Comments on: A view from the darkness http://inklingz.net/2009/09/a-view-from-the-darkness/ good news that changes everything. Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:25:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Matt Hamel http://inklingz.net/2009/09/a-view-from-the-darkness/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Matt Hamel Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:56:44 +0000 http://inklingz.net/?p=770#comment-164 also, I never said anything about atheists not being moral people. I know plenty of them who are. im just curious as to why. to be consistent with your view, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between being moral or immoral. hitler was who he was while mother teresa was who she was. neither of them was better or worse than the other. now of course you don't intuitively agree with that and you will immediately cry out for the notion of justice. why? you know hitler was the bad guy but you have no objective basis for thinking so. every time you make the claim that something or someone is better or worse, good or evil, you are actually affirming the existence of the God of the Bible. if that's too far for you to reach, you ought to at least recognize that you are affirming the existence of a transcendent moral law. following this logic will lead to understanding that this law is given by some sort of law giver. and with this law giver conveying what should and should not be the case, you have to understand that there is a transmission of information between the law giver and us. information can only come from intelligence and intelligence is only found within a mind. with that being said, this law giver must be a personal being by definition. also, I never said anything about atheists not being moral people. I know plenty of them who are. im just curious as to why. to be consistent with your view, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between being moral or immoral. hitler was who he was while mother teresa was who she was. neither of them was better or worse than the other. now of course you don’t intuitively agree with that and you will immediately cry out for the notion of justice. why? you know hitler was the bad guy but you have no objective basis for thinking so. every time you make the claim that something or someone is better or worse, good or evil, you are actually affirming the existence of the God of the Bible. if that’s too far for you to reach, you ought to at least recognize that you are affirming the existence of a transcendent moral law. following this logic will lead to understanding that this law is given by some sort of law giver. and with this law giver conveying what should and should not be the case, you have to understand that there is a transmission of information between the law giver and us. information can only come from intelligence and intelligence is only found within a mind. with that being said, this law giver must be a personal being by definition.

]]> By: Matt Hamel http://inklingz.net/2009/09/a-view-from-the-darkness/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Matt Hamel Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:59:35 +0000 http://inklingz.net/?p=770#comment-162 When I said "within their worldview we should just kill people and take their stuff", I was simply implying that the atheist has no objective ground to say that something is better or worse, good or evil, etc. How do you account for us being fair to each-other as being "better"? Within the atheistic worldview, there is a lack of grounding for how we as human beings "ought to be" or "ought to behave". Ought-ness implies purpose. My watch ought to tell me what time it is because that is what it is designed to do. If there is no purpose, or something that we "ought to be" then we should just kill people and take their stuff lol! Seriously, how do account for you claiming to be right in this argument? You can't. This conversation, as well as our differing views are just what is. Sorry, but logically, you can't go from an is to an ought. As far as evidence for God is concerned, what evidence is acceptable for you? If its empirical evidence alone, then our conversation will go nowhere and your position will remain indefeasible. But, if you can accept rational evidence as being viable, which does correspond with and properly interprets the empirical evidence, then you are on the right track. If scientism (which is not science but a philosophy) is your starting place, how do you account for it? You cannot empirically prove empiricism. The information that is within the proposition that resides in your mind is something that cannot be empirically tested. I will now put the burden of proof on you. Can you absolutely prove that God does not exist? I dare to make a prediction. I predict that while trying to prove that God does not exist, you will attempt to be rational while using the laws of logic. I would hope that you refrain from making any self referential statements within your argument. Statements that don't meet their own criterion are what is popular nowadays, and I hope that you are thoughtful enough to avoid them! When I said “within their worldview we should just kill people and take their stuff”, I was simply implying that the atheist has no objective ground to say that something is better or worse, good or evil, etc. How do you account for us being fair to each-other as being “better”? Within the atheistic worldview, there is a lack of grounding for how we as human beings “ought to be” or “ought to behave”. Ought-ness implies purpose. My watch ought to tell me what time it is because that is what it is designed to do. If there is no purpose, or something that we “ought to be” then we should just kill people and take their stuff lol! Seriously, how do account for you claiming to be right in this argument? You can’t. This conversation, as well as our differing views are just what is. Sorry, but logically, you can’t go from an is to an ought.

As far as evidence for God is concerned, what evidence is acceptable for you? If its empirical evidence alone, then our conversation will go nowhere and your position will remain indefeasible. But, if you can accept rational evidence as being viable, which does correspond with and properly interprets the empirical evidence, then you are on the right track. If scientism (which is not science but a philosophy) is your starting place, how do you account for it? You cannot empirically prove empiricism. The information that is within the proposition that resides in your mind is something that cannot be empirically tested. I will now put the burden of proof on you. Can you absolutely prove that God does not exist?

I dare to make a prediction. I predict that while trying to prove that God does not exist, you will attempt to be rational while using the laws of logic. I would hope that you refrain from making any self referential statements within your argument. Statements that don’t meet their own criterion are what is popular nowadays, and I hope that you are thoughtful enough to avoid them!

]]> By: soulbern http://inklingz.net/2009/09/a-view-from-the-darkness/comment-page-1/#comment-150 soulbern Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:05:22 +0000 http://inklingz.net/?p=770#comment-150 <redacted> "Within their worldview, we should just simply kill people and take their stuff." This is a biased and venomous assumption. For one thing, the evolution of the human species has made being fair to other human beings a greater advantage than a disadvantage. Biologically, we didn't need someone to come along and mandate(or suggest) that men should do unto others as he would have done unto him. It, in fact, simply makes evolutionary sense. There is nothing in an atheistic viewpoint that promotes or edifies violence of any kind. To be an atheist, all that is required is that you don't believe in a god or gods without evidence. Of course, if there were evidence for such a being, it would cease to be only a belief. I could go on and on explaining how misguided your statement was, but I'll give up here. I hope you've learned something. :) “Within their worldview, we should just simply kill people and take their stuff.”

This is a biased and venomous assumption. For one thing, the evolution of the human species has made being fair to other human beings a greater advantage than a disadvantage. Biologically, we didn’t need someone to come along and mandate(or suggest) that men should do unto others as he would have done unto him. It, in fact, simply makes evolutionary sense.

There is nothing in an atheistic viewpoint that promotes or edifies violence of any kind. To be an atheist, all that is required is that you don’t believe in a god or gods without evidence. Of course, if there were evidence for such a being, it would cease to be only a belief.

I could go on and on explaining how misguided your statement was, but I’ll give up here. I hope you’ve learned something. :)

]]> By: Matt Hamel http://inklingz.net/2009/09/a-view-from-the-darkness/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Matt Hamel Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:34:42 +0000 http://inklingz.net/?p=770#comment-120 One more thing to consider would be to observe the first century Christians and the massive amounts of persecution they endured. One more thing to consider would be to observe the first century Christians and the massive amounts of persecution they endured.

]]> By: Matt Hamel http://inklingz.net/2009/09/a-view-from-the-darkness/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Matt Hamel Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:27:11 +0000 http://inklingz.net/?p=770#comment-119 In discussing the notion of a loving God who seems to do nothing about the evil in this world, how do you account for somehow knowing what is good as opposed to what is evil? I am sure you have the answer as being a seminary school student (even if you did drop out). You presuppose the existence of God by holding to the position that evil does in fact exist. If good nor evil exists, all we are left with are things we prefer over things we don't. But for some strange reason we as human beings are unable to live this out consistently. Atheists often cry out for justice when giving examples of injustice. Where do they get their idea of justice when trying to posit a world that has no objective standard of any kind. Within their worldview, we should just simply kill people and take their stuff. But, they would immediately object to such practices. In discussing the notion of a loving God who seems to do nothing about the evil in this world, how do you account for somehow knowing what is good as opposed to what is evil? I am sure you have the answer as being a seminary school student (even if you did drop out). You presuppose the existence of God by holding to the position that evil does in fact exist. If good nor evil exists, all we are left with are things we prefer over things we don’t. But for some strange reason we as human beings are unable to live this out consistently. Atheists often cry out for justice when giving examples of injustice. Where do they get their idea of justice when trying to posit a world that has no objective standard of any kind. Within their worldview, we should just simply kill people and take their stuff. But, they would immediately object to such practices.

]]>