[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Well, considering I took fine arts at community college and have no degree, you are probably better read than I am. I am to philosophy what you are to science, somewhat.

While I may be better read, I have little to no recollection of the early modern politically philsophical thinkers (Kant, Neitsche, etc). I remember the earlier writers much better, but still not to the point I'd be able to debate them.

Originally Posted by randilover

They can be, but that definition will change. The non-theist tries to come up with morals with no moral framework. It’ll collapse if that’s the case.

We've already discussed this point. I've argued in my opinion sufficiently to the contrary. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Don’t forget this one: GOOD- Being positive or desirable in nature

Originally Posted by randilover

But according to their definition of good, it does benefit them. That was his point. (You showing you hand here, saying killing someone for a certain reason is not beneficial.) What do you do with someone, like the Nazi’s, in his example. You either have to say their trials against them were unjust, or else they were wrong to do what they did. But if you say wrong, what are you appealing to?

But I'm not talking in terms of their limited self interest of good. I'm talking a universally applicable definition. Is it good for society accross societies to eradicate minorities?

Originally Posted by randilover

There’s nothing wrong with killing someone if you believe, as they did, that they were a detriment to their society. Their belief was one of evolutionary superiority, their race was better than the others. Since it was inherent in them that they were inferior, you send them to a concentration camp, get as much work out of them as you can, then dispose of them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, this was it’s outworking. Neitzche wrote about the death of God. Hitler was a Neitzche disciple. He based what he did off of his ideas and writings. His superman idea was taken right from Neitzche. You heard the speaker talking about Hitler giving a copy of Neitzche’s writings to Mussolini. According to Hitler, "God was dead," man could make his own rules.

Even if I concede the point you make in the first paragraph, the argument falls flat on the second. Every one of their beliefs they relied on were false. Therefor, their justification is non-existant.

Originally Posted by randilover

What about the examples he gives, the statistics on kids who are useless in the classroom due to not being able to concentrate? If you take hope away from people, you take away their reason to live. What do you tell a generation of people whoa re being raised with no hope communicated to them? What do you do to keep them going? Tell them, "No, those longings and deep questions you have are not real, just old instinctual reactions to left overs from your ascention from long arms and thick foreheads. Make up your own point." You take away their hope, you lose them. Either they will take the way of despair (as we see exemplified in the school shooters) or else some other explanation will come in and take over. Nature abhors a vacuum, right?

Belief and dedication to the Christian faith have given countless people hope and reason to "do good" however you want to define that. I have no problem with that. That dedication usually leads to a life that is productive and beneficial to others. That cannot be argued as a bad thing. Holding up to Christian ideals helps some people out, and it could even be said that it benefits society that live up to its ideals consistently. That, however, is not proof of its "truth." There are just as many people who have lived good lives without the need to be dedicated to Christianity. The problem arises when those who are Christian decide that everyone else must be Christian as well.

Originally Posted by randilover

Unless the one telling you the point was the one who designed the point, or very well is the reason for the point. ;-)

He never told me anything. I like Ravi's story about the guy who died and met God and said something to the effect of "you never gave me enough proof you existed." That is EXACTLY how evolutionists look at IDers. How can you look at the evidence and not be convinced? It doesn't make any sense to us, just as it doesn't make any sense to you.

Originally Posted by randilover

I’d also say, it’s more those who have not become wearied with pain, but those who are wearied with pleasure who are the ones who ask the question why. Think of Preds’ post on FF. He’s gotten to a point (as have most of us, it seems) where it doesn't really matter anymore. He was in pursuit of something, reached the goal and realized that wasn’t what he wanted. Deion Sanders said one of the worst moments of his life was after winning the Superbowl with the Cowboys. He got back to his hotel room, ordered a Lamborghini (I think) and said he felt totally empty. He had reached the pinnacle, and found out it’s empty there as well. He goes on to talk about his Christian conversion. G.K. Chesterton says if the problem of pain is a question for the Christian, the problem of pleasure is the question for the atheist. When the goal of a man is himself, and he reaches all that he wants, but still finds himself empty, what’s that say about his goal? Men like Satre and Oscar Wilde, both get to the end of their pleasure filled lives still asking questions, and very often denouncing those things that they pursued for their entire lives.

I imagine people get pretty self respective when they near death. Death is probably a scary thing. I don't put a lot of stock in the near death philosophy as anyone. Why would that give you more clarity to answer life's questions? I would think that when you are free from the iminent danger of death, you would be in a better position to reasonably weigh evidence.

Originally Posted by randilover

It’s not only that the theist isn’t wasting his time, but it should also make the point to the atheist to be sure of what he is doing, for there is no recovery from it. It’s an equation that, in one sense, is not balanced.

That doesn't answer my earlier challenge to it from the non-believers point of view.

Originally Posted by randilover

As for your question: Are you asking me why I follow Christ, or a hypothetical question of, "What if I am wrong?" I think I posted before on the first part on some reasons why. The greatest would be I know him. For the second, it’s a hard hypothetical to answer, as I know I’m not, so I’m not sure. Depends on which God I was wrong to, then the ensuing consequences.

I know well enough why you follow Christ. I want to know what you think about the posibility of being wrong. I know you think there is no chance. But consider it for a minute. Assume the consequences are the same for you as they would be for, say, me who does not follow Christ. Assume the other god, whoever it is, has the same consequences for someone who does not devote his life to worshipping him in the way he wants. What then? What does Pascal's wager tell you then?