The so-called moral argument is one of the favorite debating tools of William Lane Craig and many other Christians. It is based on the notion that human morality cannot possibly have a natural explanation. Why not? Well, because human beings are sinful and fallen, of course. It is all very clearly laid out in the Bible. "Where do moral values, love and compassion come from?" Bible-believers will wail. "They just aren't natural!" they will cry incredulously. And as an explanation for these things, Christians will posit their god, from whom everything good and wonderful must come. What follows is a conversation I had with a Christian web site owner who asked me what the basis of my morality was. He did not seem very eager to explain many of the terms he used, like "moral absolute" and "objective basis" and "God." Nor was he very clear in explaining how his religion acted as a "basis" of morality. See what you think. You might want to check out this article entitled The Human Basis of Law and Ethics which explains the natural basis of morality much better than I could ever hope to.
Subj: A Question on Morality ...
Date: 8/24/99 1:56:26 AM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com You reference the fact that, though an "atheist," you consider yourself a "moral person." My question is simple: on what basis? That is, how do you define morality? William Kilgore
Subj: re: A Question on Morality...
Date: 9/12/99 10:47:24 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net Dear Mr. Kilgore, When I say that I am a moral person, obviously I mean this in the colloquial sense, otherwise it does not really mean anything. And what I mean by this is that I have certain precepts which guide my actions. I try to be fair in disputes, I try to be accurate and honest, I try to respect other people's rights as I would expect them to respect mine. Seem like good policies, don't you think? I would define morality as the value a person assigns to his/her behavior towards other people. How do you define the term? Brooks
Subj: Re: A Question on Morality...
Date: 9/13/99 6:41:43 AM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, YOU WROTE: "Seem like good policies, don't you think?" Well, this is precisely the point. Is this all we're left with in an atheistic context? Moral precepts "seem like good policies"? Let me ask you this: What if another atheist disagrees and supports clear principles of anarchy? Is there any objective basis from which you could argue to support your "policies" over his? YOU WROTE: "I would define morality as the value a person assigns to his/her behavior towards other people." So you deny absolutes, then? Is this correct? What you call "morality" is basically just us making up what WE consider to be "good policies"? YOU ASK: "How do you define the term?" I am not an atheist. I believe that morality exists only because Law exists, and the Law is set by the King. To me, either we: 1) be an atheist and - being consistent - deny 'morality' altogether (Nietschze at least got this right); -OR- 2) We admit to moral absolutes, and in so doing - whether we like it or not - support theism. The short version is simply that - without Law and Judgment, there is no "morality" and we're just making it up. The rapist and the boy scout are both just as "good" and "bad." William
Subj: Re: A Question on Morality...
Date: 9/13/99 10:36:04 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, Apparently you believe that there are "moral absolutes" found in the Bible. Am I wrong on this? If so, define what a moral absolute is and provide me with a moral absolute from the Bible. Secondly, if you believe that human morality comes from the biblical god, would your behavior change, and if so, how would it change, if you discovered today that this god did not exist? And if you discovered that there was no such thing as this god, would you suddenly view the "boy scout" (I assume this means a virtuous person) and the rapist as moral equals? Yes or no? Thanks. Brooks
Subj: Re: A Question on Morality...
Date: 9/13/99 2:30:32 PM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Brooks, YOU WROTE: "Apparently you believe that there are "moral absolutes" found in the Bible. Am I wrong on this? If so, define what a moral absolute is and provide me with a moral absolute from the Bible." This is correct, but why have you ignored my questions? So-called "morality" must have some BASIS, or foundation to exist in reality. What you speak of can at best be simply YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Am I wrong here? I would consider "you shall not murder" a moral absolute. Or, the prohibition on idolatry, and so forth. (However, this is turning the conversation in a direction I did not intend.)> YOU WROTE: "Secondly, if you believe that human morality comes from the biblical god, would your behavior change, and if so, how would it change, if you discovered today that this god did not exist?" Yes, of course it would - for the worst. Now, to what degree it would get worse I don't know. Maybe not much outwardly, maybe so - who knows. YOU WROTE: "And if you discovered that there was no such thing as this god, would you suddenly view the "boy scout" (I assume this means a virtuous person) and the rapist as moral equals? Yes or no?" Probably not. However, this doesn't mean that - speaking within the context of reality - they wouldn't be. They in fact would be, regardless of the opinion anyone (including myself) held. This is the whole point! Is it equally "wrong" for a cannibal in the Congo to kill someone as for you or I to murder someone here? By your scheme, I don't see that it could be! However, I believe that there is an absolute moral law that actually exists apart from whatever we may think. Therefore, those killers in both scenarios are murderers. William
Subj: morality
Date: 9/14/99 11:24:46 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, If I avoided answering any of your questions it is because I don't agree with or give credence to the premise that underlies them. I am not going to grant you your supposition, that your morality is somehow superior to my morality. You asked me what "objective basis" I would use to justify my morality over that of someone who advocates anarchy, as though you yourself have some perfect "objective basis" for your moral decisions. Since you think you have an "objective basis" for your morality, that you possess divine "moral absolutes," then please define what a moral absolute is. While I am waiting for a definition, I will assume that it is a clearly delineated biblical moral rule, a type of behavior, that must be adhered to in every situation, at all times, by everyone, throughout history. In your last e-mail you provided not a definition but an example of a biblical moral absolute-"you shall not murder." If you consider this to be a biblical moral absolute-as I defined the term above-then why does the Christian god himself disobey it, and why does he directly command his chosen people to disobey it again and again and again? If you have any confusion over this question, then I would be happy to provide you with several biblical quotations making it abundantly clear. You can certainly visit my Evil Biblical Stupidity page for some enlightenment. To be perfectly blunt, your implication that Christianity and the Christian god provide some sort of clear, easily understood, perfect morality appears quite absurd. Modern, civilized people view the behavior and actions of the biblical god and its chosen people as hideous, nauseating and morally revolting. The Christian god murders children, it supports slavery, and time and again it orders its chosen people to massacre men, women and children. Moses, so famous for the ten commandments and the red sea episode, commands his warriors with these words: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17) Can you imagine anything more repulsive than this? And yet this is Moses speaking, the Christian god's mouthpiece for a goodly portion of the Bible. Where is the "objective basis" for the morality of all of this? If you are going to pretend that Christianity provides you with an objective morality, you are going to have to explain the objective morality of slavery, rape, torture and murder, because all of these things are supported by the Bible. When I asked you to explain how your behavior would change if you suddenly discovered that there was no god, you said that "of course it would, for the worst." My question is why? Why in the world would your morality change, why would you treat people ANY differently if you discovered today that there was no such thing as a god? What difference does the existence or non-existence of god make in how you interact with and treat other people? I am really curious to know. I would say the basis for my morality comes from my upbringing, my concern for other people, and my desire to live amicably with other people. It doesn't seem too complicated to me. You may comfort yourself with the notion that Christianity provides you with a perfect morality, but I think you are deluding yourself if you believe this. Looking forward to your next e-mail, Brooks
Subj: Re: morality
Date: 9/14/99 2:54:17 PM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Brooks, A very well-thought response ... *IF* we were discussing Christianity. However, we're not. I understand that your perceived "mission" is to defend rationalistic atheism from the THREAT of Christianity ; ) Unfortunately, you continue to ignore the original discussion I attempted to begin. It is very simple. As previously stated, even some of the more intelligent atheists have recognized its validity. Deity, Law, and Judgment are together the foundation for "morality." Without them, you are simply giving me your *opinion* when you tell me it would be wrong to rob you. Now, do you deny this? The rest of your letter, having little or nothing to do with this, can await a future discussion. Thanks, William
Subj: morality-with a simple correction
Date: 9/15/99 2:05:42 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, If you are going to say that, in a godless universe, my view that robbery is morally wrong is simply my opinion and nothing more than that-that's fine. If it truly was only my opinion, and was not somehow validated by a god, and if somehow no one else in the world shared it, I would feel no shame in holding to it. However, if you were shown tomorrow that there was no god anywhere, would you then see nothing wrong in stealing from me, as you seem to be implying? After all, in a godless universe, robbery is not really and truly wrong, is it? Therefore, you could do whatever you wanted, correct? Previously you said that if you discovered that there was no God, your morality would change "for the worst." Again I need to ask you: WHY would your morality change? What difference does the existence or non-existence of a god make in how you treat other people? This is an important question, so I will repeat it again: what difference does the existence or non- existence of a god make in how you treat other people? You keep returning to this theme, so I have to ask you: what "Deity," what "Law" and what "Judgment" are the basis of morality, in your *opinion*? There are certainly many different names and definitions that could be substituted for those words-do you have something a little more specific in mind? If I am going to discuss this issue with you intelligibly, and answer your questions, I have to know exactly what it is that you are referring to. How do I know that this "Deity," "Law" and "Judgment" that you are referring to are not simply examples of your own superstitious, mistaken beliefs? How am I to know what the morality is of this "Deity"? Please define and give an example of a moral absolute. So far you have not successfully done this, so I cannot say whether I "deny" such a thing exists or not-I am unable to answer your question. In the same vein, define and describe an "objective basis" for morality-what it is, where it can be found. I explained to you that I think my morality has grown out my upbringing, my concern for other people, and my desire to live amicably with other people. So far, you have not described where-exactly, precisely and clearly-you think your morality has come from. Thank you. Brooks
Subj: Re: morality
Date: 9/15/99 5:06:29 AM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, Why didn't you just give an answer? Instead, you produce well-thought-out defenses of an answer you won't even commit to! I'll answer your first questions with one simple statement : "wrong" has no meaning apart from a standard. There has to be some *measurement*. If there is not, we are simply dealing in opinions. With no judgment, no accountability, no law - there can be no true morality. This is where we get anarchist philosophy - from *consistent* atheists ; ) You, fortunately for society, are an *inconsistent* atheist. You stil believe in a "santa claus" called the "moral atheist." Let me help you out - Neitschze said that your kind are nuts, and he was an atheist. There are many roads on the journey to discovery. At this point, I am only shooting from the "theist" road. There is at this time no need to "define my terms" any further than I have because my argument doesn't demand such detail. I'm not hiding anything - you know that I am Christian. I simply have no wish to get into the all-too-common "Bible contradictions" discussion with you, as I have read as many "infidel" and "atheist" "refutations" of the Bible as I could find (perhaps more than you have). Right at this moment, I am interested in atheism's explanation for ethics, the moral law, theism as a philosophical concept, and anarchy. As for you final comments, I believe that *all* morality comes from a higher Law. Call it "God's Law" (I do), the "Tao," or whatever. There are basic precepts found across the world in culture after culture. We find the same basic precepts in religion after religion. Now I'm seeking an atheistic answer. Your problem thus far is that you have *assumed* too much of my letters to you. You have no doubt read all manner of radical evangelistic motivation into my questions. They're only questions ; ) Thanks, William
Subj: morality for sept 15
Date: 9/15/99 11:22:30 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, It is my view that human morality grows out of human society, and whether people such as yourself claim to get their morality out of holy book or not, all morality ultimately came from and is based in human minds and human society. That is my explanation for morality. Any questions? I further explained to you that I believe that my morality comes from my upbringing, my concern for other people and my desire to live amicably with other people. Is there some part of this that you don't understand? You say that you believe morality comes from a higher "Law." You are a Christian, so when you say "higher Law" what you actually mean is the Christian god. So just say it: "I, William Kilgore, am a Christian and I have the *opinion* that morality comes from the Christian god." Say it with pride. If you are going to claim that human morality is based on the "standard" of the Christian god, you then have an obligation to explain what this "standard" is. So what is this "standard" and where is this found-in the Bible? If you don't clarify what this "standard" is, how can I or anyone else possibly know what it is that you are talking about, or have any confidence that you yourself know what you are talking about, or know that what you are saying has any validity? You absolutely have to define and explain your terms. You cannot avoid it, as much as it appears that you would like to. You still have not provided me with a definition of what a moral absolute is and where it can be found. You still have not described or defined what an "objective basis" for morality is. You still have not answered a question I repeated to you three times so far: what difference does the existence or non-existence of a god make in how you treat another person? You said earlier that if you did not believe in a god, your morality would change "for the worst." My question, again, is why? If I have missed any of your questions, please let me know. Brooks
Subj: Re: morality for sept 15
Date: 9/16/99 5:49:18 AM EST From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, YOU WROTE: "It is my view that human morality grows out of human society, and whether people such as yourself claim to get their morality out of holy book or not, all morality ultimately came from and is based in human minds and human society. That is my explanation for morality. Any questions?" Yes. The same ones I brought up last letter. How can "human society" dictate such similar morality regardless of culture or religion (or lack thereof)? Also, I seek clarification from you on your view. Are you suggesting that were a particular "society" to deem it "ok" to enslave others (like .... hmmmmmmmm ... say in this country 150 years ago), that such would in fact make it "ok" to do? And if not, *why*? On what basis would such acts, THOUGH "GROWING OUT OF HUMAN SOCIETY", be deemed "wrong"? I trust that you can see that your "basis" for "morality" is no basis at all, and in fact leaves you with no morality. To its logical conclusion, your scheme ends with which opinionated members of society have the power at that time. Any democratic system following your scheme ends in anarchy - if you are consistent, that is. YOU WROTE: "I further explained to you that I believe that my morality comes from my upbringing, my concern for other people and my desire to live amicably with other people. Is there any part of this that you don't understand?" Yes. Much every way. A few questions here: 1. Did you have an "atheist" upbringing? 2. Why are you concerned for other people? Aren't people just "rational animals" produced by random chemical processes that will die and dissolve eventually anyway? If so, who really cares one whit? If you do, then on what rational basis? YOU WROTE: "So just say it: 'I, William Kilgore, am a Christian and I have the *opinion* that morality comes from the Christian god.' Say it with pride." You still miss the point. As a human being (Christian, atheist, or otherwise), I maintain that if there is no BASIS for "law," then there can be no law. If there is no law, then there is no real morality - we're all just making it up as we go along. Nothing separates Hitler from Ghandi - they just had a "difference of opinion" ... lol. Yes, I am a believer and I believe the Scriptures. I do believe that the "morality" that is bound up in us all - you included - comes from God and is based in God Himself. This being true whether it is acknowledged or not. You claim that morality is based in "opinion". Why, then, does "opinion" seem to be so remarkably parallel across cultural, religious, and ethnic lines? How truly amazing. YOU WROTE: "If you are going to claim that human morality is based on the 'standard' of the Christian god, you then have an obligation to explain what this 'standard' is. So what is this 'standard' and where is this found-in the Bible?" An overly simplistic question. Get more specific. The entirity of Scripture reflects the moral principles written on every heart - including your's. The 'standard' is "love," Biblically defined. Of course, "God is love" as John told us in his epistle. However, Jesus got practical when He broke it down into: "Love the Lord ... with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength ... and love your neighbor as yourself." On these two precepts, Paul informs us, "hang the whole law." If I find myself in a room full of money, I won't steal any - even if I knew I could "get away with it." Why? Well, because: (1) I know that God sees all I do; (2) I know that my action will be called into Judgment one Day, and I really would *not* "get away with it"; (3) I would consider such to be inherently *wrong* because the money doesn't belong to me and its theft will no doubt hurt other human beings in some ways. The third reason is squarely based on the fact that all human beings are created in God's Image, just as I am. Now, if we put you in the same scenario - you no doubt would also say that you wouldn't steal the money (I hope you would!). So break down for me *your* reasons why you wouldn't. I'm curious. YOU WROTE: "If you don't clarify what this 'standard' is, how can I or anyone else possibly know what it is that you are talking about, or have any confidence that you yourself know what you are talking about, or know that what you are saying has any validity? You absolutely have to define and explain your terms. You cannot avoid it, as much as it appears that you would like to." LOL ... you like to assume much, don't you? I have only sought to determine what *you* believe about morality and law. However, since you seem to be demanding answers FROM ME - hopefully this letter will begin to answer some of your questions. However - and I stress this for future reference - I have still received no consistent answers from you regarding my original questions. Your "answers" defy even the simplest of logical argumentation - including the consistent reasoning of some rather famous atheists (as I continue to point out). Morality must have some *basis*. YOU WROTE: "You still have not provided me with a definition of what a moral absolute is and where it can be found." Is it always wrong to murder someone? Is it always wrong to steal from others? These are "moral absolutes." Where are they found? Well, they are contained in Scripture it is true. However, we also find them in law, virtually every world religion, tribal ethics, isolated cultures, and so forth. In short, on every human heart - including, based on your own testimony, your own. YOU WROTE: "You still have not described or defined what an 'objective basis' for morality is. You still have not answered a question I repeated to you three times so far: what difference does the existence or non-existence of a god make in how you treat another person?" See above. YOU WROTE: "You said earlier that if you did not believe in a god, your morality would change 'for the worst.' My question, again, is why?" Such should be obvious. There would be no basis for my "morality," rendering my "morality" but a figment of my imagination. Furthermore, there would be no accountability. In such an existence, selfishness would make perfect sense, as Neitschze observed. Incidentally, it is ironic that Scripture agrees with Neitschze on this point (Soloman in Ecclesiastes, and the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15). Apart from God, nothing really matters - we all die like roadkill anyway, with no judgment and nothing to be remembered or accounted for. Take sex, for instance. If there is no account to be made, why not get all I can when I can? What possible meaning would "love" hold? After all, in your scenario there is nothing separating humanity from the animals - or is there? (hint: please comment.) I would clarify, however, that this should not be taken in a "threat" sort of way - i.e., "If there were no God, I'd live like hell!" I hope I wouldn't, but I know I would ... anyone would - and most do. I like this discussion. You seem like a fairly reasonable guy. Are you a true atheist? i.e., do you profess to actually KNOW that there is no God? Thanks, William
Subj: morality for September 20
Date: 9/20/99 10:48:25 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, You keep saying that I am reading too much into your questions, implying that you are merely asking them out of idle curiosity. Hardly. You are attempting to use the so-called moral "argument" for God. You apparently hope that I will be unable to explain the basis for human morality, and that you then will be able to insert "God" as an explanation, sort of a round-about way of promoting Christianity. It is a great ploy to use, because it doesn't require you to provide those troublesome things known as real arguments and evidence. It relies on a lack of an explanation from the other side. There is a problem, however. You say that you "believe" that morality comes from "God." This is your *opinion*-you have not supported it with any evidence yet. Until you provide me with some evidence or arguments for this statement, it remains your opinion and nothing else, and this is true "whether it is acknowledged or not." You have not even described what the term "God" means, so saying that morality comes from "God" is indecipherable in the first place. Like I said before, human morality comes from human minds and human society. Human society can dictate such similar morality for the simple reason that human society is made up of human beings who all share similar needs, wants and hopes. Indeed, it would be strange if human societies did not share the same basic idea of what constitutes right and wrong. For a society to function, for a society to exist, people have to cooperate and determine how best to treat one another fairly. People who have trouble treating other people equitably usually face the wrath of the community. People who are honest, fair, and helpful to others typically receive such treatment in return from others. Human morality really isn't that terribly difficult to understand. Its basis lies in the fact that we are social animals. Social animals have to live together to survive. Yes, slavery existed in the West for many centuries. And guess what, Western society, at this time, was dominated by Christianity. The people who were capturing Africans and transporting them as slaves to the United States were Christians. These people, and the slave owners, worshipped the Christian god. The slave owners viewed the slaves as heathens, and if anything, they thought they were helping them by converting them to Christianity. The slave owners probably felt that while they were temporarily enslaving these African's bodies, they were ultimately saving their souls. The following paragraph, from the Biblical Errancy web page, should clarify the beliefs of these wonderful brothers in Christ: "Confederate leaders during the Civil War were quite correct when they contended the Bible supported slavery. '...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God--let him go to the Bible,.... I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation.... Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testament--in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere (Jefferson Davis by Rowland, Vol. I, p. 316-17).' The well-known reverend Alexander Campbell contended: 'there is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.' " If the Bible supports slavery, if your god supports slavery, if these fine Christians supported slavery, if millions of Christians like them saw nothing wrong with slavery, how can you, as a Christian, say that slavery is wrong? What would be YOUR basis for saying it is wrong? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? If, today, a group of HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS tried to set up a BIBLE-BASED SOCIETY which captured and used other people as slaves, people would condemn it. Today most people value freedom and human rights and are not laboring under the delusion of a divine sanction of slavery. In the last 1700 years of western history, when Christianity ruled society, there was no clear idea of individual rights, of democracy, or freedom. Most people were serfs, they had no rights, and all laws flowed from some titular, autocratic leader. And the ultimate ruler, above all the heads of state, who supposedly instituted all governments and all social systems, was the Christian god. If the Christian god, the supreme source of all morals and goodness, supported slavery, then surely there could be nothing immoral about it. In was, in fact, morally righteous, since it was promoted by God. Even the Popes themselves owned slaves. Apart from the profitability of slavery, the Christian endorsement of this institution is a significant reason of why it existed for so many centuries. This is precisely why your pretense of having some sort of Bible-based, divine morality, above and beyond human morality, is ludicrous. Your presumed perfect biblical morality is a human morality, you just are unable or unwilling to accept it. The morality of the Bible is largely one of warring, slave-holding, barbaric morons living centuries ago, and if a person today actually attempted to employ whatever he could decipher of it to live in today's society, he would soon be locked up in a mental institution or a penitentiary. See my Evil Biblical Stupidity page for references. You say that, in a godless universe, nothing separates Ghandi and Hitler..."lol." First you use slavery to make your points, now you refer to Hitler. Time for a history lesson. For centuries, Christians persecuted and killed Jews. Why? Well, everybody knew that the Jews were the ones who killed Jesus. The Jews did not accept Jesus' divinity, ergo they were evil, and they were going to hell. That great Christian theologian Martin Luther wrote a wonderful tome entitled "On the Jews and Their Lies" back in the middle ages. Here are a few quotes from it: (http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/luther.htm) "Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them." Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
"Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch- thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security." Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
"However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it." "But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God's wrath."
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
"If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies-- that is, longer than two thousand years." Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
"Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?" Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
"Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God's wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie." Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
"Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they such the marrow from our bones."Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
These are the writings of one man, and certainly not every Christian was as virulently anti-semitic as Martin Luther, but these quotes show the type of hatred Jews faced from Christians during the centuries leading up to the Holocaust. Hitler, based on his words, was a Christian, he often referred to Martin Luther's writings, and the people running the death camps were mostly if not all Protestants and Catholics. Because of this, there is something a tad bit hypocritical about you trying to use the Holocaust to underscore the supposed moral superiority of Christianity. Also, for your information: Ghandi was not a Christian, he did not believe in your god, and according to Christian theology, he is screaming in agony in the Christian hell right now. In answer to your question, I was not raised as an atheist. But while I went to church, and attended Sunday school, I was not raised in a strict Christian household. Going to church was more of a chore than anything. I became an atheist because, thankfully, I was encouraged to be curious and to ask questions, and not to believe a person just because he claimed he was an authority. I grew up with siblings and peers and adults who treated me fairly, and who expected me to treat them fairly in return. This, I would say, played a major role in why I feel and behave the way I do today. You ask why I am concerned for other people since I am an atheist who doesn't believe in eternal life. Goodness, what a stumper question. Maybe it is because human relationships are what make life worth living? Whether I was to live only one more year, one more week, or one more day, I would continue to value the relationships I maintain with family and friends. I value human relationships because I value life. Do you have any difficulty in understanding this? Please humor me by answering some of my questions. Let's say that one fine day, you finally realized that Christianity was false, that there was no god anywhere who was going to reward you with eternal life simply for believing some ridiculous Bible stories, that your dream of immortality was nothing more than a self-centered, immature and egotistical delusion. You recognized that you were a flesh and blood human being, and like all living beings, you would die and that would be the end of you forever and ever. Would you then stop caring for, say, your mother, or your brothers and sisters, or your wife and children? And if so, why? This brings me back to a question I asked before: what difference does the existence of non-existence of a god or eternal life make in how you treat other people? In your last e-mail, in answer to this query, you wrote: "See above." I looked "above" and I didn't see anything which specifically addressed this question. If necessary, cut and paste the section of your previous letter which clearly answers this question. You questions reveal more about your own morality than they do about the morality of atheists: "A man who says, `If God is dead, nothing matters,' is a spoilt child who has never looked at his fellowman with compassion" (Kai Nielsen) Here is another problem with your peculiar morality: "Anyone who has debated the existence of God with a Christian is sure to have been presented with some variant of the following proposition: 'If God does not exist, then there is no reason to do x,' where x is any kind of behavior that most of us think morality requires. For instance, a missionary that intercepted me en route to the UIC Bookstore last month informed me that if God did not exist, then there would be no reason for one to remain faithful to one's spouse or to care for one's children. Such assertions are meant to imply that atheism is a path to evil, and Christianity a path to good. However, they actually prove quite the opposite." "Imagine that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to my missionary friend? He believes that if God does not exist, there is no reason to be faithful to his wife or to care for his children. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, this missionary would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness he might feel, and thus wreck what should have been a close, loving family." "How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that cheating on one's spouse or abandoning one's children is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that 'if God does not exist, then there is no reason to care for one's children' is false. The Christian may believe that proposition if he wants, but we atheists will have no part of such immorality. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to abandon one's children only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to abandon one's children regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian..." (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/mfound.html) I asked you to explain the standard of morality that you claimed exists in the Bible. You asked me to be more specific and then offered this: *Scripture reflects the moral principles written on every heart - including your's. The 'standard' is "love," Biblically defined. Of course, "God is love" as John told us in his epistle. However, Jesus got practical when He broke it down into: "Love the Lord ... with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength ... and love your neighbor as yourself." On these two precepts, Paul informs us, "hang the whole law."* Well, forgive me, but that is not really very enlightening, and it is contradicted by many other Bible quotes. Jesus also tells us to "hate" (miseo) our families if we want to be his disciples. So what are we to do, love our neighbors and hate our families? I'm confused. Did the Israelites love their neighbors as themselves when they captured them in war raids and put them into slavery for life? And if you honestly feel the Bible is a "standard" of morality, then what does this "standard" say about the practice of slavery? Is slavery right, or is slavery wrong, according to the "standard" of the Bible? Did the Israelites love their neighbors as themselves when they ran swords through them? Did the Israelites love their neighbors as themselves when they butchered their neighbor's children, on the biblical god's direct commands? When they killed everyone except the young virgin girls, who they abducted, were they loving their neighbors as themselves? Are slavery and slaughter the moral values that are written on your heart? They certainly are not written on mine. You explained to me that if you found yourself in a room full of money, you would not steal it even if you "could get away with it" in this earthly life. You would not steal it for three reasons, you wrote. The first reason is because God would see you. The second reason is because, you believe, God would punish you. Actually, these two reasons are really the same reason-because you would ultimately be punished. (By the way, where in the Bible does it say that people will be punished in an afterlife for robbery? I thought people were only punished for not being Christians. I am not saying that it is not written somewhere, but could you point me to the appropriate Bible quote which supports the idea that the Christian god will punish people for theft in an afterlife?) If this fear of being punished was the only thing preventing you from stealing the money, we could conclude that your behavior was motivated purely by self interest and nothing else, and it would reflect poorly on your personal integrity. The other reason you gave as to why you would not steal the money is because "I would consider such to be inherently *wrong* because the money doesn't belong to me and its theft will no doubt hurt other human beings in some ways. The third reason is squarely based on the fact that all human beings are created in God's Image, just as I am." Let's examine the third reason you gave in detail, shall we? You start out by saying that you would consider stealing the money to be "inherently" wrong because the money would not belong to you and that its theft would hurt other human beings. I would submit to you that whether a god exists or not, these two conditions would never, ever change. The existence of a god or non-existence of a god is immaterial to the fact that the money would never belong to you, and it is immaterial to the fact that human beings would always be hurt by your action. That is the real reason why it would be "inherently" wrong. But because this sounds too much like the human based-morality I have been trying to open your eyes to, you hurriedly qualify your statement by saying, "The third reason is squarely based on the fact that all human beings are created in God's Image, just as I am." Again, this is your opinion, you have not provided any arguments for the claim that humans "were created in God image." I am not inclined to allow you to support your points with bald assertions. The term "God" has no intelligible definition that I am aware of, so your last statement doesn't make any real sense to me. For the sake of this discussion, however, let's assume that "God" is some kind of big, powerful guy who created human beings. The question that is raised by your hastily tacked-on statement is very basic: if you discovered that there was no "God," that neither you nor anyone else was created in "God's" image, would you then steal the money in this situation? You would still know that the money did not belong to you, and you would still understand that your actions would hurt other human beings-so what would you do? I'm most curious to know. If I was in the same situation, I would not steal the money because it would hurt an innocent person and I know I would spend the rest of my life feeling guilty for hurting this person. I know that you will say this is evidence that "God's" laws are written on my heart and in my soul, but I would suggest it has more to do with my personality and my psychology than with theology. At one point in your e-mail, you say that without a god, selfishness makes perfect sense, "as Neitschze observed." Quite frankly, your Neitischze quotations are growing tiresome. I know your hero, William Lane Craig, likes to quote Neitschze, but Neitschze's observations don't necessarily reflect what I believe, or even what most atheists believe. I could just as easily pretend that Martin Luther's observations on Jews reflects the way you and all Christians view Jews. The fact of the matter is that selfish people more often than not face social ostracism and don't get to partake in healthy human relationships because no one wants to deal with them. Cooperation and compassion are far more helpful and socially acceptable human qualities. It is really not terribly difficult to understand. If you want to see how this works in practice, simply eat all the Cheez-its and drink all the beer at the next cocktail party your are invited to and then wait in vain for someone to invite you to another one. As I said before, human morality is based on the fact that humans are social animals and need to cooperate to thrive and prosper. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Monkeys can figure this one out, why can't Christians? You claimed that it is always wrong to murder someone, and it is always wrong to steal and that these are "moral absolutes" which are found in the Bible. The problem with your claim is that the biblical god orders his chosen people both to steal and to murder. (Please go to my Evil Biblical Stupidity page for references) Therefore you cannot claim that these are moral absolutes from your god. Try again. While you are at it, explain if the following is a moral absolute, since God commanded it in the Bible: "But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." Christian god-Deuteronomy 22:20
So should we stone women and girls to death if they appear not to be virgins on their wedding nights? God said so, so what are we to do? And where is the objective morality and where is the love to be found in the following quotations?: "'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5
"At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of the Pharoh who sat upon his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle."Exodus 12:29
And the Lord struck the child that Uri'ahs wife bore to David and it became sick...On the seventh day the child died."2 Samuel 12:16...
"And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."Deuteronomy 2:33
"Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you."Jeremiah 50:21
"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15
"The men of Judah carried away very much booty. And they smote all the cities round about Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was upon them. They plundered all the cities, for there was much plunder in them. And they smote the tents of those who had cattle, and carried away sheep in abundance and camels. Then they returned to Jerusalem." 2 Chronicles 14:13
"The men of Judah captured another ten thousand (men) alive and took them to the top of the rock and threw them down from the top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces." 2 Chronicles 25:12
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."Moses-Numbers 31:17
You say that if there was "no account to be made" that you would try to get all the sex you could. And your point is...? Based on your beliefs, do you somehow imagine that your god is constantly peering into people's bedrooms, furtively jotting down the frequency and type of their sexual activities? Their sexual positions? And if so, for what purpose? Wouldn't this god have anything better to do with its time, like maybe curing children with cancer and other diseases? If you imagine that your god has time to take an "account" of every person's sex life for some reason, then surely he could devote some time to alleviating the suffering of innocent children. So why does he just stand idly by as children the world over lie dying in pediatric wards? Gee, could it be because he doesn't exist? Or maybe he is just too busy getting his rocks off watching people have sex. "What possible meaning would 'love' hold" you plaintively inquire. I would suggest to you that people will go on loving each other whether a god exists or not, that the existence of a god is immaterial to existence of love. Are you suggesting that atheists don't love? Are you saying that your love for your family is so weak and pathetic that it would disappear if you thought some big, supernatural sugar daddy wasn't going to graciously bestow eternal life on you? Clarify this for me, because I am really not understanding it. I would say that the qualities attributed to the Christian god are the exact negation of everything we know love to be. Again, visit my Evil Biblical Stupidity page for references. I don't believe in your god for several reasons. Here they are: 1) Christians cannot coherently define what the term "God" means, so when they say they that "God exists," they themselves literally don't know what they are talking about. 2) Besides not being able to define what "God" is, Christians are unable to explain why it is that they believe in such a thing. Sometimes, like you, they point to an obvious fact of reality like human morality and pretend that it could only come from "God" and ergo, thus and so, God exists. But usually Christians will admit that their belief is based on "faith," which is meaningless, since believing because you have faith is believing because you believe. 3) Christians claim that God is proven by the Bible, which they assert is the perfect, errorless "Word of God" but which 99% of them have never actually read. I have read the Bible and it is nothing more or less than an ancient human book, filled with contradictions, scientific errors, cruelty and violence. (If you think about it, the Bible is Christianity's worst enemy.) 4) Though they cannot define precisely what God is, Christians have assigned various attributes and qualities to the Christian God. These attributes and qualities are mutually contradictory. Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Go here for a more detailed explanation: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html 5) The doctrines and story elements of Christian theology are all present in earlier religions. The simple and uncontroversial explanation for this fact is that Christianity was copied from earlier religions. Despite this, Christians will flail about in linguistic and logical contortions to try and deny that Christianity has any connection whatsoever with any other, earlier religion. This may have been why early Christians burned down the great Library at Alexandria in 391, to hide the fact that their religion is a copy and a fake. Go here for more information: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_ch ristianity/chapter_3.html http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awcnotes/cn4/0340ChristianFraud.html http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/webdoc4.htm 6) The fact that religion is largely a geographical phenomenon points to it being simply human and cultural and nothing more than that. If you yourself had been born in a Muslim family, were raised in a Muslim neighborhood, if your parents, teachers, peers and authority figures were all Muslim, if you lived your entire life in a Muslim country, what religion do you think you would be? Think about it, give me a reasonable answer, and then explain what the objective morality would be of torturing people for eternity for not being Christian. 7) I see no evidence for the truth of Christian claims, I see no valid arguments, Christian claims are mutually contradictory, and there are perfectly natural explanations for the historical development of Christianity. Additionally, there are perfectly understandable psychological reasons for people to believe in the Christian God. As I have noted elsewhere on my web site, Christians believe that they get to negotiate with their God for supernatural assistance in their lives and that will get to live forever if they worship this god. What a bargain! Step right up folks! Eternal life is yours for the taking-you just have to believe in Jesus....and slip me a few bucks every Sunday. As Pope Leo exclaimed, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" The flip side of this promise of abundant rewards is the threat of eternal, screaming torture for disbelief. As I see it, Christianity is nothing more than a very old and very cynical con game, operating under the cloak of moral righteousness. So those are a few reason why I don't believe in your god. Care to explain to me why you DO believe in the Christian god? All you have done so far is express confusion about the real basis for human morality. Thanks. Brooks P.S. By the way, I intend to put our little discussion up on my web site. Do you want me to leave your identity in the e-mails or to make your identity anonymous? I used to just leave the names out as a matter of policy, but I have started to give people a choice.
Subj: Re: morality for September 20
Date: 9/20/99 5:13:18 PM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, You are welcome to post our correspondence, but only if you leave my name and e-mail address as well. I will be posting it as well on my "DISCUSSION & DEBATE" page, and will not only leave your name, I'll even link your e-mail address and website there as well - if it's ok with you, that is. William
Subj: RESPONSE - PART 1
Date: 9/20/99 5:13:25 PM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, I see you're still talking about the "Christian God." For an atheist, you sure talk about God a lot! lol. Look, I never wrote that my questions were simply "idle curiosity," as you wrote. I am convinced that the moral argument is a good one, that is true. However, I'm not so much trying to convince you of anything as I am trying to get your perspective on the argument. I've never had the oipportunity to directly discuss it with a professed atheist (although I did once with an "agnostic"). So rest easy - I haven't targeted you as a future convert (yet), but something along the lines of a "guinea pig" ;) One thing that will help this discussion is if you would step back a notch on all of your "Christianity" talk. We're just not there at this point. Even if I *proved* God's existence using the "moral argument," such would not prove Christianity necessarily, but only theism. This is why I don't get your constant infatuation with Christianity in this discussion (???). Some questions on "social animals": 1. What is the basis for "society"? 2. Why is mankind free from any sort of pat instinct (as we see in the animal kingdom), yet possessing this thing we call "morality" (which we do *not* see in the animal kingdom)? ON SLAVERY: I don't deny the significant role played by "Christians" in the slave trade, but this fact of history misses the point of my question entirely. I simply used slavery as an example of a "society opinion" that we all know was IMmoral. This fact calls into serious question your basis for morality being "the opinion of society." Please address this. Now, the quote you offered mention Alexander Campbell, a minister who certainly was "on the fringe" and does not represent orthodoxy. Furthermore, while acknowledging the fact of the involvement of PROFESSING believers in the slave trade, we will surely develop fantastic *unbalanced* opinions if we do not note other equally significant facts of history: 1. The abolitionist movement was driven by Christianity, and included many ministers. Charles Finney was most vocal about slavery and claimed: "One cannot condone slvery and be a true Christian." 2. Lincoln himself loved the Bible, and drew his inspiration and ideas from it. 3. African-Americans of the time, far from seeing that the slave traders represented true Christianity, in fact noted the exact opposite! This is why the slaves - by and large - adopted Christianity themselves; it was their very source of strength in their trial and the very condemnation of the slave trade. Ironic. It was only much later that a small minority of the black population began to downgrade Christianity as "the white man's religion." 4. Many groups of Christians recognized at that time that conversion should result in leaving the slave trade. A good example of this is John Newton, himself a slave trader. Converted to Christ, Newton turned his back on the slave trade and spent the remainder of his life denouncing the entire industry. Newton is the most famous of such conversions simply because he authored the hymn "Amazing Grace" - but he is by no means the only one; there were many others who followed the same path. 5. Culturally speaking, I daresay that were it not for Christianity, the slaves would not be free now. It was the influence of Biblical Law and morality that ended the slave trade in Europe so quickly. 6. Secular humanism, which dominates America at this time, has continued to promote a covert racism that is in many ways *worse*, as some African-American leaders have reminded us. Where in the world does the Bible, or God, "support slavery"? God addressed many existing cultural situations as realities taht He did not condone - poygamy, divorce, slavery, and so on. The story of Joseph, and then later of the Exodus from Egypt clearly demonstrates that God did not "support slavery." Furthermore, what went on in the OT and in Rome was a far cry from what happened here in America. I am very well-read in African-American history, and if you would like to discuss this further, we certainly can. I always chuckle when I read this kind of secularistic reasoning. Have you considered that slavery existed in Rome *not* because of Judaism and Christianity, but because of a pagan-veiled secularism in Roman society - the same society that fed many Christians to the lions? There is no evidence that any of the Jews ever posessed any "slaves" in NT times at all. Now, you ask sarcastically, "if these fine Christians supported slavery, if millions of Christians like them saw nothing wrong with slavery, how can you, as a Christian, say that slavery is wrong? What would be YOUR basis for saying it is wrong? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?" Surely you are allowing your zeal for a meaningless life without God to drive you to such silly argumentation. Let us turn the tables a bit and balance these scales. It wasn't so very long ago that atheistic communists slaughtered and persecuted millions in the name of their philosophy. So would you condone the same? Well, of course not - after all, you're a "moral" atheist ; ) Furthermore, I have a far stronger argument in disassociating myself from such behaviour by these "Christians" you refer to. They were violating clear principles of the Scriptures in acting as they did. But on the flip side, I would say that the actions of the atheistic communists were entirely consistent with their philosophy. YOU WROTE: "If, today, a group of HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS tried to set up a BIBLE-BASED SOCIETY which captured and used other people as slaves, people would condemn it." And they should! But if you are suggesting that slavery came about as a result of such motives, you are sadly mistaken. Please cite some historical references that you have read so that I can see where you are getting such information. The slave-trade came about because of GREED, pure and simple. It was the brainstorm of an early Spanish immigrant as a "plan B" when the Indians (as in En Dios = "in God") proved that they would die before being enslaved. Some of the original supporters of the slave-trade called themselves "Christians," while others called themselves "Deists." Religious faith had nothing to do with the motivation. YOU WROTE: "Today most people value freedom and human rights and are not laboring under the delusion of a divine sanction of slavery." This "delusion" was exactly such because GOD NEVER "SANCTIONED" SLAVERY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Further, such a "delusion" did not give rise to the slave-trade - slavery would have existed with or without Christianity. The "delusion" was a later device based on contrived arguments to justify the practice within the context of the Christian Faith. Fallen humanity has been attempting such justification for its actions throughout all of human history! YOU WROTE: "In the last 1700 years of western history, when Christianity ruled society, there was no clear idea of individual rights, of democracy, or freedom. Most people were serfs, they had no rights, and all laws flowed from some titular, autocratic leader. And the ultimate ruler, above all the heads of state, who supposedly instituted all governments and all social systems, was the Christian god." First, please cite some sources for this contrived view of history. Do you honestly believe that Jesus would own slaves? If not, then how can you fault His teachings for producing slavery? Second, see above for my reminder about life in a society where atheists rule.YOU WROTE: "This is precisely why your pretense of having some sort of Bible-based, divine morality, above and beyond human morality, is ludicrous. Your presumed perfect biblical morality is a human morality, you just are unable or unwilling to accept it." First, you keep wanting to turn this around on me. I am questioning *your* basis for morality, remember? Regardless of what you think of Scripture, at least it *is* in fact, some *basis* for morality. To the contrary, you have NONE, save your "society opinion" - an idea that I have already demonstrated is self-refuting and inconsistent with the philosophy of atheism from square one (and, again, Nietschze knew this as well). Second, I haven't once represented the general "morality" under discussion as specific only to the Bible. In fact, I have continually stated that this same basic "morality" can be found represented across cultural and religious lines. YOU WROTE: "See my Evil Biblical Stupidity page for references." Now here's a perfect example of what I'm saying. How in the world can you possibly have any definition for "evil." In your scheme of things: THERE IS NO GOD, NO LAW, NO ACCOUNTABILITY, NO JUDGMENT, AND NO DESTINY. What, pray tell, is "good" and "evil" in such a scheme? YOU WROTE: "You say that, in a godless universe, nothing separates Ghandi and Hitler ... ... the people running the death camps were mostly if not all Protestants and Catholics. Because of this, there is something a tad bit hypocritical about you trying to use the Holocaust to underscore the supposed moral superiority of Christianity." Brooks, can you read a statement in context for once? I simply used "Ghandi" and "Hitler" as possible examples of moral extremes that *you* might accept for purposes of argumentation. My point was, that based on YOUR OWN "basis" for "morality" (i.e., "human opinion") - these two moral extremes would simply reflect "a difference of opinion." Your own philosophy admits no other answer. Of course, such an idea is ludicrous in the extreme. That is my whole point. I certainly am not using the Holocaust to support "the supposed moral superiority of Christianity." I can only assume, from reading this statement, that you must be rewriting my comments as you read them! Concerning the Holocaust, you once again pick specific details that serve your purpose while ignoring others (see my comments above per slavery). Ever heard of Corrie Ten Boom? True Christians were imprisoned and killed along with the Jews - but, then, if you're familiar with historical sources, I guess you know this. Christians who escaped imprisonment were actively engaged in helping Jews escape the concentration camps. All but the few "radical" Hebrew leaders today recognize this fact verbally and publically. On a side note, how many atheists were killed in the Holocaust? Did some in the Nazi party profess Christianity? Yes. Did Hitler use Luther's misguided and shameful opinions as propoganda to justify his "plan"? Yes. But was Hitler truly "Christian"? Absolutely not! His beliefs imbibed Hindu mysticism, superstition, and major elements of ancient paganism. Hitler was a reprobate politician, and said or promised or claimed anything he could to gain support from the German masses. YOU WROTE: "Also, for your information: Ghandi was not a Christian, he did not believe in your god, and according to Christian theology, he is screaming in agony in the Christian hell right now." I explained my use of Ghandi above. Further, I wasn't aware that we were discussing eschatology since you do not possess such in your philosophy. Again, at this point (with no help from you) I am attempting to discuss "morality" as a general worldwide phenomenon that is found in remarkable consistency across dividing lines (in concept if not in actual behaviour). Using Ghandi as an example is perfectly consistent with this attempt. At this point, we are not discussing THEOLOGY, but PHILOSOPHY. Philosophically, Ghandi believed in accountability beyond temporal life and thus, had some *basis* for his morality. This is more than what your philosophy can offer. YOU WROTE: "In answer to your question, I was not raised as an atheist. But while I went to church, and attended Sunday school, I was not raised in a strict Christian household. Going to church was more of a chore than anything. I became an atheist because, thankfully, I was encouraged to be curious and to ask questions, and not to believe a person just because he claimed he was an authority. I grew up with siblings and peers and adults who treated me fairly, and who expected me to treat them fairly in return. This, I would say, played a major role in why I feel and behave the way I do today." I would say that you are blinded by your philosophy to the fact that you owe Christianity more credit for your "morality" than you are willing to admit. YOU WROTE: "Whether I was to live only one more year, one more week, or one more day, I would continue to value the relationships I maintain with family and friends. I value human relationships because I value life. Do you have any difficulty in understanding this?" Not really, although I would say that concepts like "love" and "friendship" have little, if any, meaning in a consistent atheistic philosophy. YOU WROTE: "Let's say that one fine day, you finally realized that Christianity was false ... ... Would you then stop caring for, say, your mother, or your brothers and sisters, or your wife and children? And if so, why?" No, but the very fact of my caring relationships would be inconsistent with the meaninglessness of my life. Therefore, the very fact of it would force me to question the "falsehood" of my faith. YOU WROTE: "what difference does the existence of non-existence of a god or eternal life make in how you treat other people?" Again, it is not about what we in fact do. Rather, it is about our concept of what we SHOULD do - i.e., what is the "right" way to treat someone over against the "wrong" way to treat someone. Your philosophy cannot explain the existence of such concepts. The idea of "society opinion" is not only historically ludicrous, but is grossly inadequate from a philosophical standpoint. YOU QUOTE: "A man who says, `If God is dead, nothing matters,' is a spoilt child who has never looked at his fellowman with compassion" (Kai Nielsen)" This simply skirts the issue entirely without resolving it. What possible meaning does compassion have in the atheistic scheme of things? It is precisely because our actions and attitudes matter for all time, and matter to Someone higher that they matter at all. YOU QUOTE: " ... a missionary that intercepted me en route to the UIC Bookstore last month informed me that if God did not exist, then there would be no reason for one to remain faithful to one's spouse or to care for one's children. Such assertions are meant to imply that atheism is a path to evil, and Christianity a path to good." This is not what I am saying at all. Rather, I maintain that the very existence of concepts like "good" and "evil" should give serious pause to the atheist. Such concepts are entirely foreign to the atheist scheme of things. I realize that most modern atheists have ideas of "morality" - in fact, I'm glad that they do. I'm not trying to talk you out of being a "decent person." However, you should realize that your ideas of what is decent and right are inconsistent with your philosophy. Don't question your morality - rather, QUESTION YOUR ATHEISM. YOU QUOTE: "Imagine that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to my missionary friend? He believes that if God does not exist, there is no reason to be faithful to his wife or to care for his children. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, this missionary would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness he might feel, and thus wreck what should have been a close, loving family." It is irrelevant what the missionary would then do. Our discussion involves concepts being held and their consistency within a given philosophical context. In other words, if the missionary-turned-atheist did in fact "give in to whatever lust and laziness he might feel," he would be absolutely consistent with the whole philosophy of "man is an animal with no god to answer to." If the missionary-turned-atheist continued to be the husband of theyear, it wouldn't matter insofar as this discussion is concerned - he would simply be acting inconsistently with his worldview. YOU QUOTE: "I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that cheating on one's spouse or abandoning one's children is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that 'if God does not exist, then there is no reason to care for one's children' is false. The Christian may believe that proposition if he wants, but we atheists will have no part of such immorality. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to abandon one's children only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to abandon one's children regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian ..." To the contrary, the atheist has NO FOUNDATION for any "moral" decision at all. The above author simply makes statements, but fails to engage in any consistent reasoning whatsoever. For instance, such actions are "not marally acceptable" TO WHOM? "Society opinion," you will answer. Well, the rate of adultery and divorce proves you wrong. In this case, it is an already-existing "morality" that judges "society opinion." So, my question remains untouched: WHERE DOES THIS "MORALITY" COME FROM? ON WHAT IS IT BASED? You atheists bend over backwards to deny moral absolutes, only to turn around and assert the same in paragraphs like that above. It is inconsistent and illogical - you can't have it both ways. YOU WROTE: "Jesus also tells us to "hate" (miseo) our families if we want to be his disciples. So what are we to do, love our neighbors and hate our families? I'm confused." Well, I don't doubt that. We are to retain Jesus as our "First Love" above all else. In comparison, the love we have for our families should be as "hate" in comparison. I'm actually writing a piece in my next newsletter that uses this very passage - I'll send it to you when I'm done for your comments. The piece illustrates the application of this verse in a real life situation. YOU WROTE: "Did the Israelites love their neighbors as themselves when they captured them in war raids and put them into slavery for life?" Now, surely you know that this little question opens up another debate? Of course you do ; ) There is a Biblical theory for war in certain situations, and such was commanded by God in the establishment and preservation of Israel. The "slavery" you speak of was nothing like the modern connotations of that word (e.g., read the Law's requirements for the exceptionally humane treatment of these 'pows'). We can get detailed on this later as well. Once again, you are interjecting something which has no bearing on the philosophical questions which I've asked you repeatedly (see above). (Likewise the questions which followed this one.) YOU WROTE: "By the way, where in the Bible does it say that people will be punished in an afterlife for robbery? I thought people were only punished for not being Christians. I am not saying that it is not written somewhere, but could you point me to the appropriate Bible quote which supports the idea that the Christian god will punish people for theft in an afterlife?" In eternity, all men will be judged for their works and punished accordingly (see Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Ecc. 12:14; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 12:36; 16:27; 25:40,45; Romans 2:5-6; 1 Cor. 3:13; 4:5; Rev. 20:12-13; 22:12). Even believers, though their salvation is assured, are judged for rewards (per Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3; 4:5; 9:17; 2 Cor. 5:10; James 3:1; 1 John 2:28; Rev. 2:23). YOU WROTE: "The existence of a god or non-existence of a god is immaterial to the fact that the money would never belong to you, and it is immaterial to the fact that human beings would always be hurt by your action. That is the real reason why it would be "inherently" wrong. But because this sounds too much like the human based-morality I have been trying to open your eyes to, you hurriedly qualify your statement by saying, "The third reason is squarely based on the fact that all human beings are created in God's Image, just as I am." Again, this is your opinion, you have not provided any arguments for the claim that humans "were created in God image." First, the fact that human beings are created "in God's image" is the only thing which separates us from the animal kingdom. Therefore, if such is false then we are all the animals you claim us to be and stealing the money and hurting our fellow animals makes little difference. Second, the foundation of property rights is found in God as sure as morality is. Our "ownership" is simply a reflection of God's Ownership of all things. American property rights find their origin in Biblical Law, and were developed in this country by the Puritans. Third, the first two reasons (God's awareness and the future Judgment) are very important. We are speaking here of the motivation for the RESTRAINT in not stealing the money. YOU WROTE: "The question that is raised by your hastily tacked-on statement is very basic: if you discovered that there was no "God," that neither you nor anyone else was created in "God's" image, would you then steal the money in this situation? You would still know that the money did not belong to you, and you would still understand that your actions would hurt other human beings-so what would you do?" Once again, it really doesn't matter what I would *do* (and who knows what I would do). The point here is that why *should* I care, given an atheistic philosophy, what fellow animals I "hurt"? Further, I would *not* "know" that the money did not belong to me at all! To the contrary, the money would belong to whoever was strong and/or savvy enough to get it (you know, "survival of the fittest" and all). The fact remains: If we're all just animals with no destiny nor ultimate accountability - then total selfishness wins the day. Step on whoever you must to survive with as many toys as possible, because it's all "vanity" anyway. YOU WROTE: "I would not steal the money because it would hurt an innocent person and I know I would spend the rest of my life feeling guilty for hurting this person. I know that you will say this is evidence that "God's" laws are written on my heart and in my soul, but I would suggest it has more to do with my personality and my psychology than with theology." "guilt"? Now there's an interesting concept ; ) You have correctly anticipated my response. However, your attempt to "cut me off at the pass" is not very convincing : ( If such is an effect of personality and psychology, then perhaps there is a "cure" - some sort of "medication" or "therapy" perhaps? Further, "guilt" is a factor affecting humanity in general. How, then, could such be an effect of personality and/or psychology? Please elaborate on this side-step. YOU WROTE: "I know your hero, William Lane Craig, likes to quote Neitschze, but Neitschze's observations don't necessarily reflect what I believe, or even what most atheists believe." Beside the point. The point is that Nietszche was entirely consistent in his reasoning and developed his argument much better than you (and most modern atheists) have. btw, I was thinking Norm Geisler, though Craig is good too ; ) Tell you what; can you explain to me where Nietszche's reasoning fails? Also, do you then admit that - IF NIETSZCHE'S REASONING WAS VALID - then "atheist morality" would be an inconsistent fiction? (a simple 'yes' will do for that last question) YOU WROTE: "I could just as easily pretend that Martin Luther's observations on Jews reflects the way you and all Christians view Jews." uh ... Brooks? You did - remember? YOU WROTE: "As I said before, human morality is based on the fact that humans are social animals and need to cooperate to thrive and prosper. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Monkeys can figure this one out, why can't Christians?" Why can't the WORLD is the better question. Do you ever watch the news, or read a newspaper? Look around you sometime. You represent selfishness as being present only in social outcasts hiding in a corner somewhere. Hardly! Selfishness is the guiding principle of human motives in general, and it's reflected in most everything we do. YOU WROTE: "So should we stone women and girls to death if they appear not to be virgins on their wedding nights? God said so, so what are we to do?" No, because we're not living in the theocratic kingdom of Israel under the Law of Moses. But is virginity desireable and "right," and lack thereof "wrong"? Yes, absolutely. The many verses you've cited show only the fact that God is "the Judge of all the earth" and He judges sin. I wouldn't deny this at all. In OT times, He sometimes used His people to do this, just as He uses the govt. today to punish the wicked. Without such measures, society would fall apart! Humanity would've been extinct long ago. Your basic problem here is your view of God (which would be an expected difficulty for an atheist). The Law is based in God, not God in the Law. God enforces His Law just as our govt. enforces our laws. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Read Romans 9 sometime, and pay careful attention to Paul's argumentation for God's Sovereign right over His Own creation. Concerning your blasphemous comments on sex and disease: All disease in the world is brought upon man by himself. Sex is the cause of much of it, simply because it is practiced outside of God's guidelines. Answer me this: If everyone in the world remained a virgin until marriage, and then practiced sex only within the context of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship - would there be ANY stds? YOU WROTE: "Are you suggesting that atheists don't love?" Nope. I am saying that the fact that atheists DO "love" proves their philosophy wrong. YOU WROTE: "Are you saying that your love for your family is so weak and pathetic that it would disappear if you thought some big, supernatural sugar daddy wasn't going to graciously bestow eternal life on you?" Nope, I'm saying that there is no explanation for "love" apart from our Creator Who created us in His Image. YOU WROTE: "I would say that the qualities attributed to the Christian god are the exact negation of everything we know love to be." Do you mean like becoming flesh and dying for our sins (John 3:16)? YOU WROTE: "1.) Christians cannot coherently define what the term "God" means, so when they say they that "God exists," they themselves literally don't know what they are talking about." Jesus Christ revealed God to us, and we have many facts from His Scriptures. Therefore, I have no idea where you get this from; this sounds like some sort of convoluted atheist argument. YOU WROTE: "usually Christians will admit that their belief is based on "faith," which is meaningless, since believing because you have faith is believing because you believe." Christianity is an evidential faith. I believe in order to understand, but I don't believe blindly. The reasonable arguments for Christianity come from every discipline and sector. Surely you are not saying that the many scientists, lawyers, doctors, and other professionals who are Christians are simple ignorant morons? How do you explain these "otherwise intelligent" people having such faith? YOU WROTE: "Christians claim that God is proven by the Bible, which they assert is the perfect, errorless "Word of God" but which 99% of them have never actually read." Like you, I have read the Bible quite a bit. I came to the opposite conclusion. But, then, Scripture itself anticipates your reaction (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 2:9,14-16; Ephesians 1:8-9; 3:16-19; James 3:15). YOU WROTE: "Christians have assigned various attributes and qualities to the Christian God. These attributes and qualities are mutually contradictory. Contradictions cannot exist in reality." I'll get back to you after I've analyzed the article you linked. YOU WROTE: "The doctrines and story elements of Christian theology are all present in earlier religions. The simple and uncontroversial explanation for this fact is that Christianity was copied from earlier religions." Go to: http://www.custance.org/evol/2intro.html YOU WROTE: "The fact that religion is largely a geographical phenomenon points to it being simply human and cultural and nothing more than that. If you yourself had been born in a Muslim family, were raised in a Muslim neighborhood, if your parents, teachers, peers and authority figures were all Muslim, if you lived your entire life in a Muslim country, what religion do you think you would be? Think about it, give me a reasonable answer, and then explain what the objective morality would be of torturing people for eternity for not being Christian." All of this ignores the facts of Romans 1-2. God didn't create false religions and then stick people in them - PEOPLE did. In His mercy, God has commissioned His people to "preach the Gospel" to all the world. Those who do not hear will be judged righteously according to their perceived light (Romans 1). ON YOUR "#7": There are no "natural reasons" to suppose that untold numbers of people in a position to know otherwise would believe in the resurrected Christ without any skeptical challenge from contemporary sources, and then go to their deaths for this very belief. btw, God doesn't "negotiate." Don't confuse Christianity with "word of faith" televangelist conmen. William
Date: 9/20/99 10:40:56 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, Yes, feel free to post our disccusion on your web site with my e-mail address. I intend to make a link to your site as well. I think this is the first time I have had a Christian make a link to my site. By the way, up to this point, I did not know you had a web site. I used your e-mail to find it. It is interesting to see some of your other thoughts on your religion. Chat with you later. Brooks
Subj: one question
Date: 9/21/99 2:14:13 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, I will respond to the rest of your letter in a little while, but for now I would just like you to answer one question for me. Where is Ghandi right now or what is his eternal fate, based on your theology? Thank you. Brooks
Subj: Re: one question
Date: 9/21/99 9:19:44 AM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, Based on MY theology, Ghandi is where all the dead are - "asleep" and awaiting resurrection. After the resurrection he will be judged by God. If he had sufficient light of the Gospel, and rejected it - then he will be cast into Gehenna, where he will suffer according to his sins, eventualy being utterly destroyed. btw, this is *not* the "traditional" view, but it is my belief based on Scriptures. William
(For clarity, three or four characters were added or removed from the following two e-mails, Additionally, I corrected my initial letter to Mr. Kilgore by changing one word and one sentence and sending them to him 12 hours later. Minor details, but I just want to be as forthright as possible..Editor) Subj: morality for September 27
Date: 9/27/99 11:14:15 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: thinkman@flash.net William, The theme running through your e-mails is that you, as a Christian, have a perfect, divinely-mandated moral system whereas I, as an atheist, have none whatsoever. You state or imply that as an atheist, I can't say that robbery is wrong, I have no understanding of the idea of ownership, that I have no reason not to steal, that I believe that selfishness always "wins the day," etc. The first problem with your claims and insinuations is that they don't represent my morality or my views. Secondly, your morality comes from the same exact source that mine does-human society and nature. You believe, it is your *opinion*, that your morality comes from the Christian god, but the Christian god is simply the product of ancient people. This is a god which, in the Bible, murders children, supports slavery, which orders the massacre of women and children, and which promises to torture people for their opinions. It is the war god of ancient barbarians. I think this is why you are so reluctant to discuss Christianity-because you know very well that the morality of the biblical god goes against every idea of kindness, compassion and fairness that modern people hold. As a Christian, your whole world outlook is based on the idea that human beings are inherently evil because of the fall of Adam and Eve in the Genesis fable. Thus, you cannot conceive that human beings could possibly figure out how to live with one another without some sort of divine being to guide them. The idea that humans could live together in societies and determine, on their own, how best to treat one another fairly is anathema to your way of thinking. I am not hobbled by your presuppositions, however. As I said before, human beings prefer to live together amicably, and can determine on their own what constitutes good and bad morality. I can see and understand where morality comes from. I am not confused about its real origin, as you appear to be. There is a more fundamental problem with your thesis, however. What is the "basis" of your moral judgment of the biblical god, your presumed source of human ethics? You have judged this god to be good. On what basis? What standard did you use to make the determination that the biblical god was good? If you say that your god is good just because the Bible says so, then what standard does the Bible use? If you say that the Bible was written by your god and that your god says that he is good, well, that is just this god's opinion. And maybe your god is lying. He certainly lies in the Bible. (see I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.") And maybe the biblical god's idea of goodness differs from what humans would consider to be good. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that simply because a "god" exists, that this thing or being would be morally good to human beings. The god of the Bible could exist and be a petty, sadistic, unjust, blood-obsessed monster, just as he is portrayed. So what standard did you use to judge that the Christian god was morally good? Your own *opinion*? And an even more basic problem with your theory is that you have not explained why you believe in your god in the first place. What standard or basis did you use to determine that this god exists? Your own *opinion*? From my perspective, if you had been born in Iran, you would be just as convinced of the existence of Allah. You keeping talking about moral absolutes, which presumably come from your god. You have yet to produce a single example of one. Show me a biblical "moral absolute." If you do not, I will have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. You said that if you realized that Christianity was false, you would still care for your family. So your concern for you family is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of a god, and I would suggest to you that this is enough of a reason for you to be morally good. Thank you for giving me a peek at the human basis of your morality. Like I said before, it is really not too difficult to figure out. On to some of your questions... The basis for society is survival. Then maybe comes agriculture and trade. Then comes those little niceties like garbage collection and clean water. If you stop to take a look, you might become aware of the fact that other animals live in societies too. Tends to makes life a bit easier. Earlier you asked me the following question, which I never directly answered: "What if another atheist disagrees and supports clear principles of anarchy? Is there any objective basis from which you could argue to support your "policies" over his?" Please explain the term "objective basis." I would simply tell this person that he was an idiot and probably needed a psychological evaluation. If he wanted to live in a situation of complete chaos and anarchy, if he wanted to throw away all of the benefits of living in a civilized society, if he wanted go back to living off the land, foraging for berries and grubs and fending off wild animals, what could I possibly say to him? That would be his problem. Asking me how I would reason with such a person is like asking me how I would reason with someone who advocated that everyone walk around smashing hammers into their foreheads. I don't understand what you mean by the term "pat instinct" so I don't know exactly what you are asking in question #2 of your last e-mail. I don't know what you mean when you say there is no morality anywhere in the animal kingdom. First of all, humans are part of the animal kingdom and morality is based on what helps or hurts life. We consider good morality those behaviors which preserve, protect and promote human life, right? Other animals engage in behaviors which protect and promote the lives of members of their species. Throughout nature, mothers feed and protect their young. Or maybe you didn't notice this? Animals of many species will fight to the death to protect their offspring from predators. Penguin parents spend weeks keeping their eggs on their feet, nearly starving themselves, to protect their eggs from the cold. Mircats will put themselves at risk by standing on their hind legs and acting as lookouts for the rest of their group, and will cry out if a predator approaches. I remember a news story about a domestic cat which went back into a burning house three or four times to rescue its kittens. By the end of this, the mother cat's fur was mostly burned off. Selflessness and sacrifice for others, what we would consider good morality, is found throughout nature. The abolitionist movement was started in this country by Mennonites and Quakers. The mainstream Christian denominations did not join in the hue and the cry against slavery till about the 19th century. The Popes kept slaves and said that heathens could be taken as slaves in wars fought by Christians. Go here for more information: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm If Lincoln loved the Bible, why did he never join a church, and why did he write this: http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/hist/lewis/lewis07.htm "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." (from a letter to Judge J. A. Wakefield) And this: "All the powers of the earth seem rapidly combining against the slave, Mammon is after him -- and the theology of the day is fast joining in the cry." ? What part of "Biblical Law" and morality ended slavery in Europe? Be more specific. During 15 centuries of Christianity in Europe, the Catholic Church never once thought to speak out against the institution of slavery, but instead supported it, as is shown in the link above. This is one of the reasons why Christianity lost its control over society, because people realized its claims of divine, moral authority were nonsense. Please explain and support your assertion that secular humanism is responsible for a racism that is worse than slavery. That is quite a statement. "Where in the world does the Bible support slavery?" you ask. You can start with Leviticus 44:25... (oops, 25:44...Editor) "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." -Christian god speaking- ...then take a look at Exodus 21:20: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." -Christian god- Is this the "Law" regulating the treatment of slaves that you were referring to in you your last e-mail? Wouldn't you agree that these passages, direct quotes from the Christian god, tend to support slavery? There are many other passages supporting slavery as well, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong, that people should not take slaves, that people should free their slaves, that God frowns upon slavery, that slavery is bad or wrong or evil. Please go here for a more specific examples of the biblical support for slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm Somewhere later on you BOLDLY stated that "GOD NEVER SANCTIONED SLAVERY TO BEGIN WITH." Look above. You asked how I could fault Jesus' teachings for slavery. Well, the Jesus portrayed in the Bible does use slavery in his teachings, in fact he likens the master-slave relationship to that of the relationship people have with his dad: "Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes...." Jesus-Luke 12:37
"No servant can serve two masters..." Jesus-Luke 16:13
"A servant is not greater than his master." Jesus-John 15:20
"And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating." Jesus-Luke 12:47
Where is Jesus' outrage against the institution of slavery? It is nowhere to be found precisely because the pinheads who wrote the Jesus fables had no concept of slavery being wrong. You said something about my "zeal for a meaningless life." First you claim that I have no real morality, now you claim that I have zeal for a meaningless life. That phrase "zeal for a meaningless life" is a real corker. I plan to add it to my quotes page, in the "Wisdom of Faith" section. Thanks. It took you a little longer than most Christians to trot out the atheistic-Soviet- Communists-murdered-millions ad hominem attack on atheists, so I have to give you some credit. I never was and I am not now a member of Stalin's dictatorship, okay? You said "you keep wanting to turn this around on me. I am questioning *your* basis of morality, remember?" Well, this is a perfect example of the selfishness you keep referring to. If I am going to answer your questions, be kind enough to answer mine. That's how society works...remember? You sidestepped a question which I have asked you, oh, about five times already. So I will repeat it: What difference does the existence or non-existence of a god or eternal life make in how you treat other people? In response to this you wrote: 'Again, it is not about what we in fact do. Rather, it is about our concept of what we SHOULD do - i.e., what is the "right" way to treat someone over against the "wrong" way to treat someone. Your philosophy cannot explain the existence of such concepts. The idea of "society opinion" is not only historically ludicrous, but is grossly inadequate from a philosophical standpoint.' My answer to this question is that the existence of eternal life or a god would make no difference in how I treat other people. You did say, in answer to a similar question, that you would still care for your family if you did not believe in a god-so maybe you would treat people the same. But I would like to get a direct answer to this question. It lies at the very heart of this discussion. And I hope to get a direct answer to the other question I asked you about whether you would steal that money. What is this "philosophy" of atheism you keep railing about? I thought atheism was simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Do people who don't believe in unicorns, aunicornists, have a unifying philosophy? Explain to me what you think the atheist "philosophy" is. You continually express amazement at the fact that human ideas of right and wrong are alike from continent to continent. Yes, people everywhere have similar ideas of right and wrong, and, as I explained to you in my last e-mail, this is because people everywhere have the same basic needs, wants, hopes and desires. Again, it is not too hard to figure out. You claim that "selfishness is the guiding principle of human motives in general, and it is reflected in most everything we do." Is that why people grovel before immoral, blood-thirsty gods in the hope of living forever? I suggested that you refer to my Evil Biblical Stupidity page and you responded with: 'Now here's a perfect example of what I'm saying. How in the world can you possibly have any definition for "evil." In your scheme of things: THERE IS NO GOD, NO LAW, NO ACCOUNTABILITY, NO JUDGMENT, AND NO DESTINY. What, pray tell, is "good" and "evil" in such a scheme?' Good and evil are terms we apply to actions which either promote or which harm human life. Eating food tends to be good because it promotes life. Arsenic poisoning is usually deemed evil because it has the effect of destroying life. These definitions are rooted in reality, in nature, here on earth, not in some mysterious afterlife in the clouds. They don't depend on a some incomprehensible, supernatural being to have meaning. I am sure that if tomorrow you finally discovered that your religion was a delusion, you would still view harm to yourself, your family and your friends as evil, as you implied in your last e-mail. I asked you: "So should we stone women and girls to death if they appear not to be virgins on their wedding nights? God said so, so what are we to do?" And you responded with this: 'No, because we're not living in the theocratic kingdom of Israel under the Law of Moses. But is virginity desirable and "right," and lack thereof "wrong"? Yes, absolutely.' So I take it that if you lived in the theocratic kingdom of Israel under the Law of Moses, that you would stone women to death if you presumed they were not virgins on the wedding nights? Yes or no? Don't give me another wish-washy gee-golly-I-don't-know-what-I-would-do. Please answer this question with a definite yes or no. Another question-why doesn't the Bible say anything about men being stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights? Could it possibly be because the Bible was produced by a patriarichal society which treated women as property, and virginity was deemed a highly valuable quality? No, of course not, that is just too clear and understandable! This also raises the question of what your god's morality is based on. Apparently your god changes its mind about what constitutes a crime deserving capital punishment. Evidently your god's morality is not absolute, but contextual. In certain instances, at certain times, butchering woman and children is good and righteous, and slavery is morally acceptable. Why not just admit the obvious, that the morality portrayed in the OT belongs to ancient barbarians? You say that God "uses the govt. today to punish the wicked." This is another bald assertion. As I have repeated to you numerous times, you have not defined what your god is. You need to explain how you know that your god uses the government today to punish the wicked. Also, which government? The Bible says that ALL governments were instituted by God, but does that mean that Hitler's government was instituted by God to punish the Jews for rejecting Jesus' divinity? Was Milosevic's government instituted by God to punish the infidel Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo? (Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.")By the way, I never said that the views of Martin Luther represented the views of all Christians of his time, or of Christians today. I qualified what I was saying. I used him to illustrate the problems that are created by basing one's world view and morality on ancient mythology. We have no way of knowing what Hitler's inner thoughts were, but, like I said, his words indicate he was a Christian. In your second to last e-mail you said that if you did not believe there was a god somehow taking an account of your sexual activities, then you would try and get all the sex you could get. I responded by asking why you think your god would have such an interest in people's sex lives in the first place. You responded by explaining that sex is the cause of much of the world's disease. So you are now providing an actual, natural reason not to be sexually promiscuous, based on the facts of reality, of nature, rather than some imagined afterlife punishment for sex meted out by your god. I would suggest to you that whether a god exists or not, sexually transmitted disease will always exist, and is more than enough of a reason not to be sexually promiscuous. YOU WROTE: "Answer me this: If everyone in the world remained a virgin until marriage, and then practiced sex only within the context of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship - would there be ANY stds?" If, theoretically, people waited till marriage to have sex, if they weren't sexually molested by others infected with STDs, if they were able to stay married to just one person for life, if no one had affairs or visited prostitutes, if one spouse never died before the other and no one ever remarried, if STDs did not evolve to follow a different transmission vector, then STDs would be reduced very significantly. It is an interesting concept. What does it have to do with Christianity? You seemed to indicate that heterosexuality is the only acceptable sexuality. Do you think homosexuality is morally wrong? I don't know too much about Neitschze, except that he his views were very negative, he committed suicide and Christians like to use him as a spokesperson for any and every person or group which does not accept the existence of a god. Beyond that, I don't know much about him.YOU WROTE 'Christianity is an evidential faith. I believe in order to understand, but I don't believe blindly. The reasonable arguments for Christianity come from every discipline and sector. Surely you are not saying that the many scientists, lawyers, doctors, and other professionals who are Christians are simple ignorant morons? How do you explain these "otherwise intelligent" people having such faith?' Your theory about human morality, the object of this discussion, depends on the existence of the Christian god. If there are reasonable arguments for your god, present the one or two or three that you think are the most powerful. Before you do, you might want to visit my Christian arguments page to make sure they are not ones which I have already looked at. So far, I have not seen any "reasonable" arguments for Christianity. You indignantly ask "surely you are not saying that the many scientists, lawyers, doctors, and other professionals are ignorant morons?" This is a blatant appeal to authority, a reasoning fallacy, something I discuss on my arguments page. I could just as easily ask why so many doctors, lawyers, scientists, astrophysicists and other professionals do NOT believe in your god. If these people actually have good reasons for their acceptance of Christianity, then surely you would be eager to share those reasons with me. In response to my explanation of the similarity of earlier religions to Christianity, you pointed me to a web site: http://www.custance.org/evol/2intro.html I read though a few pages, but all the gentleman seemed to do was make general assertions and rant against evolution. He used a lot of big words and wrote verbose sentences, but did not really discuss the relationship of Christianity to earlier religions. You say that your god does not negotiate. Then do you deny the power of prayer? That would seem to go against the teachings of Jesus. You said, "Like you, I have read the Bible quite a bit. I came to the opposite conclusion." Care to enlighten me as to why you came to the opposite conclusion about the origin of the Bible? In my previous e-mail I told you that the qualities attributed to the Christian god are the exact negation of everything we know love to be. You responded by writing: "Do you mean like becoming flesh and dying for our sins (John 3:16)." No, actually I meant like supporting slavery, ordering war raids, murdering women and children and torturing people for their *opinions*. I do have a problem with this whole Resurrection thing too, though. I mean, can you explain it to me? I am a little confused. The god of the Bible is actually Jesus, right? The Son and the Father are both one and two, they are different and separate yet unified and the same simultaneously. Do you understand this? God/Jesus knows before he creates the human race that it will disobey him or be sinful or whatever it is that throws him into a homicidal rage. Apparently what sparks off the Resurrection scheme is the eating of an apple, which is actually metaphorical for something else. Because of the eating of an apple, which means something else, this two-in-one god is so angry at the humans he created that he wants revenge. Even though the human race has done something which this god had foreseen before he created them, it nevertheless somehow surprises him and makes him boiling mad. According to Christian theology, this god is so wonderful that instead of venting its rage on the human race, it decides to arrange to have the human race kill him. This somehow will pay the price of blood which this god demands. This will somehow make the situation right. This will somehow take away the sins of the world, whatever those are supposed to be. So this god arranges to have the human race kill him. But this god knows that he will not really die, because, well, he is a god. He can see the future. After a few hours of suffering, Jesus/God dies on the cross, but not before crying out, "My God, my God, why hast though forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34) Who is he talking to?-I can't figure it out. And why do other Gospels have Jesus saying something different than this? Anyway, this god is resurrected and goes up to live in heaven with himself (he is one and the same person), to sit at the right hand of himself. After the human race kills this god, according to this god's plan, one would think that things would be all right with the world. But there is still a problem. This god now says that if people do not believe that he arranged to have the human race murder him to avenge his anger at the human race for doing something which he created them to do, then they will be tortured for eternity. Help me understand this whole scenario, Bill, because I really don't get it. Anyway, getting back to the main issue and summing up, I cannot accept this idea you have that you possess some divine moral system created by the Christian god. You have not explained why you believe that the Christian god exists in the first place. You have not explained what the Christian god is. You have not explained why you believe morality comes from the Christian god. You have not explained the basis that you have used to judge that the Christian god is morally good. You have not explained the terms you are using, like "objective basis" or "moral absolute" (until you do, I will assume the definition for "moral absolute" I offered earlier). You claimed that biblical injunctions against murder and stealing are moral absolutes, but have not explained how this can be if your god orders stealing and murder in the Bible. (see my Evil Biblical Stupidity page for references) Because I can understand and accept the natural origin of human morality and because you have not supported your claims with any evidence or arguments or even with basic definitions, and because you are studiously avoiding explaining the morality of various obscene biblical atrocities, I have a hard time taking your claims seriously. You explained that in a godless universe you would still care for your family. I would suggest that if you want to understand human morality, simply think about this response you gave. In addition, please visit the new article on morality I have put up on my web site. It clearly explains the natural basis of human morality. If I have missed any of your questions, please let me know which ones in your next e-mail. Talk to you later. Brooks
Editor's note: Oops. Nietzsche-and this is the correct way his name is spelled-did NOT commit suicide. He died in 1900 at age 56 after a lifetime of ill-health. The cause was likely syphilis and in his final years he was apparently a bit mentally deranged. I don't know where I got the idea he committed suicide. Also, his philosophy was not necessarily negative. I think I may bave just taken what Christians have said about him at face value. This comes from a helpful e-mailer:"Not that its a big deal, but I happen to be a Nietschze fan and disagree with you that his views are negative. He only got the reputation for being negative because he was brutally honest and a harsh (critic) of Christianity,...which is no different from what you are doing. Also because Hitler misinterepted his theory of the Superman, his philosophy has been falsely labeled the precursor to Nazism. In fact Nietzche consistently in his writings criticized both anti-Semitism and German Nationalism, and inferred that they are insecurities and weaknesses in the human character. This even led to the break up of his friendship with German composer Richard Wagner who had eventually converted to Christianity, developed a harsh anti-Semitism and formed the idea in his symphony 'Parzival' of an Aryan Jesus Christ." Go here and here for more information on Nietzsche.
Subj: Re: morality for September 27
Date: 9/27/99 4:50:48 PM EST
From: thinkman@flash.net (William Kilgore)
Reply-to: thinkman@flash.net
To: Tekministry@aol.com Brooks, YOU WROTE: "The theme running through your e-mails is that you, as a Christian, have a perfect, divinely-mandated moral system whereas I, as an atheist, have none whatsoever." No, but I am beginning to wonder how literate you are (or not) ; ) Once again, I believe that you ARE a 'moral' person. I think that your ATHEISM is what's flawed. I feel like a broken record over here! YOU WROTE: "your morality comes from the same exact source that mine does-human society and nature." Well, that is what the discussion is about, right? You haven't yet answered my questions, nor demonstrated that this is indeed the case. YOU WROTE: "The idea that humans could live together in societies and determine, on their own, how best to treat one another fairly is anathema to your way of thinking." It is also obviously refuted by countless examples throughout human history! Do you research *anything*? I'm beginning to think that you are just making this up as you go along. Have you even read any atheist scholars in your lifetime? btw, are you suggesting that *our* society is such a society??? YOU WROTE: "I am not hobbled by your presuppositions, however." No, but this very statement is epistemological evidence that you *are* "hobbled" by your own presuppositions. You *do* realize that atheism is as "presuppositional" as Christianity, don't you? YOU WROTE: "As I said before, human beings prefer to live together amicably, and can determine on their own what constitutes good and bad morality." Another idea that history nor sociological studies will bear out. YOU WROTE: "I can see and understand where morality comes from. I am not confused about its real origin, as you appear to be." Then please address my repeated questions. As for my "confusion," where have I expressed such? I think I have been very clear about this. YOU WROTE: "What standard did you use to make the determination that the biblical god was good?" Because God *is* the "standard" itself. Once again, God defines Law, not the other way around. CONCERNING "GOD": Did you read Romans 9 as I suggested? It doesn't seem like you have. YOU WROTE: "What standard or basis did you use to determine that this god exists? Your own *opinion*?" Look, if we are going to have a productive discussion we must focus on one aspect at a time. Now you want to debate God's existence? I'll limit myself here to what you've called the "moral argument" for God - the same drum I've been beating since this began. You keep making statements about "morality," but there is no logical or reasonable substance to your comments. It is entirely illogical to set forth "morality" without foundation - and you have yet to provide one. "Society opinion" won't work for the various reasons which I have gone over already. Try again. YOU WROTE: "You have yet to produce a single example of one. Show me a biblical 'moral absolute.'" Short memory? I gave you *THE* moral absolute two letters ago. You forgot? YOU WROTE: "So your concern for you family is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of a god, and I would suggest to you that this is enough of a reason for you to be morally good. Thank you for giving me a peek at the human basis of your morality. Like I said before, it is really not too difficult to figure out." As I have previously stated, what a person would or would not do "if" is no *BASIS* for anything. For instance, you are somewhat "moral," correct? Well, your idea of morality originates with God - whether you acknowledge this fact or not. Such is in no way dependent on your actions. YOU WROTE: "The basis for society is survival." What if "survival" dictates stealing or killing to survive? Shouldn't you kill anyone with HIV right now for the greater good of society - all in the interest of "survival" of course? YOU WROTE: "Please explain the term 'objective basis.' ... I would simply tell this person that he was an idiot and probably needed a psychological evaluation ..." Look, your entire answer setting forth "benefits of civilized society" is a philosophical house of cards. You've as much as admitted what I've been saying all along! The whole basis is *selfishness* - it is about what works for you. I suggest that there are plenty of scenarios where killing and robbing might work for you as well. Oh, and btw - you confuse *thechnology* with "civilized." YOU WROTE: "Other animals engage in behaviors which protect and promote the lives of members of their species. Throughout nature, mothers feed and protect their young. Or maybe you didn't notice this?" First of all, we are not "animals." We reason, and produce music and art for its own sake. We seek education beyond what is dictated by mere survivalistic urges. Second, animals operate BY INSTINCT. They not only engage in the behaviours you've described - they ALWAYS do so. We do not, and often suffer what we call *guilt*. There is no guilt among any but humanity. Why? ON ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT: You now want to limit me to "mainstream denominations"??? I just cannot win with you, can I? LOL. Look, "denominations" are largely political machines like many other organizations. I'm speaking of CHRISTIANS - people here. Finney was a leader in the movement - he was Presbyterian. Many other abolitionists were congregational. As for the Popes, I'm not Catholic. But you might want to read Pope Leo XIII's "On the Abolition of Slavery" at http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/leo.xiii/l13slav.txt I would also mention that many individual nuns and priests aided the slaves as well.