Perhaps, if we could muddle through your destruction of grammar, spelling and punctuation.

I don’t follow, why can’t an all-powerful, benevolent, omniscient being rationally exist?

Suffering.

A benevolent being would want to prevent or stop suffering, or at the very least, avoid creating the possibility for its existence.

I understand that x, y, and z are your presuppositions. My point was that one of those presuppositons will most likely point back to your belief in God in order to justify condemnation. The question comes down to, if not God, what is the ultimate source of the condemnation?

Still, you can argue the validity of the logic all you want, but you can’t separate it from the assumptions, at least on a practical level. Otherwise, all it is is a philosophical exercise. Ultimately, it might improve understanding, but you still have to deal with the question of the assumptions.

If we were talking about knowing something with absolute certainty, I might agree with you that it takes something more than reason to believe in the non-existence of God. If I was to say “I know beyond the shadow of any doubt, that God doesn’t exist,” I would be well beyond anything I could rationally support. So, yes, that would take faith. That’s not what we’re talking about. When I say I don’t believe in God, what I am saying is just that. I don’t believe that God exists. As a practical matter, you can say that I believe God doesn’t exist, but that’s an imperfect comparison. In it’s most technical sense, believing that God doesn’t exist implies a certainty that is impossible to attain…not believing in God implies no such thing. But on a practical level, the effect is really the same.

Now, that having been said, there is a sense that “faith” could be applied to “belief” in my sense. The American Heritage Dictionary shows, as it’s first definition of faith: “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”

In that sense, I have faith in Bernoulli’s Principle–that every time I get on an airplane, the curved airfoils will create a low pressure area above the wings that will keep the airplane in the air (otherwise, I’d never go near the things!) But I have faith in Bernoulli’s principle because it can be routinely and consistently demonstrated to work, in at the airport, in lab settings, wind tunnels, or even by blowing on a piece of paper. (Anyone remember doing that as a kid?)

This is definitely not the “faith” that most Christians would refer to, nor is it the “faith” described in the Bible. The second definition in the AHD is: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence,” and the fourth is: “[often Faith Christianity] The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.”

In fact, Paul expressly argued against faith (sense 1) in several places: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17); “…That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1Cor 2:5;) “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2Cor 5:17.)

Before anyone says he was talking about something different–yes, I know he was talking about something different. That’s my point. Faith, as used by believers, is a very different thing from the mundane sense of faith…the faith that says “I believe God sent his son to be my savior” is a very different thing from the faith that says “I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow.” That’s why non-believers go to so much effort not to use “faith” (sense 1) in these kind of situations. It’s easier to use another word, say “trust, ” for instance, than to use a word that is automatically understood by a large portion of the population as “belief without evidence.”

That said, I can understand where some of your (all of you) frustrations come from. I have shared similar frustrations with Christians and non-Christians. I also, shamefully admit, that most modern Christian philosophers are pop-philosophers at the most and I personally find most of their arguments either circular or purely illogical.

With that said, and with only the evidence from this post (as I have no read any others), I still get the impression that you (generally) do not understand Christian “doctrine” or the “heart” of most Christian belief.

So, without getting to long winded, let me respond to a few parts of each comment, as I do not have the time to respond to all and feel like it would be somewhat futile if I did. However, if there is a pressing question you have for me that I skip, let me know and I will try to answer it with the best of my ability.

Josh,

However, if the evidence starts to turn against your position, you would not follow the golden rule. You would back off and say that all positions start from a point of faith and hem and haw and say that people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

“evidence” on its own can not be for or against a position. Only the interpretation of evidence can lead to a specific conclusion. Our interpretations are hopefully objective but rarely so.

I do believe in “faith”, but my belief in God is not purely based on “faith”. Most of the faith I have in regards to God is faith in his future promises. When considering the evidence for God, it wasn’t just logic and reason, it wasn’t just reading a bunch of letters written 1900+ years ago, it wasn’t just my experiences, it wasn’t just the testimony of other’s experiences, it was all of those, combined and probably some things that I’ve left out.

So, yes, there is an aspect of faith in everything we do… and yes, it is possible for some people to come to a different conclusion than I have come to. But I do not believe that both conclusions are correct – as I am sure you would not either.

Don’t be silly. If you didn’t believe in God – your definition of God – you wouldn’t have any reason to believe in that form of condemnation. Right? So the condemnation directly proceeds from your belief in God.

Not necessarily. Belief in God does not necessitate belief in condemnation. I do believe in God and I do believe in a future, literal Hell that will have some people in it. My presupposition is God… but there are many who believe in the same God I believe in who believe in annihilation, or universal salvation, etc.

Look at you. I’ve never talked to you before (that I remember) and you are already saying I am condemned.

Actually I was using “you” in a universal sense… I wasn’t *trying* to pass judgment on you. I actually have a somewhat skewed view of condemnation based on what I understand about God/Jesus/Scripture. From what I understand about salvation and condemnation, I have an idea of who will not be “saved” but am by no means the final authority on the matter .

So if a person were to say that God is an all-powerful, benevolent, omniscient being… by definition, that God cannot rationally exist.

I don’t follow, why can’t an all-powerful, benevolent, omniscient being rationally exist?

Or a person could make a claim about a deity that is completely worthless, like “God is above reason.” If God is above reason, then this means that God can both exist and not exist at the same time.

I actually believe that God cannot exist apart from reason. Rules of logic are a part of his nature, he cannot break them, he is “them” if you will. Not that “logic” is God, but I think you understand the point I’m trying to make.

And very few… very few at all! will actually change their conclusions out of honesty when it is pointed out that X is not true. They have too much at stake: family, friends, leadership, etc.

That’s not fair. It’s not nice. It’s not honest. It’s not just.

I agree.

Do not believe that another man is eternally condemned until your evidence is of equal weight to that type of condemnation.

I am not sure that I agree with this. I personally do not have an eternal measuring rod to weigh the evidence that someone will be eternally condemned. Further, for the sake of being a decent human, if I have even a shred of evidence that someone is going to spend eternity in Hell, then I believe it is much more noble to share that with someone, then to hold back until it actually happens. If it doesn’t, great… nothing was lost.

Brent,

OK, I’ll bite. Please tell me exactly how you come to believing that another human being is condemned because of ‘x,’ ‘y,’ and ‘z’ without ‘x,’ ‘y,’ or ‘z’ pointing straight back to God?

Actually X, Y, Z in my example were the presuppositions. So, belief in God would most likely be a presupposition in the believe of condemnation. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If you assume that someones presuppositions are true, it is not hard to understand why their believe in something else it true. That doesn’t make it true – but it’s a step in the direction of “understanding”.

so no one can ever be 100% sure that God does or does not exist.

I agree.

Seriously, though, I’m pretty sure you don’t believe that as written. If you did, you would, by necessity, be the most gullible person in the world.

Of course I believe what I said. And you’ve made an error, my belief doesn’t make me the most gullible person in the world. I said that it takes “more faith” to believe in somethings non-existence. That doesn’t mean that I believe everything exists… but that I exercise “more faith” when I believe that things don’t exist, like unicorns and Santa Claus.

But, maybe my “more faith” argument is flawed. Maybe it takes the same amount of faith, but a different way of applying that faith, I don’t know. I’ll have to give it more thought.

God Speed All,
Lew

Thanks for the encouraging words!

Now on to the original post.

>So, based on this standard, why is it wrong for me – the atheist – to genuinely judge the moderate Christian as intellectually dishonest and holding a double-standard?

Depends on the definition of judge though, I guess. I don’t think it is wrong to call those things out based on any standard, personally. To come right out and say that an argument is intellectually dishonest? Any time, any place. To identify a double standard? Absolutely. Those should be no-brainers in any discussion, no matter how cordial. Bear in mind that whether fundamentalist or moderate, by your definitions, we’re already wrong no matter how good our argument or how flawed theirs is. So I see no problem with being blunt. Tiptoeing around the question only adds to the sense of entitlement that they enjoy.

>My believing in God doesn’t lead me to believe that you are condemned for not believing in God. My belief in what condemns a man is what leads me to believe that you are condemned.

OK, I’ll bite. Please tell me exactly how you come to believing that another human being is condemned because of ‘x,’ ‘y,’ and ‘z’ without ‘x,’ ‘y,’ or ‘z’ pointing straight back to God?

>I’m not even sure it is possible to have evidence that proves something doesn’t exist.

That is kind of the point. There is no way to prove the absence of the unseen. There is also no way to prove the existence of the unseen, so no one can ever be 100% sure that God does or does not exist.

>In my opinion, believing in something’s non-existence takes much more faith than believing in something existence.

I kind of chuckled when I got here…my first thought was that you must have a hard time with leprochauns and faeries. Seriously, though, I’m pretty sure you don’t believe that as written. If you did, you would, by necessity, be the most gullible person in the world. If I told you that there was an invisible monkey living in my attic, you would believe me until it could be proved otherwise. (And since the monkey is invisble–and very quiet–it never would!)

That’s something we leave behind in childhood. When mom and dad tell us that Santa is coming, we happily get in bed, so he can come in unseen and leave us lots of cool stuff. When we wake up one year and see mom and dad putting all of Santa’s toys out, we may be able to convince ourselves that Santa’s already been here, and they’re just helping put everything in the right place, for a little while at best. Sooner or later, you face up to the fact that mom and dad are buying the toys, putting them there, and even eating Santa’s cookies and milk, and the carrots and water for the reign deer. You still can’t prove he DOESN’T exist, but the evidence says it’s unlikely. My guess is that most people, at that point, abandon any belief in Santa because it is overwhelmingly unlikely that he exists (at least in the form described by our parents.) This goes pretty much regardless of your desire to continue believing in Santa.

Why not continue to believe? Because the claim of existence is a positive claim that requires evidence. When you’re small, you overlooked the inconsistencies in the story–or didn’t even notice them–and the fact that the cookies, carrots and beverages were gone and there were presents on the floor, and in your stocking, was all the evidence you needed. When that evidence is discredited, you stop believing.

It’s the same way with God.