Who’s In the Wrong?

Aww, so he didn’t say “SILENCE! I kill you!” ? Disappointed!

They are both in the wrong.

Except being a dick, I don’t think the priest did anything wrong. What he stated was true under today’s standards, threatening to kill someone without being funny is a crime.

“something else”: provocative moron vs. violent moron.

I don’t have a dog in this hunt.

Preacher was a bit of an a-hole (nothing wrong with that) but that doesn’t excuse the woman from assaulting him. And to answer the question, both Christianity and Islam can have violet fundamentalist followers–but Islam seems to reek of it.

I am unable to view video clips, so I haven’t seen the video. But I’m fairly sure that no matter what the specifics this is still the case:

I am so glad I’m an atheist.

I can’t believe i’m saying this…but other than being a fool and an ass the Christian did nothing wrong. I can even see the point he was trying to make…..but in the end I am so glad I’m an atheist.

He was provoking her and got, not what he deserved, but what he was possibly hoping for – a violent reaction that puts him in the right. He’s a professional dick and religious zealot, she’s clearly an amateur.

So very very glad I’m an atheist, every single day.

The “preacher” was provoking a woman he knew to be Muslim in the hope that she would do just what she did. Then he could smugly and sanctamoniously say “See, Muslims are violent”.

He’s a creep and she needs to get a grip!

Both of them suck, but physically attacking or threatening to kill someone in anger makes her worse than him. She could have chosen to be the bigger person and walk away from the dickhead preacher. Nobody was forcing her to stand there and listen to his ridiculous rant.

I’m glad I’m an atheist.

Lorem Ipsum and Nancy, you took the words right out of my mouth (off my keyboard? I dunno). I particularly liked: “He’s a professional dick and religious zealot, she’s clearly an amateur,” and, “He’s a creep and she needs to get a grip!”

Also, I agree with Mike Cohen.

Right or wrong…it is religious stupidity…people butting heads over beliefs they both will readily concede cannot be proven. When lunacy and passion collide.

Empiraclly, they are both wrong, because for there to be someone right they would first have to be forwarding a viewpoint that is based on truth. So, before anyone actually does anything inappropriate…they are both squarely standing in the wrong…again, empiracally speaking. (If any christian or muslim disagrees, I will gladly look at proof that your god(s) do in fact exist…and if you prove it to me, I will offer a full apology)

Of course…they have free speech…and the right or wrong of that is not based on whether they are speaking truth. It is based on the individual’s treatment of others in the effort of speaking freely.

I would say that the preacher is ignorant of how to speak appropriately to others…others he does not know. The woman is wrong to even think she can make a statement that would change the preachers minds…and the preacher is ignorant of the same fact in reverse. The preacher is ignorant of the fact that his religion is just as hateful and murderous as the woman he is harrasing. The woman is in fact ignorant of the fact that Islam is hateful, intolerant and murderous…just as christianity. Lots of ignorance all over this video. It really just shows that both sides will do whatever and avoid logic, reason or even proper ways of dealing with other people…in order to forward their message. And they all are in denial about just how few people even respect their methods or think they know anything at all.

In fact…it is beginning to feel like christians and muslims are just preaching to their own choirs anymore…as more and more people are ignoring religion in pursuit of other, more rewarding endeavors.

But…the right or wrong of this situation can be discussed on many levels.

That’s crazy. Just one of the many reasons I’m an Atheist. Fools fighting over the supernatural.
Well anyway, I think they were both out of line. The preacher for starting the crap saying the Muslim lady is ignorant and calling Mohammed a pedophile. Then the Muslim lady for saying she’s going to kill him. Hasn’t enough blood been shed in the name of god.

Alex, you took the words out of my mouth.

It’s very childish of both parties. One side can’t provide good enough evidence to convince another to instantly drop their view of reality that probably is rooted in the core of her being, so he resorts to “my daddy is stronger than yours!” and kicking sand in the other’s face. The other side is very angry and hasn’t developed the emotional skills to deal with it, so she lashes out physically. Just like four year olds in a sandbox…

Kudos Alex!

Also, I must say Alex gave a terrific answer, almost poetic.

Something else entirely. Firstly, let me add my shout out to Alex for getting it in one. Mostly, though, I’m bugged by the video for a lot of reasons. Vincent noted that we pick up the action already well into it. Would the missing context change things? It’s possible, for instance, that the guy was really trying to wind her up. That wouldn’t excuse her actions — we all have an ethical obligation to resist falling for that kind of baiting — but it would change our interpretation. I can’t help but be suspicious of why we are shown so little.

Did anyone here actually hear “I’ll kill you” *before* the words were put up on the screen at the end? I didn’t — which isn’t to say I don’t think she said it, but there is that text portion after the raw footage, which is a clear case of priming. And now I can’t watch the raw footage without hearing it, but I don’t know if it’s actually there or not. Thoughts?,

And that whole last portion. Wow, just clearly messed up. One woman’s issues with anger management can’t be used to make a sweeping statement about an entire group (of over a billion people, no less!), and the idea that there haven’t been Jewish and Christian terrorists is absurd. And there have been murderous people, like Pol Pot, who didn’t believe in God. It’s clearly a video intended to smear Muslims, and as such — even though, mind you, I”m no fan of the Muslim faith — I’m deeply, deeply suspicious of the video.

Any idea a person can think of deserves consideration, but most of them deserve ridicule. Out of all the ideas people have had over the vast expanse of time, very few deserve respect. But those that do, earned it through dialog and demonstration, not physical violence.

Wow, Muhammad was indeed a pedophile. I learned this today.

And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And while both of those things are clearly despicable to those of us living in the bright light of the 21st Century, its not entirely fair to judge these men for acting within the moral constraints of their own time and culture. By today’s standards Joseph, the supposed step-father of Jesus, was also probably a pedophile, as Mary was probably in her early teens at the time of their marriage. And I guess if you believe the whole story that makes God a pedophile too.

If I get a religious doorstep caller, I’ll call the god of the Bible’s acts genocide (story of Noah), and I’ll accuse him of incest, rape and of being an atheist. I’ve not been hit once. Accuse Muhammed (pedophilia be upon him) and you get hit. I think that says it all. I’m glad I’m an atheist.

I’ve noticed for awhile now that there is this tendency amongst many groups of Christians to malign the Islamic faith. My guess is that it helps to deflect attention away from their own misbehavior. Especially since 9-11 happened, there seems to have been a rise in this kind of fear mongering. Not to say there isn’t anything to criticize, but… pot. kettle. black.

Glad I’m an atheist.

I agree with Nancy: he’s a creep and she needs to get a grip. Also, morally speaking, I would say she’s definitely in the wrong — no matter how much of a jerk that guy was, that does not excuse physical violence and death threats (assuming, of course, that it was a death threat — it was kind of garbled, and I don’t necessarily trust the maker of that video).

In any case, count me in as another vote for “so glad I’m an atheist”!

I posted this video.

Would I punch an Atheist for calling my belief system stupid, dumb ? No. Would I harm an Atheist for berating me and what I believe in ? No. Atheists, you of all people should understand, on the rung of the ladder of islam, you are the worst of the worst. Please feel free too berate me, call Jesus a dead man on a stick, what ever you wish. I’ll just disagree with you.

In Saudi Arabia they have just jailed and deported Christians. I wonder what would happen in Saudi if an Atheist openly said ” Allah (God) does not exist., he’s a fake !”

Make no mistake about it, I defend Atheists. They have the right too speak their mind and say anything they want.

EXCEPT IN MUSLIM LANDS.

I vote for “Something else entirely“.

6. she got in his face, tried to take his magical book away, he snapped and called her magical deity a pedophile, at which point she assaulted him and threatened to kill him (in front of witnesses).

as a result, she belongs in jail (and needs to take Anger Management classes) and the Christian preacher needs to stop being a Dick.

agreed, and dick that he is, it is free speech. threatening to kill someone is against the law. she needs to get a grip-she’s in the us, not the middle east.

This was like watching two drunks fighting over their honor and virtue in a back alley. What a pathetic and tragic demonstration of how they both have been debased by their drug. A pox on both their houses.

The enemy of my enemy is…my enemy. Therefore,

a). I’m gonna just step back and let this thing play out…
and
e). I am so glad I’m an atheist.

“God is Love,” my ass…

I choose e).

And Darryl,

I know this may come as a shock to some of you who have been lulled by our permissive culture into thinking that it is normal and universal to push social maturity well beyond biological maturity, but when you reach puberty, you’re ready to make babies. Do a little reading on other cultures.

I’m not sure where you got this idea. I cannot think of anybody on this blog who has said that. What do you mean exactly by social vs. biological maturity? I, for one, do not think it is okay for teenagers to have children. They aren’t ready. Don’t assume we’re moral relativists.

My thought is that the preacher was really trying to provoke the girl and get her to lash out like this on camera. Unfortunately, she took the bait.

In hindsight, her attack may have been wrong, but I tell ya, I’ve been there. And when someone disses you and everything you believe like this in front of so many people, something just snaps.

How can atheists write about “good” or “evil”? In a supposed godless universe there is none of either, right?.

Just wondering.

How can atheists write about “good” or “evil”? In a supposed godless universe there is none of either, right?.

No, there actually is.

That you are blinded to that simple fact by your religion says more about you than it does about me.

To save me typing and explaining something others have explained better, I’m going to wholesale quote Ebon Muse:

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/morality-is-not-by-fiat.html

As we’ve all seen, this is a common response of theists to atheists who offer principles of ethical behavior: the claim that, because we do not believe in an absolute Authority, we have no way to justify the principles we propose.
But morality cannot be a matter of “who”. Plato showed why over two thousand years ago in the Euthyphro, and his dilemma still stands: Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it? If it’s the former, then there is an absolute morality that is not the creation of God, and the question “Says who?” becomes irrelevant – morality exists regardless of what anyone says. If it’s the latter, then there is no morality at all, merely the exercise of God’s whim.
If you assume that morality is a question of “says who” – that what constitutes morality is defined by the decrees of some authority figure – then you must believe that that authority figure could change the morality of an action by mere fiat without changing any of the relevant facts. Could the very same act be either good or bad, based purely on how God chooses to view it? This is clearly absurd.
Treating morality as if it had to be the decree of someone is the theistic conception, not ours. We should decline to play their rigged game. Instead, rather than a matter of “who”, we should argue that morality is and must be a matter of “why”. That is, rather than something imposed by an external authority, morality should be viewed as a set of rational principles which intelligent agents freely agree to abide by – not because they are commanded to do so, but because reason prescribes it as the best course of action for the benefit of all. This rational, humanist worldview, not a list of arbitrary commands decreed by fiat, is the only philosophy that truly deserves the name of morality.

Mike Cohen said:

The preacher was wrong. I’m not a Muslim, but I tend to take their side against Christianity or Judaism because I feel that they’re always being unjustly maligned.

You’ve gotta be kidding me. “Unjustly maligned”? Here’s a few examples: teddy bear, Danish cartoon, 9/11 and others, Salman Rushdie, that lady who wrote Infidel, Iranian president, the entire Middle East, I could go on. Currently, no religion, not even Christianity, can hold a candle to the danger of Islam and its followers. Let me guess. In addition to the big bad Israeli oppressors, you think “the man” is deliberately keeping down all the minorities and poor people in this country too, right?

On a side note, I find your opinion very odd considering you’re most likely Jewish given your last name. I thought Jews and religious Christians and honest, non-liberal atheists were the only ones willing to see the truth about Islam. oh well.

Due to my utter disdain for Islam, I’d be the first to condemn her actions as indicative of that religion. But I simply can’t do it in this situation. I don’t think Islam is what provoked her to lash out at him. Another poster commented and I agree that this woman would’ve reacted in a similiar fashion to any perceived slight, whether about her neighborhood, her street corner, her mother’s weave. She’s clearly an unhinged, angry woman who can’t keep her crazy ass in check. That being said I found the preacher’s (who I admit is clearly an ass) words to be sarcastic but ultimately valid. Well I don’t know if Muhammed was a pedophile, but surely, Islam is a violent and destructive ideology, more so than even Christianity as it’s currently practiced.

I am hardly inclined to judge historical people outside of the context of their… context, but how many nine year olds are actually physically ready to make babies? I know its not unheard of, but I hit puberty early and I still didn’t get my period till I was 11- and these days, American women tend to get it much younger due to a variety of factors. I doubt many nine year olds back then- with less to eat and no hormones being pumped into their cows- had gotten their periods.

Since we can’t know, let’s just let it go and quit provoking the natives with “Mohammad was a pedophile!”

I never said I would say it, I was merely pointing out that, if it is true she was nine, and I am not saying it is or isn’t, I don’t think we should assume nine year olds in any context or time period are physically ready to make babies (though a girl gave birth at six, once, according to snopes.com).

But, regardless, I am still going to be a little disgusted at the thought, just like when I read about the cultures and times when the English married off their kids at twelve, or when the Americans bought their ten year olds thongs at the GAP.

“On the bright side, I can’t think of any atheist mass murderers.”

Here’s the most glaring example

He was in the right to be out in the street preaching. That’s first amendment, right there. As long as he wasn’t unlicensed in an area where a license was needed, he was there by all rights. She came up to him and started touching him and his bible, that’s a minor assault right there. As far as I’m concerned, she started (this is assuming, of course, that he hadn’t located himself right outside a mosque or something similar).

When he said that Muhammad was a pedophile, he certainly had a legitimate reason to think so (Muslim texts themselves certainly paint that picture), but he was a jackass for saying it. That being said, there’s no law against being a jackass, so while I probably wouldn’t like him personally, he’s still in the right.

Then she physically assaults him and threatens to kill. That’s NEVER okay. As far as I’m concerned, she’s entirely in the wrong (again, assuming that he was there legally and that he wasn’t deliberately trying to get a reaction by parking himself right in front of a mosque, for example).

Free speech issue. She doesn’t like the fact muhammad had sex with aisha when she was 9? Then don’t honor the pedophile. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are luckily in our Constitution.

Unbrainwashed, I haven’t learned enough about Islam to make any general statements with complete confidence. And, I am not inclined to summarily condemn it as you have. In the present state of affairs in this country I am not surprised by fundy Christians trying to vilify Islam–they feel threatened by any religion that competes with their’s, and they are using this phony “war on terror” as a pretext for their hatred. And, I am not surprised that many people, like you, would have formed such an opinion as you seem to have. So, in my view it is short-sighted to dismiss Muslims whole-sale as you have.

While pleading mostly ignorance, I do know a few things about Islam: As I’m sure you know, any religion this old and this widespread undergoes significant variation. I know there are fundamentalists of different sects and moderates of different sects. I know that there are separate traditions within Islam (we all know now about the Sunni and the Shia). I know that, like any religion, the practice and the tone of Islam varies with the culture in which it is located. For example, there generally is a noticeable difference in attitude between Muslims in Indonesia vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Mauritania vs. the U.S. The Taliban are insane, cruel bastards, but all the Muslims that I have met here in the U.S. are hospitable, friendly, solid people.

Al Qaeda is as much a political movement as it is a religious one (though Islam doesn’t separate these categories in theory as we have tended to do in the West), hence its war-like methods have as much to do with secular war as sacred war; and as we know from what our own soldiers have done in wartime, bad things are done in defense of high-sounding principles.

People tend to be people, no matter where they are and no matter what they believe. Ignorance and cruelty is found everywhere, just as are reasonableness and goodness.

HC, you’re welcome… though I’m having difficulty determining if you are sincere but extremely naive, or just trolling. I’ll play along for now:

Why did you write about Someone who in your universe does not exist?

Because that is the matter in question, is it not? Does God exist? We can’t very well argue one way or the other if we don’t address the topic. And it’s certainly not, as you say, that any gods exists or do not exist in “our” (personal atheist) universe; they either exist in the universe, or they do not. Neither my preference nor yours has any bearing on the reality of the matter; we’d best examine the evidence.

Why argue? Well, many people claim that some god or other exists, and that its existence implies all sorts of things, some of which are merely absurd, some aggravating, and some dangerous. Many people who claim that God exists wish to impose all sorts of unreasonable conditions on everyone else; they want to force others to live by their contrived and preposterous rules, they want to punish people for imaginary crimes, and some of them even want to hurt or kill those who disagree with them (refer to the video above). You see, whether or not any gods exist, these wacky people exist, and as long as they continue to make unsubstantiated claims upon which they base unjustified, often detestable actions, folks like me will challenge them.

As to the specific reference I make above, I have to ask: are you familiar with the concept of a hypothetical? I’d think you’d understand that an often useful approach in such discussions is to assume, for the sake of argument, that part or all of what your opponent says is true. What, then should we expect to see? What are the implications? How does this provisionally granted condition comport with reality? In the case of morality, we can consider God as the “source” of morality, as Christians generally claim… and we’re led immediately to the Euthyphro dilemma. The obvious question for theists is then “how is any god relevant to morality?” While we’ve been patiently awaiting an answer to that question for the past two-thousand years, we’ve been developing and discussing theories of ethics amongst ourselves.

As I noted at first, your questions are naive; there are many sites on the internet that answer these basics, and if you visit any other atheist blogs, you’ll see responses popping up in the comments quire regularly. If you genuinely want to understand atheism better, I highly recommend “Atheism Explained” by David Ramsay Steele. It’s about $12 on amazon.com, and though I don’t agree with ever particular, it is an excellent overview of atheism (and a fascinating exploration of some of the implications of classical theism). As for our discussion here, I find it decidedly one-way, and it’s unlikely I will engage you further unless you care to respond to at least some of the points I’ve raised.

TXatheist said

“She doesn’t like the fact muhammad had sex….”

How can a mindless universe produce an emotion described as “like” ?

Just wondering.

Has anyone addressed the fact that it was a woman vs a man? Women in this society (the USA) tend to be permitted much wider lattitude with respect to violence against a man.

Women slap men all the time on TV and it’s not viewed as abuse or a hate crime. If you can slap for an offensive pickup line, you can slap for “deeper” offenses, no?

The very fact that she wasn’t arrested and prosecuted says something.

I’m only going off of what I’m reading in the comments, I haven’t been able to actually watch the video.

Happy Christian, I have no problems with the idea that an essentially impersonal, mindless, random universe can come up with an organism that possesses emotions and desires, including the idea of “liking” something.

Sure, we don’t understand all the mechanisms that led from A to B, but I’m perfectly satisfied that we don’t need “God” in there somewhere to explain the (as yet) unexplainable.

Still wondering?

Happy, how can you talk about “Santa” when such a being does not exist? You ARE able to tell people that Santa doesn’t exist, aren’t you? Go on, try it and see.

You’re a troll. No-one is that stupid.

Magpie says Santa does not exist. Come on guys-
Some of you have gone from atheist to athesanta.
How bad can this world get?!!

micketymoc wrote

“I have no problems with the idea that an essentially impersonal, mindless, random universe can come up with an organism that possesses emotions and desires, including the idea of “liking” something.”

In other words, nothing produced something.

In the real world nothing does not produce something. Or to put it another way- nothing produces nothing.
You still need to answer the Question- “How can a mindless universe produce an emotion described as “like” ?
At least one of you is will to admit that you don’t understand. If you are going around saying God does not exist, then you need a well thought out answer to the Question.
Best wishes to all

“nothing produced nothing” – that’s a rather clumsy straw man argument, Happy Christian. Undeniably, matter organized in an interesting way, a way that can understand and organize data. It happened, i.e. us. The probability of this ever happening naturally is not absolutely unlikely, but actually approaches “1” when you consider the timescale involved. Wait, you don’t believe that the universe is billions of years old, right? Oops, my bad.

In other words, if you had been paying attention, you would have realized that I had already answered your question. That is, of course, assuming you weren’t just playing this for all the “gotcha” you could get, and were consequently determined to misconstrue any answer that didn’t reflect the response you wanted.

Sorry to disappoint.

Pitiful… just pitiful.

^ I’m referring to the video, of course. Though HappyC might also fit the bill. S/he doesn’t seem to understand that the universe IS something in itself. (i.e. something ‘created’ something else) I suppose we can then back up the question even further and ask where the universe came from, but then we’re all in over our heads. As micketymoc said a few hours ago, I’m satisfied with not having all the answers yet. Filling the unexplained gap with a “goddidit” just doesn’t do much for me.

Cheers!

btw I meant the arguing in the video.

Ah, now you explicitly invoke the “first cause” argument… as I’ve just shown, it’s more an issue for you than it is for us. Either something can exist without a cause, or everything needs a cause. If something can exist without a cause, why can’t the universe exist without a cause? We at least have some pretty good evidence that the universe exists. If it’s God that exists without a cause, well, I’m open the possibility, but given the lack of evidence, it doesn’t appear likely. If everything needs a cause, and God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause of God?

As I’ve already explained, lack of knowledge is no justification for proclaiming the existence of your deity of preference. There are things we will surely never know, and several reasons for this: there are things we will not have time to investigate before the extinction of our species; there are things that are potentially discoverable, but will never occur to anyone; and there are things that are surely beyond our ability to comprehend (alas, ensuring the persistence of the god-of-the-gaps “argument”). The underlying cause of all existence may be such an unknowable, and if it is, our inability to explain existence does not and never will constitute an argument for any god.

You’d do well to remember that an explanation is only an explanation if it’s 1) true, and 2) comprehensible. Consistency will be a feature of an explanation (ie, it cannot contradict other things known to be true), but does not, in itself, offer any actual support for the proposed solution.

As for the faith cliche you throw in at the end… well, for reasons given above, I disagree.

Is it time to sing “Bloghide” again?

Trollin’ trollin’ trollin’…

J Myers said:

You’d do well to remember that an explanation is only an explanation if it’s 1) true, and 2) comprehensible. Consistency will be a feature of an explanation (ie, it cannot contradict other things known to be true), but does not, in itself, offer any actual support for the proposed solution.

This is debatable. Truth is a philosophical notion. As such, it is whatever we say it is. There are many definitions of truth depending upon the sphere to which it applies. If, as I assume you are, referring to scientific truth, then the degree of fit or correspondence with the larger system previously propounded is a test for truth, and implies that truth is a “fuzzy” category–it may be thought to come in degrees.

The history of science shows, among other things, that truth changes over time as the system changes and as models of increasingly better fit are advanced. I’m sure you can give examples of models or theories that are true in some cases, but untrue in others.

Thus, an explanation may be true here and false there without losing its status as an explanation.

by “true,” I simply mean real; actual.

We can get into an epistemological discussions about how we can actually know what is true, but as long as we agree that objective truth (ie, reality) exists independent of our knowledge and opinions, my point stands.

The “real,” “actual,” and the “objective truth” are all philosophical categories that are assumed to exist as a matter of practicality.

History shows that our understanding changes; whatever we know (or think we know) about a particular phenomenon does nothing to alter the actual phenomenon itself.

We never know the “actual phenomenon itself.” That is a metaphysical category that gives ground to theists who depend upon such things.

You’re trying to be positive about something that resists positive terms. I agree that “. . . anyone can introduce difficulties by toying with definitions . . .” But, I’m talking about the meaning of terms you are using as they bear upon the substance of argument, and I’m not trying to introduce difficulties for their own sake.

Happy Christian:

We have no idea what the first cause was (or if it actually exists). You can call it whatever you want, but that does not give us any information about any property of that first cause. Unfortunately, calling it God leads others to believe that this first cause is intelligent and supernatural, when if fact there is no evidence of this. If I decided to call the first cause “Joe Pesci”, it doesn’t mean that first cause has any of the characteristics of the Italian actor (although I’ve heard it doesn’t like the be told that it’s funny).

As for proving there was a first cause, it is still an open question. What seems intuitively true is not always the case when you spend some time looking at what is known about Physics. Things we take or granted as true at the macro level of objects we can see and touch don’t work the same way when we talk about atomic structure (i.e., quantum theory and the Schrodinger’s cat scenario). I’m not claiming to know there was no first cause, but I’m definitely not knowledgeable enough to claim there MUST be a first cause. Even the leading scientists can only trace back in time to just before the Big Bang happened; we have no idea what came before that. It’s conceivable that the universe has always existed, or that our universe is one of many in a multiverse, which has always existed. Again, these are just conjectures, but they leave the door open for no first cause to be needed.

A. All events have a cause.
B. The Big Bang was an event.
Thus: C. The Big Bang had a cause.

Like I say, for me, it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist.

Happy, syllogisms prove nothing because their suppositions cannot be proved. We cannot be sure that “all events have a cause.” Neither can we be sure that “the Big Bang was an event.”

But, to the salient points here:

First, as others have said, to fill a void of knowledge with such an idea as god is pointless if your goal is to understand what happened and how.

Second, as I love to tell theists who use the old arguments about ‘Unmoved Movers’ and ‘First Causes’ and all that jazz, if we really talk about the kind of Universe that you, as a Happy Christian, believe to exist, we’re not talking about an Unmoved Mover as Aristotle might have understood it–not the deduction of a syllogism in Natural Theology–we’re talking about the God of the Bible; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; we’re talking about the God that requires worship and obedience; the one that has a Chosen People; etc.

Now, to modern minds like ours, which is more likely to be your First Cause, if we suppose that there was one, though we cannot prove it, an undefined, omnipotent Designer or Builder of Universes, or the God that commanded his people in ancient times to go into a city, take it by force, and kill every living thing in it–Oh, and also wanted some of the booty for a sacrifice?

I’m going for the first One. But, as I said above, it’s pointless to use what we clearly don’t know exists to fill in the missing pieces of a puzzle that we are slowly putting together, though we have no way to know if we shall complete it.

It would take more faith than I can muster to be your kind of theist than to be my kind of atheist. I have to have a good reason to believe.

I have to have a cause.

Darryl wrote-
“I have to have a cause”
I get it! The old cause and effect thing, right? I think I’m catching on!

Also he said, “We cannot be sure that “all events have a cause.”
That’s good. We need to question “scientific things” because mankind makes scientific progress by asking and answering questions. And we all know that science is very unstable and fluid. Are there many absolutes in science? Little should be considered absolute in science. To do so is a good way to see scientific progress slow or stop. There are perhaps some questions that science cannot answer. We may need philosophy to help us so don’t throw it under the bus yet.

Keep wondering.

And the troll officially won. Way to go guys. You should’ve stopped responding a long time ago.

Happy Christian:

You have failed to answer my initial objection. Even if we concede that there is a first cause, that it must be supernatural or intelligent? If its not both of those things, calling God attaches a misleading label to that first cause. I doubt you have even the slightest amount of evidence to decide what the first cause was, so to assume that it is God is a huge leap of faith. Somehow, it seems to require more faith to jump to a conclusion than to say that I, nor anyone else, know what the first cause was, or if it existed at all.

I mentioned the Big Bang because that, so far, is the farthest back in time we know anything about. It had nothing to do with my argument that you, and anyone else for that matter, knows that at an atomic level every event must has a cause. If we take a look at, for example, quantum mechanics, we can see that causation may not work in a way that is intuitive.

Philosophers and physicists have debated about the possibility of backward causation, where an effect can precede its cause. Quantum theory suggests that one interpretation of the positron is for an electron (which has a negative charge) moving backwards in time would appear to have a positive charge (i.e. a positron). Or, if hypothetical tachyons (particles which theoretically move faster than the speed of light) actually do exist, they could transfer information backwards in time depending on reference frames. Scientists have not been able to prove or disprove the existence of these particles.

Obviously, the above does not prove or disprove a first cause; it is meant to show that intuition does not come close to adequately understanding the way things work, especially when we talk about things much smaller than we are used to observing (i.e. subatomic particles).

By the way, I’m a big computer nerd, so for anyone interested in quantum theory (or computing, for that matter), check this article out:
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5062

Happy, anyone may wonder about anything–that’s a good thing to do. The point is what one will do about the wondering. Will one open the Bible to answer questions, or will one trust the latest knowledge? You weren’t trying to imply that your famous biologist was using the Bible to answer his question were you?

I think Heavy may be right about you, that you are a troll. You seem to just be throwing out objections without any relevance.

HappyChristian:

I have no interest in discussing anything with you, since most people learn that circular definitions are invalid after they’ve left grade school. You’re definition of causality is laughable, and no philosopher or scientist would dare provide such a childish explanation.

According to Sowa (2000), up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:

1. “Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.

2. “Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.

3. “Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact.” (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000)

However, according to Sowa (2000), “relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience.”

(I stole this from Wikipedia, so everyone is aware that any idiot can find out about the basics if they take a second to look. Here’s a link to Sowa’s full article if anyone is interested, I’ll be reading more later on: http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/causal.htm)

I’m not an expert on the subject, but I’ve done 10 minutes of work and backed up my claim that you can’t rely on simple human experience to deal with the fundamentals of causality.

You also STILL haven’t addressed my initial objection, which seems to be a common technique among argumentative Christians when dealing with something they know nothing about.

I will have e.l. not because I deserve it, but because it is given to me as an absolutely free gift.

You’d be advised to put off studying Sowa and get back to studying what Christianity actually entails. Eternal life given as an absolutely free gift? Hardly. Free stuff is always cheap stuff. You’re right about this much: you probably don’t deserve it. If you had given your all and spared yourself nothing in the pursuit of truth, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, and you’d be worthy of everlasting life. It’s clear to me that you have not.

Happy, I doubt it.

You know what’ is ironic?
I always thought that early indoctrination (which is especially strong in Islam) completely atrophied critical thinking skills.

Yet, this fervent believer presented a fairly rational, lucid
argument against the concept of Trinity and its implications.
She can connect several dots to achieve this, but she can’t (or
refuses to) connect the two dots which separate “old man”+”preteen” from “pedophile”.

I don’t want everyone to be an atheist like me, but if people
applied the same standards they use on other people’s beliefs
on their own, there would be many less bigots (like these two) around.