of the human race would be no more significant that the abolition of the IBM 360 line of computer mainframes.

So even if there is only a 10% chance that there is a God, that is the only 10% that matters. Because if I am wrong, then what I do, and what happens to me, has no meaning.

And if we are just chemical machines, why are you bothering to talk an unthinking mass of chemicals into that belief?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well said, thank you.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
You've got to be kidding. Why should anybody be impressed by the umpteenth recycling of the same old tired lines, most of which come down to "God must exist because we'd be sad if he doesn't?"

I don't doubt that this rhetoric is convincing if you already are a believer; but then if you already believe, you hardly need arguments. For grown ups, even grown ups who are serious theists, this stuff is just childish.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, Jim, it's a far deeper question than that. Dave has written some very compelling arguments here. What makes more sense? Spontaneous generation of the universe from nothing? Or that there was an intelligence and a power behind the design of our universe? It's a very valid question.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let me simply report this: very, very few modern philosophers, whether they are believers or atheists, finds the cosmological or teleological arguments for the existence of god cogent. (To put things crudely: cosmological argument = claim that there must be a first cause. Teleological argument = claim that the universe had to have a designer.) The emergence of modern physics in the 17th Century much eroded the appeal of the cosmological argument because it removed the need for an unmoved mover to explain the observed motion of the planets. Darwinism undercut the teleological argument by providing an alternative explanation for design.

By the way, when you write about the spontaneous generation of the universe from nothing as an incredible idea, you're presuming that the universe had a beginning. Maybe it did, but a survey of cosmologists from a few years ago reported that most of the people who actually know something about these things think it more likely that it is eternal. For that matter, even Christian philosophers like Aquinas recognized that the fact of creation (if it is a fact) has to be known by revelation, not reason.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
> Let me simply report this: very, very few modern philosophers, whether they are believers or atheists, finds the cosmological or teleological arguments for the existence of god cogent.

Not sure why a modern philosopher is to be preferred over a long-dead one. It's the quality of the thinking that counts, not the age of the thoughts, right?

> The emergence of modern physics in the 17th Century much eroded the appeal of the cosmological argument because it removed the need for an unmoved mover to explain the observed motion of the planets.

Not sure why this is so. Planets are physical objects and indeed something "shoved" them at some point. You'd have to go back to the first "shove" to settle this.

> Darwinism undercut the teleological argument by providing an alternative explanation for design.

Darwin, or at least the school of thought he inspired, doesn't so much provide an alternate explanation for design as rule it out a priori. I'd say it's a question of odds. What are the odds that Darwin's designer-less cosmos could have gone from nothing to living cells to human beings in the course of 4.5 billion years? The slimmer the odds, the more likely there was a Designer.

But Darwinists have a response: you're not allowed to bring up God.

So the conclusion that Darwinism undercuts the teleological argument was a rigged game.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why should anybody be impressed by the umpteenth recycling of the same old tired lines, most of which come down to "God must exist because we'd be sad if he doesn't?""

Actually the fact that those who worship God are more likely to be happier than atheists who worship themselves is the most compelling evidence for God's existence. I made that case here: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/01/27/the-source-of-both-infinite-happiness-and-meaning/?singlepage=true
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Actually the fact that those who worship God are more likely to be happier than atheists who worship themselves is the most compelling evidence for God's existence."

In what sense does that constitute evidence? I don't doubt that the sense of identity and community that comes along with religious faith feel good, in fact I'd be shocked if it didn't. But that's not evidence of God's existence. You can find the same factors at work among Star Trek convention goers and hardcore sports fans.

And for the record, atheists don't worship themselves. We worship nothing (except maybe our wives).

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In what sense does that constitute evidence?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=0

The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age; the happiness difference exists even when you account for income.

Whether religion and marriage should make people happy is a question you have to answer for yourself. But consider this: Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy — versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids.

"And for the record, atheists don't worship themselves. We worship nothing (except maybe our wives)."
More like you just don't know what you worship and you don't understand what worship is. Or you engage in goddess and sex worship, as you now admit. Everyone worships something. And there's a word for those who worship nothingness: Nihilists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Most of the arguments you recycle have the form of "If there is no God, then there are bad implications." Thus #2 claims that atheism implies there are no absolute values, #3 claims that atheism implies that humanity isn't sacred, #5 claims that atheism implies that life is meaningless, and #6 claims that atheism implies that there is no freedom. I'd argue that these premises are false or at least dubious, but even if you accept them, they don't form complete arguments. To arrive at your desired conclusion, you'd have to be able to assert additional premises, i.e. that there are absolute values, that humanity is sacred, that life is meaningful (in your sense), and that we're free (again in your sense). You don't argue for any of these premises, however. You simply assume that your intended audience already takes them for granted. In effect, you are preaching like Elmer Gantry, not philosophizing like Socrates (or Aquinas, for that matter).

What we have here is an instance of what used to be called Begging the Question. Or, to be more specific, you commit the subspecies of question begging I call the asparagus fallacy.* You start out on what is supposed to be a rational exercise, which means, at a minimum, you are not prejudging the issue; but you quickly switch gears and take the possibility of the non existence of God off the table because you can't abide what you take to be the consequences of the non existence of God.

*I'm glad I don't like asparagus because if I like it, I'd eat it and I can't stand it.)

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with your summary of my position. Now explain to me why Peter Singer is incorrect and all secular materialists should know that it's evil to murder unwanted infants.

I am indeed assuming that all civilized human beings agree with me that we cannot live in a world where the murder of infants can be tolerated. If that is not your assumption too, if you are an atheist and you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that it is not evil to murder infants, honestly I'm not interested in arguing with you. Rather, I'm interested in promoting your belief because we are actually in agreement.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
What does the rightness or wrongness of Peter Singer's point of view have to do with the existence of God? After all, there have been many theists who were perfectly OK with infanticide. If you choose to believe in a God who thunders against infanticide, it's presumably because you have non-theological reasons to be against infanticide. For my money, anyhow, the arguments against infanticide are rather stronger than the arguments for the existence of God, though that may perhaps be a function of the extraordinary weakness of the later rather than the strength of the former.

Incidentally, turning Peter Singer into some sort of boogeyman is just playing to the crowd. You do that a lot.






51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"What does the rightness or wrongness of Peter Singer's point of view have to do with the existence of God?"

You didn't watch any of the videos embedded above, did you? Peter Singer is right because if God does not exist then man is not created in God's Image, as per Genesis 1:27 ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."), and therefore human life is not any more sacred or valuable than any other organic or inorganic material. We're just a piece of nature too and the fact that we're smarter than chimps does not mean that murder is evil. Slitting a baby's throat is no different than rumpling up a piece of kleenex in a secular universe. Who cares if you "murder" a "baby" if we're all just dead star dust anyway?

"After all, there have been many theists who were perfectly OK with infanticide."

Sure. There have been theists -- people who believe in the divine -- who advocate infanticide. But I am not advocating theism. I am advocating Ethical Monotheism in the terms Dennis Prager defines it.

"Incidentally, turning Peter Singer into some sort of boogeyman is just playing to the crowd. You do that a lot."

I am not turning Sinter into a boogeyman at all. I am saying how much I respect him for being honest about the implications of atheism that most secularists do not have the guts to confront.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
It doesn't follow that if man wasn't created in God's image, human life is not more valuable than any other material thing because there might be any number of other reasons why human life is especially valuable. If P implies Q, it doesn't follow that not P implies not Q. That's a well known fallacy, denying the antecedent.

If you're going to do philosophy, learn some.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It doesn't follow that if man wasn't created in God's image, human life is not more valuable than any other material thing because there might be any number of other reasons why human life is especially valuable."

It does follow. All those "any number of other reasons" are all just subjective opinions no more valuable or meaningful than "I believe chocolate tastes better than vanilla."

I'm not "doing philosophy."
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
We agree! You aren't doing philosophy.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I never said I was "doing philosophy." I have no interest in wasting time "doing philosophy" like bored, navel-gazing undergraduates who don't have anything meaningful to do with their lives.

I wasted a decade of my life "doing philosophy" with the secularists and narcissists who were too sophisticated and mature for religion. I'm not interested in it any more. I came to the conclusion that "doing philosophy" is actually like being a dog chasing his own tail.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
When you title your bit "6 Reasons Why Rational Thinkers Choose to Believe in God," the reader may be forgiven assuming that you're signing on to argue philosophically, that is, not to argue like a preacher.

In any case, logic is an ancient subdivision of philosophy and you continuously ignore it in very specific ways as I have pointed out. Now it's one thing to go all philistine about navel-gazing undergraduates, but ignoring logic is rather harder to defend. After all, to paraphrase the punchline of an old joke, logic may not be everything, but it is perfect.

What we have here is somebody who has strayed into the deep end of the pool before he learned how to swim.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our dialogue continued here:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/04/25/why-you-should-stop-wasting-your-time-doing-philosophy/

Your need to continue to insult me and assume that I'm just not smart enough to get your superior logical thinking gives away how much I have gotten under your skin. It's illogical for you to insult me. And the headline is "rational" not "philosophical" or "logical". That you impose a purely philosophical or purely logical framework is your own intellectual baggage that you bring to the exchange. And there's more to the article than just the headline. Did you bother to watch any of the videos featured in the article before you decided to argue?

"After all, to paraphrase the punchline of an old joke, logic may not be everything, but it is perfect."
Logic is not perfect. It is just one tool for understanding the world. It's no more perfect than a good hammer. Logic is the idol that you are worshiping.

But please, by all means, Explain to me logically why in a secular world Peter Singer is wrong and it is evil to murder babies. Explain to me logically why you know that it is evil to murder people.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
My point isn't that logic is the be-all and end-all of thinking. It's the necessary, not the sufficient condition of making sense or figuring things out. If you aren't going to bother to be logical, you just don't make the cut.

By the way, I have listened to the videos. They're pathetic. Carbonated drool.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am being logical. I am saying that Peter Singer's arguments about infanticide's permissibility in a secular universe are entirely logical. Can you explain to me how they are not?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Childish? If that isn't the Gestapo officer calling the S.S. officer black.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
To all Pjmedia readers,
Please don't waste your time responding to Jim Harrishmuck a.k.a. Jim Hitlerson. He has venomous opinions about everything. He thinks he knows everything about everything. He thinks he has the answer to all of the world's problems. He's what Thomas Sowell might call a self-anointed messiah. He's too ignorant to understand how ignorant he is. He's extremely childish. He throws tantrums. He evades questions. He hates Jews and hates Israel. Please don't pay attention, to this immature, malignant, narcissistic, anti-Semitic demagogue.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Based on what? Other than your argument of 'cause I said so.

By the way, that's a very powerful argument from the School of The School Yard, which also gave us deeper, more thought provoking arguments such as "na na na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo".
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Point of order. It's "na nee, na nee, boo, boo...". By the way, don't dignify Harrishmuck with a response. He's a vicious anti-Semite and has a vicious hatred of Israel. Hatred of religious beliefs just goes with the territory. He totally misunderstands the concept of The Chosen People. He equates belief in Jews being The Chosen People with a belief that Jews are some kind of a master race. He thinks that the early Zionists settled the land of Israel, not because it's the historic homeland of the Jewish People, but because Jews are The Chosen People and thus are a master race and thus have rights and privileges that no other people have.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
He also contradicts himself by saying that the first Zionists were German atheists.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Previous 1 2 3 Next View All