I WILL TRY TO KEEP THIS ARTIACLE ABOUT YOUR VIEW ON GOD NICE, BUT I'M VERY ROOTED IN MY BELIEFS. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF I PISS YOU OFF OR NOT. CAUSE IN THIS ARTIACLE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF GOD DIDN'T SACRAFICE HIS SON ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND I ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. I PROMISE YOU DO NOT WANT TO PISS GOD OFF CAUSE IN TIME YOU CAN KISS YOUR ATHESTIST ASS GOODBYE, CAUSE YOU WILL BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE THAT NEVER STOPS. YOU MESS WITH MY GOD I DON'T CARE WHO LIKE'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. OTHER THAN YOU BETTER HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART, BEFORE HE STOPS YOURS. AS FOR ME "I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH CHRIST WHO STRENGHTENS ME" & "IF GOD IS FOR ME IT DON'T MATTER WHO'S AGAINST ME". I SUGGEST YOU FIND THE TRUE FAITH BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. OH YA I MUST SAY YOUR A BAD INFLUENCE TO THE WORLD IT NEEDS TO STOP NOW !!! TINA LEE CHEROKEE
I think we often forget that Jesus lamented the unbelief of Israel (John 11:37). This text does come after harsh warnings (woes), but in your comment I hear no lament. Unbelief should break our heart and spur us on the establish robust relationships with the non-believing community in order to have civil discussion even debate about this most crucial issue.
kallioinen, Thank you for your reminder that our Lord desires for all men to be saved. We have not been saved to condemn, but only to share in the graciousness of Christ. I am definitely stoked to witness the debate between these two great minds, but I am also intrigued by their great respect for each other. Doug shows a respect for his counterpart, yet a reverence for the unchanging truth. Certainly an example to follow.
As soon as Mr. WIlson mentioned Lord of the Rings and Gollum, I KNEW he had them... the firestorm that followed was priceless. "don't mention Lord of the Rings on your terms on MY watch"... amusing, these guys have NO IDEA who wrote it, nor a thing of his perspectives.
I love it when a studied and experienced mind comes up against the young hotshots who are convinced they know it all, and can reason away anything.
I also am impressed by the continual respect Mr. Wilson shows for all these who come out to joust with him. I am certain that, in so doing, he makes a lasting impression upon them. He is NOT just one more "old guy" coming to "put them in their place". He encounters them as equals in worth, though unequal in belief. We can all learn and grow from this attitude.
You are a Christian Fascist. Just make sure you keep your rhetoric civil or else face the dire consequences. Your bigotry and partiality is extremely apparent, as well as your rudimentary language.
So the arguements Wilson makes is that if we are here and we think rationally then there is a god. And it turns out to be the Christian god, just... because we are here and thinking. This is a tautoglogical non-sequitor. And Atheists don't have any moral foundation just because they don't believe in a god, what sort of arguement is this? He must honestly believe that. Not only is it insulting to all the good atheists out there, it proves nothing about whether god exists. And what about the people of cultures who have never heard of the christian god and yet still exhibit altruism and a kind of love? Are these people never moral, no matter what they do? this is an incredibly arrogant position.
Tina, in your post you made the comment "IN THIS ARTIACLE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST." I agree whole heartedly as long as you are willing to take your own advice. I admit I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you stated "YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF GOD DIDN'T SACRAFICE HIS SON ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND I ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD." It sounds like you're trying to say that mankind wouldn't exist apart from Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has nothing to do with the existence of mankind. Or are you implying that Jesus died on the cross for all of mankind? If so, I would suggest you buy a good Hebrew/Greek concordance so you can see for yourself that the word ALL as used in the New Testament doesn't always mean ALL in the sense of being all of mankind. At times it does mean all mankind but it more often means of a particular group or of every kind. Christ did not die on the cross for the sins of everyone but for those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. If you say Christ died for the sins of all mankind you're essentially saying that for those who are not saved Christ's death was useless and futile. Is this true? Did Christ fail in anything he came to fulfill? God forbid! Christ's death on the cross was totally effectual because he died for the sins of God's elect alone. Man is fallen and totally depraved and apart from God regenerating a man's heart through the Holy Ghost man will always choose sin over God. There is none that seeks after God for we are DEAD in trespasses and sin. And as we know a dead man can do nothing for himself. Suppose God did give man the chance to choose to accept salvation or not, and no one ever chose to accept. Then what? But we know this isn't the case because God has drawn men to himself for salvation. Does this mean then that evangelism is a waste of time? By no means! We are not so fortunate to know whom God has chosen for salvation, so it is our duty to witness to everyone making disciples as we go and teaching them all that Jesus commanded us. God has given man the freedom to choose what he will wear, what he will eat, where he will go from day to day etc. but salvation is too important a decision for God to leave man, whose heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, with the choice to accept his only begotten Son's sacrifice or not. If Christ looses one whom he died for he fails and God won't allow that to happen. I encourage you to study for yourself if you're not already. Let God be truth and every man a liar.
I believe that Wilson's argument is that there must be a God because of the Morality coded into us. Rationality is part of that, however, not the main point in this discussion. He does not stress this as he is cordial and lets others express their opinions, without cutting them off based on the clip above.
Without a moral compass we would all just be animals. No one blames a Lion for eating a Gazelle, and if the world was as the Atheists' believe, all we would be is the Lion. Crude example, but none the less true. Our human Morality proves that we have something in us other than just survival instincts, thus proving that something had to put that there = GOD.
As for arrogance, why is it arrogant to believe that the Christian God is the only true God? Your opinion that there is no God flies in the face of thousands of years of beliefs and opposes almost every culture on the planet. Almost every culture through history has believed in a God, sometimes many. Yes others believe in differing Gods, but they believe in a God. Atheists believe there is no God, is that not more arrogant? I don't say that to make this a "who's more arrogant" issue, but don't you see my point?
True Christianity is never arrogant, it is based on Faith. Professing your faith can only be arrogant in the context of an argument, just professing is sharing truth in love. You may not believe this truth, however, that makes you the one arguing and contextualizing the argument and assessing the professor as arrogant.
Christians believe in God because of the Bible, but the book would mean nothing without Faith. You have faith too because you have faith in your belief that there is no God. Faith is another thing hard wired into us. The Bible is the word of God. I understand that you may not believe in the Bible. "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is a great resource for the legitimacy of the Bible. Lee use to be an atheist too. I took all of this time writing this to you not to be arrogant, but to try and more clearly address Wilson's stance with regard to your statement. I enjoy this kind of exchange of ideas and hope you do to.
Having seen the film at an early screening in Dallas, I must say, Hitchens gets his you know what handed to him. I wont spoil the end but Hitchens gets a few drinks in him and says something that absolutely blew my mind. Im a Hitchens fan and cant believe what he says to Wilson. Im hoping he was just drunk. But if he believes what he says in the end it will ruin his entire lifes work. IMHO. I saw him after the screening but did not have the guts to ask him.
What Wilson would argue is that every Worldview at it's base begs the question. If you're an athiest, you might say you use your reason to disprove God. But what basis do you have for your base of reason? You must reason that your reason is authoritative. Your begging the question. Wilson would ask on what basis is something moral or immoral? He is not saying that Non-Christians are not moral people, or even that they are less moral than Christians are, but on what Basis can you make claim that anything is Moral. Christians understand that morality flows from the being of God, and because he said so, we can know what is right and wrong. God created all people, therefore it should follow that all people would have some sense of what is right from wrong. Therefore even those who have never heard from God can be moral people. But if there is no God, then what basis do you have for saying that something is right or wrong?
I have some advice for myself and all the others who have been engaging you: Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
I think that for all of us to survive into the future, we must reject not religion nor athiesm but extremists of any ilk and we must be able to examine our own ideologies for potential flaws and problems. Then discourse of actual ideas can occur and we can understand each other more.
We can all effect a change here every day by rejecting shouting, extremist idiots and just talking to one another like fellow human beings. Those already doing this have my deepest thanks and appreciation.
Tina, in your post you made the comment "IN THIS ARTIACLE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST." I agree whole heartedly as long as you are willing to take your own advice. I admit I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you stated "YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF GOD DIDN'T SACRAFICE HIS SON ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND I ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD." It sounds like you're trying to say that mankind wouldn't exist apart from Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has nothing to do with the existence of mankind. Or are you implying that Jesus died on the cross for all of mankind? If so, I would suggest you buy a good Hebrew/Greek concordance so you can see for yourself that the word ALL as used in the New Testament doesn't always mean ALL in the sense of being all of mankind. At times it does mean all mankind but it more often means of a particular group or of every kind. Christ did not die on the cross for the sins of everyone but for those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. If you say Christ died for the sins of all mankind you're essentially saying that for those who are not saved Christ's death was useless and futile. Is this true? Did Christ fail in anything he came to fulfill? God forbid! Christ's death on the cross was totally effectual because he died for the sins of God's elect alone. Man is fallen and totally depraved and apart from God regenerating a man's heart through the Holy Ghost man will always choose sin over God. There is none that seeks after God for we are DEAD in trespasses and sin. And as we know a dead man can do nothing for himself. Suppose God did give man the chance to choose to accept salvation or not, and no one ever chose to accept. Then what? But we know this isn't the case because God has drawn men to himself for salvation. Does this mean then that evangelism is a waste of time? By no means! We are not so fortunate to know whom God has chosen for salvation, so it is our duty to witness to everyone making disciples as we go and teaching them all that Jesus commanded us. God has given man the freedom to choose what he will wear, what he will eat, where he will go from day to day etc. but salvation is too important a decision for God to leave man, whose heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, with the choice to accept his only begotten Son's sacrifice or not. If Christ looses one whom he died for he fails and God won't allow that to happen. I encourage you to study for yourself if you're not already. Let God be truth and every man a liar.
You commented that Wilson is implying "Atheists don't have any moral foundation just because they don't believe in a god," and ask the question "what sort of arguement is this?" I of course can't speak for Wilson but I'm thinking the point he is trying to make is, you have no foundation on which to base your morality apart from personal feelings or opinions. Isn't this true? If not, then where does your moral foundation come from? Is it based on what your parents taught you or what you learned from your friends, teachers, co-workers, mentors etc? If so, is everyone to base their morality on your upbringing? Or are they to base it off of what they've been taught by these same people in their life? How about if we base it on what the law makers say is right and wrong? Is this a solid moral foundation? I would suggest not seeing how laws are always changing. But even if you answer yes to these questions, we're still left with another question. What are all these other people's moral foundations based on? And the people that taught them and so on. What you end up with is everyone doing that which is right in his own eyes. Take for instance your comment about "Not only is it insulting to all the good atheists" How do you define what is a good atheist? Or a bad one for that matter? What is the criteria for making such a decision? Then you ask the question "And what about the people of cultures who have never heard of the christian god and yet still exhibit altruism and a kind of love?" Ok what about them? "Are these people never moral, no matter what they do?" Well based on your position, that is up to each one of them individually to decide and no one has the right to tell them whether they are or not. So why do you ask? You have no moral foundation in which to base your opinions. Which by the way is all you have to go on, your own opinions.
However, based on my position, we all have a moral foundation which is God's law. Since mankind was created in the image of God, he then has the right to require of his creation whatever he wills. Mankind not only has a moral obligation to keep God's law, we are commanded to do so. Even the unbelievers, who in not keeping God's law condemn themselves, are commanded to keep his law. Because of God's law mankind has the criteria by which to base our decisions on what is right or wrong/ good and evil. God's law is not made valid or invalid based on whether we believe in God and his law or not. God's law is absolute truth because it is his law. This law was for the most part not verbally transmitted to man but was created in his being. When man fell it was therefore his attempt to do without God in every respect. Man sought his ideals of truth, goodness and beauty somewhere beyond God, either directly within himself or in the universe about him. The result for man was that he made for himself a false ideal of knowledge. Not willing to take the blame for sin, man laid it to circumstances round about him or within him. Because mankind was created in the image of God, we have communicable attributes from our Creator. This is why things like murder, rape, and stealing are universally wrong. If it was based on opinions or individuals upbringing then there would be no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong other than what a person perceives to be so. But if that were true how then can you tell the person who just stole your car that what they did was wrong? Because man's law says it wrong? Ok then, prove to me that man's law is correct and by what criteria you base this on.
Tina Lee Smith Murray, If you are a believer please repent and mind your manners because when I have to deal with atheists they point to people like you and claim that belief in God does not make people any better, nicer, more moral, etc.
I’m afraid I can’t shy away from this conversation, as I too love these exchanges. As for the morality example regarding the lion…this would be true, except the fact that our frontal love is much more evolved than that of a lion. This enhanced brain activity affects our judgment, intellect and reasoning processes. Humans can reason through moral dilemmas and arrive at decisions based on contemporary thought patterns, not laws in ancient texts. Human morality does not prove god. Humans are the only animals that are capable of creating cars, but the existence of cars does not prove god. It merely proves that the relative size of our frontal lobe in comparison to other animals has allowed us better problem solving techniques.
As for arrogance…your argument proves why the belief that the god must be Christian is arrogant. There have been literally thousands of gods. There is also literally nothing original (other than name) of the story of jesus. The birth, the disciples, miracles, crucifixtion, 3 days, resurrection…they are all much older than jesus. He is but the most recent of many similar stories. As for the number of believers vs. the number of non-believers: surely you agree that a simple majority rule does not prove truth. Most people believed the earth was flat. Now we know better. Human history is riddled with scientific advancements explaining away the superstitions of ancient people. I am not claiming that god is one of them, but numbers clearly mean nothing.
As for faith…I can agree (despite how much it pains me) that not believing in god takes a certain kind of faith. While this is similar to claiming that baldness is a hair color, I can see your point of view. However, the difference is that I do not use “faith” as a be-all and end-all type of excuse. If an answer to a question does not exist, I do not give up and say “God did it”. I continue to search for the answer. It is this constant search that has brought the most beneficial advancements to humans. It is similar to your claim that morality is created by god: I don’t know why we have morality; therefore, it MUST be god.
Hundreds of years ago, people said: I don’t know why we get sick; therefore, it MUST be god.
Thankfully, we now understand modern germ theory and have an adequate knowledge of medical procedures and preventative care to the extent that lives can be saved. As of now, science can NOT answer all questions. Anyone claiming the contrary is foolish. However, closing our eyes and ears and simply using god to fill in our gaps of knowledge seems to be extremely ignorant.
“Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of human intelligence.” – Anon.
Interesting video. Pastor Wilson blew the kids out of the water, if we're keeping score. But who really is, because the points count for nothing. Wrap your head around that one.
Monday, October 5, 2009 at 12:45PM 
Reader Comments (65)
I WILL TRY TO KEEP THIS ARTIACLE ABOUT YOUR VIEW ON GOD NICE, BUT I'M VERY ROOTED IN MY BELIEFS. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF I PISS YOU OFF OR NOT. CAUSE IN THIS ARTIACLE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF GOD DIDN'T SACRAFICE HIS SON ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND I ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
I PROMISE YOU DO NOT WANT TO PISS GOD OFF CAUSE IN TIME YOU CAN KISS YOUR ATHESTIST ASS GOODBYE, CAUSE YOU WILL BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE THAT NEVER STOPS. YOU MESS WITH MY GOD I DON'T CARE WHO LIKE'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. OTHER THAN YOU BETTER HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART, BEFORE HE STOPS YOURS. AS FOR ME "I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH CHRIST WHO STRENGHTENS ME" & "IF GOD IS FOR ME IT DON'T MATTER WHO'S AGAINST ME". I SUGGEST YOU FIND THE TRUE FAITH BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. OH YA I MUST SAY YOUR A BAD INFLUENCE TO THE WORLD IT NEEDS TO STOP NOW !!! TINA LEE CHEROKEE
Dear Tina,
I think we often forget that Jesus lamented the unbelief of Israel (John 11:37). This text does come after harsh warnings (woes), but in your comment I hear no lament. Unbelief should break our heart and spur us on the establish robust relationships with the non-believing community in order to have civil discussion even debate about this most crucial issue.
Great stuff! I love the dialogue. This is really fantastic. Will these outtakes be included in the DVD release? THEY SHOULD!!
kallioinen,
Thank you for your reminder that our Lord desires for all men to be saved. We have not been saved to condemn, but only to share in the graciousness of Christ. I am definitely stoked to witness the debate between these two great minds, but I am also intrigued by their great respect for each other. Doug shows a respect for his counterpart, yet a reverence for the unchanging truth. Certainly an example to follow.
As soon as Mr. WIlson mentioned Lord of the Rings and Gollum, I KNEW he had them... the firestorm that followed was priceless. "don't mention Lord of the Rings on your terms on MY watch"... amusing, these guys have NO IDEA who wrote it, nor a thing of his perspectives.
I love it when a studied and experienced mind comes up against the young hotshots who are convinced they know it all, and can reason away anything.
I also am impressed by the continual respect Mr. Wilson shows for all these who come out to joust with him. I am certain that, in so doing, he makes a lasting impression upon them. He is NOT just one more "old guy" coming to "put them in their place". He encounters them as equals in worth, though unequal in belief. We can all learn and grow from this attitude.
TINA LEE SMITH MURRAY
You are a Christian Fascist. Just make sure you keep your rhetoric civil or else face the dire consequences. Your bigotry and partiality is extremely apparent, as well as your rudimentary language.
I wish you the best.
Yours truly -
Anon* : D
So the arguements Wilson makes is that if we are here and we think rationally then there is a god. And it turns out to be the Christian god, just... because we are here and thinking. This is a tautoglogical non-sequitor. And Atheists don't have any moral foundation just because they don't believe in a god, what sort of arguement is this? He must honestly believe that. Not only is it insulting to all the good atheists out there, it proves nothing about whether god exists. And what about the people of cultures who have never heard of the christian god and yet still exhibit altruism and a kind of love? Are these people never moral, no matter what they do? this is an incredibly arrogant position.
Now you've gone too far, Preacher-Man!
Tina, in your post you made the comment "IN THIS ARTIACLE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST." I agree whole heartedly as long as you are willing to take your own advice. I admit I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you stated "YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF GOD DIDN'T SACRAFICE HIS SON ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND I ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD." It sounds like you're trying to say that mankind wouldn't exist apart from Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has nothing to do with the existence of mankind. Or are you implying that Jesus died on the cross for all of mankind? If so, I would suggest you buy a good Hebrew/Greek concordance so you can see for yourself that the word ALL as used in the New Testament doesn't always mean ALL in the sense of being all of mankind. At times it does mean all mankind but it more often means of a particular group or of every kind. Christ did not die on the cross for the sins of everyone but for those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. If you say Christ died for the sins of all mankind you're essentially saying that for those who are not saved Christ's death was useless and futile. Is this true? Did Christ fail in anything he came to fulfill? God forbid! Christ's death on the cross was totally effectual because he died for the sins of God's elect alone. Man is fallen and totally depraved and apart from God regenerating a man's heart through the Holy Ghost man will always choose sin over God. There is none that seeks after God for we are DEAD in trespasses and sin. And as we know a dead man can do nothing for himself. Suppose God did give man the chance to choose to accept salvation or not, and no one ever chose to accept. Then what? But we know this isn't the case because God has drawn men to himself for salvation. Does this mean then that evangelism is a waste of time? By no means! We are not so fortunate to know whom God has chosen for salvation, so it is our duty to witness to everyone making disciples as we go and teaching them all that Jesus commanded us. God has given man the freedom to choose what he will wear, what he will eat, where he will go from day to day etc. but salvation is too important a decision for God to leave man, whose heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, with the choice to accept his only begotten Son's sacrifice or not. If Christ looses one whom he died for he fails and God won't allow that to happen. I encourage you to study for yourself if you're not already. Let God be truth and every man a liar.
To artemis01:
I believe that Wilson's argument is that there must be a God because of the Morality coded into us. Rationality is part of that, however, not the main point in this discussion. He does not stress this as he is cordial and lets others express their opinions, without cutting them off based on the clip above.
Without a moral compass we would all just be animals. No one blames a Lion for eating a Gazelle, and if the world was as the Atheists' believe, all we would be is the Lion. Crude example, but none the less true. Our human Morality proves that we have something in us other than just survival instincts, thus proving that something had to put that there = GOD.
As for arrogance, why is it arrogant to believe that the Christian God is the only true God? Your opinion that there is no God flies in the face of thousands of years of beliefs and opposes almost every culture on the planet. Almost every culture through history has believed in a God, sometimes many. Yes others believe in differing Gods, but they believe in a God. Atheists believe there is no God, is that not more arrogant? I don't say that to make this a "who's more arrogant" issue, but don't you see my point?
True Christianity is never arrogant, it is based on Faith. Professing your faith can only be arrogant in the context of an argument, just professing is sharing truth in love. You may not believe this truth, however, that makes you the one arguing and contextualizing the argument and assessing the professor as arrogant.
Christians believe in God because of the Bible, but the book would mean nothing without Faith. You have faith too because you have faith in your belief that there is no God. Faith is another thing hard wired into us. The Bible is the word of God. I understand that you may not believe in the Bible. "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is a great resource for the legitimacy of the Bible. Lee use to be an atheist too. I took all of this time writing this to you not to be arrogant, but to try and more clearly address Wilson's stance with regard to your statement. I enjoy this kind of exchange of ideas and hope you do to.
Having seen the film at an early screening in Dallas, I must say, Hitchens gets his you know what handed to him. I wont spoil the end but Hitchens gets a few drinks in him and says something that absolutely blew my mind. Im a Hitchens fan and cant believe what he says to Wilson. Im hoping he was just drunk. But if he believes what he says in the end it will ruin his entire lifes work. IMHO. I saw him after the screening but did not have the guts to ask him.
Do not feed the Tina troll...
Artemis,
What Wilson would argue is that every Worldview at it's base begs the question. If you're an athiest, you might say you use your reason to disprove God. But what basis do you have for your base of reason? You must reason that your reason is authoritative. Your begging the question. Wilson would ask on what basis is something moral or immoral? He is not saying that Non-Christians are not moral people, or even that they are less moral than Christians are, but on what Basis can you make claim that anything is Moral. Christians understand that morality flows from the being of God, and because he said so, we can know what is right and wrong. God created all people, therefore it should follow that all people would have some sense of what is right from wrong. Therefore even those who have never heard from God can be moral people. But if there is no God, then what basis do you have for saying that something is right or wrong?
Oh Tina Lee,
I have some advice for myself and all the others who have been engaging you: Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
I think that for all of us to survive into the future, we must reject not religion nor athiesm but extremists of any ilk and we must be able to examine our own ideologies for potential flaws and problems. Then discourse of actual ideas can occur and we can understand each other more.
We can all effect a change here every day by rejecting shouting, extremist idiots and just talking to one another like fellow human beings. Those already doing this have my deepest thanks and appreciation.
Tina, in your post you made the comment "IN THIS ARTIACLE YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST." I agree whole heartedly as long as you are willing to take your own advice. I admit I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you stated "YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE IF GOD DIDN'T SACRAFICE HIS SON ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND I ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD." It sounds like you're trying to say that mankind wouldn't exist apart from Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has nothing to do with the existence of mankind. Or are you implying that Jesus died on the cross for all of mankind? If so, I would suggest you buy a good Hebrew/Greek concordance so you can see for yourself that the word ALL as used in the New Testament doesn't always mean ALL in the sense of being all of mankind. At times it does mean all mankind but it more often means of a particular group or of every kind. Christ did not die on the cross for the sins of everyone but for those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. If you say Christ died for the sins of all mankind you're essentially saying that for those who are not saved Christ's death was useless and futile. Is this true? Did Christ fail in anything he came to fulfill? God forbid! Christ's death on the cross was totally effectual because he died for the sins of God's elect alone. Man is fallen and totally depraved and apart from God regenerating a man's heart through the Holy Ghost man will always choose sin over God. There is none that seeks after God for we are DEAD in trespasses and sin. And as we know a dead man can do nothing for himself. Suppose God did give man the chance to choose to accept salvation or not, and no one ever chose to accept. Then what? But we know this isn't the case because God has drawn men to himself for salvation. Does this mean then that evangelism is a waste of time? By no means! We are not so fortunate to know whom God has chosen for salvation, so it is our duty to witness to everyone making disciples as we go and teaching them all that Jesus commanded us. God has given man the freedom to choose what he will wear, what he will eat, where he will go from day to day etc. but salvation is too important a decision for God to leave man, whose heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, with the choice to accept his only begotten Son's sacrifice or not. If Christ looses one whom he died for he fails and God won't allow that to happen. I encourage you to study for yourself if you're not already. Let God be truth and every man a liar.
artemis01
You commented that Wilson is implying "Atheists don't have any moral foundation just because they don't believe in a god," and ask the question "what sort of arguement is this?" I of course can't speak for Wilson but I'm thinking the point he is trying to make is, you have no foundation on which to base your morality apart from personal feelings or opinions. Isn't this true? If not, then where does your moral foundation come from? Is it based on what your parents taught you or what you learned from your friends, teachers, co-workers, mentors etc? If so, is everyone to base their morality on your upbringing? Or are they to base it off of what they've been taught by these same people in their life? How about if we base it on what the law makers say is right and wrong? Is this a solid moral foundation? I would suggest not seeing how laws are always changing. But even if you answer yes to these questions, we're still left with another question. What are all these other people's moral foundations based on? And the people that taught them and so on. What you end up with is everyone doing that which is right in his own eyes. Take for instance your comment about "Not only is it insulting to all the good atheists" How do you define what is a good atheist? Or a bad one for that matter? What is the criteria for making such a decision? Then you ask the question "And what about the people of cultures who have never heard of the christian god and yet still exhibit altruism and a kind of love?" Ok what about them? "Are these people never moral, no matter what they do?" Well based on your position, that is up to each one of them individually to decide and no one has the right to tell them whether they are or not. So why do you ask? You have no moral foundation in which to base your opinions. Which by the way is all you have to go on, your own opinions.
However, based on my position, we all have a moral foundation which is God's law. Since mankind was created in the image of God, he then has the right to require of his creation whatever he wills. Mankind not only has a moral obligation to keep God's law, we are commanded to do so. Even the unbelievers, who in not keeping God's law condemn themselves, are commanded to keep his law. Because of God's law mankind has the criteria by which to base our decisions on what is right or wrong/ good and evil. God's law is not made valid or invalid based on whether we believe in God and his law or not. God's law is absolute truth because it is his law. This law was for the most part not verbally transmitted to man but was created in his being. When man fell it was therefore his attempt to do without God in every respect. Man sought his ideals of truth, goodness and beauty somewhere beyond God, either directly within himself or in the universe about him. The result for man was that he made for himself a false ideal of knowledge. Not willing to take the blame for sin, man laid it to circumstances round about him or within him. Because mankind was created in the image of God, we have communicable attributes from our Creator. This is why things like murder, rape, and stealing are universally wrong. If it was based on opinions or individuals upbringing then there would be no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong other than what a person perceives to be so. But if that were true how then can you tell the person who just stole your car that what they did was wrong? Because man's law says it wrong? Ok then, prove to me that man's law is correct and by what criteria you base this on.
Tina Lee Smith Murray,
If you are a believer please repent and mind your manners because when I have to deal with atheists they point to people like you and claim that belief in God does not make people any better, nicer, more moral, etc.
C. Benson…
I’m afraid I can’t shy away from this conversation, as I too love these exchanges. As for the morality example regarding the lion…this would be true, except the fact that our frontal love is much more evolved than that of a lion. This enhanced brain activity affects our judgment, intellect and reasoning processes. Humans can reason through moral dilemmas and arrive at decisions based on contemporary thought patterns, not laws in ancient texts. Human morality does not prove god. Humans are the only animals that are capable of creating cars, but the existence of cars does not prove god. It merely proves that the relative size of our frontal lobe in comparison to other animals has allowed us better problem solving techniques.
As for arrogance…your argument proves why the belief that the god must be Christian is arrogant. There have been literally thousands of gods. There is also literally nothing original (other than name) of the story of jesus. The birth, the disciples, miracles, crucifixtion, 3 days, resurrection…they are all much older than jesus. He is but the most recent of many similar stories. As for the number of believers vs. the number of non-believers: surely you agree that a simple majority rule does not prove truth. Most people believed the earth was flat. Now we know better. Human history is riddled with scientific advancements explaining away the superstitions of ancient people. I am not claiming that god is one of them, but numbers clearly mean nothing.
As for faith…I can agree (despite how much it pains me) that not believing in god takes a certain kind of faith. While this is similar to claiming that baldness is a hair color, I can see your point of view. However, the difference is that I do not use “faith” as a be-all and end-all type of excuse. If an answer to a question does not exist, I do not give up and say “God did it”. I continue to search for the answer. It is this constant search that has brought the most beneficial advancements to humans. It is similar to your claim that morality is created by god:
I don’t know why we have morality; therefore, it MUST be god.
Hundreds of years ago, people said:
I don’t know why we get sick; therefore, it MUST be god.
Thankfully, we now understand modern germ theory and have an adequate knowledge of medical procedures and preventative care to the extent that lives can be saved. As of now, science can NOT answer all questions. Anyone claiming the contrary is foolish. However, closing our eyes and ears and simply using god to fill in our gaps of knowledge seems to be extremely ignorant.
“Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of human intelligence.” – Anon.
Maybe as Christians we should show the love of Christ?
Interesting video. Pastor Wilson blew the kids out of the water, if we're keeping score. But who really is, because the points count for nothing. Wrap your head around that one.