Now I've seen everything: the outgraeious atheist dishonesty

I've always noticed the tendency of atheists to inflate their figures. Often they include all Buddhists as atheists. I thought that was nonreligious. Then one time I found one who included all Hindus that was so stupid! I laughed. Now I've heard everything! this really just tears it.

Poster calling himself "Deist" on carm argued that all non Christians are atheists! I argued:

the thread is here

click on the box by the name Metacrock (below) for the exact post

Originally Posted by Metacrock

that is ludicrous. You are defining non Christians as "atheists" that is nuts. there is no justification for that little gem at all that's just stupid. sorry but it is. totally stupid.

atheists speak until blue in the face "the absence of belief in god or gods." now that you need to change suddenly it's 'anyone who is not a Christan.

you can't do that! it's no belief in God you are stuck with it that gives you 3% of the world population, and that's a generous estimate.

To back up my point I quote adherents.com



adherents.com

Christianity is the largest group. It out numbers many other groups combined. Atheists are so small they don't even fit on the wheel.

atheism is in the category with other things that makes 16%, while Christianity is 33% so Christianity outnumbers not only atheism but all other non religious options. Atheism proper, that is no belief of God of any sort, is only 3%

here's what it says about the category:

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).

here's his answer:

My friend, that is the very site I obtained my stats from. Atheism is a NON belief, and fully 67% of the world population does NOT belief in Christianity. I don't care if those people believe a cat is their God or no God at all. 67% of the population does NOT believe in Christianity.

This site CARM, I believe contends that Catholics and Mormons do not belong in the Christian group. Ask the site owners if I'm wrong. That segment which is lumped into "Christians" is at least HALF of that total. (Look that up on the site if you don't believe me)

So, my dear Meta, no matter how you slice and dice it, "Christians", using the definition that CARM wants to go by, are only 16% of the world population, and I suggect that those numbers are puffed up just toi make the Christian group seem bigger than it is.

From that tiny 16%, we have to separate out who's who. You don't fall into the class of evangelical, do you? For that matter, you have your own religion (as does every Christian). I gave you the benefit of doubt by saying your class was 10%. I fiugure it's way lower than that, and if you tried to find people that thought like you do, maybe you'd get up to 2% of the world population. I felt sorry for you, and puffed up the numbers.

I am 100% right on this Meta. For all your ALLEGED book learning, you never cracked open a math book, did you?

If that's not bad enough, he's changed the definition of atheism to "all non Christians" whether they believe in God or not. he's actually calling them "atheist." That's nothing, the worst is yet to come. See what he's doing? He's not only trying to put me in an extreme minority because I'm a liberal he actually counting my specific analysis as a minority potion to make it appear that no one agrees with me at all. Im so all alone.

My friend, that is the very site I obtained my stats from. Atheism is a NON belief, and fully 67% of the world population does NOT belief in Christianity. I don't care if those people believe a cat is their God or no God at all. 67% of the population does NOT believe in Christianity.

This site CARM, I believe contends that Catholics and Mormons do not belong in the Christian group. Ask the site owners if I'm wrong. That segment which is lumped into "Christians" is at least HALF of that total. (Look that up on the site if you don't believe me)

So, my dear Meta, no matter how you slice and dice it, "Christians", using the definition that CARM wants to go by, are only 16% of the world population, and I suggect that those numbers are puffed up just toi make the Christian group seem bigger than it is.

From that tiny 16%, we have to separate out who's who. You don't fall into the class of evangelical, do you? For that matter, you have your own religion (as does every Christian). I gave you the benefit of doubt by saying your class was 10%. I fiugure it's way lower than that, and if you tried to find people that thought like you do, maybe you'd get up to 2% of the world population. I felt sorry for you, and puffed up the numbers.

So, please, stop with "I'm right" BS because you are in a very, very, very tiny minority, and hardly hold mainstream views. Saying you believe in God doesn't allow you to contend majority belief. Good try, though meta. You are good at obsfucation.

Then he argues appeal to popularity.


Definitions of Appeal to popularity on the Web:



* An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_popularity

argument ad populum



Definition:

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually superior) sector of the population.

This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

examples:

(i) Everyone likes beautiful people, so buy Teeth-Brite(tm) toothpaste and become beautiful. Everyone will approve of your choice.

(ii) Polls suggest that President Jones will win the election, so you may as well vote for him.

(iii) Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?

(iv) Most educated people know that it is better to use paper bags than plastic ones. (An appeal to the superior group among whom the position is supposedly popular. (See also argumentum verecundium).

compare the exampels with the statments above by the 3% guy.

So, please, stop with "I'm right" BS because you are in a very, very, very tiny minority, and hardly hold mainstream views. Saying you believe in God doesn't allow you to contend majority belief. Good try, though meta. You are good at obsfucation.

see how that's the same kind of logic? It's a fallacy.

the Nizkor progject:



Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

you see that in red. let's say it again:

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.


you cannot grow up in Texas if you want ot have mind and care what the majority think. One of my fudnametnal tennets of life since I was 10 years old.If you want to be a thinker and you live in Texas YOU CANNOT CARE WHAT THE MAJORITY THINK!


he still doesn't learn:

liberal Christianity is 34% of Christianity.

meta, here is a math and logic lesson for you. Try to follow me here. I know that you've buried your head in religiosity for the better part of your life, and math and logic hasn't been part of your learning. But, try to stay with me here. Just to show you that I'm right using your own figures, I started by extracting out YOUR own words, which are "liberal Christianity is 34% of Christianity".

Christians are one third of the world. Everyone else does NOT believe in Christianity. Following so far?

One third of that 33% are liberals, and this includes many different denominations. A third of 2.1 billion = 660 million liberal Christians. Per the site at the time, the total population was around 7 billion people. Using math for dummies, 10% of 7 billion is 700 million, and you can see 660 million is LESS than that, meaning liberal Christians were and ARE LESS than 10% of the entire population.

Now, you need to know how many of that 10% of liberal Christians believe the same way. Some of those liberals don't believe the OT at all, and some do. Some don't believe in a real resurrection, and some do. Some don't believe in a virgin birth and some do. Some don't believe there were zombies walking the streets, and some do.

I gave you a big break by saying your views were 2% of the population. Like BT has often said, you created your own personal God as have everyone else.

So, you want to argue atheists, which is a non belief. Fully 90% of the people don't believe like liberal Christians do. As you can see I am a deist, and you can't include me in your group. That's foolish because you don't get to include ANY God believer in your Christian group.

So there ya have it, Meta...staring you in the face. Only 2% of the populace believes like you do. If you want to feel good, you can use the 10% figure.

he's still saying popularity = truth, but to such a degree that he divines individual philosophical poinsettias according to who agrees with them.

here is a list complied from two studies, Wuthnow and Nobel. They show the qualities that make up the concept of "transformation."

Note. atheists try to reduce transformation to "Happy." Look at how much more the real concept includes aside form "happy."


Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
*Likely changes in self and the world,
*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate

*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions

Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, self actualization and the like.''



(poster on CARM)
Deist answers:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
here is a list complied from two studies, Wuthnow and Nobel. They show the qualities that make up the concept of "transformation."

Note. atheists try to reduce transformation to "Happy." Look at how much more the real concept includes aside form "happy."


Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,

Deist:
SO THEY SAY

*think about meaning and purpose

Deist:
SO DO I

*Know what purpose of life is

Deist:
REALLY NOW. DID THEY SAY WHAT IT WAS? TO GLORIFY GOD? TO GET TO HEAVEN?

(capitalization is his)

Meditate more

THIS IS MEANINGFUL? DOI THEY MEDITATE ON THEIR NAVEL? DOES THIS HELP SOCIETY?

*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities

SELF RATED? ISN'T THAT CONVEEEEENEINT?

*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends

ARE THEY BUMS? MOST CHRISTIANS I KNOW LIVE VERY LARGE. NICE TO CONTEND YOU DON'T VALUE THOSE THINGS WHILE SIPPING A MAI TAI IN VEGAS

Do you get the Pattern here?the pattern here? He's not even thinking about what is being said, he's just taking whatever I say and making some extremely stupid little snide remark about it. I say they are made less materialistic by their experience he says "O they are bums." Yes he's being so thoughtful about it all. He's really talking time to consider it isn't he. Just consider the stupidity of doing this. It's abundantly clear this guy is not there to discuss anything.

*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy

ATHEISTS DO THIS JUST AS MUCH WITHOUT TRYING TO CONVERT PEOPLE TO ATHEISM

So what? does that make them better? No and you can't prove they do it. quote some statistics to show that they do it. I don't believe any atheists work of positive change, only trying to tear down things that make people good, that's what he refers to. Studies show atheists don't give and don't believe in love.

*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

AND THIS SAYS WHAT? PURELY SUBJECTIVE, ANYWAY.

so we can just ignore it! Its' "subjective" (the evil horrible state that must be deneid) so it doesn't exist so there's no argument. How totally idiotic can you get? How can they have a movement based upon being stupid?

There's no such thing as being self aware because it's subjective. That's typical of people who poor self esteem.


Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness

I BEG TO DIFFER. I CAN FIND LOTS OF WHACKED OUT CHRISTIANS

Then do it stupid! shwo some stats! these are studies quoting you delectable little cretin, show some counter studies dumb bud!

*Less authoritarian and dogmatic

GIVE ME A BRRRREEEAAAK HERE. CHRISTIANS WANT TO SHOVE THEIR PHILOSOPHY DOWN THE THROATS OF OTHERS. YOU BEING A PRIMNE EXAMPLE!

*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
ASSERTIVE WITH FORCING THEIR RELIGION ON OTHERS.

*intelligent, relaxed
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT DEMONSTRATED HERE

*High ego strength,
I HAVE PLENTY OF THAT MYSELF. WHY DIDN'T THEY INTERVIEW ME?

*relationships, symbolization, values,
PSYCHO BABBLE

*integration, allocentrism,
PSYCHO BABBLE...NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING INPORTANT, ANYWAY
*psychological maturity,
YAEHHH, RIGGGGHHHT. LIKE BELIEVING IN ZOMBIES AND TALKING SNAKES.

*self-acceptance, self-worth,
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE QUESTIONS ASKED, THE DATA, AND PROOF AS MOST NON BELIEVERS HAVE A VERY HIGH REGARD OF THEMSELF AND HIGH SELF ESTEEM.

*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
SO THEY PRAY A LOT TO A SKY GOD.

*increased love and compassion
I DOUBT IT, CAUSE YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY LOVE AND COMPASSION. IT'S LIKE SAYING A CHRISTIAN LOVES HIS DAUGHTER MORE THAN AN ATHEIST. THIS IS DRIVEL.

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
I AGREE WITH THIS. SEEING PEOPLE RISING FROM GRAVES AND WALKING THE STREETS IS VERY ALARMING.

*Likely changes in self and the world,
IF I SAW A ZOMBIE, I'D CHANGE SOMETHING. BUT, TELL ME, META, WHAT DID CHRISTIANS DO TO CHANGE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THE RUTHLESS METHODS USED TO GAIN AND KEEP CONVERTS?

*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate
LIKE TALKING IN TONGUES? WHO THE HECK CAME UP WITH THIS STUPID STUDY?

*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions
I AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS, AND IMAGINE THIS LAST SENTENCE WAS WHAT THE STUDY SHOULD HAVE CONCLUDED. I COULD HAVE TOLD THE RESEARCHERS AS MUCH.

Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, selfactualization and the like.''

He's capitalizing becuase he lacks basic computer skills and can't put it in a quote box, but the computer skills don't show up in his other other posts. he's just using this as an exuse to be nasty and shout.

Originally Posted by Deist View Post
My computer or something is not right, so I can't do the quotes, but bear with me, because I think answers to these bogus general studies are necessary, and I'll insert my comments in capital letters underneath each subjective evaluation
you did one quote, why you do more?

you have no right to call them bogus! you know nothing about them. They are every single one Peer reviewed, published in academic journals, done by qualified social scientists with good methodological procedures.

anyone calling these studies bogus either knows nothing about them nothing about social scinece or is just willfully dispensing BS.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
here is a list complied from two studies, Wuthnow and Nobel. They show the qualities that make up the concept of "transformation."

Note. atheists try to reduce transformation to "Happy." Look at how much more the real concept includes aside form "happy."


Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,

SO THEY SAY

what a stunning answer. so they sa. gee that's so brilliant he merely denies what Is said (without really even knowing what it is). What intellectual acuity! wow who would ever think of that.

who else is going to know it? This is competent scinece, this is the way all social scinece research is done. It's silly to complain about asking people who they are don't becasue no one else can know. It's like if a shirk asks a guy "do you have any special powers" (which they do ask to determine if the guy is delusional) then you would say "O that's stupid how could he have powers." they have a reason for asking.

Its' silly to assume anytime you ask the respondent something it must be wrong. Studies that produce scientific data on observations about neurosis and psychosis and whatever are done the very same way!

*think about meaning and purpose

SO DO I


yes but they already have a average for how often people do taht. The compare the avaerage throug the control group to the experimental group and they see it goes way for the experince people.

*Know what purpose of life is

REALLY NOW. DID THEY SAY WHAT IT WAS? TO GLORIFY GOD? TO GET TO HEAVEN?

These guys are not necessary Christians and weren't necessarily when they had their expression. You are not reasoning very clearly or deeply you badly need to learn about social scinece research. you remarks are silly and childish.

the fact that these guys feel that they have new insight into meaning in life is what's important, not if they really do or not. They go from not having before the experience, to having it after the experience and that means the experienced has some something for them.

you are also compelled missing the point. the point was look how much more goes into transformation than just being happy! you are not listening!

Meditate more

THIS IS MEANINGFUL? DOI THEY MEDITATE ON THEIR NAVEL? DOES THIS HELP SOCIETY?

That's truly STUPID! You regard meditation as way out thing but scinece has proved it's valid and valuable. you are living in the world of 40 years ago. In fact most atheists on this baords have expressed positive about meditation.

doing doing mediation is taken as a sign of transformed life because it means less stress, more awareness, better emphasis on health.

*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities

SELF RATED? ISN'T THAT CONVEEEEENEINT?

No it's not convenient little nay sayer if you know anything about social scinece which you do not! self rated means they give them a list and they check it off and the scoring produce is pre set.

that's about as intelligent saying "answering questions on an IQ test, well isn't that contivnet they answer the questions themselves hu? how does tell how smart they are.

you wont some guy in a white labl caot to look at them and go "are you an atheist?" Ok you pass, yoku are mentally healthy." "are you an atheist, no? o you are insane."

*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends



do you ever think about anything you say? do you realize all you are doing is nay saying each and every quotability it's really dumb because the point how complex the concept not that they right about each and ever little feature.

what we really learn is
(1) you can't follow an argument
(2) you know nothing about scinece, especially social
(3) you are not able to analyze very well
(4) you don't listen.


*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy


Nope. atheists flap big stupid mouths about that doesn't mean they do it. most atheists don't do that much. that is really a childish response. you are looking at each one going"this person is a stupid idiotic fundamental i hate them, what degrading thing can I say about them?"

In addition to your other short comings you are not willing to even think fairly about. You have no dat to prove your silly childish little retort, the data shows the experience expedience people do it more. So you are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

snip similar silly well poisoning clap trap.


*Likely changes in self and the world,

IF I SAW A ZOMBIE, I'D CHANGE SOMETHING. BUT, TELL ME, META, WHAT DID CHRISTIANS DO TO CHANGE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THE RUTHLESS METHODS USED TO GAIN AND KEEP CONVERTS?

obvious poisoning the well. you refuse to think about the contrary evidence hu? any evidence against your little ideology you can't even fair minded enough to think about it for five seconds. Every single one of these you said some stupid little derisive insightful bull ****.


So what does this prove? you are going to say it's just one little dysfunctional moron out there and this is the internet this is where they are. Yet it's clealry not this one guy. It's on every single message board where atheists post and argue with Christians. One can find this same attitude on every board all over the net every single day. There are thousands of little flies pestering people trying to really think with this kind of unthinking little stupidity. What are atheists learning form each other? When they never chide one another for this kind of stupidity that they learn "this is what I must do to be a good atheist." This si what atheists are, this is how you go about being one, you say assigned things that you do't think about and refuse to consider anything the enemy says, and be as snide and condescending as possible.

This is the basic brown shirt mentality. These guys are the brown shirts of the net. They are doing what the original Brown Shirts did, they combed out through the city looking for enemies of the Nazi party and beating the snot out of them and disrupting their ralleys. This is what atheists do they comb the net looking for opportunities to disrupt theistic thinking.

Take my challenge go on a message board and pretend to be a Christian (if you are atheists) and see how they treat you. Why do you think it is that in all the years I've been making the challenge no one has ever taken me up on it? Because atheists know how they treat Christians.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I am taking a break. Back after New Years

This is my favorite Christmas song. The Trintarian doctrine is so well expressed this song could be used as a Creed. Charles Wesley's greatest work!

hear the music

Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I am taking a break. Back after New Years

This is my favorite Christmas song. The Trintarian doctrine is so well expressed this song could be used as a Creed. Charles Wesley's greatest work!

hear the music

Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

The Traditional Moral Argument (Ala Meta)

Regarding the 1x1 debate on Doxa Forums between myself and Electric:
my first speech is up.

here

BTW I was nuts to set the limits so high. 8000 words is ridiculous. especially given four arguments. I suggest we say 4000 for constructive and 1000 for rebuttals?

This is not part of the 1x1 debate so anyone can join in. I thought in so far as Electric had argued against it s vehemently I might as well discuss it.


The Traditional Moral Argument (ala Metacrock)

---

Argument:

---

(1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

(2) Such moral moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as an "ought."

(3) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension.

(4) Stoical contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics.

(5) matters of feeling are merely matters of taste and should be ignored as subjective (the atheist dread of the subjective).

(6) God is the only source of grounding which works as a regulative concept for our moral axioms and at the same time actually expalins the deep seated nature of moral motions.

---

A. Universal Moral Law.

The Apostle Paul tells us that there is a universal moral law written upon the human heart. We can see evidence of this universal law throughout the world. Now scoial science is quick to tell us that moral codes of all cultures differ throughout the world; some are so drastically different as to allow for multiple marrages, in some cultures gambling and even cheating each other are expected, and in a few cultures there doesn't seem to be any notion of right and wrong.But we shouldn't expect that all the moral codes of the world would be uniform just becasue there is a moral law. The evidence of a universal law is not seen in structured belief systems but in the humanity of humans.People in all cultures have concepts of right and wrong, even they may attach different kinds of significance to them. There are a few cultures that are actually pathological examples, but in the main most people are capable of being good, exhibit a basic human compassion, and feel moral outrage at cruelty and injustice.

It is this sense of moral outrage and the ability to empathize and to feel compassion that marks the moral law best of all. In Nicagua in the 1980s members of the contra army fighting the Sandinistas conducted a campaign of terror to prevent the people from supporting the revolutionary government. To enforce a sense of Terror they cut off the heads of little girls and put them on polls for all to see (see Noam Chomsky Turning The Tide...Champsky's example comes from United Nations Human Rights Report in 1984). There is something about this act, regardless of our political affiliations which fills us with anger and revulsion; we want to say it is evil. Even those who believe that we must move beyond good and evil are hard pressed not to admit this sense of outrage and revulsion, yet if they had their way we would not be able to express anything more than a matter of taste about this incident for nothing is truly evil if there is no universal moral law.

Moreover, the nature of the moral universe is such that we are capable of elevating basic moral motions to the level of ethical thinking. We understand by this that we must deliberate about moral conditions and to do that we must have free moral agency, a sense of the meaning of duty and obligation, and a notion of grounding for moral axioms. All of these things are without foundation in the relativist scheme but they are part and parcels of what ethical thinking is about. Before trying to link the universal moral law to the existence of God we must first explore the objections to it.

B. Objections.

1) Philological argument.


There are no root words for good and evil universally shared by all cultures, as there are for gender and other things.

Answer: notions of good and evil are metaphysical constructs based upon religious notions. We should not expect cultures that understand God in different ways and have different cosmological and metaphysical schemes of the universe to share the same terms for designation of good and evil when they do not share the same metaphysics. But, this is actually a greater argument for the universal moral law, because despite different metaphysical schemes of the universe there is still an underlying humanity, which was recognized by people in cultures as diverse as Gandhi in India and even head hunters in Barnio.

2) Genetic Origin of Morality.

This seems like a really overwhelming objection. The notion of "herd instinct" has been around as an explanation for morality for a long time. But, in the 1970s E.O.Wilson invented the theory of sociobiology, which basically said that our genes determine everything in an attempt to mate, and what seems like our own ideas and concerns are all really a ploy my our gene pool to further itself. Morality, in this context is just an attempt to aid the pack. Even self sacrifice is just an attempt to save some part of the gene pool. IN the 1980s sociobiology became known as "naturalistic psychology" and under the lead of Richard Dawkins became an overwhealming force; thousands of websites exist to support sociobiology, and there is no real adequate Christian response. This seems like such an overwhelming flood time of support that there doesn't seem much hope for the moral argument.

Answer: The genetic argument really doesn't defeat the notion of a universal moral law, but it is problematic. The moral law "written on the heart" (Romans 2:7) could well be genetic at its root. Those Chrsitians who have no trouble understanding that God used evolution as a method of developing life can easily imagine that the moral law in encoded into the evolutionary process and is found from the ground up. The problematic part is that it blunts the thrust of the causality argument. Perhaps there is a basic humanity to humans which recognizes moral motions, but how to use that as a proof of God's creation when it could as easily be the product of evolution? More on this at the end of the argument.

a) sociobiology enshrining values of reductionism and consequential ethics.

First Things, May 98, 59

The Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology. By Howard L. Kaye. With a new epilogue by the author. Transaction. 208 pp. $19.95 paper.

"Sociobiology is a secularized form of natural theology, Kaye explains: an attempt to "translat[e] our lives and history back into the language of nature so that we might once again find a cosmic guide for the problems of living." But the attempt fails, he argues, because in order to derive moral guidance from things like genes, sociobiologists first have to attribute to them various cognitive and moral attributes (e.g., "selfish genes"). In short, the sociobiologist first reads his own moral program into nature and then, unsurprisingly, discovers it from nature.

b) Reductionism of Sociobiology negates ability to discuss ethics.

(from First Things )

"Moreover, Kaye argues, these attempts at moral guidance are logically incoherent, given sociobiology's reduction of human beings to "mechanisms," "programmed" by natural selection. What, then, can it mean to talk about choice and values? Evolutionary psychology avoids some of the cruder reductionism of the older sociobiology. But by attempting to unmask all thought and feelings as genetically programmed survival strategies, Kaye warns, it may still "have a corrosive effect on our moral principles, social order, and even our souls."

c) Sacrificial (moral) genes is confusion of members and sets.

Val Dusek, Science As Culture "Sociobiology Sanitized: the Evolutionary Psychology and Enic Selectionism Debates"

http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/dusek.html

"Despite the new name, the general lessening of totally off-the-wall speculation, far-fetched animal analogies to very distantly related species, and the avoidance of grossly sexist remarks, evolutionary psychologists present the same theories as the sociobiologists. Central to the work of most of them is the genic selection theory, claims that genes, not organisms are selected. It is most well known as selfish gene theory in popularizations by Richard Dawkins. This doctrine, genetic selection, has been criticized by biologists such as Gould and Lewontin, but many journeyman biologists accept the theory, even attributing the details of the theory to Dawkins himself, when he was only popularizing certain trends in genetics and theories of Hamilton and others. The debates concerning evolutionary psychology have revived the debate about genetic selectionism. Part of the debate concerns whether genes alone are selected, as Dawkins claims, or whether individual organisms and species (and perhaps also groups) are selected as well...."

"This fits with the theory of kin selection, in which and individual can reproduce some of "its" genes by sacrificing itself for a relative which carries a proportion of the altruist's genes. Lewontin has criticized Dawkin's theory by claiming that it confuses classes with individuals. The genes which are reproduced by the relative are not physically identical with the sacrificed individual's genes, but are simply similar, the same kind of gene. Lewontin counters Dawkins claim that an extraterrestrial, to gauge earthly intelligence would ask "Do you understand the theory of natural selection?" with the Platonic question "Do you understand the difference between a class and its members?"--which, according to Lewontin, Dawkins, in his "caricature of Darwinism" flunks. Sober and Lewontin have put the distinction in more philosophical jargon, distinguishing genotokens from genotypes." (Sober and Lewontin, 1982, p. 171)

d) Other scientific objections and ethical problems.

Dusek:

"Lewontin, Gould, and some other writers have emphasized against selectionism a number of random and non-selective factors in evolution. These include 1) purely random recombination 2) genetic drift, in which random sampling errors in reproduction change the distribution of genes in a population 3) so-called non-Darwinian evolution, which involves the random mutation of the third letter in some DNA code words, in which two or more words are synonyms which code for the same amino acid, and hence the difference in the third letter makes no difference in the resultant organism, and is not selected for (a significant theory Dennett does not even mention) 4) structural constraints, such as basic body plans, which may become far from optimally adaptive, but which are too difficult to change by piecemeal natural selection without making many other features of the organism maladaptive. 5) geological or astronomical catastrophes such as the asteroid collision causing mass extinctions. 6) species selection, in which differing rates of extinction, and, more importantly, speciation (branching) produce more species in some lineages than in others....."

"There is [in Dennett] a discussion of the naturalistic fallacy in ethics, but no further discussion of scientific reduction. Apparently all that Dennett means by "draining the drama" from the problem is to deny that awful ethical consequences directly follow logically from selfish gene theory. But this ignores the more indirect ideological consequences in terms of cosmologies or models of nature that in turn can have ethical effects. An interesting sidelight of this is that Dennett, like Dawkins holds the Dawkinsian vision of all lower organisms. The are robots, but we, in Dawkins words can rebel against our genes. Surprisingly Dennett, the militant denier of dualism and of non-naturalistic mind, draws as strong a line between humans and other animals as does Descartes."

"What Dennett would have to counter is Lewontin and Sober's argument that when selection coefficients of genes are context-dependent and selection acts on gene complexes, the artificially constructed selection coefficients of genes do not play a causal role. (Sober and Lewontin, 1984). It is true that if one claims that what is selected are not genes but replicators as the later Dawkins does, then whole genomes, incorporating all the contextural effects of genes on each other, might be the object of selection. This would preserve the restriction of selection to the genic level, but it would give up the atomization of modular traits with which evolutionary psychologists work. On the other hand Dennett, surprisingly, does not dismiss the "selfish gene" image as a "mere metaphor" as do many scientists (somewhat in bad faith) but claims that if corporations can have interests, then so can genes (neglecting that corporations are made up of individuals who have interests but genes are not) (p. 328). Perhaps Dennett holds a view which "dissolves" the issues concerning reductionism in relation to levels of selection, but he nowhere argues for it of even states it clearly."

"Although Dennett chastises B. F. Skinner and E. O. Wilson for assuming that their opponents must be religious mysterians, Dennett himself accuses Steve Gould of all people of having secret religious motivations, based on the fact that Gould often quotes the Bible as literature the way he does Shakespeare. Ironically, the one "Biblical" passage in Gould that Dennett quotes is in fact not from the Bible but from a familiar African American song. Similarly Dennett grossly misrepresents the anthropologist Jonathan Marks, portraying him as a new Bishop Wilberforce, denying humans ape ancestry. In fact Marks pointed out the worse than shoddy treatment of data by C. G. Sibley and J. E. Ahlquist in their claims concerning hybridization of human and ape DNA. Dennett makes it sound as if Marks criticisms of Sibley and Ahlquists data was roundly condemned by the scientific community, as evidenced by an apology in the American Scientist. What Dennett neglects to note is that there was a lawsuit threatened against the magazine threatened by one of the criticized authors because Marks review suggested excessive massaging of the data. Despite the quality of Sibley and Ahlquists earlier raw data on bird classification based DNA, it is generally agreed that their work on human-ape relationships was worthless, and molecular evolution anthropologist Vincent Sarich has suggested that even the published versions of their bird conclusions is valueless, despite the value of the voluminous but unavailable raw data. Because of Sibley's eminence the human molecular evolution community has been unwilling to criticize the work, for fear of harm to the reputation of the field. This is far from the sort of replay of the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in which Dennett and other evolutionary psychologists wish to portray themselves as involved."

"Interestingly several of the leading sociobiologists and popularizers of evolutionary psychology, such as E. O. Wilson, Randy Thornhill, and Robert Wright hale from Alabama. One can speculate that the religious fundamentalist atmosphere of the American Deep South may have led those who defected to Darwin to find in Darwinism a cosmic world-view answering the same questions that the dominant religious view claimed to answer. Robert Wright (1988) is quite explicit about this."

CONCLUSION:

"The notion that human beings have evolved from other animals and are a part of biological nature is tremendously important. It is unfortunate and misleading that the evolutionary psychologists make it appear that a commitment to evolution and to the importance of natural selection necessitates a commitment to pan-selectionism, genic selection and the "selfish gene." We have seen how Wilson and now Dennett attempt to identify their opponents with anti-evolutionism. Even Barbara Ehrenreich dubs her opponents the "New Creationists." The split between selfish gene evolutionary psychology and cultural constructionism in anthropology can only prolong the delay in the development of a genuinely evolutionary view of humanity. "Evolutionary psychology" by preempting the field of evolutionary accounts of human nature and potential helps to prevent a non-reductionist biosocial account of humans.

3) The Inhumanity of humanity.

Many skeptics point out the extreme cases of the holucost in which normal law abiding citizens, chruch goers and Christians, did the most horrid things to babbies and old people and suffered no pangs of guilt over it. Moreover, we have seen on the evening news in Bosnia, in Ruwanda, and other places the most inhumane treatment of helpess victims which surely demonstrates that there is no moral law.

Answer: The explanitory power of the moral argument is demonstrated in this argument. The other side of the moral argument equasion is that we are not able to live up to the moral law. There are times when we turn it off, when it can be circumvented. Urges and temptations, ideology, socialization, many things can divert the basic motivations of compassion. If it was simpley genetic and the instictive urge to save the gene pool than why are we so bad at keeping it? While certain exptreme examples where the moral law is circumvented do not disprove that there is no moral law (because speical circumstances interveened) our anguish (ours not that of those whose consciences were ceared but that of those who look in horror at their deeds) demonstrates, along with our feelings of failure at living up to the mark, that there is a moral law. But it if is genetic why are we unable to live up to the standard that we feel passionately should be met?

C. Explanatory Power argues for God.

How can these moral motions demonstrate that God is the origin of such motions when there are also such strong indications that is genetic? Isn't this merely assuming God as an explanation when none is required?

That we feel such moral motions, both for compassion, and outrage over injustice, is better explained by an appeal to the God hypothesis since it demonstrates the depths of human depravity in man's fallen nature.So much of what we term "evil" is "over the top" and pointless, while the noble aspects of humanity cannot be reduced to mere behaviors. Morality is more than mere behavior, it is also deliberation, moral agency,and the ability to understand constitutive frameworks which embody self and our deepest values. This is so much more than just behavior, an attempt to save the gene pool. That is take is merely enshirining the ideology of consequentialist ethics. See also my take on the Fall of Humanity and what this means on the Gospel page. Without the notion of God a merely genetic morality reduces to behavioral urges and becomes relative and discardable. Yet the outrage and feelings of compassion remain. These are reduced to unimportant epiphenomena without God. This means that we are actually explaining away the phenomena. God is crucial as an postulate of practical reason; without metaphysical assumptions we cannot derive an ought from an is (Hume). But if we think of this observation in terms of the explanatory power of the God hypothesis that hypothesis becomes more than just a useful fiction. Since God explains morality and human nature better than any other view, in so far as it is honest about human depravity and nobility, we have a strong indication of the validity of the God hypothesis.

1) Regulative principle of practical reason (Kant)

We have this urge to condemn with outrage human atrocities and to extend compassion and justice. As with the Holocaust, we know it is evil; merely saying that it violates our genetic code isn't enough! But without assuming God as a regulative principle the alternative is that it does reduce to mere behavior and the moral outrage is groundless; yet we never lose it. That doesn't prove there is a God, but it at least justifies the notion as a regulative principle.

2) Regulative principle has explanatory power.

Both in explaining why we have these moral urges and yet can't live up to them, and in explaining why we need a regulative principle, why we can't just say it's not right or let it go.

my first speech is up

here

BTW I was nuts to set the limits so high. 8000 words is ridiculous. especially given four arguments. I suggest we say 4000 for constructive and 1000 for rebuttals?

fromal challenge for Electric

He was carping about no proof for God as they always do (totally oblivious to the fact that the moral argument we was whining about is a proof of god--at least in the warrant sense). I put up my list of God arguments he says:

I eagerly clicked that link…only to find that it’s the same tired list of arguments you’ve been giving for ages. Not one of them is evidence for the existence of any gods.

Now you done it. You want to issue such a challenge are you brave enough to meet it? Or will you make excuses and chicken out?

Doxa Forums the one on one board awaits!

If you accept I'll put up my arguments we can have a nice little debate. That's a good venue to demonstrate the evidence I was talking about anyway.