[RubberMallet]

i'll still sleep.

[Liberty4Life]

You can say 'well, look at all the violence that has been done in the name of God' as a proof of atheism.

It's not.

Someone killing someone in the name of 'God' doesn't disprove God.
JW Booth killed Lincoln in the name of the South. That doesn't mean that the Confederacy didn't exist.



Tim Keller's book basically says this: You say you can't believe in a God because God does X (let's say, 'sends people to Hell' in place of X). Well, Keller argues, there are cultures who would say 'I won't believe in God because God DOESN'T do X.' But neither of which disproves God. All it proves is that you are trying to compartmentalize God into your pre-conceived ideas. Maybe, and just maybe, you are not the epicenter of the universe and therefore, God is not contingent on how you feel at that moment.

(And that's my huge problem with Oprah. She falls into the 'I feel this way, therefore, God cannot exist' mentality.)

[GoUNCA]

Without having read the book, I'm confused as to the point of the book. Deconstructing Atheist's arguments against God is great and all. But such a deconstructing is not a proof of God either. If anything, placing atheism or agnosticism on the same plane as Christianity (or "belief" in general) weakens the position for God as well. So it is kind of a moot point. So what if Atheism is a religion? That places Atheism as just another religious choice, further diluting the probability that it (or Christianity) is the "right" religion. Going through a book to point out that Atheism is just a new theism seems like a waste of paper to me.

Seems to me like he read a lot of CS Lewis and then wrote debate rebuttal style. I imagine he restates Plantinga and argue that Naturalism is a "long shot" without a God (a silly defense I think). I guess my point is that, while probably well-written, I don't see anything in Keller that is original. I mean it's great he restates different philosophers ideas in a single source, but it is undoubtedly better to view the primary source on your own and synthesize your own judgement. Looks to be a book just to push book sales.

[RubberMallet]

the deconstruction is part 1 of the book. the evidence for christianity is part 2 of the book. read it.

[ALUmnus]

Looks to be a book just to push book sales.

Yes, it should be every author's goal to write a high-brow book that nobody will read. I see your point. The next time I am in Barnes I will set fire to the children's section, it's worthless and I end up wasting all my time in there.

[GoUNCA]

Looks to be a book just to push book sales.

Yes, it should be every author's goal to write a high-brow book that nobody will read. I see your point. The next time I am in Barnes I will set fire to the children's section, it's worthless and I end up wasting all my time in there.

Missed the point, but still funny.

[RubberMallet]

oh and this book is a result of the new atheist movement which is alot stronger than the old. they aren't mearly tolerating ID they are out to destroy it. this is the first all encompassing book that looks to address it. while he does include many quotes from cs lewis and his counterparts its mostly his own interjection that has our biggest skeptic in the office dumbfounded....literally.

[El Scorcho]

Adding this to my Amazon "to read" list now.

[RubberMallet]

a guy at work saw me reading it and started asking questions.

he brought up the euthyphro dilemma, which is not touched on in the book but gave me that ability to ask him questions that he couldn't really answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

we also talked about what good actually is. my answer to that dilemma was that God neither is held to some moral law or creates moral law or what is good(morality is arbitrary). God in his nature and character is good. God IS good, he isn't held to some higher law of good nor does he decide what is good.

and what we know is good comes from moral intuition. we know what is right and what is wrong. even societies untouched by the outside have this in them.

he contended that the morality we have is evolved because its logical.

we don't steal because we don't want to be stolen from.
we don't murder because we don't want to be murdered ourselves.

i pointed him to game theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory the idea is that given choices, humans usually choose the illogical choice.

i contend that not stealing because we don't want to be stolen from is a ) illogical from a standpoint of survival of the fittest (if you can steal and get away with it, you don't have to worry about being stolen from. OR you are more powerful than the other in which case they have no method of reciprocation and b) i look at it from this standpoint. what you basically are doing is saying "i wouldn't want to be stolen from, therefore i won't steal. which gives some semblance of compassion for others which based on the idea of "survival of the fittest" is really illogical.

he actually didn't have much to say. unfortunately none of that is in the book at least from what i can tell and may be entirely a horrible response. but it either made sense to him or i confused the living daylights out of him.

[flamesbball84]

a guy at work saw me reading it and started asking questions.

he brought up the euthyphro dilemma, which is not touched on in the book but gave me that ability to ask him questions that he couldn't really answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

we also talked about what good actually is. my answer to that dilemma was that God neither is held to some moral law or creates moral law or what is good(morality is arbitrary). God in his nature and character is good. God IS good, he isn't held to some higher law of good nor does he decide what is good.

and what we know is good comes from moral intuition. we know what is right and what is wrong. even societies untouched by the outside have this in them.

he contended that the morality we have is evolved because its logical.

we don't steal because we don't want to be stolen from.
we don't murder because we don't want to be murdered ourselves.

i pointed him to game theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory the idea is that given choices, humans usually choose the illogical choice.

i contend that not stealing because we don't want to be stolen from is a ) illogical from a standpoint of survival of the fittest (if you can steal and get away with it, you don't have to worry about being stolen from. OR you are more powerful than the other in which case they have no method of reciprocation and b) i look at it from this standpoint. what you basically are doing is saying "i wouldn't want to be stolen from, therefore i won't steal. which gives some semblance of compassion for others which based on the idea of "survival of the fittest" is really illogical.

he actually didn't have much to say. unfortunately none of that is in the book at least from what i can tell and may be entirely a horrible response. but it either made sense to him or i confused the living daylights out of him.

So you basically ignored the whole legal system, which is a legitimate reason not to steal. For survival of the fittest, the strong survive and pass on their genes to offspring. Can't impregnate people in jail as far as I know, unless you are in some sort of co-ed jail

[flamesbball84]

Secondly, you can make an argument that showing compassion towards others is beneficial in survival of the fittest. The more you are compassionate towards others, the more other people are likely to help you out, which can potentially increase your chances of survival. It's much easier to survive with the help of others than it is to go it alone. Helping others, or at least not harming, is an investment in the survival of mankind.

[RubberMallet]

where did this legal system come from?

your attempt to be combative on this topic is pretty much fail.

[RubberMallet]

The more you are compassionate towards others, the more other people are likely to help you out, which can potentially increase your chances of survival.

thats not compassion. that is expecting to get something out of you helping someone.

[flamesbball84]

The more you are compassionate towards others, the more other people are likely to help you out, which can potentially increase your chances of survival.

thats not compassion. that is expecting to get something out of you helping someone.

compassion doesn't truly exist then if that's how you want to define compassion. you don't do something if it doesn't benefit you in some way. if someone doesn't want to steal because they don't want to be stolen from, then they do so because it benefits them, not because they have compassion for others.

[RubberMallet]

its not my defintion. "Sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it." it has nothing to do with reciprocation.

[flamesbball84]

its not my defintion. "Sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it." it has nothing to do with reciprocation.

and people gain a sense of satisfaction and/or happiness when they help others, at the expense of the person they are helping, do they not? therefore, when you commit the good deed, you have the expectation of receiving satisfaction/happiness from act of the good deed.

[RubberMallet]

you are showing me compassion by giving me the lols.

[flamesbball84]

you are showing me compassion by giving me the lols.

People don't do good deeds unless they expect of a positive benefit in return, rather it be their own personal gain or societal gain (which is beneficial to the individual). Refute it instead of skirting around it.

[RubberMallet]

theres nothing to skirt around, you are arguing that compassion is helping people to get something in return which its not. i've already refuted everything you've said. does it feel good to help someone? sure. obviously. but thats not why people show compassion or at least not why they should.

[flamesbball84]

theres nothing to skirt around, you are arguing that compassion is helping people to get something in return which its not. i've already refuted everything you've said. does it feel good to help someone? sure. obviously. but thats not why people show compassion or at least not why they should.

and you just proved my point - true compassion does not exist because people gain from their good deeds.

[RubberMallet]

also compassion would not have evolved. corruption and power would overtake compassion easily. that fact it still exists is a testament to God

[RubberMallet]

theres nothing to skirt around, you are arguing that compassion is helping people to get something in return which its not. i've already refuted everything you've said. does it feel good to help someone? sure. obviously. but thats not why people show compassion or at least not why they should.

and you just proved my point.

pfffa hahahahhahh

[flamesbball84]

theres nothing to skirt around, you are arguing that compassion is helping people to get something in return which its not. i've already refuted everything you've said. does it feel good to help someone? sure. obviously. but thats not why people show compassion or at least not why they should.

and you just proved my point.

pfffa hahahahhahh

true compassion does not exist because people gain from their good deeds. you say that in the quote at the top of this post - "does it feel good to help someone? sure."

[RubberMallet]

you are confusing the act of gaining something vs the expectation of gaining something.

i can have compassion and put down a dying animal and i can guarantee you i most certainly will not get anything for that good deed. nor would i expect to gain anything from it.

[LUconn]

you are such a toolbag. Just because you feel good for helping someone, doesn't make it any less compassionate. You can't just add characteristics to definitions.