Questions from the UK

• How do you account for the fine tuning of the universe from the big bang?

How are you coming to the conclusion that the universe is “finely-tuned?” “Finely-tuned” compared to what? Is there another universe that we don’t know about? How many universes were/are not “finely-tuned?”

• What caused this beginning (whatever has a beginning must have a cause)?

A cause would imply that there exists such a thing as “before” the big bang. This is impossible because “before” and “after” are functions of time.  Time did not exist until the big bang, therefore to assert that the universe “must have a cause” is begging the question.

• If an intelligent designer doesn't exist how did life, with all it's vast complexity, even get going in the first place?

No one knows for sure.  But it is irresponsible and dishonest to fill in the blank with our favorite deity or fairy story and call that an answer. 

• Do you really believe that non-living matter evolved and arranged itself into something living and self aware?

I believe that life came about through natural processes that we don’t have enough information to fully understand.  I believe this because this has been our experience.  A host of things that were once thought to be the work of magic, sorcery, or supernatural entities (floods, earthquakes, plagues, eclipses, comets, mental illnesses) turned out to have natural, scientifically valid explanations.  I see no reason to believe that the origin of life is any different…especially when religion has been so wrong about so many other things

• If we live in a purely material world then how do we account for the many supernatural experiences that people have, such as encounters with God, ghosts, spirits, etc (obviously, exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways

Let me just stop you right there and say that you have almost answered your own question when you say “exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways.”  Therein lies the problem with the reliability of such “encounters.”

• but the fact remains that people encounter things that do not fit a purely naturalistic world view).

No, people claim to encounter things that do not seem to fit a purely naturalistic worldview.  The only evidence we have of these claims are the claims themselves. 

• Are we really to conclude that all of these people are delusional, deceptive, or mad? Or could it be that people are having real encounters with real supernatural beings not explainable through purely scientific mediums?

If none of the people who have claimed to have had these experiences were deceptive, delusional or mad, and if there were an objective way to independently test these claims, you might have a case.  But the fact is this: All of these claims are anecdotal.  You have no way of testing these claims.  Furthermore, when considering even the sincerest of claims of honest people, neither you nor they are aware of the environmental or biochemical factors that may be coming into play, causing them to see or experience what they think they are seeing or experiencing. 

• Where does all of the incredibly complex information come from that is stored within DNA? 

An excellent question. And I say again, no one knows for sure.  But it is irresponsible and dishonest to fill in the blank with our favorite deity or fairy story and call that an answer.  But I have a feeling you're about to....

•  Information doesn’t just appear by itself.  Someone has to put it there.

And you there you went.

• Why does humanity seem to have an innate desire and need to worship something, or someone? Why is there such a universal religious sense within humanity?

The prevalence of religious belief does not represent “an innate desire and need to worship something or someone.”  Religions developed as a way to understand the world that primitive men lived in and as a way to codify (and justify) the prevalent customs, practices and our species’ morality.  This is why some aspects of religion are universal (the “golden rule,” provisions against murder), and some aspects are divergent (polytheism vs. monotheism, matriarchal vs. patriarchal, moody gods vs. ambivalent gods)

And it is in the divergence of these religions that makes them suspect as a source of true knowledge about anything.  Take near-death experiences, for instance.  People raised in Christian cultures claim to see Jesus or Hell.  Buddhists claim to see Buddha, Muslims claim to see Mohammed, while Jews claim to see Abraham.

• Isn’t it a bit extreme to assert "God does not exist"? To make such a statement you would have to have complete knowledge and to have been everywhere in the universe.

And that is exactly why I don’t assert that a god does not exist.  Atheism is not the denial of the existence of a god or gods, it is the disbelief of a theistic positive claim.  The theist claims that a god or gods exist while the atheist is unconvinced.

•  Maybe God dwells somewhere in the universe you don’t know of or have not been to? Is that possible? 

It is equally possible that griffins, Jedi Knights and sugarplum fairies exist somewhere in the universe I don’t know of or have not been to.  But that is not a reason to believe that these things do exist and certainly not a basis upon which to believe that these things care about me personally or that I should live my life according to their alleged “revealed knowledge.”

• What about the evidence of design in all of creation?

 "Appearance" of design is not "evidence" of design.  

• It is obvious that anything that is designed has to have an intelligent creator. 

Not necessarily.  You can have something poorly designed that is the product of an unintelligent creator.

• For example, a computer never came about by mere accident, but had to have been thought out and planned by an intelligent designer. It is the same with creation, and more so, as the natural world is far more complicated than anything humanity can create.

You're exactly right! And if computers occurred naturally, you'd have a checkmate...but.

Computers don't occur naturally.  We can see them conceptualized, designed, and built.  We can go to where they are manufactured and see how the process works.  We can talk to people who build them....and even build them ourselves.  This is what separates nature from the world of machines. We can tell machines are manufactured because we have unmanufactured nature to compare it to.

If you propose a designer, where is it? How does it "manufacture" nature? Once it does, how is it shipped here? Why did it design so many things that went extinct because they couldn't adapt to conditions here on Earth? And if this designer is so intelligent, and capable of so much, it too must be too complex to have just come about without an even greater and more intelligent designer designing it.

• Where does all the matter in the universe come from?

If you are referring to the elements, nuclear fusion.  If you are referring to sub-atomic particles, etc., then as I said previously:  No one knows for sure.  But it is irresponsible and dishonest to fill in the blank with our favorite deity or fairy story and call that an answer.  

•  Why exactly is there something rather than nothing? 

Atoms are comprised mostly of empty space....so everything is comprised mostly of nothing...so the something you speak of is mostly made up of the nothing you claim doesn't exist.

• How do you explain the changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience with Jesus Christ?

I would imagine the same way that you would explain the "changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience" with Krishna, Buddha, Allah, Sun Myung Moon, Lao Tzu, Wicca, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Star Trek.

• How do we account for the historical Person of Jesus Christ? 

Considering there are no records written of him prior to 20 years after his alleged death (and those were  written by a man who claimed to have had a meeting with his ghost on the road to Damascus), and considering that the first alleged "eyewitness" account of his life doesn't appear until 60 years after his alleged death (ghost-written by someone who supposedly got the info from Jesus' buddy Mark), there really isn't much we can say about "the historical Person of Jesus Christ."...especially when you consider that the other biographies of his life not only came out around the year 100-150, but have all been edited for style and content for the last 1900 years or so

• He has made such an impact upon history that we even measure our calendar by Him.

Yeah, I'm sure that has absolutely *nothing* to do with the fact that Pope Gregory XIII is who set up the calendar we use today in 1562.  And i'm sure that Western Europe and America's domination of much of the world from 1600-1945 has nothing to do with it's widespread use either.  

By that logic, Odin and the gods of Scandinavia are real because we measure our week by them (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are all named after Norse deities). 

• 2000 years on and millions still follow Him.

If the age of a religion determines it's legitimacy, i've got some bad news for you.
Zoroastrianism (140,000-190,000 followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by at least 500 years (and bears a striking resemblance to christian theology).
Taoism (20-400 million followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by at least 400 years.Judaism (14.6 million followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by at least 1000 years. Now I know you guys claim lineage from the Jews, but even if I give you that.....
Hinduism (1 billion followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by about 2000 years.

Tragedy Compounded

In times of tragedy, I feel a sense of sympathy for believers.  Primarly because I used to be one.  Before I became an atheist, I remember when tragedies would strike, a part of me always felt a little bit angry.  I would always ask,"Where was God? Why didn't he stop this?"

The radical fundamentalists will often look for some "sin" on the part of the victims, or their relatives, or society at large to blame it on.  Much in the same way that this bozo did.

Many believers are not such ass-hats as this.  But their response was and is very similar to what mine once was. 

I would quickly dismiss the question and focus on finding the heroes: because after a horrific tragedy, especially one involving man's inhumanity to man, you need to reassure yourself that there still exists such a thing as good.  But I also put it out of my mind because my belief system did not permit questioning God, or "His ways" or "His Perfect Will."  We would always say that this was a great tragedy and we just didn't understand God's ways but we knew that when the roll got called up yonder in the sweet by and by, we'd understand and fully appreciate why this horrible thing had to happen. 

Only later did I realize how twisted this idea really was.

And any time one makes an excuse like this for why the all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present (and above all: loving) deity didn't show up to prevent a tragedy, they are essentially saying is that the tragedy is part of the divine will.

In other words, the deity wanted it to happen so he/she/it could prove some cosmic point.

Noted creationist William Craig Lane put it more bluntly when he justified the slaughter of children by the Israelites:

"God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit." Translation: "my belief system does not permit me (or you) to question God, or 'His ways' or 'His Perfect Will.'"

"The death of these children meant their salvation."  Translation: "the deity wanted it to happen so he/she/it could prove some cosmic point."

And here is where the horrible tragedy gets compounded.

When you see it this way, the deity not only allowed it to happen, but consciously and willfully wanted it to happen.

If the deity consciously and willfully allows a horrible thing to happen because it wants it to happen, the deity is the accessory to the perpetrator.   In a court of law, such actions would be a felony.

When viewed through this prism, it is easy to see how so many people become, as I did, completely disillusioned with theism in general, and christianity in particular. 

It all boiled down to one question that I could never provide a satisfactory answer for:

If you worship a god who apparently wants senseless tragedies to happen despite being able to prevent them, how can you honestly say that your god is good, or loving?

Who I Am.

So let me introduce....me.

I'm 38 years old. I'm a teacher by trade. I like good food, non-fiction books, sports and anything Star Wars-related. 

I've been married for 16 years. I have one child. 

I was a longtime believer.  Not a strong one. But a believer none the less.

I was a regular at church from the time I was 3 until roughly around the 3rd grade.  Just got tired of going.  Occasionally went on Easter and for family functions, but didn't go regularly again until high school.

Quit going regularly around my junior year of college....no reason, just lazy.

Married a girl who was a back-sliding baptist....like me.   Been married ever since.

But here's the thing....up  until 2009, I never once really questioned what I believed and why I believed it.  I was always uncomfortable discussing Jesus and "Gawd" with church folks, and never knew why.  Was it guilt? Maybe I just "knew in my heart" all along that it was all bullshit.

So, back to 2009.  I watched a youtube video that rocked my world.

I began watching more atheist videos.  Mostly old episodes of "the Atheist Experience." It was like a floodgate opened.  I became curious about science and I watched AronRa's  "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" series. ThunderFoot's "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?" I got on Netflix and watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." I felt ten years younger.

Unfortunately, there's a down side.

My wife has no idea that I have accepted an atheist point of view.

Quite frankly, i'm afraid of what would happen if I told her.  She comes from a family of fanatics...and has fanatical tendencies herself. 

As a matter of fact, very few of my family and friends know.  Most wouldn't care....as most are as apathetic about faith and religion as I was.  But for some, it could be quite traumatic.  Maybe one day i'll figure out a way to navigate all this.  Until then, I bring myself to the safety and relative anonymity of the internet.  "Just another freak in the freak kingdom."

More Dishonest Questions

I call these questions dishonest because they are not intended to evoke discussion as much as they are intended to "win" a "debate" with a straw man.

1/2. Do you believe energy/matter has always existed?

I have no idea and neither do you.

1A. Do you believe it existed within vacuum fluxes in a timeless, spaceless, matterless, void before a big bang?

You don't understand the big bang theory. If you did you'd understand that "before" the big bang is a nonsensical statement as "before"is a function of time and time did not exist until the big bang. You'd also know that space and matter were not "created" by the big bang, the big bang marks the beginning of their expansion.

1A-A/2A. Can energy/matter create itself?

I have no idea and neither do you.

1/2A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

Well, if I don't know something, then I can't know it.  If you knew, you wouldn't be asking me.

It is scientifically believed that energy (and matter) can't be created or destroyed, henceforth law of conservation of energy.

It has also been scientifically demonstrated.

For something to be labeled as science, it should be able to be observed, tested, and then repeated.
Since it's seemingly impossible to be able to observe whether something is eternal or not, (since you're not eternal you can't observe it) which means it's seemingly impossible to be able to test whether it's eternal or not since you can't observe it, which definitely means you can't repeat it if you've never tested it.

Perform an experiment where a reaction takes place that destroys matter and or energy.  Then book a flight to Sweden to collect your Nobel Prize. 

So it seems there are two possibilities: either the empirical data we have showing that energy is always conserved in actions and reactions can be logically extrapolated out to conclude that energy cannot be created or destroyed....or there exists some mysterious "source" for all the energy in the universe.  If you posit the existence of this source, i'd like to see (as i'm sure the Nobel Prize committee would as well) "100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof" of it.

3. Do you believe a mass of matter and energy rotated until it exploded?

I have no idea and neither do you.

3A. Did that mass of energy and matter create itself?

I have no idea and neither do you.

3A-A. Do you believe that all matter and energy in the Universe was created by a Big Bang 14 billion years ago?

No because that's not what the big bang theory states. The big bang states that the universe existed as a hot, dense singularity that started to expand 14 billion years ago.

3A-B. Were you or anyone existing today, existing at that point to observe this occurrence?

No. But I wasn't around (and neither was anyone alive today) when Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas in 1492...but I have a pretty good idea that it happened.  I wasn't around (and neither was anyone alive today) when dogs were domesticated, but i'm pretty sure that it happened as well. I don't have to personally observe something (nor do I require an eyewitness) to conclude that it happened.  All I need is to examine the available evidence and draw a conclusion from that based on what we know about how stuff works.

3A-C. If you didnt exist to observe it, how can you test it today?

Examine the available evidence and extrapolate based on what is known about how the universe behaves.

And wouldn't your tests be based on the assumption that it happened since no one was there to observe it?

All human knowledge is based on the assumption that we can know things.

3B. Can you repeat an occurrence that no one has observed?

No, but we can re-create what we think may have happened based on the evidence we have. We can also predict what we will find if the theory is valid.

3B-B. If you do attempt to repeat it, wouldnt the outcome be based on the assumption that it happened like you thought it did?

No, it will be based on what the experimentation data shows. What I think about it is irrelevant.  That's how science works.

3B-C. How not? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it wouldnt be)

Because evidence trumps everything.  That's how science works.

4. If I work to solve a math problem, and I start solving it at the middle of the equation will the outcome be an assumption based on the fact that I skipped half the equation?

No, your outcome will be wrong.

4A. If I started watching a movie half way through, will I truly understand the outcome since I missed the beginning the movie?

Depends on the movie. If I walk in halfway through a porno, i'm pretty sure I know what's going on.

Do you see that the ending is contingent upon the beginning and the beginning on the end? If you don't have the beginning the end result will be an assumption, which cannot be regarded as science, but religion.

Wrong. You are assuming that all assumptions are created equal and they are not.  Scientific assumptions are based on evidenciary support and extrapolations based on what is known about how the universe behaves.  Furthermore, they are always subject to change in light of new information.  

Religious assumptions are based on the untestable testimony of people who claim to have interacted with a supernatural entity (or multiple entities).  They are not subject to change in light of new information.

I assume there's an intelligent designer because I can't prove 100% that there is one. I believe theres one however.

On what do you base that assumption? Do you base it on "100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof" or do you base it on the testimony of someone else? If the answer is the latter, what makes that person reliable? Why should we believe them?

5. Since the beginning of your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science, how do you expect people to think it's not a religious belief, and why don't you think it's a religious belief since your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science

Because at no point does science allow for supernatural magic to suffice as an explanation for something it cannot explain due to lack of information.

Because scientific theories allow for change in the face of new information.

Because "science works, bitches." If it didn't, you'd pray yourself an antibiotic instead of getting the doctor to prescribe one.

For any of the previous or following questions, if you're going to fill in the gap by saying we don't have the answer now but we will in the future, answer me these questions.

6. Isn't that just the same as saying "god did it?"

No.  Saying that you don't know something because you don't have enough evidence at the time is nowhere near the same as assuming that "god did it." Saying "We don't know who killed John F Kennedy but we will with enough evidence," is not the same as saying "Castro did it!" One is an assumption based on prior experience (evidence has helped crack all kinds of murder cases before, no reason to assume that this murder is different), and one is a positive claim that immediately demands evidenciary support.

 You're not answering the question, nor are you admitting you don't know the answer, you're simply filling in your ignorance by giving an unreliable answer based on an assumption.

No, i'm giving an honest answer as opposed to a dishonest one.  To admit that we don't have enough information to make a determination one way or another is a fundamentally honest assumption based on prior experience.  To say "_____ did it" without anything other than "_______ said so" is fundamentally dishonest because you are making a claim to positive knowledge that you yourself admitted that you don't have.

6A. Can you predict the future?

I can make general predictions about the future based on prior knowledge. The sun will, in all likelihood, go down tonight. A restaurant worker will, in all likelihood, serve someone a bowl of soup sometime in the next 6 months. A bear will, in all likelihood, poop in the woods today. If such predictions were not possible, science wouldn't work, and it does. Now, I cannot make specific predictions about what will happen, when and where.  If I could, i'd be a lot wealthier.

6A-A Does predicting the future based on assumptions contradict the humanistic view?

It depends on what those assumptions are based on. If those assumptions are based on prior knowledge and accurate data, then no. If they are based on Madame Helga's tarot reading skills, then yes.

If you believe that what you experience through your 5 senses are the only things that exist, how can you try to predict the future since you can't see into the future?

6A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical, proof on how it doesn't, and how you can)

No one (credible) is claiming to be able to see into the future. But if we were not able to make predictions based on accurate data and prior knowledge, then science wouldn't work.  There'd be no new medicines, technologies or inventions.  We wouldn't be able to keep track of time because the sun could just as easily not come up as come up.

If I say what I believe is an assumption, nothing changes,

Only if you assume that all assumptions are created equal, which they aren't. If I assume that my car won't start because the battery needs replacing, that is not the same as assuming my car won't start because it's haunted.

I believe in the designer of the bible, and every word of the gospels of Christ.

Why do you believe in these things? Can you provide "100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical, proof" to support your belief?

I believe the bible for its valid history that even concurs even with secular history,

Captain America comic books contain "valid history that even concurs even with secular history," are they reliable as well?

for the fulfilled prophesies, and also for the stories and knowledge of this book.

Science Fiction works have made "fulfilled prophecies."  Jules Verne predicted manned moon missions in 1873.  Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek depicted hand-held communication devices with video and computer capabilities in the late 1960s.  They have also told stories with great moral lessons and such. Are they reliable for the same reason?

If science claims their findings are assumptions it wouldn't have scientific data anymore, it would have assumptiontific data.


Wow. Just, wow.

All human knowledge is based on the assumption that humans can know things. The question is not "what is an assumption and what is known?" The question is "on what are we basing our assumptions?"


7. If you had to show me one empirically, 100%, factual, non-opinionated, proof for evolution, show it with absolute solid, unarguable, infallible proof now.

 

Moment of high comedy in a local chain store

So I found this gem while shopping today:

Apparently Ray "Banana Man" Comfort would like us to believe that the bible is simultaneously scientifically factual AND "supernatural in origin."

If you are not familiar with the Banana Man: here's a primer:

And now Comfort wants us to trust the scientific validity of a book that:

-dates the earth at 6000 years.

-says that the moon is a light

-says that the earth predates the sun and stars.

-says that the earth has a solid "roof"

-classifies bats as birds

-mentions unicorns and dragons

-and features a talking snake and a talking donkey.

Ummmmmmm...........okay.

Conversation with a theist: the final chapter: the bible

And here we are in the last installment.

"A guy showed up 2000 years ago, did some pretty strange things and taught a pretty radical message. All evidence seems to suggest that he actually rose from the dead."

Now it was my turn to get pissy..er.  Science may not be my forte, but history's right in my wheel-house.

 Yeah, I must have forgot about that mountain of independently verifiable eyewitness accounts from the days of the event, None of which were written by his followers, fans or well-wishers beginning some 40-50 years after his alleged death. None of which were written after the first one of these alleged eyewitness accounts came out. And none of which have been carefully and selectively edited for content by generations of followers, fans and well-wishers....not to mention generations of socially, politically and economically interested parties, I might add.

"Actually, the first witness is 20 years after his death and happens to be a creed too. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)."
Oh. So we use the bible to prove the bible is true. Understood.

"You said the documents were too late and I replied that the earliest was 20 years after said event. I'm not using the Bible to prove the Bible, I'm using the Bible to prove Jesus and seeing as I'm treating it just like every other historical document, I haven't done anything wrong. You use historical documents about historical figures in order to prove anything about said historical figure."

 Ah, but you are not "treating it just like every other historical document" because you have accepted the authenticity of it without question and are not using other corroborating evidence from the period in question. You have done several things wrong that even a first-year history major wouldn't. First off, you don't "prove" anything in history. You provide evidence. You have one source, written 20 years after the fact, by a guy who did not know Jesus personally, but who had a religious experience where he claimed to have "met" the guy. (for comparison's sake, George Harrison claimed to have met Lord Krishna. People from all walks of life claimed to have been abducted by aliens). The only thing close to a primary source you actually have is the Gospel of Mark, written in either 64 AD or 70 AD by an unidentified author who claimed to have gotten all the details from Jesus' buddy Mark (and there is dispute as to which one of Jesus' buddies named "Mark" he actually was.) The facts are this:

1. You don't have anything written by Jesus himself.
2. You don't have anything written by anyone who personally knew Jesus or saw Jesus while he was alive written at the time he would have been alive..(you said it yourself, the earliest documents were written 20 years after his death by a person who's neutrality and objectivity is in question)
3. You are talking about a document that makes up a book that has been edited, translated, re-translated and checked for "content errors" by Church authorities for nearly 2000 years and any disputing evidence that may have been presented would have been considered heretical and destroyed.

No, we are clearly not talking about a document that has been "treated like any other historical document."

Conversation with a theist, part 4: morality

And here we are.  Failing to win with Kalam, our fearless hero tries a different tactic:

"Does it bother you that if atheism is true, it doesn't matter if you live like Hitler or Mother Theresa because there is no ultimate justice? If you live a horrible life and are happy while you live, you're better than the person who lives a miserable life trying to be good. Does that bother you?"

I'm bothered more by the thought that Hitler could've repented on his death bed and gone to heaven while 6 million of his victims suffer eternal damnation.

I'm bothered more by the fact that you seem to need the threat of eternal damnation to be a decent person. I behave like a decent person because its the way I was raised and I believe that doing so benefits me and society. I also have enlightened self-interest, I would not be stolen from, so I do not steal. I have this wild idea that life is all about the choices you make and if you make good choices good things happen, make bad ones and bad things happen. I don't need an invisible magic man to use the threat of eternal suffering to frighten me into doing good.

"Seriously? You think so little of us?"

Not all of you. There are people who choose to do good and people who choose to do bad in every group.

"Do you need the threat of going to jail to be a decent person?"

Obviously you think I do. After all, it was you who said that according to my POV,

 "If you live a horrible life and are happy while you live, you're better than the person who lives a miserable life trying to be good." When in fact that's nowhere near the truth. I don't believe that people who live horrible lives are truly happy...or at least not as happy as they could be. If you live a horrible life and are happy, I consider that either gross ignorance or a mental disorder.

"If not, why do you think we do?"

Why do you assume that if someone is an atheist that makes them a sociopath as well?

"We do good things for the same reasons that you do them."

Good for you then.

"We don't do good things to avoid hell."

But the fear of hell is at least part of why you came into the faith. You can't have a religion based on saving people from the crime of being a human if there's no "big bad" out there to "get 'em" if they don't come around.

"I can fit the number of times I have thought about hell in my life into a bottle. It was by no means instrumental to my belief."

But you do believe that a hell exists. And if you believe that this hell is the christian version of it, meaning that this hell is where non-believers go when they die, then it is instrumental to your belief. It may not have been instrumental in getting you to believe, but it is an integral part of your belief system.

"So, you're giving me a psychological assessment of myself? I think I'll pass, thanks, and just stay on topic. I just hope you do not think that of Christians in general since I can find no basis in reality for it. Perhaps, I should ask why you believe so?"

So you don't believe that a hell exists? Then what was all that ultimate justice stuff you were just talking about? You either believe that a hell exists to serve as a sort of anti-heaven where bad people go post-mortem or you are really gonna have to explain your ultimate judgement idea to me. If salvation is a part of this whole deal then there has to be something to "salvate" people from.

"Your idea that I remain a Christian because I somehow subconsciously fear hell"

You are putting words in my mouth. I don't think you fear hell at all because you believe that you've been saved from it. If I believe i'm bulletproof i'll fear no bullets. But in order to believe that I am bulletproof, bullets have to be an integral part of that belief system. If there were no hell to fear, being "hell-proof" would have no meaning. Without the perception of a hell to fear, christianity would not have the perception of salvation to offer. If hell is not an integral part of the christian belief system, why do christians refer to themselves as "saved"? "Saved" from what?

"If that were so, I would also believe in Islam too just because I'm scared it might be true and I don't want to go to hell."

Not necessarily. By accepting the validity of christianity, you reject the validity of all other religions....I mean, I do know enough about christianity to know that rejecting other POVs is sort of a "gotta do" thing when joining. If you reject islam as invalid, then you would have no fear of its version of hell. You can't fear something that you don't believe exists.

And that brings me to this point: I'm sure you have reasons for rejecting other faiths besides :well, christianity is just the right one." When you understand _those_ reasons why you reject those faiths, you will better understand my point of view.

"I'm rejecting those religions because the pieces of the puzzle do not fit them. They do not sufficiently explain the evidence."

What evidence, and how do they not sufficiently explain it?

"I reject atheism for the same reason. If that is the reason, you reject Christianity, we can have a good conversation"

I reject christianity because its claims, like the claims of most religions, are unverifiable, subjective, open to interpretation, and depend solely on "revealed" knowledge from a god that pretty much wants it all to be taken on faith. I will say that in defense of christianity, you guys don't charge people a couple of house mortgages before telling them what you really believe like the scientologists do....so that definitely weakens their credibility in my mind.

"it doesn't matter if you live like Hitler or Mother Theresa because there is no ultimate justice?"

How did Hitler live and die? He lived always looking over his shoulder for enemies and assassins. He lived in perpetual fear. He died cowering like the gutless coward he was in the basement ruins of the empire he built while the combined might of the civilized world (and even some of the uncivilized world when you thrown Stalin into that mix) was relentlessly hunting him. He is remembered by most of the civilized world as one of the worst human beings to ever live

"You think looking over his shoulder and dying in isolation is punishment enough for Hitler's atrocities."

You forgot being hunted by the combined might of the civilized world and remembered as one of the worst people to ever live. To answer your question, no. But nothing done to him would ever atone for the Holocaust. It'd have been nice to have seen him hanged in Jerusalem, but we didn't get to have that. So we hunt down the people who helped it, educate future generations about it, show them that if this could happen in Germany, it could happen anywhere, and to guard against allowing assumptions made in fear, frustration and ignorance to become policy.

How did Mother Teresa live and die? She lived a life of doing good for others. She died. surrounded by people who loved her and whom she loved with most of the civilized world remembering her as an icon of charity and everything good about humanity. She is even revered as a Saint in the Catholic Church.

Sounds like ultimate justice to me.

"The reward is not lasting so it has little meaning." 

It was meaningful to her and the people who loved her....why do you need to feel meaning from it? And what good has come of her example? How much work is being done because of what her life accomplished?

"If everyone has committed a moral crime and everyone deserves to be punished and the only person who accepts help is the one who least deserves it," 

If everyone has committed a moral crime then everyone is equally guilty then there is no such thing as "one who least deserves it." You are basically saying that Hitler's victims were no less guilty than he was. Remind me: which one of us believes that if you live a horrible life and you're happy then you are better off than someone who lives a miserable life trying to be good....because if we're all guilty of the same crime then that's basically what you're saying. 

Everybody, regardless of their persuasion, picks and chooses their morality. They do so based on a number of factors. Cost/Reward, socialization, the situation they're in, level of knowledge, level of enlightened self-interest, etc. You've found a moral code that works for you and fits your perception of reality. I've found what works for me. The difference is: my morality is terrestrial where yours is allegedly not.

"Hitler picked his own morality."

Yes. Yes he did. And he was a product of the prevailing morality in Europe in the early 20th century...which was that non-christians, non-europeans, and other "deviants" were not human. Hitler took that prevailing morality to its inevitable conclusion....if they're not human and represent a threat to "humans" then they should be eliminated. Had he lived in a culture that prized knowledge and common humanity over centuries-old religious, racial and ethnic bigotry, he'd have never had the opportunity to do what he did. Hitler accomplished the holocaust with a whole lot of help.

"We must not judge him" He was being sarcastic here...but isn't that kind of a fundamental Christian moral? Who's picking and choosing now?

Certainly not without judging ourselves. Hitler was not a monster that erupted from the mouth of some mystical hell dimension to torture us humans, he was one of us. Any one of us, given the opportunity and the right conditions, is capable of doing what he did. The minute we forget that, the minute we strip him and the other nazis of their humanity, we start down the path that they blazed.

"Morality exists regardless of what people think."

Morality exists because people think.

"People can pick and choose, but their choice is either right or wrong."

And whether or not its right or wrong depends on who's judging it right or wrong, and the context of that choice.

"Either I am right and you are wrong or you are right and I am wrong."

Or there are degrees of truth in both sides.

 
"If such a being above and beyond me exists, I must not be greater than it. It must share my rationality, creativity, dignity, sense of justice and and ability to love."

Ah, and once again, man has created god in his own image.

"My words are not an attempt to craft a god of my liking."

Oh, but they are. You want your god to be like you. To have your sense of justice, mercy and love. Said so yourself.

"I cannot be greater than God." 

Exactly! Crafting a god that is your equal or that you are better than would be like making a comic book super hero with no super powers or special abilities and who you could easily beat up. You want your god to be like you...only better.

   

Right about here, he starts getting pissy...

"To be an atheist ... I must realize that my sense of morality is mere stupidity,"

Nope. Just relative.

"Relative morality is what I deem stupidity, no offense"

None taken. Absolute morality is what I consider a reaction to the inability to comprehend complexity.

"my consciousness is an illusion,"

Nope. Just something we don't fully understand.

"and most importantly, that I cannot even trust the reasoning faculty by which I came to this knowledge."

If "Catch-22" taught us anything, it taught us that mistrust of your own faculties is a sign of mental health. It's also why we have peer review.

"The software on my laptop did not originate from the hardware but from an intelligent being. Give it a couple million years and it won't happen."

Oh. So I was manufactured somewhere and my consciousness was downloaded into me by some programmer. Interesting. I saw a movie that had that plot once. Keanu Reeves was in it. Pretty good flick. In that version, Keanu learned how to get kung fu downloaded into him. I liked it better than your version.

"evil does not really exist,"

"evil" is a intangible concept...a descriptive, not a tangible thing....and it's also relative

"So, some people don't like hurricanes, earthquakes, murder, rape and torture in the same way I do not like cheese and ketchup? Those things are not really evil?"

Hurricanes and earthquakes happen. They are neither evil nor good. If they were "evil" (by your definition), they'd only hurt "good" things and people...if they were "good" (by your definition) they'd only hurt "evil" things and people. Hurricanes and earthquakes (like all natural phenomena) are indifferent.

"murder, rape and torture"

These things are dependent upon your definitions and relative to your situations. If they weren't, there would not be any "degrees" or murder...killing a perfect stranger in a fit of drug-induced psychosis would be just the same as killing a spouse for insurance money which would be just the same as accidentally shooting someone which would be just the same as killing in self-defense.

Same with rape. A grown adult male marrying and (consummating said marriage) with an pubescent girl was perfectly acceptable back in the Old Testament times [in our initial conversation, he was defending the fact that the OT did not ban child molestation on the grounds that it was relative to the time period in question]....nowadays it is considered statutory rape. If rape is not relative, there should be no difference between assault rape, and statutory rape. And clearly there is. A stranger attacking and raping a woman on the street is not the same as an 18 year old guy having consentual relations with his 17 year old girlfriend....but according to your morality, they would be.

Torture's another one. Circumcising an infant with no anesthesia is considered cruel by some, but a holy rite of passage among jews. Should we contact the Geneva Convention next time someone holds a bris?

"You're still not getting my point. Let's pick one example. Intentionally killing a person who has done nothing to deserve it."

Good job of moving the goalposts. It depends on who gets to determine whether or not the person "has done nothing to deserve it".