RWC,
I think it's quite obvious that you are not trained in logic. I am not formally trained in logic, but even I, a layman, can see agriegious errors in your reasoning.
I know that my life is more than being in the lucky sperm club
You mean you FEEL this way. You don't know. You have no hard evidence otherwise. It's okay to say you have faith, but please don't try and say that your faith is based on evidence. It is not. It's based on a warm an fuzzy feeling inside you. Otherwise you would have provided hard evidence by now.
You love them and not for what they can do for you, but for who they are. If we were nothing more than logic, there would be no reason to love children. They may be the continuation of the species, but until they can take care of themselves they are a burden on you.
I've never said humans were completely rational beings. I agree that there is much value in emotion - it makes us, well, human. But there is no need to invoke a higher intelligence to explain Love (not that you were trying too). Love has a survival benefit, evolutionarily speaking. But when it comes down to it, love is not what chose which sperm out of millions joined with your mother's egg. That was random chance, my friend.
I do believe there is evidence of universal moral values that are not dictated by whether you believe in them or not
You've still not explained how this is possible other than hand waiving examples of other cultures that have vastly different moral codes than you do. Heck, even we probably have vastly different thoughts about morals and ethics. Like I said before, since we all have similar DNA and live in established societies, why would does an external intelligence need to be brought in to explain why most of us don't like murder and rape? I really don't think you are understanding this point. You can say there is a single moral standard all you want, but you have yet to provide evidence for it and have ignored evidence against it.
Can anyone say that killing thousands of innocent people is not fundamentally wrong regardless of whether those who engage in it believe it isn't?
Does this really make sense to you? You aknowledge two different moral codes and then deny the existence of the two different moral codes in the same sentence. Yes "anyone [can] say that killing thousands of innocent people is not fundamentally wrong" - the people who did it!
Or are you saying that YOU make the one moral standard and that if people don't agree with YOU then it is fundamentally wrong? Or perhaps you believe the bible is the one moral standard. Well either way, your argument is shot because there will always be people who disagree with your and the Bible's standards, hence there is no one moral code that all people can agree on. Case closed. Moral relativism is a fact of life.
That Roman citizen who lays his daughter in the snow to die may have been considered okay for some in that society, but do you really think that it was not wrong when it was done?
I think it is wrong NOW, but if I were an ancient Roman, I probably would NOT think it was wrong because that would be how I was raised. Or do you think people are fundamentally different now than they were in ancient times? I'm not sure how you could prove such an assertion.
As evidence for that thought, name for me one society that approves the killing of young children and than tell me that if there is such a society, the names of other countries that have approved that thought under the idea that if its good for them leave them alone. Such a fundamental wrong is recognized as such.
Perhaps you didn't see it the first time: ANCIENT ROME. Even today certain cultures mistreat women (Taliban) and many people in that country and surrounding countries think that that behavior is perfectly fine. We don't think it's fine because we were not raised that way.
Also, people's morals change. I used to think Homosexuality was a perversion, but now I believe it's just the way some people are and that's ok. How could my moral values change if there was a fundamental 'right' and 'wrong'? You really need to think this through a bit more carefully.
Is that because YOU couldn't find the evidence or because the evidence doesn't exist?
I don't believe in things in which there aren't sufficient evidence. There may be a god, but there would be no way for me to objectively verify that at this time. Maybe in the future it/they will provide evidence. I've never said there is no god, just that there is no evidence. When you believe things without evidence, you might as well start believing any and everything, such as fairies, UFO's, ESP, etc.
How do you know qauntum physics is correct even as a theory?
I don't know that it is correct. But I do have a level of trust in the scientific method because of all of the practical and tangible benefits it has produced. I happen to agree with the self correcting nature of the scientific method, and I believe that when people use that system of gaining knowledge they have a better chance of getting things right, or at least moving in the correct direction. History has shown us that other methods of gaining knowledge (intuition, religion) have been abysmal failures. So far the scientific method is the only method that has given us progress and increased knowledge of how the universe works.
I don't have the same level of trust in the Bible because there is no evidence that it is anything more than an ancient book written by superstitious men, just like other ancient books. People who base their beliefs off of theistic principles have been shown to be incorrect time and time again. History is on my side.
Eyewitnesses to his resurrection wrote about it and said it happened
Could you cite this please? I think you'll find that this assertion is incorrect. Another person CLAIMED that eyewitnesses saw the resurrection. There is no contemparaneous writing by people at the time who claimed to see the resurrection personally. Even if there was, I'd have to see independent evidence to verify this claim. It's an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidence to be believed. I'm sure you are aware that there were many miracles claimed by many other 'prophets' in Jesus' time. Why are the Bible's claims more trustworthy than those other obviously false claims?
As described he controls all aspects of their life, establishes moral codes to live by, passes judgment on them when they do not comply, performs miracles, sends prophets to say what will happen and than these prophecies come true and ultimately describes the path to eternal life.
There is no more evidence for these claims than for the claims of all other religious books. What makes the Bible's claims unique? Before you say prophecy, I would expect to see an unambiguous prophecy that actually came true (and can be proved was written before the event prophesied about). I also know of several prophecies in the bible that did not come true.
I may be wrong but wasn't communism the latest example of a government outlawing all religion in the name of atheism?
That may have been how communism was implemented, but it is not a requirement of communism. The same is true with Capitalism. The fact still stands that there is no evidence of any truly god ruled government that has taken care of all of man's problems. It is a nice fantasy, but it is not based on fact.
You are mistaken when you say that I believe that "God works in mysterious ways". What I do believe is that God's ways are always just and good even if I may not always understand them.
That's just another way of saying god works in mysterious ways.
As for the killing of children in the Bible I will agree that on the surface it can seem troubling. But the Bible is clear that God is a just God.
You don't see the circular reasoning here?
I was simply saying that the evidence is there, but that if you limit the inquiry to what you can prove through logic and merely rational thinking, you can always decide to come up short
There is no decision to come up short when usin logic and reasoning. It's the evidence that comes up short. You are basically admitting what I just said, you have to have faith (belief without evidence) before you will believe. Would you do the same with the Mormon religion?
I am wrong I will simply rot in a grave and will have lost nothing in the meantime, however if an atheist is wrong, he will have alot of explaining to do and it will be too late to change.
You do realize that this is called Pascal's Wager, and it has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Who's to say you are not offending the one true god (or many true gods) right now because you are worshipping the wrong one? In that case, you will have some splaining to do, and I will have no problem at all. Pascal's Wager is a pretty weak reason to have faith in god.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
