Obviously

JimG
Your comment: It's easier to disbelieve god when confronted with the horrors that exist in "his creation" than it is when you're terrified and will grasp anything you think can offer hope. Or when emotion and fear override reason, reality is more malleable in one's mind.

rock9361
You could be right or perhaps there is more to this question. Not all theists are Christians, and not all Christians are going to have eternal life. Peter huddled with a few believers during the time of Nero who wanted to blame the Christians for the burning of Rome.

(By the way the behavior of the cowardly twelve disciples of Christ was different after His death and resurrection. The now courageous twelve disciples went out separate ways in the world to tell the story of Jesus Christ and eventually were brutally martyred. Where do you suppose they get this new found courage?)

Peter in a letter to these believers told them, “These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold—though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world.” 1 Peter 1:7

Bassam, a friend of mine currently living in Europe, was a Muslin, atheist, drug addict, and is a Christian - in that order. His journey to being a Christian began when he spent time in his uncle’s terrorist training camp. “If Allah is so great why doesn’t he just kill our enemy instead of telling me to do it?” This thought remained with him as he rose up in the ranks to become an acquiantance of the blind sheik who masterminded the bombing of the World Trade Center. Someone reported him and he was arrested by Egyptian police for reading a stolen Bible and becoming a Christian. He spent a year in prison - tortured, beaten, shock treatments, dismemberment, isolation (your typical Muslim evangelism). I once asked him how was he able to stand the pain? “Easy,” he said with a smile, “when the pain becomes unbearable, you just pass out.” At one point he was thrown into a cell full of notorious terrorists. The Egyptian police were expecting they would kill him. When prisoners found out he was there because he was a Christian they immediately separated from him like oil and water (just like Daniel and the lions). They knew what the police were going to do to him and did not want guilt by association. Several of these prisoners became Christians over the next few months. He was released because of the efforts of Amnesty International, Senator Brownback, and President Bush. He was told to leave Egypt; there was a death warrant for him if he returned. Bassam is a ferocious reader, a philosopher, lecturer, debater of all things Islamic and Christian, and is a writer who speaks several languages.

Point: Anyone who becomes a believer in Jesus Christ should expect his faith to be tested. And it will be.

Historical Note: Tacitus (c. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, has preserved a record of this situation. We quote the following from his Annals (XV.44).

“And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up [i.e., falsely accused] as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed [to being Christians]; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual.”

I never said that there were no atheists in foxholes. He is just giving us his experience. My question is why? If there is no god, why didl that become his default setting? Could it be that the concept of god is in our DNA and to resist it requires effort.

Maybe, “They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.” Romans 2.

@rock9361 I wasn't under the misapprehension you thought there are no atheists in foxholes; I thought it might be the quoted soldier's notion.

I do not think the concept of god is in our DNA, but rather, we have a propensity to uncritical thinking, particularly to confirmation bias and agency inference, and this in turn makes us predisposed to belief in the supernatural. And we have this propensity courtesy of natural selection. These mental tendencies were survival adaptations on the savannah, in the hunter-gatherer era, but have become increasingly maladaptive as we have moved to more complex forms of society, particularly, urban and technologically supported living. Assuming that rustling bushes were a predator was a survival advantage, but it has other effects including irrational fears, tribalism, stubborn attachment to snap judgments even in the face of later evidence demonstrating said judgments to be wrong, theism and other forms of superstition. It is true that we have to expend effort to compensate for these tendencies.

In a nutshell, aren't you saying that natural selection has done a crappy job. You also believe that society has gone from simple to complex. Are you ignoring entropy or just relegating it to energy and cells by saying it does not apply to sociology. I believe that we all function from one to two basic positions: big bang or intelligent design - God.

I believe you have not given proven or testable evidence for atheism.

I will give you an observance from science and the other an indisputable fact.

1. Let’s start with a bird’s egg which can range from one ounce to three pounds with an incubation period from two to seven weeks. Extensively studied by scientists, the chicken egg develops in a similar manner as all eggs do. Upon fertilization, protected by the hard shell, this “factory” kicks everything into high gear according to the DNA plan embedded within the egg. The first day the orientation of the embryo is established: front to back, top to bottom. Thousands of cells move rapidly according to the DNA blueprint as to where they are to function. On the second day the spinal cord, the eyes and ears, and vascular system is established. The heart starts to beats, the head moves to the fetal position and by the end of the second day blood vessels move fluid through the bird’s system. Billions of cells move quickly as a choreographed ballet. During the next 19 days the embryo, with speed and efficiency, develops all of its physical characteristics including its information machines and genetic instincts. After 21 days the chick instinctively begins to peck at the protective shell that has provided its livelihood and security.

Consider the Arctic Terns - Scientists have discovered that the Arctic Terns have the longest migration of any animal on earth - from their exact nesting location at the north pole to their nests at the south pole. Twice a year , terns spend most of their lives in the air. This is a roundtrip of 24,000 miles over the Atlantic Ocean. They have the ability to navigate over open waters, find food, and endure 300 miles of flight per day. The average Tern will make 30 migrations in a lifetime - this is equivalent to three excursions to the moon and back. The Arctic Tern is a living work of art requiring the highest degree of engineering. Intelligence - yes, natural selection - no.

2. Israel - Jews. Biblical prophecy. (1) Why has this tiny country with a small number of people been a constant burr under the world's saddle for most of history. (2) Why are Jews unique? They should have been exterminated or assimilated long ago.  But a Jew is still a Jew.  (3) Why are the countries who have opposed Israel, non-existent or in shambles (I’m speaking of Muslim countries today who are intent on Israel’s destruction.)

The Bible quotes God as saying, “Only I can tell you the future before it even happens.  Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish.” and “Long ago I told you what was going to happen. Then suddenly I took action, and all my predictions came true. For I know how stubborn and obstinate you are.  Your necks are as unbending as iron.  Your heads are as hard as bronze.  That is why I told you what would happen;  I told you beforehand what I was going to do.”

The Scriptures says God chose a nomadic heathen named Abram and changed his name to Abraham.

• God would make Abraham a great nation - Israel. (God chose Israel as a billboard throughout all of the millenniums of history of His authenticity.)
• Jews will last forever.
• Jews were given their own land -forever.
• Jews would be conquered and disbursed.
• Friends of Jews would be blessed, perhaps like America.
• Enemies of Jews would be cursed. perhaps like some in the middle east.

More Facts, same issue. Here are dominating forces who tried to annihilate the Jews:  The Ancient Egyptian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Phillistines, the Persian Empire, Assyria, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Spainish Empire, the Crusaders , Nazi Germany, and Russia.  Today, Muslins countries surrounding Israel are intent on her destruction. Notice that their societies are filled with blood, death, and tears. 

More that 4,000 years ago, God said in the Bible the Jews would be returned to their land (in 1948, the United Nations gave Israel statehood and land) and the the Bible says they would never be exiled again.

Jews validate God.

Arabs and other countries believe they will exterminate Israel. It will not happen - Biblical prophecy! You can bet on it.

@rock9361 I am not saying natural selection "did a crappy job" in the sense that all natural selection selects for is survival long enough to pass on one's genes. Natural selection is, by definition, always successful at that, or we wouldn't be here to discuss the matter.

I am saying that natural selection optimizes for survival, not for enjoyment, comfort, meaning, purpose, or other human objectives. Also, it is way too slow to respond to the recent rapidly increasing pace of change of parameters in the human condition; humans are mostly running "programs" from the hunter-gatherer era, while living lives in urban, technological, post-industrial, information societies. So while natural selection allows us to pass on our genetic information, it does nothing to make sure we'll enjoy the process.

The open question is whether humans will manage their own evolution as well or better than nature did. The jury's out on that one. Simply the failure to teach children critical thinking skills does not bode well.

Your arguments for the existence of god and the veracity of Biblical "prophecy" are perfect cases in point. They consist of, for example:

Argument from incredulity
Argument from ignorance
Argument from complexity
Begging the question
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Confirmation bias

But thanks for playing.

“I do not think the concept of god is in our DNA, but rather, we have a propensity to uncritical thinking.”

How do you know that? Do concepts reside in our DNA. Are concepts even that sort of thing to be “in”?
This remind me of a joke I heard years ago. there was this guy looking and searching the ground near a parking lot, some one passing by asked him what he is looking for he said I dropped my car keys. so trying to help him asked him where did he drop them so he could help search. The man said I dropped them over there under that bridge. Confused the other man asked if you dropped them under the bridge why are you searching here. He said because it is very dark under the bridge. That is exactly what you are doing. You were asked about where a concept came from and you answering by DNA and uncritical thinking.

Let us think critically about what you are saying. Leaving the logical fallacy aside namely the “no true scotsman” fallacy, because what you are saying basically comes down to IT. Anyone who disagree with me is thinking uncritically. Great. So giving your own philosophy of life, why should any one be critical? As a Christian I agree with you. We have to be critical because we are communed by God to do so: "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps” (Pro 14:15). How do we have the concept of “critical thinking”? Is that something in our DNA as you assume concept would be? Is that “concept” martial in nature? if not how could we have something immaterial in a materialistic universe? Are we morally under obligation to think critically? Is that moral obligation universal (objective) or is it your personal choice? if it is universal how do you that? if it is your personal choice why should any one follow your personal preference? I can go on but I think you get the point. You said something that seemed profound to you but upon analysis its nothing more than pseudo-profundity, I guess you need to think critically about what you say next time, particularly to confirmation bias and agency inference, and this in turn makes us predisposed to belief in the supernatural.

Again? let us be a little bit more critical and think it through. Why do you think those who believe in God have “confirmation bias” but not atheists?

I think you are missing the whole question, let me put the same question in other words. Why though out human history we find every culture predisposed to belief in the supernatural. I don’t think you are disagreeing or even refuting the fact. You are actually repeating it, the only thing you did is through your “confirmation bias” which you assumed uncritically dismissed the question as “predisposition to the supernatural”. Why ,why ,oh why people are predisposed to the super natural? Studying human history we don’t see the survival value of belief in the supernatural, in the contrary we find those who believe in God were often the subject to the most brutal form of persecution, whether we are talking about the Jewish people in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, or we are talking about Christian under Rome, Islam, atheist regimes of China or USSR. under what evolutionary paradigm you suggest, we understand the so called “predisposition”. Why would people continue to believe, even give up their own life (still going on today). I am afraid your confirmation bias is showing here.

And we have this propensity courtesy of natural selection.
We do? I am not sure if you know the logical fallacy you are committing and ignore them because of your confirmation bias and uncritical thinking IS. You don’t even see them.

“Natural selection” what do you mean by that? Do you mean nature select? if you do then that is two fallacies in two words.
1 - Personification fallacy: attributing personal quality to an abstract idea, nature is a collection of laws of physics, science, logic, etc . There is no volitional to such laws to select anything.
2 - anthropomorphic fallacy: attribution of human characteristics to something non-human. As Nature is a none human concept it doesn’t select and it can’t.
You uncritically attribute human quality of selection to nature, but again I think that is your confirmation bias showing one more time.

These mental tendencies were survival adaptations on the savannah, in the hunter-gatherer era.

Explain that please? How is a belief in God has a survival value? And explain that naturally, please try to work with the Ingredients you have - namely materialistic inverse. In other words, explain it with what is only perceptible, Otherwise, you have to abandon your worldview as it doesn’t (and couldn’t) provide to you what is needed to make reality intelligible but have become increasingly maladaptive as we have moved to more complex forms of society, particularly, urban and technologically supported living.

Again could you please stop pontificating and just give some kind of proof to what you are claiming. A proof that is consistent with your own worldview. Remember what was the question? "where did the concept of god come from?”
Instead of answering the simple question you related it in other words talking about predisposition to the supernatural, attributing this (through fallacious reasoning) “nature”, then pontificating about survival adaptation on the savannah. Do you know what religion or concept of God they had during the Savannah living era or you are just guessing? Do we have any evidence dating back to 2 millions years ago (the time of human supposedly thrived on the savannah.

Assuming that rustling bushes were a predator was a survival advantage (ore pontification), it is a lovely story but that is all what it is, a story. You might use it to convince yourself uncritically as it matches your confirmation bias, but it doesn’t hold under scrutiny, but it has other effects including irrational fears, "Et tu, Brute”, there are two things here.
1- It would be very easy to say atheist have irrational fear of God and that is why they don’t think critically and rather follow fairytales like the survival value of believing in God, but that wouldn’t be very charitable of me.
2 - You are talking about “Irrational fear” as there is some thing called rationality. Doesn’t rationality presuppose the laws of Logic - universal, abstract, unchanging law? if so, could you please explain to me how could such things exist? How could we have such laws giving they claim the whole of the universe is materialistic in nature?
If such laws couldn’t exist in your universe, I would suggest you either abandon using them and embrace absurdity, or abandon such a foolish worldview and embrace God. Also, would you mind telling me if humanS are under moral obligation to be rational? if so, is that obligation objective? if so, how could we have objective moral obligation login your worldview - theism and other forms of superstition?

You mean like the belief in spontaneous generation of life? The use of logical laws while professing a worldview that couldn’t possibly allow for their existence? Speaking as if there is an objective more standard while denying it at the sometime? I actually haven’t come across a life system that is more irrational than atheism (and that includes all primitive religions). You are holding to the most absurd worldview that ever was, but then again absurdity presuppose laws of logic which can’t exist in an atheist worldview so you needn’t bother about absurdity.

The above argument was contributed by a friend of mine. Bassam, a friend in Europe, was a Muslin, atheist, drug addict, and is a Christian - in that order. His journey to being a Christian began when he spent time in his uncle’s terrorist training camp. “If Allah is so great why doesn’t he just kill our enemy instead of telling me to do it?” This thought remained with him as he rose in the ranks to become one of the Koran readers for the blind sheik who masterminded the bombing of the World Trade Center. His father reported him to the Egyptian police for reading a stolen Bible and becoming a Christian. He spent a year in prison - tortured, beaten, shock treatments, dismemberment, isolation (your typical Muslim evangelism). I once asked him how was he able to the pain? “Easy,” he said with a smile, “when the pain becomes unbearable, you just pass out.” At one point he was thrown into a cell with about 20 of the most notorious terrorists in Egypt expecting that they would kill him. When they found out he was there because he was a Christian they immediately separated from him like oil and water. They knew what the police were going to do to him and did not want guilt by association. Seven of these terrorist became Christians over the next few months. He was released because of the efforts of Amnesty International, Senator Brownback, and President Bush. He was told to leave Egypt; there was a death warrant for him if he returned. Bassam is a ferocious reader, a philosopher, lecturer, debater of all things Islamic and Christian, and is a writer who speaks four languages.

@rock9361 >>>“I do not think the concept of god is in our DNA, but rather, we have a propensity to uncritical thinking.”

How do you know that? Do concepts reside in our DNA. Are concepts even that sort of thing to be “in”?<<

Dude. It was YOU who asked "could it be that the concept of god is in our DNA and to resist it requires effort". I was simply responding to that. Near as I can tell you don't think the concept of god is in our DNA, and neither do I. Do try to keep up.

Secondly, I am not saying that disagreeing with me = not thinking critically. I AM saying that not thinking critically = not thinking critically. I have yet to meet an apologetic that represents critical thinking. You are free to demonstrate such. I'll wait.

Critical thinking is not "immaterial", it is an abstraction and meta-concept (thinking about thinking and how best to go about it). I did not invent it and it is very well described and tested by smarter people than either of us. Please do not commit category errors trying to shoehorn in alleged supernatural / immaterial concepts / natural laws and attribute them to me when I am talking about no such thing. Please do not act like it's some weird fringe idea I pulled out of my rectum rather than a well-established and tested idea that has been the basis of rational inquiry for, oh, a few hundred years now.

If you want to know what I mean by natural selection, read up on it from actual sources rather than approved evangelical sources. And make sure you understand what the concept actually does and doesn't mean so that you don't straw-man it. Hint: it does not attribute agency to the process, nor, on the other hand, is it "random". It is a simple function of better survival adaptations surviving to reproduce, worse ones, not surviving. It does not "care" about anything. Simples.

If you're not interested in substantiating your truth claims then continuing this conversation is not worth your time, or mine, or anyone who might try to follow it. If you're not substantiating your assertions with actual evidence (Pro tip: your holy book or teachings or appeals to Josh McDowell or CS Lewis don't constitute evidence or argument to us) then you won't get any purchase on a site like this.

You can of course declare victory based on my refusal to argue on your terms or accept your "evidence", so there's that. Your call.

@mordant I am saying that natural selection optimizes for survival.

I am sure you don’t see it, so let me try to point it out.
You are saying always work because it is optimised for survival. How do you know that the best for survival were elected? you would say because it survived.
That makes natural selection a tautology, you are saying the survival will survive. or what ever nature selects is what it selects.. alright thanks for explaining.
That would make “natural selection” unfalsifiable because as you said it is true by definition.
By the way rational people don’t argue by defining their position to be true because that is how it is defined, that is irrational and primitive way of thinking.
when ever we are trying to use more than one category “best to survive” and “natural selected” we need away to differentiate between those categories. what are the promoters for your two categories “best to survive” and “naturally selected”

not for enjoyment, comfort, meaning, purpose, or other human objectives.

Great now we are getting somewhere. could you please explain to me how those things ended up being part of our reality. how could we drive meaning. etc from atoms?

So while natural selection allows us
personification fallacy.. “allows” presuppose volitional. something nature doesn’t have and can’t have.
it is very amusing to me when atheist give divine attribute to nature.
The jury's out on that one.
I think the jury’s are out on anythings including how life began, evolution of the stars, the existence of mind, concepts, universals, indignity overtime, memory, personal identity.
As Thomas Huxley once said “The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

Simply the failure to teach children critical thinking skills does not bode well.
You mean we should teach children not to accept fairytales like life emerging from non-life, morality from non-moral, complex from simple, rational from non-rational. atheism indoctrinate children in the most dull and uncritical theory known to man. you still teach gradualism a theory was laughable when proposed by Anaximander 600BC and still laughable when it is proposed by stephen jay gould in the 20th century.

Argument from incredulity
Argument from ignorance
Argument from complexity
Begging the question
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Confirmation bias
let say for argument sake they are. that assumes we have to follow universal laws of logic by which I am allegedly guilty of violating, well how can we have universal laws based on atheism worldview? if such laws don’t (or can’t) exist then my alleged irrationality shouldn’t be an issue, if they do I would like you to explain to me how in an atheistic worldview we have universal laws of thought, logic, and rationality?

@rock9361 Natural selection is a mechanism and we're describing how it works. It works by favoring those organisms that survive to reproduce over those that don't. This is simply an observation. If you've ever observed that organisms that survive to reproduce tend to not survive ... or that organisms that don't survive to reproduce tend to survive ... do regale us with your insights.

I do not say that meaning is driven "from atoms". It is simply what we each find meaningful. There is general, but not universal or specific, agreement on what is meaningful, because humans are more similar than different, yet of course not identical.

Meaning and purpose are individually determined / experienced / found. A stamp collector finds stamp collecting interesting and meaningful and purposeful, a stunt driver or rocket scientist might not.

Logic in the context of this discussion is reasoning according to principles of validity, for a specific definition of "valid". What is [in]valid is not some eldritch "law" floating around in the ether, it is simply observed [in]consistency with reality. Logical fallacies are not laws, either, they are simply observed patterns of logical inconsistencies, the practical value of which, is to help us understand where our imperfect mental processes are most apt to break down. You cannot disacknowledge the utility and importance of these things by concocting false equivalencies to idealized "absolutes" that you fancy are (1) required and (2) inherently null and void absent an arbitrary enforcing "strong man" source for them.

On a personal note, my life is more, rather than less, meaningful to me than it was as a believer. I don't have to expend energy reconciling lived experience with, e.g., "the promises of god" or what I know of science with bronze and iron age superstitions, for example. This has cleared up heapin' helpin's of cognitive dissonance for me, and greatly improved the quality of my life decisions, and made my expectations of life far more realistic. It has also made me a better citizen and human being, as I do not sort people into categories of "correct" and "incorrect", "my tribe" and "not my tribe", etc. I am not resistant to your ideology, I have simply lived it and found it wanting, and am happier divorced from it. I say that, just in case you're laboring under the typical misconception that I'm angry at an entity I don't even believe exists, or resistant to the fact I secretly believe it exists, or seeking moral license or any number of other things. I am as I am because I have found it far more logically consistent and consistent with lived experience.

Unless we can agree on a basic approach to how knowledge is judged to be [in]valid, then we are just blowing smoke up each other's patooties. When I was a believer, I, like all other people, did not change until the pain of changing my beliefs was less than the pain of keeping them. You aren't going to change your beliefs until your abstractions leak sufficiently, either. So the only objective of a convo like this is, gaining real understanding into each other's true thought processes and motivations. I already know Christianity from the inside, in fact better than most as I had some formal education in theology; I very much doubt you know nearly so much about what atheism actually is and isn't. If you're genuinely curious about it, I can tell you what I know from this side of the fence; if you simply want to convert me because my lack of affirmation and agreement with your theology is personally offensive and threatening to you, then, again, it's just a waste of time and I am not interested -- and you shouldn't be either, really. I mean, why bother?

@mordant Good question. Why bother.
Because I am looking (for long time now) any atheist who actually could be consistently atheist, who could live consistently with the philosophy and the reality they profess. the only one who came close to that was Nietzsche he go so close then he said "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar” (Twilight of the Idols).. who knows maybe you’re the one.

@rock9361 Well now we are getting away from all the Gish Gallops and having a more format-appropriate discussion.

What exactly do you feel is "inconsistent" in most atheists? People aren't entirely logical 100% of the time, and atheists are no different in that regard, but I find most of them to have decent levels of intellectual honesty and integrity and to have arrived where they are for similar reasons, if you actually take the time to unpack what they're saying.

Also, where does Nietzsche's critique of Platonic forms come into it?

Let me answer this replay as one unit.

I have no doubt that atheists have decent level of honesty, integrity, and morality in general.
I have never claimed they don’t, in fact I insist they do even sometimes more than Christians.

My charge is not that atheist have no morality or rationality. rather my charger they have no foundation to it.
when atheist act moral or rationally they are basically intellectually schizophrenic, let me try to explain this point so we are clear.

We both have two different worldview, mine is a supernatural one that means I believe in the existence of martial and imterial things, I believe human are not the standard and messier of knowledge, and there are Universal laws guaranteed by an all knowing God who created the universe and sustains the universe. I have to be rational because rationality is a reflection of God who doesn’t lie.

On the other hand atheists believe we came eventually out of nothing, only matter exist in the universe, there is nothing immaterial etc.

rationality, integrity, and morality require something other than matter. You can’t drive an ought from an is. Law if they are not universals they are not laws, but if they are then they are knowable by human brain.
So when ever an atheist appeal to laws of any kind or talk about a moral issue they are going against the professed worldview. this issue is of an importance it drove modern day atheist philosophers to either deny the existence of consciousness like in Daniel Dennett work

"Consciousness Explained” where he ended up explaining it away as illusion, or Sam harries work “the moral landscape” where he tried to argue morality is what makes greater happiness for greater number. both attempts are huge failures based on even atheist reviews.

Because we have different world-views when we argue we can’t appeal to data because data is pre-interpreted based on one’s worldview. argument over data works within worldview and not across it. across worldview argument ends in the way described by Wittgenstein
“Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and a heretic” (on certainty ). does that means no cross-worldview discussion. not att all. we have to employ what is in logic called "reductio ad impossibilem” or proofing by contradiction. it is the method of proof used in mathematics to prove for example there are infinite prime numbers, or the irrationality of the square root of 2. and it works this way, assumes the opposite of the conclusion we want to prove and if it leads to contradiction or abusiridy then that conclusion is true by necessity.

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt put it this way: “The claim that a basis for doubt is inconceivable is justified whenever a denial of the claim would violate the conditions or presuppositions of rational inquiry”.

Here Christianity is actually making an extraordinarily claim. that claim is “Christian worldview is the foundation of all human knowledge”
refuting this claim is very easy procedurally, pick something we know and give us a foundation of such knowledge apart from Christian worldview. By knowledge I mean justified true belief, that is rational, no begging the question and not contrary to your own professed worldview. Nietzsche qouat was an illustration to this point. He understood very well if there is no God then there are no universals and that includes language. if you think you can have foundation for language without a christian worldview please go ahead and argue such claim.
If I am not clear I can explain further.

@rock9361 "My charge is not that atheist have no morality or rationality. rather my charger they have no foundation to it. ... when atheist[s] act moral[ly] or rationally they are basically intellectually schizophrenic."

Well if I understand you correctly you're saying we do behave morally and rationally, but this doesn't "count" because you don't like us being moral or rational unless we do it with the right foundation. In other words we're not doing it right.

Imagine for just five minutes how that sounds to me. Imagine I said to you, rock, you are a fine human being, but you're doing it for the wrong reasons / motivations so I'm going to regard you as faking it or insincere or at least I'm going to deny you personal credit for your own goodness.

It seems to me that the criteria for whether a person is immoral is that they do immoral things, and conversely if they are moral, we can somewhat objectively determine that by the fact that, you know, they behave morally.

And if the true goal is to behave in a moral / ethical fashion, then we should look at people who behave morally and ethically and see how they came to have those values and to adhere to them even under pressure -- even when, as they say, no one is looking. And then we would determine what various good moral actors have in common -- not how they conceptualize or explain morality, but how they reliably and successfully live it out. What we would NOT want to do is engage in presuppositionalism -- to say, well, people are only good because of god, so only godly people are truly good, so I'm going to explain away or at least heavily discount observed goodness if the person doesn't believe in god.

My guess is that neither of us would ever cheat on our wives or have sex with our children or surreptitiously poison our noisy next door neighbor or maybe even not pick up our dog's poop on a walk or fail to keep our lawn mowed or pay our bills on time. Let us assume for the sake of argument anyway that it never even crosses either or our minds to behave any other way than to be kind and responsible and ethical in such matters.

It follows then that whatever je ne sais quoi enables that, it has nothing to do with our existential beliefs, such as whether or not we subscribe to supernaturalism. The fact that both of us were taught from the cradle that is all because of god's supernatural influence via the holy spirit is the 500 pound gorilla in the room, that we tend to give credence to because everyone in your life now and everyone in my life when I was still a practicing evangelical, affirms that this is the cause.

But now we have a problem: I left the fold decades ago and nothing about my morality changed. I didn't sink into depravity or start bending the rules (nor, by the way, did my exit have anything to do with a desire, overt or not, to be free of such restrictions -- or to even SEE them as restrictions; I never chafed at them to begin with). If anything, my adherence to morality is more remarkable because there's no longer an overlay of concern that if I started "sinning" that god might punish me (now or in eternity) or that the church might ostracize me. Or, given that my parents are no longer with us, that my parents would be displeased, etc. I still have my integrity and virtue intact. The sky did not fall.

You could try to argue that my current morality is just a carry-over from what was installed in me when I was still a believer, but that would make you guilty of a clear post hoc fallacy. It COULD be at least partially true, but the simple fact that the events were in that sequence do not prove it to be true. Especially when atheists who are NOT deconverts, or who are deconverts from religions other than Christianity (or some branch of Christianity you disapprove of) or just plain theists who adhere to other religions, can also be extremely moral and selfless. One can easily find examples of those. And also -- not to put too fine a point on it -- one can also very easily find examples of fundamentalist Christians guilty of either perpetrating gross immorality, or excusing and enabling it in others.

My contention is that the common thread -- the thing that makes both of us good moral actors, is empathy. Or in scientific terms, we posses mirror neurons (normally most of us do -- sociopaths / psychopaths excluded of course) that allow us to, in colloquial terms, walk a mile in other's shoes -- including not just other persons but our own future selves. This last, enables us to defer personal / instant gratification in the service of longer-term objectives, even to sacrifice our very lives for a sufficiently important personally held principle, or for a loved one's well-being and safety.

The notion that everyone's morality would go off the rails without a black and white moral code backed by a strong man's threats, is manifest nonsense that does not line up with experienced reality.

That you don't understand how this could be, or that it conflicts with your understanding of how morality is supposed to work, is kind of beside the point.

Part of our past conversation, you have been talking to Bassam. I want to introduce him to you now.

But first, not everyone who says they are Christians are going to heaven. The apostle Peter (soon to be martyred) wrote a note to the Christians living in Rome during the time of Nero. This is part of what he wrote to them:

“So be truly glad. There is wonderful joy ahead, even though you must endure many trials for a little while.  These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold—though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world.” 1 Peter 1:6-7

Historical Note: Tacitus (c. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, has preserved a record of this situation. I quote the following from his Annals (XV.44).

“And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up [i.e., falsely accused] as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed [to being Christians]; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual.”

One Point: Anyone who becomes a believer in Jesus Christ should expect his faith to be tested. And it will be.

Part of our conversations, you have been talking to Bassam. I want to introduce him to you now.

Headline: Daniel thrown into the lion’s den.

Bassam, a friend of mine currently living in Europe, was a Muslin, atheist, drug addict, and is a Christian - in that order. His journey to being a Christian began when he spent time in his uncle’s terrorist training camp. “If Allah is so great why doesn’t he just kill our enemy instead of telling me to do it?” This thought remained with him as he rose up in the ranks to become close to the blind sheik who masterminded the bombing of the World Trade Center. Someone reported Bassam, he was arrested by the Egyptian police for reading a stolen Bible and becoming a Christian. He spent a year in prison - tortured, beaten, shock treatments, dismemberment, isolation. I once asked him how was he able to stand the pain? “Easy,” he told me with a smile, “when the pain becomes unbearable, you just pass out.” At one point he was thrown into a cell full of notorious terrorists. The Egyptian police were expecting they would kill him. When prisoners found out he was there because he was a Christian, they immediately separated from him like oil and water (just like Daniel and the lions). They knew what the police were going to do to him and did not want guilt by association. Several of these prisoners became Christians over the next few months. Upon his released because of the efforts of Amnesty International, Senator Brownback, and President Bush, Bassam was told to leave Egypt. There was a death warrant out for him if he returned to Egypt. Bassam is a ferocious reader, a philosopher, lecturer, debater of all things Islamic and Christian, and is a writer who speaks several languages.

zing! Cassius Clay might be a better interpreter here maybe

Is it easy to say there is no god when we are warm and comfortable. Would it be different if, for example, we were tied up with a group of Islamic terrorists who are preparing (getting their cameras ready) to cut our throats? The Bible says death is the last great enemy. And while you are at it, maybe you can tell me where the concept of god came from. The concept of god may go back to the Paleolithic age before 30,000 B.C. (Pearson 1999, Clark and Riel-Salvatore 2001) What do you think might be the genesis of the concept of god? I know you are confident there is no god but, maybe, it goes deeper than you believe.

@rock9361 What are you saying that if we were poor and sad we would believe in God?

An old English nursery rhyme could come under the heading of “missing the point”:
“Pussy Cat, pussy cat where have you been. I went to London to visit the Queen. Pussy cat, pussy cat wha’d you do there. I chase a mouse under her chair.”

Jolanta asked: “What are you saying that if we were poor and sad we would believe in God?”

What I’ve experienced when talking with atheists is that they can easily ding off on a tangent instantly to avoid something. I think my previous comment was unambiguous. Obviously, you missed the point.

rock9361 responds: If we (two rich people - you & I) were tied up with a group of Islamic terrorists who are preparing (getting their cameras ready) to cut our throats, what would each of us be thinking? The Bible says "death is the last great enemy.”

What I am saying is that maybe upon death’s door, each of us might give intense thought to our views of life and death.

My father was an “alpha dog” type of a person. He ran three of the largest auto agencies in Chicago before he was recruited to run one of the seven major military motor pools in Europe. On the flight to Germany, he got sick and was returned to Chicago. Cancer! He lived about 5 years when I was called to his bedside. When I arrived and upon seeing me, his face lit up, he smiled and said, “I am ready. I am ready.” He was ready to see his Savior - “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” He believed the invitation of Christ when he said, “Whoever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Bassam, a friend in Europe, was a Muslin, atheist, drug addict, and is a Christian - in that order. His journey to being a Christian began when he spent time in his uncle’s terrorist training camp. “If Allah is so great why doesn’t he just kill our enemy instead of telling me to do it?” This thought remained with him as he rose in the ranks to become one of the Koran readers for the blind sheik who masterminded the bombing of the World Trade Center. His father reported him to the Egyptian police for reading a stolen Bible and becoming a Christian. He spent a year in prison - tortured, beaten, shock treatments, dismemberment, isolation (your typical Muslim evangelism). I once asked him how was he able to handle the pain? “Easy,” he said with a smile, “when the pain becomes unbearable, you just pass out.&rdquo At one point he was thrown into a cell with about 20 of the most notorious terrorists in Egypt expecting that they would kill him. When they found out he was there because he was a Christian they immediately separated from him like oil and water. They knew what the police were going to do to him and did not want guilt by association. Seven of these terrorist became Christians over the next few months. He was released because of the efforts of Amnesty International, Senator Brownback, and President Bush. He was told to leave Egypt; there was a death warrant for him if he returned. Bassam is a ferocious reader, a philosopher, lecturer, debater of all things Islamic and Christian, and is a writer who speaks four languages.

Jolanta, you are free to believe whatever you choose. Let me repeat it again so you don’t miss my point: You are free to believe whatever you want.

I am confused. You are an atheist on an Agnostic site tell us that God exists! Really.