Anyway, my main point here is to just reiterate what the Bible says about rejecting God. Men reject God because they are fallen and at enmity with Him by nature, not because it is truly reasonable (although it may be in the atheists eyes). One such instance is how John Loftus from the "Debunking Christianity" blog argues against God's existence in a rather ridiculous manner. Loftus argues that if God exists, and God is good then we should have wings so we wont fall down. In logical form it would look something like this:
1) Falling hurts people and is bad
2) Wings would remedy this problem
3) If God exists and is good He would have created us with wings so we wont fall.
.:4) Therefore, a good God does not exist
Pretty heavy duty challenge huh? Well the guys at Unchained Radio put up a picture to show what we should look like if a "good" God exists in Loftus' view (with a few other modifications as well):
Well the improvements are undeniable, tusks, butterfly tastebuds on fingers and wings of course. This is total nonesense but Loftus is serious, the point is that this sort of irrational thinking is what happens to the heart that is in rebellion to its maker striving to be autonomous. God is the source of all true knowledge thus to reject Him is to become a fool:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them...For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." (Rom 1:18-22)
4 comments:
This is palpable tosh, apropos of nothing whatever; I fail to recall a reference to the Crusades possibly because of the lack of allusion. Please refrain from inventing happenstance in the style of your thoroughly-dishonest acolytes, and parishioners. It only underlines the tawdry nature of the fictitious doctrine you subscribe to. As Bob Dylan stated, "you ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins".
Mr.Dawkins,
I merely gave an examplt the real Mr.Dawkins has himself harped upon when condemning the mmorality of Christians. My point is that you atheists have no basis for morality thus when you whine about "bad" things done in the name of religion it is arbitrary and foundationless. You need to provide a reasonable answer for what you base your morality upon, you have failed to do so though I have asked you several times. Prose and eloquence do not make arguments valid sir.
My point is that when you criticize "bad" things done in the name of Christianity you are invoking principals (an objective moral standard binding upon all men) which your worldview simply can not rationally give an account. Thus, your quibles are nonesense. And that has been my point, when man rejects God his thinking becomes futile and irrational. So for the fifth time Mr. Dawkins you need to provide a basis for where morality comes from in your worldview before you can start to criticize (objectively) the behaviour of anybody else.
Christianity gives me a foundation for morality, namely it is based upon the character of God which He has revealed in His word. You might not like it but I have an answer, whereas morality based upon atheism cannot be anything but arbitrary conventions we just make up.
Bob, you request I provide some form of basis or framework for means by which I make moral, or ethical decisions. It is based, as all religious viewpoints, are on man-made precepts. Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach.
It is the highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and re-directed at its proper object:man. Don't confuse "man-worship" with the many attempts, not to free morality from religion into the realm of reason, but to substitue a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion. For example, there are all the variants of modern collectivism(communist,fascist,Nazi etc) which preserve the religious-altruist ethics in full and merely paraphrase "society" for God as the beneficiary of man's self-immolation.
Humanists, in my sense of the term, are those who see humankind's highest potential and strive to actualise it. The alternative is man-haters who regard man as a helpless, depraved, and contemptible creature and struggle never to let him discover otherwise. Essentially, the important factor to bear in mind is that the only direct, introspective knowledge of man anyone possesses is of themselves.
Mr.Dawkins,
Nice statements yet you still don't give any foundation for morality in an atheistic universe. Again from the very outset you reject religion as "man-made". Now I am not here to defend religion in general but rather the truth of Christianity. Now, my very point is that because you reject God you are left to only make irrational stipulations when it comes to ethics. You have some notion that we need to be atheists to be "free" ethically, I challange that again by asking you to give me a foundation for why we even should talk about ethics at all in an atheistic universe?
Where does morality come from in your worldview Mr.Dawkins, you speak of some freedom from theism yet I don't think you can give an answer as to the following:
a)where did morality come from?
b)how do we know what is moral?
c)Why should we accept your standard of morality. (If morality is a convention that man stipulates why shouldn't I go make up my own arbitrary stipulation, make my own rules?
Again Mr.Dawkins you can talk all you want about needing to be freed from theism and how stupid it is but your worldview simply can not account for many of the things you believe in and assume every day (ethics, laws of logic, uniformity of nature).
Post a Comment