First, Hitler was NOT atheist. Yeah. Sorry to disappoint. And to crush your argument at the same time. And secondly, even if he were atheist, so what? He was also dark-haired. Does that make dark-haired people dangerous? It's called an inductive process, and it's the kind people often decry.

It's very difficult to know with any kind of certainty about his beliefs – his public and private statements conflict and contradict so often. The argument that some anti-theists will use: that he was a catholic and thus his actions are just another example of the poison of religion, is equally misguided. While he did identify with Catholicism, it was very much an opportunistic ploy (Bavaria is very Catholic after all), and he certainly had some amount of disdain for religion and the church.

Normally I read the reply not about dark hair – but that Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches, does that mean moustaches are bad etc. But that is someone disingenuous – clearly moustaches have nothing to do with the kind of ideologies they promoted, but institutional atheism clearly does have something to do with the Marxist ideology of Stalin and Mao (who didn't have a moustache)

You’re fairly late to the party. Although I thought I had shut the comments on this post a while back.

Let me address your comments.

1. I’m not ready to call other people with differing ideas smug. Just the new atheists. Smugness is endemic amongst your ilk (and by yours I mean those atheists who trawl the blogosphere looking for things to disagree with).

2. I would contend that this is not always the case. Once a philosophical hypothesis (like atheism) has been established it is very rare that an observation comes first.

3. Hitler was certainly not a Christian – and I think you’ll find that despite your assertion to the contrary – it is more likely that he was an atheist who used Christianity and its mystical elements for his purposes.

You’re right about the debate not ceasing – and your advice is pretty on the money.

Thanks for stopping by.

1. At how Christians are so ready to call other people with differing ideas on life and spirituality "smug". Well, if atheists are smug, at least we have a good reason – we get to really enjoy life while you just retain your illusions.

2. At how the scientific method is so (deliberately?) misunderstood. Science doesn't start with hypothesis. Science starts with observation; only then does the scientist ask "Why is this?" and starts coming up with hypothesis which he will then test.

3. At how Hitler is still brought up as a valid argument in every debate about atheism. First, Hitler was NOT atheist. Yeah. Sorry to disappoint. And to crush your argument at the same time. And secondly, even if he were atheist, so what? He was also dark-haired. Does that make dark-haired people dangerous? It's called an inductive process, and it's the kind people often decry.

But oh well. The debate will never cease. It can't even oppose atheists and christians. It only opposes narrow-minded people with open-minded people.

And oh yeah, piece of advice to all Christians out there: be nicer when talking about your religion. Please. It could actually make me believe once again that Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love. *cough*which it really isn't right now*cough*

Of course, we're not talking about a natural resurrection, but a supernatural one. And in order to eliminate the possibility of that you would first have to show empirically that the universe is causally closed (and I'm assuming, as no one has, that you probably can't). So then if it is not impossible (and we don't have to assume it is definitely possible, only that it might be possible) and it explains the known facts (i.e. Jesus was dead, his tomb was empty, people had what they called appearances of him, the unlikely birth of the church etc) better, more comprehensively than any other explanation than it is likely to be true. It is the normal argument to best explanation:

"if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#Ar...

All I got was asked questions myself.

Anyway, I won't go into it much more here, I think people have pointed out how well your JAAL campaign is working, plenty of other places to visit yet!

I mean, so much discussion! This campaign is really achieving that goal hey! :)

BTW what footy team do you have faith in? We can discuss that faith too if you like :) same thing really, just a belief, just opinion.

When smug people like you represent God, then God is weak. You are lacking in knowledge of the Bible and you are lacking of good intentions. You catch more flies with honey, not with ill-intentioned declarations of battle.

If you believe in the Holy Spirit than you need an intervention. Find yourself. For you are not doing God's work, you are pushing people away, you are doing the work of the Devil. A proud, smug, righteous individual who triumphantly believes he knows better than his foes. So did Lucifer.

Christianity is about atonement, sacrifice and good works. Many have exploited this in the name of selfishness and profit, (ie: the Crusades, the 30 Years War, the Hollocaust of both Jews and Native Americans), yet the greatness of Christianity is judged by the greatness of its disciples.

Even if you made buttermilk pancakes for the disabled veterans of America, you do your cause harm by your smugness. You have become what you detest the most and you need to put yourself in check.

Take a long hard look at yourself before you throw stones in glass houses. For he who is without sin does not exist, as Jesus deemed, and the only one who can judge a man's heart is God.

Lead by example, not force.

This has all been fun. But it’s over now. Thanks for coming all, I hope you’ll stick around for further bouts. I write about atheism about once a week.

Just so you know – the comments here were mostly in violation of my commenting policy – which I documented here.

In closing – the question of morality is an interesting one, I’ve touched on it in this post about Atheists and Hitler – but will explore it further in the next day or so.

Thanks boys and girls. Especially to the snarky atheists who did their best to prove my point…

The idea that humans are inherently bad is one of the most destructive ideas in Christianity.

As for the genocide, slavery, rape, and intolerance I mentioned, those are all from well-known parts of the Bible. As I Christian I assumed you would be familiar with them.

Of course intolerance isn’t always bad. Intolerance of homosexuality is bad. Insisting that women be subservient to men is bad.

If you don’t understand my moral system, I suggest reading some Marcus Aurelius and some Kant. It’s not uniquely mine and it’s not exactly new. Causing other humans to suffer is generally considered to be immoral.

I believe there was a Trojan War. And I believe there was an influential figure named Yeshua in the Jerusalem area around 30 AD with new (for the area) religious and social ideas. And there some people a little later who wrote about him, and some of them synthesized it with the emerging Greek philosophical monotheism.

But nobody really worked miracles or came back from the dead, because those are just story elements that appealed to people of that culture and that place and time, like countless other people in countless other cultures.

So plausible empirical evidence is empirical evidence?

I don’t accept your moral grading of God, because 1) I don’t understand your moral grading and 2) I have serious questions about its moral efficacy.

If you’re going to tell me what God did and why, you’re going to have to give me the Bible references, so I can deal with them.

I’m also not sure why intolerance can’t be good in some instances. And the Bible seems to claim that people are actually not good, because well, your moral code and the Bible’s are different. You know by your code that people are good, so you’re unfairly grading another system by your standards.

Suspect is a bad choice of words, I apologize. Why is it automatically discounted?

So, we’re looking for texts that support the resurrection, but if they include supernatural elements, those texts are suspect?

I disbelieve the reference to the Trojan war because of how I have read that text, I don’t think it was intended to be historical. I have a different understanding of the Gospels, again based on the text itself.

Finally, while I don’t believe in the cause of the trojan war, I do believe that there WAS a trojan war.

So the question is now one of plausibility?

Of course. How else would you determine what to believe than how plausible it is?

I can understand, since there is evidence of many of the things you claim are implausible. So, what makes something plausible?

Empirical evidence.

Why is any recorded evidence of a resurrected Christ implausible?

Because people don’t come back from the dead. But people are known to make up stories about things.

The harm to others hypothesis as a basis of morality seems to me to suffer from similar vagueness. So, do you mean others as in individual people, harm to others as in many people, or harm to others as in humanity in general? Indeed, do you mean “others” as in humans at all, or life with emotional capacity, or life generally, or other creatures?

Similarly, while I can see clearly how killing would be “harm” to that person, it doesn’t take much to imagine situations where allowing certain people to live would be harm to others. Indeed, that was the claimed rationale behind most self-claimed atheistic regimes forcibly eliminating pesky clergy people (short pain to avoid long term harm to people). So you can understand why I would ask such a question of an atheist. How does your morality function in relation to that?

It is a complicated question. That’s why philosophers, ethicists, and artists have been thinking and writing about it for the past few thousand years.

In short, why should I apply your moral standard to God,

Why wouldn’t you?

and how would that moral standard differ from the actions we see claimed for God in the Bible?

God starts off by punishing Adam and Eve for seeking knowledge. He orders the Israelites to kill off other tribes, or kill the men and enslave the women and children, in order to establish their kingdom. He orders them to kill people who won’t accept him as the one true god. He orders homosexuals to be killed. He orders children to be killed for disobeying their parents. None of those are good reasons to kill people.

They may have seemed like good reasons to the people who wrote the Bible. Most of their customs are no more violent and intolerant than other people in that period in history. But coming from a loving god, they don’t make any sense.

In the New Testament, he demands that people worship Jesus or they will burn in hell. Since we know that people can be good to others without worshiping Jesus, or without even having heard of him, this is clearly not a loving thing to do.

Don’t forget the Bible, which is linguistically and stylistically different from the myths you refer to (Dionysus for example, had a recurrent resurrection in a mythical realm). Why are the Gospels and the epistles automatically suspect?

Because all written historical accounts are suspect, especially when they involve supernatural elements.

Or do you believe the Trojan War started because Eris threw a golden apple into the wedding of Thetis and Pelues?

As to the resurrection account, it is more likely than the Osiris account since Osiris never was claimed to have physically been resurrected. He is depicted as being “alive” in the Spirit realm. That is a different claim than the Gospel one for Jesus.

How does the fact that it’s a different claim make it more likely? People claim all kinds of things in literature.

Thanks especially to Patrick, sorry I didn’t get to reply to much later in the conversation, but it’s always a pleasure to run into someone who enjoys thinking, whatever their persuasion.

Let me just address a couple of points made by this last commenter first…

“Atheists have already won the intellectual debate.”

Only in their own minds. And only if “victory” means having the loudest voice on this particular post and in your own little blogosphere. You do not win a debate by shouting the loudest, nor by finding a publisher for your vitriol and selling a lot of books. That’s not how debate works.

“Most of us have also taken the next logical step and developed (and continue to develop) individual moral frameworks through introspection and continued study of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, religion, mathematics and science.”

That’s great, I hope you’re able to convince all the other atheists – and even the agnostics – to live by this moral framework. The world will be a nicer place.

“Congratulations on bucking the odds and remaining woefully and willfully ignorant in the age of information and technology.”

Are you suggesting that the age of information and technology has led to less ignorance? I suggest you are wrong – it has led to more spam, pornography and photos of cats. People writing things on the internet creates noise and clutter to search through, it is harder, not easier, to be properly informed.

“The only battle we’ve yet to win is the PR battle, thanks to ignoramus’ like you”

I’m not sure that needed an apostrophe – I suggest you wanted to use the plural of ignoramus which would be ignorami? Or something? I don’t know what ownership you’re implying. I would not have pointed this out if it wasn’t for the irony. And the name you’ve put down when filling out the comment form.

The other ironic thing is that my tips, understood rightly, would have possibly been helpful in the PR battle – and yet you, and your tribe, have done more damage to your cause than good.

“The only reason the most vocal of us are becoming louder and harder to ignore is because religious stupidity is endangering our societies and world”

I suggest the danger being caused to the world is a result of human stupidity and will carry on regardless of religions. I suspect religion has been a vehicle of convenience for the power hungry, rather than the root of evil – and this is actually explained better by Christianity than by any other world view.

Gee, I wonder why the PR battle is not going well…..

Congratulations on bucking the odds and remaining woefully and willfully ignorant in the age of information and technology. You can thank God for that. You’d think He would’ve given you more sense than that, but then He didn’t want to give us knowledge in the first place now did He?

The only battle we’ve yet to win is the PR battle, thanks to ignoramus’ like you and pompous windbags spewing hatred and vomiting self-righteous pompacity from pulpits every Sunday seemingly without a tittle of a notion of the repercussions of their bigoted idiocy.

The sad part is, every atheist I know has very little real impetus to shout their atheism from the rooftops. The only reason the most vocal of us are becoming louder and harder to ignore is because religious stupidity is endangering our societies and world to the point where we realize we must be heard and make a stand for rationality and to try to ensure the progress of humankind and the humanities as a whole, without the scarred baggage of an abusive, personal relationship with Jesus or any other whore pimping his god-damned religion!

Don’t forget the Bible, which is linguistically and stylistically different from the myths you refer to (Dionysus for example, had a recurrent resurrection in a mythical realm). Why are the Gospels and the epistles automatically suspect?

The Christians that did exist seem to refer to Jesus as historical, see, for example, the Gospel of Luke.

As to the resurrection account, it is more likely than the Osiris account since Osiris never was claimed to have physically been resurrected. He is depicted as being “alive” in the Spirit realm. That is a different claim than the Gospel one for Jesus.

The harm to others hypothesis as a basis of morality seems to me to suffer from similar vagueness. So, do you mean others as in individual people, harm to others as in many people, or harm to others as in humanity in general? Indeed, do you mean “others” as in humans at all, or life with emotional capacity, or life generally, or other creatures?

Similarly, while I can see clearly how killing would be “harm” to that person, it doesn’t take much to imagine situations where allowing certain people to live would be harm to others. Indeed, that was the claimed rationale behind most self-claimed atheistic regimes forcibly eliminating pesky clergy people (short pain to avoid long term harm to people). So you can understand why I would ask such a question of an atheist. How does your morality function in relation to that?

In short, why should I apply your moral standard to God, and how would that moral standard differ from the actions we see claimed for God in the Bible?

And on the equivalence of a resurrected Jesus Christ (for which we have some evidence of having existed in history) and the flying spaghetti monster (who was made up to make fun of theists)

What evidence are you talking about? I’m aware of the passages in Josephus that talk about the existence of Christians, as well as the famous 4th century addition saying that Jesus was the messiah. I believe there are people like Tacitus who talk about the existence of Christians, but if any contemporaries of Jesus wrote anything about him outside the gospels, I’m not aware of it. Do you have any references?

Please note the distinction: the existence of Christians is not controversial, but it also doesn’t mean that Jesus existed, any more than the existence of Hindus means that Krishna exists.

You say that there’s evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. What is this evidence? Is it better than the evidence for Dionysus’s resurrection, or that of Osiris? Or that Jim Jones was a reincarnation of the Buddha?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn was invented to make fun of Christians, but also to make a point about the plausibility of supernatural entities.

Truthseeker: So the basis of that morality is harm to other humans? So, assuming that the existent God is actually who the Christians claim He is (the loving creator of humanity, who is omniscient and good), and that a human is kinda like most humans (fallible, unknowing and often quite selfish) I don’t see why obeying a human (you) would be more moral than obeying God, considering both have human good in mind.

Your assumption that the existent God is who Christians claim he is is what I’m taking issue with. If you use harm to others as the sole basis of morality, then you can judge whether God is moral or not just as you can judge humans. Just because a god exists it does not necessarily follow that that god is moral – indeed the gods of my ancestors, or of the ancient Greeks, most definitely were not. Just because a god speaks to humans and claims to be the source of morality, it does not follow that that god is telling the truth.

And on the equivalence of a resurrected Jesus Christ (for which we have some evidence of having existed in history) and the flying spaghetti monster (who was made up to make fun of theists), I can see why those would be similarities, but don’t you see a few rather pertinent differences between the two? … How are the spaghetti monster and Jesus Christ equivalent for the discussions at hand?

There are differences between the two, but none of those differences have any bearing on the plausibility of their existence. I’m not talking about the man Jesus – there is evidence to suggest he existed. I’m talking about a person who can perform miracles and can come back from death. A man performing miracles is no more plausible than a monster made of pasta who can fly.

That’s the similarity that is pertinent to this discussion. A miracle-performing, resurrecting Jesus is exactly as implausible as a flying spaghetti monster, or an angel who tells Joseph Smith where to find golden tablets, or a flying creature that transports Mohammed to Jerusalem, or a fat sleigh-driving man who delivers gifts on Christmas Eve.

That is, unless harm to another human is always in all circumstances. Is that what you want to say?

And on the equivalence of a resurrected Jesus Christ (for which we have some evidence of having existed in history) and the flying spaghetti monster (who was made up to make fun of theists), I can see why those would be similarities, but don’t you see a few rather pertinent differences between the two? I can see a similarity (much like you and I are similar, we are both commenters, on Nathan’s blog, that care about issues of religion, and both seem able to use English well, but I’m guessing there are a few pertinent details if we were dealing with say, the presidency of a local secular humanist group). How are the spaghetti monster and Jesus Christ equivalent for the discussions at hand?

I apologize if I’m not clear. What makes it more moral to tell a deity to “spin on his own knob” than to obey him? Why is one of those more moral than the other.

Many people define immoral behavior as behavior that harms others. If the deity is telling you to harm other people, he is telling you to engage in behavior that can be described as immoral. To obey him would be immoral. To disobey him would be moral.

Truthspeaker, I am sorry, I don’t see how the flying spaghetti monster is equivalent to the resurrection of Christ as evidenced in the Bible and Bible scholarship.

They are both supernatural entities that defy the known laws of nature, who take an interest in the affairs of humankind.

Time for me to respond to one little part of your last comment… without suggesting that historical or scientific studies conducted and peer reviewed by atheists aren’t really likely to get me excited, or have me changing my mind…

But it was this one:

“This behavior on your part was extremely boorish, especially since you were a guest on Pharyngula, and people understandably reacted angrily.”

That I think deserves a response…

I was a “guest” on Pharyngula the same way that the victim of defamation is when they either stand up in court or seek to have the record set straight.

Or a “guest” in the sense that someone who has their photographs stolen from a house and displayed at an art gallery is a guest when they go along and cop criticism from visitors to the art gallery for the lack of creativity expressed in their work.

I was not a guest – had I not gone along to join the discussion I would have been the unwitting victim of almost 200 comments filled with vitriol. Put the boot on the other foot, what would you have had me do?

I apologize if I’m not clear. What makes it more moral to tell a deity to “spin on his own knob” than to obey him? Why is one of those more moral than the other. (and, which one)?

I’m not asking “why do you stand on your legs”, I’m asking him to please point to what he thinks his legs are.

A. Noyd:

I actually also pointed out to physicistDave that I may not have answered his question. I then asked him to properly clarify his question so I could answer him, to which he stated I was too stupid and evil to understand.

To be honest though, I think that he was not actually trying to further rational discussion, but to dismiss me by making me the issue rather than his claim. It would be like me saying that because a group of atheists descended on a blog that had the tiniest of implied criticisms of atheism in masses, and used his (believed) character as the reason to disparage anything he said to mean that atheism itself is a morally bankrupt system. You see the problem. The character of people are generally not the issue when determining whether ideas are correct.

I see no reason at all to “come clean” about my own moral standpoint when it’s you and your atheist fellows that are making the claims as to the morality of the God of the Bible. I’m not willing to make my beliefs the issue before we’ve clarified what claim it is you’re making. I don’t think you owe me anything, but I’m pretty sure I owe you nothing either.

Wade, you say that the inquisition makes the reasonability of a Catholic laughable centuries later. Am I understanding you?

So why would the actions of another group of people who had the same label as someone else, make that someone else less reasonable? I think you’re missing a few steps in your argument.

Patrick, please read Nathan’s actual statement (though I’ll agree it may have been angry, we are all guests on his website right now… I get touchy when guests call me stupid and evil then march out). Some atheists, as we have probably all seen firsthand at some point actually are very bad at nuance, and while I will agree that some Christians really are “ignorant, southern American red neck hillbillies who like burning crosses on people’s lawns”, to say that most are is not equivalent to Nathan’s statement. In the first place, because it is not true, and laughable when writing on a Christian blog hosted (I think) in Australia, when neither of the people who are being lumped into the Christian camp are actually American (I’m a Canadian living in Korea).

The first inclined response is, BTW, true. Most Christians actually are “hypocrites when it comes to living by the beliefs they preach”. Though considering their religion claims that all humans are evil, and that they are no less evil, only redeemed by grace through faith, that isn’t actually a point against the belief system.

Truthspeaker, I am sorry, I don’t see how the flying spaghetti monster is equivalent to the resurrection of Christ as evidenced in the Bible and Bible scholarship. It doesn’t matter really though, as Nathan’s character and beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not his original post is true.

I’m sorry that you feel that way – but I’m at the point where I’m finding this whole thread pretty risible and dismissing any atheist who bothers to comment on it as a particularly foolish brand of atheist.

Seriously – what are you all trying to achieve other than trying to demonstrate the truth of my original post to anybody reading this?

My comment about nuance was based on the fact that my every word has been pieced apart, stripped of the benefit of any form of context and pilloried by an angry mob. It’s just possible, just slightly possible, that us theists are smarter than you believe, and that at times we are capable of humour, sarcasm or brevity.

Lighten up. Have a look at the general tone of this blog. Read the comments on pharyngula and ask yourself what any non-atheist might think when reading through them.

Some of the things I’ve been accused of, or the assumptions that have been made about me on the basis of one post are just crazy.

…but for the record, I don’t find many Christians to be “nicer” when people attack their way of life. So Nathan, stop attacking the athiests. If you want a “nicer” dialog, then start one, but posting something like this is a direct attack. Not very welcoming in my opinion. If it was a verbal boxing match you were looking for, then I guess your post was perfect.

Excuse me, Nathan, but that comment just removed any scrap of righteous ground you had to stand on, both in making your initial post and in all ensuing comments.

What a compelling generalization of atheists. I’d be inclined to respond with “I understand most of your christian brethren are hypocrites when it comes to living by the beliefs they preach”, or “I understand most of your christian brethren are ignorant, southern American red neck hillbillies who like burning crosses on people’s lawns.”

What happened to don’t be smug? Anything you say after that statement will be unjustified, as far as I’m concerned. You filthy hypocrite.

I can understand that the “Saint” part of my name may give that impression.

I’m decidedly protestant, and the name is meant to be humourous.

I understand that some of your atheist brethren aren’t great with nuance when it comes to the written word so I’m happy to clear that up.