Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us

[Samuelke]

So what your are telling me morals are what you decide them to be and what I choose them to be how will we ever know if one society is right to think all people should have value and love their neighbor or if it is right of those who choose to eat their neighbor. You can't refer to a system like that with the term morals it would be like that of the animal kingdom. It is said that all material things that show a sign of intelligence we assume intelligabillity behind it. Like apologist Ravi zacharias states you can not say that the dictionary was caused by an explosion in the printing press. Someone replied to my post saying we are God. If so then show me how to produce a story with no author. You can't because you can't use and bend physics and chemistry to your will and make it happen. Thos who are saying Jesus did not exist this I profound to me seeing all the different cultures that historically say things about him and text outside the bible saying he rose from the dead. Even the Quran states that he was born of a virgin mother. It also says he appears to die on the cross. Knowing you all will want more evidence for these last statements that's what I'll be doing right when I'm out of the car.

[HAL]

So what your are telling me morals are what you decide them to be and what I choose them to be ...

Right, you got it.

... how will we ever know if one society is right to think all people should have value and love their neighbor or if it is right of those who choose to eat their neighbor.

If you like eating people then you associate with others who like to eat people and form a society. If you want to love your neighbor you do same with other like-minded people. If the people-loving society doesn't like your people-eating society (or vice versa) they might start a war and whoever wins gets to make the laws.

There is no absolute moral right or wrong. See how simple it is?

[Samuelke]

What evidence do you have to support this claim that we have no moral absolute?

[HAL]

What evidence do you have to support this claim that we have no moral absolute?

There is no proof of it. Do you have a proof of an absolute moral standard? Until there is a proof I can't agree there is such a thing.

[Astreja]

...you can't use and bend physics and chemistry to your will and make it happen.

You forgot biology, Samuel.  That's why I do not believe that Jesus came back from the dead -- In the hypoxic state that follows heart arrest, the brain dies and the cells of the body start to decay.

And don't try to use the Bible as evidence unless you're prepared to supply Me with a real, live Talking Snake™ just like the one in Genesis.  *You* may be uncritical enough to believe any wild story your preacher or a holy storybook tells you, but if you want to convince us you're going to have to find evidence that meets *our* standards rather than your own.

[jetson]

What evidence do you have to support this claim that we have no moral absolute?

We don't need proof.  The absence of a moral absolute dictates that the one who claims there is a moral absolute, must show that there is a moral absolute.  Same with God.  Those who claim he is real must show he is real, not the other way around.

[Samuelke]

Alright I'll give you that all day about proof for the moral absolute you don't need it for what your saying but that doesn't mean that you are free from having some view and evidence for how all this came to be here life and all things. I'd like to hear that. Also I'd like to ask what each of you all saying this personally feels about good and evil in your own life or those around you, so do you ever feel that choices you make or others are better in the way choices of all kinds in life have repercussions on ourselves and those around us.

[Samuelke]

Well in my own belief which I understand here we disagree, but in Christian theology the belief is the God of the bible is separate from his creation not in our realm appart from it. He's always exsisted or uncreated and in his supernatural capabilities can work miracles as Lewis said you can't accept God without accepting miracles. No one can even try an claim that the tomb of Jesus wasn't empty. That is accepted as factual evidence look it up, it's the explation that we can debate on. But I'd just add that not only biology but all the sciences together can not fully explain this world and all it's complexities and will not be able to. It can explain a lot but it is just one of our many subjects.

[sun_king]

No one can even try an claim that the tomb of Jesus wasn't empty. That is accepted as factual evidence look it up, it's the explation that we can debate on.

I looked this up, came up with no factual evidence. If you have something that is not found in a Google search, please share with us.

Biology and all the sciences together cannot fully explain this world and all its complexities, but use caution when you claim that it will not be able to. We are making impressive progress every day.

[ParkingPlaces]

Alright I'll give you that all day about proof for the moral absolute you don't need it for what your saying but that doesn't mean that you are free from having some view and evidence for how all this came to be here life and all things. I'd like to hear that.

A byproduct of the big bang was a planet (earth) that happened to be conducive to life and eventually I showed up.

Worked for me.

Also I'd like to ask what each of you all saying this personally feels about good and evil in your own life or those around you, so do you ever feel that choices you make or others are better in the way choices of all kinds in life have repercussions on ourselves and those around us.

Stuff I do has repercussions? Whoda thunkit.

Seven billion people on the planet and christians want to simplify every problem via the good/evil paradigm. How cute. What better way to solve a problem than to simplify it beyond recognition?

I love the christian emphasis on good and evil. The world is made black and white, righteousness is evoked, and everyone not a member of the club is said to be in league with the devil.

But it isn't good and evil. It is "stuff that seems to work pretty good for most people" vs. "you a**hole, what did you do that for?" People, being inherently capable of a wide range of actions, at times go off the deep end and cause harm. Others accidentally do good stuff. Most of us intentionally do okay. But christians often seem to gloat about how wonderful you are and how horrid those of us are who are not biblically inclined.

I know what bad is, and I don't do it. Despite my lack of sky-daddy guidance. I have yet to shoot another. I have yet to rape. I've never beat a child. Nor robbed a bank or liquor store. Or anything else. So I have no idea why I should go into guilt mode or be mystified by my acceptable behavior just because I don't happen to have a well defined, non-ambiguous, clearly stated and all-encompassing set of moral guidelines from upon high like you do. Well, I exaggerated their quality and quantity and clarity, but thats because I lie sometimes.

Get over it. The only reason you have any high ground is because believers pile it on thick then stand atop it. The christian position is atop an artificially constructed and erroneously valued hill of righteousness that is too dependent upon the mass production of bullshit to be something worthy of pride.

Besides, to complain about our morals while basically admitting that you text and drive is just plain silly.

[Samuelke]

Not my words
Summing up this position, Dr. Thomas Arnold, the former chair of modern history at Oxford and author of the well-respected three volume “History of Rome” says: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”5


Brooke Foss Wescott, an English scholar, said, “Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.

Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement.


One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which still is considered one of the greatest single authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal procedure.

Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.


I can give this website where it states more

[Samuelke]

"I love the christian emphasis on good and evil. The world is made black and white, righteousness is evoked, and everyone not a member of the club is said to be in league with the devil.

But it isn't good and evil. It is "stuff that seems to work pretty good for most people" vs. "you a**hole, what did you do that for?" People, being inherently capable of a wide range of actions, at times go off the deep end and cause harm. Others accidentally do good stuff. Most of us intentionally do okay. But christians often seem to gloat about how wonderful you are and how horrid those of us are who are not biblically inclined."

You say no good and evil then in your own explanation you used the word good?

[Aaron123]

Not my words
Summing up this position, Dr. Thomas Arnold, the former chair of modern history at Oxford and author of the well-respected three volume “History of Rome” says: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”5


Brooke Foss Wescott, an English scholar, said, “Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.

Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement.

So where is this evidence that they speak of?

[Samuelke]

I said in the car not driving clearly you misread. I spoke about morals nothing about myself and what I do good or bad. I don't believe myself to be good I've never done anything you stated either but I've done other things and I will always mess up, I feel I am not better or greater then anyone else in any way shape or form. I simply believe what I believe with all my being that it is true and if you don't agree that's fine I still respect you or anyone no matter what. I was raised in this belief and always doubted untill I renounced my faith later in my teens. After some time I set out to find some truth on my own terms. Personally after a couple years of researching which I still do but I ended up seeing no other possible way. More then anything though and I understand many of you can't accept this, but the personal relationship I have with God, it is through this and answering my prayers is where my belief was made as solid as it is. Just trying to share some thoughts here and those who think I'm a lunatic i can only say I understand that's ok though

[Astreja]

You say no good and evil then in your own explanation you used the word good?

Samuel, please distinguish between "good" and "evil" as absolute, abstract values and "good," "bad" and "evil" as used in day-to-day conversation.

Even without referring to anything divine or supernatural, most people know when someone has helped or hurt them.  From that point of view, "good" is that which brings happiness and positive outcomes; "bad" is a situation that brings unhappiness and negative outcomes, and "evil" is a subset of "bad" when someone deliberately strives to cause extreme harm and unhappiness.  For instance, a volcanic eruption might be bad, but it isn't evil.  An act of premeditated murder is evil because it was performed with malice of forethought.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the English language doesn't really have two distinct words for {deliberate good} and {incidental or natural good} that correspond to the words "evil" and "bad."

[sun_king]

Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded that, “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement.

Cool, so mankind has the technology to ascertain what is contained in an arbitrary volume on any given day in history!!!

I can give this website where it states more

I can give you this link http://www.alagaesia.com/ and you should start believing in Saphira and the Elves.

[Astreja]

I don't believe myself to be good I've never done anything you stated either but I've done other things and I will always mess up...

I felt sad when I read this.  Self-esteem is an important part of living a fulfilling life, and all too often I've seen religions beat it out of people with slanderous nonsense like Original Sin or the myth of a perfect, holy god who supposedly can't bear to be in our presence.

There's plenty of room in the universe for good gods and good mortals.

[Samuelke]

Well about the bad, evil, and good I totally agree with you bad things I'd consider like you said natural elements of this world like volcanoes and animals. But humans being the odd balls on the planet have counsciousness and in that evil is created through selfishness, aragonce and things like this. Ravi zacharias tells this story about a women he met on a plane who rescued children from the sex trade. She told him the night before she saved an infant baby from a man who went to this place in the city where they are given a mix of snakes blood and liqour and then this child to do with it as they please. He points out which I strongly agree that yes the act this man is doing to this infant is evil but the greater evil is the man that is supplying all this to him.

[DumpsterFire]

Alright so first off if you were to start with the problem of evil, which is basically the backbone of the amputee argument, at least it seems. To say that you believe in evil, you are assuming a moral law to know what is good or evil, and to have a moral law means that there must be a moral law giver. Protest to this is welcome.

OK, I protest then. The concepts of good and evil have changed dramatically over the ages. Today we consider it evil if a parent kills a child for disobedience, while the Bible not only condones it, but demands it. Today we think genocide is appalling and we punish those responsible for it, while it was not just something quite common in the Bible, but a direct order and compulsory - if they're different from us, they must be killed or enslaved. And while slavery is frowned upon today, it was something god seemed to have no qualms about. Today we believe that a victim of rape is not responsible for it and we do all we can to keep them as far away from their assailants as possible, while in the Bible it's demanded they should either be killed or married to their assailants. We are also not very fond of animal sacrifice nowadays while only a few thousand years ago it was demanded of the chosen people.

Of course we have certain moral standards and we base our laws on them - but the key word here is 'we'. As we change, and with us our perception of the world, we change those laws and standards. We are the law givers. Are we therefore god?

The Problem of Evil is troubling, indeed. Many members in many threads here have demonstrated that objective morality cannot exist, and I fully concur. Unfortunately, this also means that at least a part of your argument is correct: It is impossible to define something as evil with certainty. Even something that virtually everyone agrees is an evil act, such as the baby rape you speak of, could be considered acceptable by certain groups in certain situations. I bet if the Bible said that raping babies was the only way to get into heaven there would be gaggles of True Believers^TM droppin' trou and kickin' open the nursery door.

One thing that can be objectively determined, however, is suffering. No one can deny, for example, that a person who is going hungry, or an infant being raped, is suffering. Thus, the Problem of Suffering is a far more compelling argument against the existence of Yahweh. So, Sam, care to enlighten us with your thoughts on why an all-powerful and all-loving god allows so many of his children to suffer so horribly, especially when Jesus was supposed to have taken on all the suffering for mankind?

[Samuelke]

Ok no about my self-esteem you've got that very wrong that's a promise. I'm 22 and you can see a male and I have been working in a day care for the past almost 3 years. I've since changed my major to elementary education because first I love working with and teaching kids. Multiple people in the field and most of all parents have told many times they think I need to pursue this. And also there is a huge reward to me in teaching when a child lets me know the impact I've had on them. This is one aspect of my life I know I can do some good in. The love I have and continue to experience from people. Literature, art, philosophy, science and many more similar things bring beauty and enjoyment to my life. Studying them and expressing through some. But to sum it up I would give to this , I know I'm not perfect, I know also that I have essential worth equal to everyone and I will continue to try my best everyday to be a good person and help those around me to the best of my abilities. I do not think highly of myself and I do not think lowly of myself.

[Astreja]

I love working with and teaching kids. Multiple people in the field and most of all parents have told many times they think I need to pursue this. And also there is a huge reward to me in teaching when a child lets me know the impact I've had on them. This is one aspect of my life I know I can do some good in.

Sounds great, Samuel.  If you love it, go for it!

But to sum it up I would give to this , I know I'm not perfect, I know also that I have essential worth equal to everyone and I will continue to try my best everyday to be a good person and help those around me to the best of my abilities. I do not think highly of myself and I do not think lowly of myself.

Also good.  (And, for the record, I think that "perfection" is overrated.)

[Samuelke]

Yes I'd like to say your question is well taken and one I struggled with for a long time but I believe that people like C.S. Lewis and this apologist Ravi zacharias have done excellent in dealing with this. I'd like to answer you with reference to Ravi when he says the biblical Christian world view says the the very most supreme ethic is love. None are greater but love can't exist without free will meaning conformity and the forceing of love destroys it. A perfect world would be robotic and programmed. Another thing to consider is pain and why our life would need it. I can't remember the name of this ailment but it cause a person to be completely numb to pain and unable to perspire. But a person with this has to always be watched by someone because of the danger of them not knowing they are bleeding profusely. So we see some reason for pain. But then you have to realize that while it is true we can become weary to pain and it can leave us feeling empty but the same can be said of pleasure and this can be seen so clearly in so many places one being Hollywood. To switch lanes and close here with the fact that I have long been in doubt of many parts of the bible but over time for me the bible shows truth in its prophesy where predictions of Jesus come many years before his birth but all the many prophesies in the old testament on kingdoms and their rise and fall and if you go and follow that and look at history you will see the predictions come true. But In that prophesy and importance the bible gives  us that Jesus is the only way to the father. The central thought about the bible is that many parts of it have the possible literal and or figurative meaning seeing that most of it is written in parables. But we all in the community believe that the bible makes this importance of jesus amongst all things clear. And Jesus was the ultimate symbol of love. In they way he dealt with this life and the evil in it, first he was always purposefully surrounding himself with evil, but his only goal was to over and over present love in the face of evil. Then we see the love of God in him sending his son for our sins. For me the lowest points of my life were the times that I felt and understood God more then ever in my life. And trying to say that the bible and what it entails is just a wishful fantasy but go and read the book from start to finish and them say that we wish for all that to happen to us. It even says once you are a believer you will continue to see and feel pain and or evil and or suffering, but then in those times of suffering he increases his grace. That some very few my words mostly to who I stated.

[Samuelke]

Thanks for that question

[Samuelke]

I used the word love a lot and there is the difference in our love and Gods love. When we love and love is lost we hurt because we have lost but when God loves and the love is lost he hurts only because we have lost.

[oogabooga]

So what your are telling me morals are what you decide them to be and what I choose them to be how will we ever know if one society is right to think all people should have value and love their neighbor or if it is right of those who choose to eat their neighbor.

Morals are man made, so, yes, morals are what we (not I, not even close) decide - all of us, not just a small number of people. This is where science comes in. Humans are social creatures and as all social creatures we need certain rules in order to survive. We're slow, clumsy and quite badly equipped to survive alone, not to mention the fact that our offspring takes forever to develop enough to be able to survive. That's why we formed societies. And we figured out pretty early on that cooperation works best. If we look out for others, they will look out for us in return. This way we can be safer, better fed and better off in general. Not killing our neighbours (or better, not killing members of our community - your god, the lawmaker, the foundation of morality, doesn't seem to frown on killing neighbours) wasn't 'ordered', it was something humans found to be counterproductive for the development and well-being of their society.

Cannibalism as such is fairly rare in higher species in general and has always been extremely rare in humans - and it always had a religious underpinnings. Please, dwell on that a bit.

You can't refer to a system like that with the term morals it would be like that of the animal kingdom.

Animals have morals. Social animals protect members of their own society and care for each other. Yes, that means that our morals don't differ much from the morals of other social animals. Animals, too, get rid of harmful members of their society, they also frown on having members of their own group kill other members for no reason. There are documented cases of chimpanzees risking their own lives to save members of their group. Why is it that you find it so distasteful or even insulting when we compare humans to other living creatures?

It is said that all material things that show a sign of intelligence we assume intelligabillity behind it. Like apologist Ravi zacharias states you can not say that the dictionary was caused by an explosion in the printing press. Someone replied to my post saying we are God. If so then show me how to produce a story with no author. You can't because you can't use and bend physics and chemistry to your will and make it happen.

It may be said, but it's wrong. However the analogy with the dictionary (or the Boeing) is horribly inaccurate. I also don't understand what it has to do with morality, so it's also completely out of place.

If you're talking about evolution, however, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the theory that explains the process. I won't go into detail here, because I seriously doubt anyone here would want to be subjected to an involuntary reading of lengthy post about something that's been discussed and explained at least a fre dozen times on this very forum. Let me just say that the idea you're talking about is commonly referred to as the 'watchmaker fallacy' and has been refuted more times that I can count since its inception by William Paley in 1802.

Thos who are saying Jesus did not exist this I profound to me seeing all the different cultures that historically say things about him and text outside the bible saying he rose from the dead. Even the Quran states that he was born of a virgin mother. It also says he appears to die on the cross. Knowing you all will want more evidence for these last statements that's what I'll be doing right when I'm out of the car.

There are no contemporaneous sources proving Jesus' existence. There are writings from nearby nations mentioning the fact that there were people who claim he existed, which is not surprising. No-one refutes the fact that Christians exist and that they existed at the time, and I haven't come across any claims that those particular beliefs exist. That doesn't make them accurate or true.

There are numerous sources claiming the existence of all sorts of other gods and their supposed children. There are written sources on various messiahs throughout history that are practically identical to the story of Jesus. Which one is right? Krishna, Mithras, Buddha, Marduk, Osiris, Horus and all sorts of gods peoples of that region worshiped long before Jesus, share much of his CV, they performed the same types of miracles and they were claimed to be sons of gods or gods. All those mythologies borrowed heavily from one another because those kinds of beliefs were simply prevalent at the time. There is nothing new or even strikingly original in the story of Jesus. The only thing that's really sort of original in the NT is the acid-driven ramblings in the Revelations. And even that is just a rehash of various other end-of-time or end-of-world myths.

I used the word love a lot and there is the difference in our love and Gods love. When we love and love is lost we hurt because we have lost but when God loves and the love is lost he hurts only because we have lost.

This also caught my eye. So, let me recap (and repeat something that you seem to have ignored): god loves us, but he is willing to punish us for all eternity for the fact that he made us flawed, and he hurts because of it.

[naemhni]

And trying to say that the bible and what it entails is just a wishful fantasy but go and read the book from start to finish

You appear to be assuming that most of us here have not read the bible.  In fact, most of us have read it, cover to cover, more than once and in more than one translation.  I'm one of the exceptions to this, but check back with me in another three, maybe four weeks.  I'm working my way thru the ESV and should be done with it by then.  (I'm currently up to Acts 3.)  Thank you for reminding me of one of the bigger reasons that I undertook the project.

[screwtape]

Summing up this position, Dr. Thomas Arnold,

yeah.  He died in 1842.  Long, long, long before archaeology got good.  Long before historians stopped using the bible as a field guide.  Long before advanced dating methods were available.

Brooke Foss Wescott, an English scholar,

died 1901 and not a historian.

Dr. Paul L. Maier,

has a vested interest in denial of reality.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_L._Maier 

serves as Second Vice President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

Jeeze, why not quote the Pope too?

Dr. Simon Greenleaf.

died 1853

[DumpsterFire]

None are greater but love can't exist without free will meaning conformity and the forceing of love destroys it. A perfect world would be robotic and programmed. Another thing to consider is pain and why our life would need it. I can't remember the name of this ailment but it cause a person to be completely numb to pain and unable to perspire. But a person with this has to always be watched by someone because of the danger of them not knowing they are bleeding profusely. So we see some reason for pain. <snip>

 It even says once you are a believer you will continue to see and feel pain and or evil and or suffering...

I agree that a world utterly without pain and suffering would not be in mankind's best interest. Pain and suffering alert us to things that are physically or emotionally harmful to us, and this type of mechanism is necessary for the overall growth of the species.

Its the extensive and excessive (and unnecessary) suffering so prevalent in this world to which I refer. It is not a sin, my dear xtian, to be born in an impoverished area, but millions of children suffer every day of their lives for it. Surely the god who the bible says rained manna down from heaven would see fit to provide these folks with some food to eat, right? And it wouldn't even have to be as dramatic as the whole manna thing. Simply 'designing' a new, nutrient-rich crop that could be easily cultivated and thrive in harsh climates would do it. And it wouldn't even violate that precious 'free-will' clause most xtians so desperately cling to. If such a crop existed, we would just accept it as fact and move on. Meanwhile, prolonged human suffering in this world would be greatly diminished.

I know, I know, its the cruel warlords that control the food supply in many of these places, and god can't interfere with free-will in those cases (standard xtian response in other similar threads). But I call BS on that, as well. A nice, strategic heart attack here and there would work wonders in that department:

Mugabe: "OK men, you must go collect the shipments of rice that just arrived from the Red Cross. Do not let any villagers have any, and kill anybody who tries to stop you."

Soldiers on Mugabe's payroll: "Yes, Boss!"

Mugabe: "Actually, you can pretty much kill as many of the locals as you wish, just make sure to bring those rice bundles back her...AAAGH!...chest tightening...arm...numb...hard to...breathe..."<collapses to floor>.

Soldiers: "Boss! Boss! You OK?"

Soldier 1: "I think he's dead!"

Soldier 2: "OMG, what should we do? Should we still seize the rice bundles?"

Soldier 1: "Hell no, that shit's heavy. Let's grab his wallet and get the hell out of here!"


People die of heart attacks all the time, so no one would be the wiser. Of course, god couldn't kill all these bastards the same way or we might be on to him. He would have to get creative and throw in some fatal car wrecks, plane crashes, flesh eating bacteria, who knows? There are plenty of ways to die. God could even make the guy trip and shoot himself with his own gun, wouldn't that be fitting?

The best part of this arrangement would be that xtians would say god is helping us by getting rid of evil people, but we atheists would still say it was just a coincidence and not evidence of god. Suffering is diminished and free-will remains intact.

[Gnu Ordure]

Not my words
Summing up this position, Dr. Thomas Arnold, the former chair of modern history at Oxford and author of the well-respected three volume “History of Rome” says:

For the record, these are the words of Josh McDowell, taken from his book The Resurrection Factor, and endlessly recycled by Christians ever since, even though the quotations are rubbish, as Screwtape pointed out.