The problem you face is that you have no opportunity in this life to live in a world without God-ordained morality.

If an atheist is a moral person, he can only be so because God exists.

If you claim someone is “moral,” then you are appealing to a source of morality (ultimately to God).

Thanks, and do not give up the search for truth!

Matt

Anyone who thinks that it takes a god to know right from wrong has never heard of the Pirahãs in Brazil, or been to an atheist conference. I base what is right and wrong on what causes suffering to others.

Atheism, inconsistent? All it means is NO BELIEF. It’s also not something one CHOOSES, it’s what you are left with when you can no longer convince yourself that a god exists. One can choose to read the available information, but what you are left with after that is not a choice, but simply what seems most logical.

I have utmost respect and admiration for Dan, Darrell and their father, and am proud to have met them.

Thanks for writing.

I think it clearly observable that most people want to get along (evidenced by the debate) and adding, to also be left alone to our own devices, coupled, conversely, with compelling others to see things the way we see things.

I get that. What I don’t get is dogma, closed mindedness and the complete embracement of letting others do your thinking for you, together with a convincing need to fool oneself with outer world imaginary friends.

That same argument could be turned around and directed to the atheist side as well. Perhaps a Christian thinks atheists are letting Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins do their thinking for them. Perhaps Christians think atheists have fooled themselves into believing there is no higher being than themselves. To say that Christians are just “letting other people do their thinking for them” is the height of being close minded, because it shuts out any possibility that you may, in fact, be wrong. Plus, do you really think men like William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis, etc., are simply “letting others do their thinking for them?” These are highly intelligent and extremely skilled men, and yet they are convinced that there is a God.

I’m aware of the weakness of an argument pointing to authority, for today I am my own final authority of what I think, but I think it appropriate to mention one author. Most Christians learn about their religion and God and their savior through preachers, I did too, but when I went a level higher, the scholar level, that’s when I found out how pitifully inept most preachers are and how uninformed I was.

IMO, it is dangerous to go to “the scholar level” to seek truth about salvation. Scholars worry more about publishing and getting attention than they do your eternal soul. It is also dangerous to rely solely on preachers. This is one of modern Christianity’s biggest mistakes.

Instead, we can go to the Bible as our source. We can go to the book ourselves, and do our own research. That is independent thought. That is free thinking. Not going to preachers or scholars alone for our answers. In the end, we each are responsible for our own souls. We must do the best we can, and seek all the information we can. But in the end, we must decide for ourselves, and weight the evidence for ourselves.

I recommend to all my correspondence they read Scholar Bart Ehrman’s books: Just Google his name and see for yourself.
To mention a few though: Lost Christianities, MisQuoting Jesus, God’s Problem, The Book Of Job.

You’ll read about his unique journey. Professor Ehrman was a born again Christian, like me, and through his academic studies and honest inquiry, having access to the oldest known biblical manuscripts (not any of which are original) and comparing them, he had to be honest with what he found and he became an agnostic.

I don’t worship Ehrman, but I do respect his thorough research into these biblical matters.

I have read Lost Christianities, Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Scriptures. While the books were thoughtful, I found nothing in them to convince me of Ehrman’s positions. Timothy Paul Jones has a good follow-up to the problems with Erhman’s work in his Misquoting Truth. I recommend everyone read that as well.

Matt, as for the debate, Dan Won. At least in this neighborhood. I had a friend over to watch it streaming live on the internet. He was one of those “fence sitters,” one as I define them, not as your joke defines them, and he astutely saw through Butt’s preaching tactics and finally, after years of struggling emotionally with his fears of not being worthy enough and concerns about burning in a hell for a mere opinion, he finally abdicated his belief in your God. He was also disappointed in Butt going off topic, he was surprised that Butt’s arguments were about design and morality since the debate was supposed to be about the God of the bible.

We all have opinions on who won. I would not have expected you to say Kyle won.

As for your friend, if you are as open-minded as you say, perhaps you could recommend a reading list of Christian apologists for him? Would you do that? I will give you a recommended list if you will forward it to him. This would go a long way in the spirit of not letting other people do his thinking for him.

I will say something positive about Butt, to be fair: I Liked His Tie.

Yes, his tie was very nice, I will agree.

As for Butt’s insidious moral dilemma rape question, if I were up there, and like what Dan tried to do in reframing the question by using a better analogy about using a needle and inflicting pain into crying babies, additionally, I’d of stopped Butt right in his tracks and not given him the respect of a corresponding reply to such a sick question of raping to save the world scenario.

I resent Butt’s attempt to “trap” Dan in the clear desire to make Dan look like a monster.

Kyle’s whole point there, Darrell, is that without an absolute standard of morality, who can say that rape is a “sick question?” Without God there is no absolute standard of morality. Man cannot create one for himself, because he has differing opinions on what is right and wrong. There are men in prison who think rape is okay. Dan, of course, does not feel such a horrendous crime is okay, nor do you and I. But I would submit for your consideration that Dan, and our nation as well, got our sense of morality from the God of the Bible, not from ourselves.

Thank you again, Matt, for moderating this exchanging of ideas.

You are welcome, sir. Thanks for dropping by.

I appreciate your post, and just want you to know I will approve it when I get a chance to reply to it in full. This is a private website, not a public forum, but I usually approve most posts. However, I never post a comment unless I reply to it, so when my schedule allows me a full response, I will post it. Lord willing, that will be today sometime.

God bless you,

Matt

Thank you.

Darrell Barker

If we are looking for human consistency, or as I call it, perfection,

Why would you equate consistency with perfection? Consistency is simply a result of truth. Therefore, whatever is not consistent is not true. This is why I do not believe Dan to be truthful in regards to the reasoning of moral judgement. I do not expect perfection of Kyle or Dan, but I do base a decision of who is truthful by how consistent he argues. Is that unreasonable? Truthfully, I expected Dan to be inconsistent, not through any fault of his own, but by virtue of the fact that atheism itself is inconsistent.

then don’t look within Stephen,

Respectfully, I wasn’t the one who participted in a public debate. So, I’m not really sure anyone is interested in a critique of me. I was simply giving an observation that I thought might provoke CONSTRUCTIVE conversation. Not intending to be sarcastic, but I thought that is the point of submitting a comment.

while I wait for your first proposition,

As stated above: Proposition 1 –Atheism Is Inconsistent–

could you find something good to say about “the other side” of the debate last night?

Dan was less condescending in this debate than most of his others.

Sincerely,
Stephen Smith

I think it clearly observable that most people want to get along (evidenced by the debate) and adding, to also be left alone to our own devices, coupled, conversely, with compelling others to see things the way we see things.

I get that. What I don’t get is dogma, closed mindedness and the complete embracement of letting others do your thinking for you, together with a convincing need to fool oneself with outer world imaginary friends. Tom said about all these alleged “angles and demons” overhead during the debate:

“I can only imagine . . .” Well, certainly, Tom can ONLY imagine those things and pretend his God exists because it’s a figment of his religiously inculcated mind. He could, if he wanted to, imagine ANYTHING that would disrespectfully make his older brother appear inept in his thinking.

Matt, I too was a born again Christian, being raised in it and worshipping your imaginary friend in complete mental delusion. I see now that the main motivating reason I did so was out of a fear stemmed from my uncertainty of what’s beyond the wall of death and being told how “it is” from the preacher man.

In consideration of time and space, I’ll not type the names of all the books I’ve researched on this subject, for it is vast in comparison to the limited books I’d read as a clueless common believer.

I’m aware of the weakness of an argument pointing to authority, for today I am my own final authority of what I think, but I think it appropriate to mention one author. Most Christians learn about their religion and God and their savior through preachers, I did too, but when I went a level higher, the scholar level, that’s when I found out how pitifully inept most preachers are and how uninformed I was.

I recommend to all my correspondence they read Scholar Bart Ehrman’s books: Just Google his name and see for yourself.
To mention a few though: Lost Christianities, MisQuoting Jesus, God’s Problem, The Book Of Job.

You’ll read about his unique journey. Professor Ehrman was a born again Christian, like me, and through his academic studies and honest inquiry, having access to the oldest known biblical manuscripts (not any of which are original) and comparing them, he had to be honest with what he found and he became an agnostic.

I don’t worship Ehrman, but I do respect his thorough research into these biblical matters. In fact just last night I came upon an interview with him you might find interesting. [link edited by Matt Clifton]

Matt, as for the debate, Dan Won. At least in this neighborhood. I had a friend over to watch it streaming live on the internet. He was one of those “fence sitters,” one as I define them, not as your joke defines them, and he astutely saw through Butt’s preaching tactics and finally, after years of struggling emotionally with his fears of not being worthy enough and concerns about burning in a hell for a mere opinion, he finally abdicated his belief in your God. He was also disappointed in Butt going off topic, he was surprised that Butt’s arguments were about design and morality since the debate was supposed to be about the God of the bible.

I will say something positive about Butt, to be fair: I Liked His Tie.

As for Butt’s insidious moral dilemma rape question, if I were up there, and like what Dan tried to do in reframing the question by using a better analogy about using a needle and inflicting pain into crying babies, additionally, I’d of stopped Butt right in his tracks and not given him the respect of a corresponding reply to such a sick question of raping to save the world scenario.

I resent Butt’s attempt to “trap” Dan in the clear desire to make Dan look like a monster.

Ok, that’s enough for this continuing reply.

Thank you again, Matt, for moderating this exchanging of ideas.

Thanks again for stopping by.

I appreciate that you took so much time to respond to my lengthy letter. It is obvious you care a lot about people around you, and I know you are just trying to look out for me. Thank you.

You are very welcome.

The story of Jesus is just a rehashing of many other stories. If you had a grasp on the history, culture, stories and languages of the time, it would be more obvious to you. I know you’ve probably heard the list before but I think it would be great for you to revisit the stories again, I suggest strongly getting to know the story of Horus.

Yes, I have studied that also. Osiris-Dionysus, Mithra, Horus, et al. It can actually be shown that these cults likely developed similar stories after the time of Christ, borrowing from Christianity, not the other way around.

Kyle Butt actually has a very good treatment of this subject, and I would like for you to read it. There are two parts:

Part One

Part Two

None of us make up our morals as we go along. Atheists have the same incentive to be good people as you do. It does none of us a great service to be inhuman to each other, to disrespect or harm each other. We are social animals and all of our well being is resting on the well being of others. We all get a lot further when we work together. Not believing the same thing does not stop us from being dependent or reliant on the goodness of each other.

Well, I would say Christians have a lot more reasons to be good. But yes, we can all work together and be kind to one another without everyone being Christian. But, it’s very hard to do with men like Richard Dawkins (and others) running around attacking Christianity, isn’t it?

But the bible does not provide absolute rules. I suggest you watch the TED talk on Living Biblically to understand how impossible the “absolute rules” of the bible are. Even the less impossible rules aren’t followed by most Christians. I assume you do wear blended fabrics, eat cheeseburgers and meat on Sunday? I can see that you cut your hair.

This is a common “argument from absurdity” that atheists use. The fact is, man is not bound by the Law of Moses any longer. When Christ died on the cross, He did away with the Law (Romans 7:6, Eph. 2:14-16, Col. 2:14). Christians are under absolutely no obligation to refrain from wearing blended fabrics, meat on Sunday (never heard of that one, BTW), or cutting our hair. Jesus said, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

You, all of you, are so much more remarkable when you are the product of circumstance meant to bring out the best in all things.

Evolution would be a blind process, LaRae. How could it “mean” to bring out the best in all things? Evolution can’t think, or feel, or love, or hate.

You and I are both so remarkable because any tiny change and we would not have existed.

Exactly. And one of the biggest arguments for the existence of God is the perfect balance within which we all exist. Have you every watched the DVD “The Privileged Planet?” It’s a book, also. Pick it up sometime! There is nearly zero chance that life could have come about on its own. Zero, LaRae!

Thanks again for posting here. God bless you!

Matt