Financial Times claims that there is a coming boom in honesty

BobRyan

The Darwinists say to look at the original source, when it comes to challenging anyone that disagrees with them. Not one seems to have read anything Darwin actually wrote.

Funnily enough, I've asked you a couple of times for sources that support you claims about Darwin's writing. In this thread, and the utterly bizare story you tell in this thread. Neither of these claims are true, so you won't be able to find a source for them. But I remain curious as to where you got these ideas from. Did you make them up, or where they passed on to you by someone else? Mimus

Brother Brian: Where was the morality when the US dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan killing thousands Perfectly moral. We were at war with Japan. They started it. We defended ourselves. The defense of the USA against Japan cost 42,000+ American lives and a lot of misery. We were fire bombing Tokyo 24/7 and they wouldn't surrender. After the first atomic bomb was dropped, we told them a second one was on the way if they didn't surrender. They didn't surrender. Apparently, they didn't care too much for their own civilians. Their decision not to surrender led to the second bomb. That opened their eyes. The U.S. war department estimated that over a million U.S. soldiers would have been killed if we had invaded Japan instead of using the A-bombs. mike1962

Brother Brian:

Where was the morality when the US dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan killing thousands

Saving millions, duh.

Where was the morality when bomber command fire-bombed Dresden?

Germany shouldn't have started the hostilities, duh.

All of these atrocities committed by so-called countries with Christian foundations.

But where they done by Christians? Or is Brian just a desperate loser? ET

BR

Where was the morality of the Japanese Empire when their army acted with the same disregard for human life as the Soviet Union?

Where was the morality when the US dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan killing thousands. Where was the morality when bomber command fire-bombed Dresden? Where was the morality when Europeans killed thousands of indigenous peoples and stole their land? Where was the morality of the slave trade? All of these atrocities committed by so-called countries with Christian foundations. Brother Brian

Brother Brian:

The bigger question is why your loving god would let hundreds of millions die, and more suffer, because he is so incompetent at getting his objective morality across to us.

Not even God can get through to willfully ignorant people like you, Brian. And all of the innocents that die get to go to Heaven. So that would be a huge PLUS for them. Death and suffering are part of the physical world. It is how we deal with such things that shows God our measure as a person. So here we have Brian, who is obviously totally ignorant and apparently proud of it. ET

Headlined, for record: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/laws/does-the-bible-condone-slavery-even-as-darwin-opposed-it/ kairosfocus

You simply can'r make up BB's response at 29. Nobody would believe somebody could be so lame! People reject the objective morality of God and try to make up their own subjective morality, i.e. be gods unto themselves, and hundreds of millions of people die as a result in these Socialistic hellholes, i.e. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, etc. etc., and what is BB's response? It is to blame God for man rejecting God. To call such a response pathetic is an understatement!

“Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeton Address by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened. What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God. The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/47643.html

bornagain77

And it remains that the ONLY reason any atheist has any morality at all it is because they were raised in a theistically dominated world. But they are so clueless that they don't even grasp that simple fact. ET

This is so stupid If atheistic materialism were true then we wouldn't exist. If Darwin was right, we wouldn't exist. And if the world was governed by Darwinism then slavery, murder, rape, slavery- well anything and everything would be OK. So clearly the atheists here are just clueless trolls. That said, if one people attack another and lose, the attacked definitely should be able to enslave the attackers to at least pay for their crimes against them. ET

PS: I clip Plato's warning, as it is directly relevant to any assertion of moral claims by advocates or fellow travellers of evolutionary materialism:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

kairosfocus

Seversky,

The Bible condones slavery, Darwin [--> a product of the post evangelical awakening, antislavery movement era] condemned it:

With all due respect, over the years you have shown no basis of authority to draw such a conclusion responsibly, as opposed to reiterating convenient new atheist rhetoric, in hopes of exploiting emotive responses when in fact since Plato in the Laws Bk X 360 BC it has been known that evolutionary materialism has no basis for ethical comment. Indeed, it is demonstrably an open door to nihilism. Perhaps, too, you are unaware of the significance of [a] the difference between ameliorative regulation of what is present and established in culture due to the hardness of hearts (cf. Divorce regulations with the outright declarations that "I hate divorce" [Mal 2:16] and "what God joins, let no man put asunder" [Mt 19:1 - 6]. Also, [b] the historical and current significance of this argument by undermining, written by the apostle Paul while literally chained to Roman soldier guards and while awaiting trial before Nero Caesar on a potentially capital charge where evidence of supporting Spartacus like uprising or harbouring escaped slaves would lend to the accusations already on the table. So, whatever he did to deal with an escaped slave [who seems to have stolen money] had to be subtly, carefully done. I draw this to your attention, as it literally is the textual source for the motto of the Antislavery Society: Am I not a man and a brother?

Philemon Amplified Bible (AMP) Salutation 1 Paul, a prisoner [for the sake] of Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed), and our brother [--> a highly loaded term here] Timothy, To Philemon our dearly beloved friend and fellow worker, 2 and to [your wife] Apphia our sister [--> cf the telling secondary Antislavery Society motto: "Am I not a woman, and a sister?"], and to [a]Archippus our fellow soldier [in ministry], and to the [b]church that meets in your [c]house [--> thus, of the upper classes; also, this is a PUBLIC letter to the church, to be read out to them and responded to by you as an instruction from God]: 3 Grace to you and peace [inner calm and spiritual well-being] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon’s Love and Faith 4 I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of your faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the [d]saints (God’s people). 6 I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective and powerful because of your accurate knowledge of every good thing which is ours in Christ. 7 For I have had great joy and comfort and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints (God’s people) have been refreshed through you, my brother. [--> notice power of repetition, building up what is to come; also framing his commitment to gospel theology and gospel ethics, with a major lesson to follow] 8 Therefore [on the basis of these facts], though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is appropriate, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—since I am such a person as Paul, an old man [--> thus, elder/senior brother], and now also a prisoner [for the sake] of Christ Jesus [--> note the implied comparison, prisoner, slave]— A Plea for Onesimus to be Freed 10 I appeal to you for my [own spiritual] child Onesimus, whom I have fathered [in the faith] while a captive in these chains. 11 Once he was useless to you [--> a pun on the name: Useful], but now he is indeed [e]useful to you as well as to me. 12 I have sent him back to you in person, that is, like sending my very heart [--> returning the escapee but in a new context]. 13 I would have chosen to keep him with me, so that he might minister to me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but I did not want to do anything without first getting your consent, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. [--> heart softening through gospel ethics] 15 Perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a while, so that you would have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but [as someone] more than a slave, as a brother [in Christ], especially dear to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh [as a servant] and in the Lord [as a fellow believer]. [--> boom!] 17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome and accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; 19 I, Paul, write this with my [f]own hand, I will repay it in full (not to mention to you that you [g]owe to me even your own self as well). [--> I will cover the costs of manumission and losses due to theft] 20 Yes, brother, let me have some benefit and joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 I write to you [perfectly] confident of your obedient compliance, [h]since I know that you will do even more than I ask. [--> As in, this is an ethical implication of the gospel] 22 At the same time also prepare a guest room for me [in expectation of a visit], for I hope that through your prayers I will be [granted the gracious privilege of] coming to you [at Colossae]. [--> I too hope for freedom, this is a natural right of the human being, made in God's image and morally governed as responsibly and rationally free.] 23 Greetings to you from Epaphras, my fellow prisoner here in [the cause of] Christ Jesus, 24 and from Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Footnotes: Philemon 1:2 Perhaps the son of Philemon and Apphia. Philemon 1:2 Philemon was responsible to see that this letter was shared with his fellow Colossian believers. Philemon 1:2 Prior to the third century a.d. churches customarily met in private homes. Philemon 1:5 All born-again believers (saints) have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, made holy and set apart for God’s purpose. Philemon 1:11 Paul makes a play on words here because Onesimus means “useful” or “profitable.” Philemon 1:19 By writing this with his own hand, Paul accepted legal liability. Philemon 1:19 Philemon evidently was saved through Paul’s ministry and therefore owed Paul a debt that could not be repaid. Philemon 1:21 This was probably a subtle suggestion by Paul to emancipate Onesimus.

In 107 AD, there is record of a certain Bishop Onesimus of Ephesus. It has been suggested that this manumission letter was contributed to the then gathering collection of the NT by him. Thus, contrary to your ill-founded accusation above, the Bible contains in it a devastating counter to enslavement and by the like unto this and a fortiori principles, any other similarly oppressive institution. But, it does so in the context of heart-softened reformation and moral enlightenment, not ill advised radical calls for violence and imposition by force. I suggest, you need to do some rethinking. Especially, as this has been on the table here at UD several times over the years. KF kairosfocus

bornagain77 The Darwinists celebrate abortion, because they need a reduction in world population. It has nothing to do with any end of the world moments, but for the sake of bringing about governmental control to the world. There's a reason they celebrate numbers like more black babies aborted than born in the United States. That would be the racist part of them peaking out from behind their ivory towers of academia. BobRyan

For the Darwinists that claim you can be moral and believe there's no intelligent design. Compare Jewish and Judaeo-Christian countries with the rest of the world. That would be Israel, as it was and as it is, as well as the United States. All other Christian nations, removed the Jewish root. Where was the morality of the Japanese Empire when their army acted with the same disregard for human life as the Soviet Union? BobRyan

How embarrassing. I totally screwed up Msg 22 and didn't notice. Serves me right for trying to post from a tablet. Here's your piece again: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. >>>>>THE UNIVERSE<<<<< that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life Ah, that's better. And, as I said, the universe is not conscious and therefore is incapable of morality. That is what Dawkins is saying. MatSpirit

The Darwinists say to look at the original source, when it comes to challenging anyone that disagrees with them. Not one seems to have read anything Darwin actually wrote. They ignore the original source and simply write off the parts they discover that interferes with their cult. Atheists like Brother Brian aren't atheists. They hate God. In order to hate something, there must be the belief in its existence. Why would God do this? Why would God do that? I have a better question. How can you judge anyone? You live in a world where morality is seen as wickedness and wickedness is seen as good. BobRyan

BA77

Hogwash!

Your powers of discourse never cease to amaze me.

As usual, you are severely deluding yourself.

Another power that you excel at.

Especially if you think you can build an enlightened atheistic utopia where man makes up his own morality.

Who has suggested that this is likely? But if it is the only option we have available to us it would be irresponsible to lay back and hope that some mythological creature would provide it for us.

Hundreds of millions have died, and more have suffered miserably, from your vain delusion that man can be his own god.

The bigger question is why your loving god would let hundreds of millions die, and more suffer, because he is so incompetent at getting his objective morality across to us. The way I see it, your god could use a dose of Viagra. If he is not able to get it up then we have to rise to the occasion and take ownership and accountability of our own morality. Brother Brian

Hogwash! As usual, you are severely deluding yourself. Especially if you think you can build an enlightened atheistic utopia where man makes up his own morality. Hundreds of millions have died, and more have suffered miserably, from your vain delusion that man can be his own god:

The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government: “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170 (February 2019) Defense against an atheist’s claim that Christianity is a murderous religion https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-672834 The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society – Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU .

Even today in America, with its strong Christian heritage, and even though America overcame the Nazi and Communist scourges in Europe, has not escaped unscathed from the devastating effects of “Darwinian morality”.

At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10449486_10154444727070445_6800239725838679585_n-e1406834704889.jpg How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm

Verse:

For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. Deuteronomy 30:16

bornagain77

BA77

BB, besides you having no idea what your own atheistic worldview actually entails,

Actually I do. It entails a world view where I and others cooperate and establish a moral assemblage that we can all accept, live with and expect others to abide by. .

...you have no clue as to what the true nature of God actually is.

And, I dare say, neither do you. All I have to go with is the morally questionable and contradictory words in the bible. Brother Brian

The Bible condones slavery, Darwin condemned it:

In a letter to his sister Catherine Darwin, 22 May [– 14 July] 1833, from his travels in Brazil: I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery.— What a proud thing for England, if she is the first Europæan nation which utterly abolishes it.— I was told before leaving England, that after living in Slave countries: all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. — it is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti.

To John Maurice Herbert (a friend from Cambridge), 2 June 1833 It does ones heart good to hear how things are going on in England.— Hurrah for the honest Whigs.— I trust they will soon attack that monstrous stain on our boasted liberty, Colonial Slavery.— I have seen enough of Slavery & the dispositions of the negros, to be thoroughly disgusted with the lies & nonsense one hears on the subject in England.

Who is the more moral? Seversky

BB, besides you having no idea what your own atheistic worldview actually entails, you have no clue as to what the true nature of God actually is. Far from being petty and vindictive as you falsely imagine, the overwhelming love expressed in Near Death Experiences fits exactly what would be expected from a true Christian perspective:

"The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony http://iands.org/experiences/nde-accounts/736-never-wanted-to-leave-the-presence.html Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife - Dr. Eben Alexander - Oct 8, 2012 Excerpt: One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

bornagain77

BA77

Not only do atheists completely ignore the fact that they have absolutely no basis for morality, (in fact ‘survival of the fittest’ is anti-morality), they also pretend that they can sit in moral judgement of God himself.

It’s easy to sit in moral judgement of a being who says it’s OK to enslave people and beat them as long as they don’t die; to kill homosexuals; to kill women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night (but not kill the non-virgin husband); to kill the son who disrespects his father; to kill (or rape) all the men, women and children of the city they despoil; to instruct a faithful worshipper to kill his son. Again, are you really sure you want to compare your vindictive “God” against an atheist world view. Brother Brian

And the amorality of your Atheistic materialism excites you to the point of awarding prizes why exactly??? If the amorality of atheistic materialism was actually true, according to another Dawkins' quote, life would be 'intolerable':

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

Moreover, Atheists have to steal objective morality from Theism in order to attack God and Christians in the first place

The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

For atheists to have to ‘borrow’ objective morality from Theists in order to attack God and Christians as somehow being morally deficient is again, as Cornelius Van Til put it, “like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.” Atheists need the moral foundation that only God can provide just in order to attack Him. Talk about self-refuting arguments!

“Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.” - Cornelius Hunter Photo- An atheist searching for the mind he has lost http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg

bornagain77

Bornagain, I'm awarding you the Denyse O'Leary memorial prize for reading comprehension for September. I'm going to reprint one of the entrants that won that prize for you, along with a few little hints: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. >>>>> THE UNIVERSE <<<<>>>> THE UNIVERSE <<<<<! You know, the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, the galaxy and every thing else in the universe that doesn't have a mind. The sun does not care about you. The sun doesn't care about anything! The sun is INCAPABLE of caring! The sun has nothing to care with! Enjoy your prize, but I'm warning you that Denyse is going to try to win it back just as soon as she finds out which gene is the selfish one. MatSpirit

BB states,

Maybe it is because the Christian world view keeps referencing a slave misogynistic endorsing document as their “bible”.

You just can't make this stuff up. Not only do atheists completely ignore the fact that they have absolutely no basis for morality, (in fact 'survival of the fittest' is anti-morality), they also pretend that they can sit in moral judgement of God himself. Arrogance and ignorance is apparently a lethal combination on both the physical and spiritual levels. Tell you what BB, once you live a morally perfect life, are crucified on a cross for the sins of the world, and most importantly, are raised from the dead by God to prove that the sins of the world are paid for in full by your atoning sacrifice, perhaps then you might have a moral leg to stand on to sit in judgement of God. Until then you are just a sinner, (an arrogant sinner at that), appointed to die and then be judged by God, just like the rest of humanity. A sinner in desperate need of forgiveness and redemption from Christ, just like the rest of us. Around the 20 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, thought, deed, and action, of a person's life is gone over in the presence of God:

Near Death Experience Documentary – commonalities of the experience – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uDA4RgHolw

Verse:

Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Quote:

The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html

Verse and video:

Hebrews 9:27-28 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

Supplemental note:

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html

We have far more observational evidence for the reality of souls than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information. Moreover, the transcendent nature of 'immaterial' information, which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature as well as the physical reality of the soul:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

As Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

Verse:

Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?

bornagain77

John MacArthur wrote some words regarding slavery worth consideration: It is significant that the New Testament nowhere attacks slavery directly. Had Jesus and the apostles done so, the result would have been chaos. Any slave insurrection would have been brutally crushed, and the slaves massacred. The gospel would have been swallowed up by the message of social reform. Further, right relations between slaves and masters made it a workable social institution, if not an ideal one. Christianity, however, sowed the seeds of the destruction of slavery. It would be destroyed not by social upheaval, but by changed hearts. The book of Philemon illustrates that principle. Paul does not order Philemon to free Onesimus, or teach that slavery is evil. But by ordering Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother (Philem. 16; cf. Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1), Paul eliminated the abuses of slavery. Marvin Vincent comments, “The principles of the gospel not only curtailed [slavery’s] abuses, but destroyed the thing itself; for it could not exist without its abuses. To destroy its abuses was to destroy it” (Vincent, Philemon, p. 167). One writer summed up the importance of Philemon in relation to slavery in these words: The Epistle brings into vivid focus the whole problem of slavery in the Christian Church. There is no thought of denunciation even in principle. The apostle deals with the situation as it then exists. He takes it for granted that Philemon has a claim of ownership on Onesimus and leaves the position unchallenged. Yet in one significant phrase Paul transforms the character of the masterslave relationship. Onesimus is returning no longer as a slave but as a brother beloved (Verse 16). It is clearly incongruous for a Christian master to “own” a brother in Christ in the contemporary sense of the word, and although the existing order of society could not be immediately changed by Christianity without a political revolution (Which was clearly contrary to Christian principles), the Christian master-slave relationship was so transformed from within that it was bound to lead ultimately to the abolition of the system. (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1970], p. 640) https://www.gty.org/library/bibleqnas-library/QA0257/the-apostle-paul-and-slavery mike1962

BA77@

Now compare that to Wilberforce’s Christian view of slavery,

And

As well Abraham Lincoln’s own view against slavery was based on Christian principles.

In my early science classes I was always told to go back to the original source. And, in this case, what is the original source? The Bible? And what does it say about slavery? You can own them until they die, or pass them on to your heirs. You can beat them without punishment as long as they don’t die. Now that we have talked about what your bible says about slavery, are you sure you want to talk about what it says about women, homosexuals...? Are you really sure that you want an atheist to tell you what your bible says? Some people might find that embarrassing. Brother Brian

Brother Brian:

Well, since I am an atheist and have morals...

If you do it is only because you were raised in a theistically dominated world. ET

BA77

Sheesh, you don’t even understand what your own Atheistic worldview actually entails and yet you want to pretend to have the wherewithal to lecture others on their Christian worldview.

Maybe it is because the Christian world view keeps referencing a slave misogynistic endorsing document as their “bible”. The last time I looked, atheists don’t pretend that a man-made (and repeatedly altered) document is the literal word of their god. Brother Brian

^^^^ Sheesh, you don't even understand what your own Atheistic worldview actually entails and yet you want to pretend to have the wherewithal to lecture others on their Christian worldview.

The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

bornagain77

BA77

Morality does not exist in Atheistic Materialism. Period! Full Stop!

Well, since I am an atheist and have morals, I guess your thousands and thousands and thousands of words, that nobody reads, trying to convince others that this is not possible, has as much value as Trumps Sharpie inspired hurricane forecasts. Brother Brian

You just got to love Atheistic Materialists trying to lecture Christian Theists on morality. Morality does not exist in Atheistic Materialism. Period! Full Stop! As Richard Dawkins succinctly put it,

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Nor, since Atheistic Materialists deny to existence of free will, is there any guilt or innocence to be had if someone did commit some moral transgression. The moral transgressor simply had no choice in the matter and therefore cannot realistically held to be morally culpable. According to Atheistic Materialism we are simply 'meat robots' with no more choice over the course of our actions that a leaf blowing in the wind has choice over the course of its fall.

“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

Thus, it is hilarious for Atheistic Materialists to try to lecture Christian Theists on morality. Atheistic Materialism simply is a non-starter in regards to providing a coherent foundation for morality and for providing a basis for moral culpability in general. And yet, time and time again, Atheistic Materialists act as if that not only do they have a basis for morality, but they pretend that their own particular brand of atheistic morality is so much better than the Christian's morality, that we should choose it over Christian morality. (If only we were able to choose to do so, I suppose), I seriously don't see how atheists make it through a single day without their heads exploding from the logical inconsistencies that they are forced to maintain in order to hold on to their atheism. Their worldview is insane! Of supplemental note, Darwin's view of races,

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. – Charles Darwin

Now compare that to Wilberforce’s Christian view of slavery,

Wilberforce and the Roots of Freedom Excerpt: The son of a wealthy merchant, young Wilberforce led the hedonistic lifestyle of a college student at Cambridge. Bored with his father’s business, he entered Parliament at age 21 and made friends easily. Five years later, he had a conversion experience leading him to devote his life to freeing those in bondage. In 1791, his bill to abolish the slave trade failed by a wide margin but he persisted. In 1807, Wilberforce released A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade on the eve of Parliament’s overwhelming vote to end the trade in human beings—a remarkable change in fifteen years. In 1823, “God’s politician” began a ten-year campaign to end slavery entirely, releasing his Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies, in which he claimed that total and unqualified emancipation was a moral and ethical “duty before God.” Wilberforce died in 1833 just as Parliament abolished slavery. His friend John Newton, once one of the cruelest of slave traders, later in life went through a similar “born again” experience and wrote the famous song “Amazing Grace”—hence the title of the movie about Wilberforce’s awe-inspiring campaign against slavery. http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1929 “God Almighty has set before me two Great Objects: the supression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.” – William Wilberforce – (1759 –1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade – author of Real Christianity

As well Abraham Lincoln’s own view against slavery was based on Christian principles.

we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” – Lincoln https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

Verse and Quote

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” - Declaration of Independence

bornagain77

Axel

I can’t quote chapter and verse, but I know for a certainty that Yahweh told the Israelites that they must not on any account make a slave of a member of their own people, as slavery was a thing He detested.

Yes, he said that it was OK to enslave people from neighbouring lands (not Israelites) and that these people could be enslaved for life and passed down from one generation to the next. This doesn't sound like a being that detests slavery.

In the NT, God would surely have commanded Christians to release any slaves they might have,...

I don't recall anything in the NT that says that slavery is wrong. However, I could be wrong. Cultured, erudite, well-to-do people tend to assume that they are God’s ‘default’ human, ideal human, even. I would argue that this is not limited to cultured, erudite, well-to-do people. I think that this is one of the pitfalls that religion and religious beliefs can and often do fall into. Brother Brian

Cultured, erudite, well-to-do people tend to assume that they are God's 'default' human, ideal human, even. But it just ain't so. Worldly intelligence will count for little in the next life, indeed, only when it was based on the spiirtual wisdom, upon which the blue-collar types tend to have a much firmer grip. Axel

I can't quote chapter and verse, but I know for a certainty that Yahweh told the Israelites that they must not on any account make a slave of a member of their own people, as slavery was a thing He detested. Presumably, He consented to it at an earlier date and in relation to the pagans, on the basis that it was a normal practice of mankind at that time - grace building upon nature. And indeed he laid down laws limiting the harshness with which slaves could be treated, and punishments for breaches of the laws he had laid down. Bad Christians are always worse than bad pagans, having been given so much more. So, horrific as the chattel slavery of nominally-Christian Europeans was around the 16th century, it should not surprise us that it was so much worse than the slavery of defeated, pagan peoples in the ancient world. In the NT, God would surely have commanded Christians to release any slaves they might have, except that Christianity was not intended to bring about progress by violent revolution. I suspect that, too, might have been be rescinded in modern times, at least, by the Holy Spirit, since our dictators have been so atrociously wicked and cruel in their lust for power and their determination to hold on to it at all costs to others. I can only assume that, at the highest levels, my own Catholic church in particular, has had such an atrocious record in sole deference to Christ's parable about the tares, the darnel. However, surely, particularly with the passage of time, and the level of civilised governance shown by the Scandinavians' largely secular polity, in the interim, the Popes should have promoted the same streamlined, efficient central government in the secular world that the neoliberal socio/psychopaths deploy in pursuit of ever more abundant material riches for their already plutocratic class - at the very expense of the increasingly-immiserated, indeed often homeless, poor ; it is not a matter of a preferential option for the poor : it is the latter who, we are assured from the Magnificat onwards - indeed, throughout most of the Old Testament, it is they who are the True Israel, not a feckless fringe of wastrels. The Psalmists and the Prophets are constantly inveighing against 'the rich', who they see as the very exemplars of, greed, violence, fraud, all manner of wickedness. And the converse in relation to the poor. Axel

Darwin thought that the different races of human would be classified as different species to someone who didn't know any better. ET

Anthropic

MatSpirit 2, you seem to forget the full title of Darwin’s great opus: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

In Origin of Species, race refers to the different races (populations) of plants and animals. Although, it is true that he felt that his theory also applied to humans. As do I. One of the most famous quotes that is often used against him with respect to racism is the following:

At some future period, not very distant from as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world….

Aside from the fact that he had a Eurocentric Victorian perception of what civilized means, he was simply making a prediction, not a judgment or moral statement. And if you look at the fate of most indigenous populations in throughout the world, I think that his prediction has largely become true. Not that their lineage has been exterminated, but their cultures, for the most part, have. Brother Brian

Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." ET

BR

The Bible actually requires the release of slaves after 7 years and was referred to as indentured servitude in the colonies that became the United States.

Mimus

Honest question: do you make this stuff as you go along, or is there some source for the erroneous claims you make?

Leviticus 24: 46

You can bequeath them [slaves] to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Mimus, I think that we know the answer to that question. Brother Brian

BobRyan,

It was Darwin that classified 4 distinct races, which was expanded on by the Eugenicists that soon followed

Honest question: do you make this stuff as you go along, or is there some source for the erroneous claims you make? Mimus

MatSpirit 2, you seem to forget the full title of Darwin's great opus: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. And yes, I've seen evolution cited as the reason why black people are supposedly inferior. They just aren't as evolved as whites, you know. No nonsense about all people being valuable because created in the image of God! anthropic

Leviticus 25:44-46 critter

Darwin took his preexisting views that he was racially superior and codified them in his work. It was Darwin that classified 4 distinct races, which was expanded on by the Eugenicists that soon followed. Slavery has existed since prehistoric times and continues to this day. Instead of calling it slavery, they call it human trafficking. For Darwinists, they cannot call slavery wrong, since that would require a belief in absolute morality. The Bible actually requires the release of slaves after 7 years and was referred to as indentured servitude in the colonies that became the United States. BobRyan

News:  For example, there’s no question that modern racism was mainly informed by Darwinism.  Right on! Less than two years after Darwin published "Origins", the US was fighting a civil war to keep slavery and the Darwinists apparently manufactured a couple of centuries of "evidence" that we'd been kidnapping blacks from Africa, transporting then across the Atlantic (with a very high "shrinkage" rate on the way) and working them to death in America. Well, we COULDN'T have done any of that because we were a Christian nation back then and the Bible explicitly sort of ... actually allows slavery. But Darwin rewrote the Bible! It didn't use to allow slavery until Darwin came along! MatSpirit

Let's remember that a politician is not supposed to represent himself, he is supposed to represent somebody else. That is not dishonest, but it looks exactly the same. Then there is the question of just who he represents. Well, he has to appear to represent whomever he is talking to at the moment. That is not dishonest, but it looks exactly the same. And while representing so many people, he does not need to meet any particular description, he only needs to avoid the embarrassment of being exposed as not meeting it. That is not dishonest, but it looks exactly the same. I forgot where I was going with this. SmartAZ