atheistic morality two

[siegfriedandroy]

if you are a true atheist, then murder is no worse/better than giving the homeless guy a thousand bucks. what hitler did was not wrong. some of you (atheists) rightfully understand this, others protest at length. in the end it is obvious. in the end, the genocide of hundreds of thousands (or more), is no more morally repugnant (from a good atheist's perspective) than the little boy who shares his snacks at lunch with the starving kid. most of you are not really 'philosophers'. and even if you were, you'd be only barely more enlightened (if at all). sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care. in reality, your philosophy is incredibly wicked, since you really cannot possibly have any legitimate ground to criticize the nations of our world who kill thousands, perhaps millions, without legitimate right. in fact, you cannot truly even deem it wrong at all, except in your pointless and arbitrary skull that futilely determines good and evil. arrogant d-bags. you can not truly condemn the murder of millions of jews, 3k americans, etc etc ad infinitum throughout history. you may as well support the killing. would not be at all any more inconsistent w/ your atheistic precepts than condemnation of the death. why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality?

[David Sklansky]

"sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care."

Two problems (that most atheists won't bring up because they deny your premises) even if you are right.

1.It doesn't matter if I have a reasonable reason to care. If I care, I care.

2.If no personal God means that Hitler wasn't a bad guy that simply means that Hitler probably wasn't a bad guy.

[MidGe]

siegfriedandroy,

This has been covered already.

Only an atheist framework, but surely not a revealed religion one, will allow for a truly moral attitude and actions.

To believe in a book, being the bible, the bagavat-gita, War and Peace, The Story of O, Catch-22, and use that as a basis for morality is simply surrendering/denying your own capabilities to be moral, to the author/s of the book(s).

Of course, if you don't have a moral sense of yourself, I can understand where you come from.

[Propertarian]

Posts like this easily illustrate to others that morality is real, regardless of whether or not god exists.

[51cards]

I have a friend who really can't understand why I don't rape babies and eat kittens. I've decided to do humanity a favor and not mess with his faith anymore.

[CaseS87]

It seems to be an obsession with a lot of people that there needs to be some grand moral code. You're right, I could walk outside and stab my neighbor to death and it wouldn't make any difference, but from a personal philosophy standpoint this is certainly not a reason to believe in God. All morality is entirely dependent on the society you live in. Consider for a moment that the comet that killed off the dinosaurs missed the earth. Our timid and by our standards "moral" mammalian ancestors were forced to remain in their holes and dens. Nothing close to human beings ever evolved. Instead the dinosaurs after 60 million years became intelligent and developed a technically advanced civilization. How do you think their moral code would differ from ours? They might create their own religions with a great dinosaur god, who ravaged and killed like crazy. This would be moral for them, would you not agree?

The way atheists should approach morality is objectively deciding what is prosperous for our society. We developed our "conscience" because natural selection favored those who didn't do the things undesirable to our species (rape, kill, steal etc.).

In the super long term, like 30 billion years from now when the universe as we know it is gone, I don't think it matters what we do in terms of morality. I think every human being is hardwired to do good, and when they do good things they feel better, so it doesn't make much sense to go nuts and start killing everyone.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The way atheists should approach morality is objectively deciding what is prosperous for our society. We developed our "conscience" because natural selection favored those who didn't do the things undesirable to our species (rape, kill, steal etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]


Just in case, someone misunderstand my previous post, I don't think morality has anything to do with what I think is good in evolutionary terms. OTOH, by definition, whatever I see and act upon as moral, is part of evolution, beneficial to the species or not.

My moral choices are not based on what may or may not happen in however many million/billion years. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CityFan]

How kind of you.

Are we supposed to believe that, if there is no "God" to lay down principles of right and wrong, we can't find any foundation for those principles?

It seems repugnant to me to think that moral valuations which are shared by almost all human beings have to be laid down by some detached deity with a bizarre interest in the doings of mankind. Wouldn't that make those valuations somewhat arbitrary?

Human concepts of good and bad, moral and immoral, arise out of our interest in the health of our species. It is part of our survival strategy to chastise those who put other human lives at risk.

I fail to see how atheists cannot "truly condemn" the kind of crimes you speak about, and yet religious fanatics can, simply because they can point to some inviolable list of rules against which these things can be measured.

I suggest you develop your understanding of atheist philosophy before making any more posts like this, because they just make you look stupid. Also, since it's generally known which posters on here are atheist and which are not, your post could be interpreted as a personal attack.

[FortunaMaximus]

It could be, I don't think it is generally. Frustration in articulating the need for a common moral standard too.

I love. I like helping people. I have pretty high moral standards. But there's no crime that cannot be justified under the right circumstances. But within my moral standard, there are two specific ones. Rape and abuse. But I've trod those territories in other threads, so nothing new.

I'm certainly not a theist though. If that by default makes me an atheist, so be it. I don't care, really, what I'm labeled as. I do good things at varying costs to my own expected value, because those losses are recoverable for me, personally. As for why, I don't know. It feels right, so I do it. Making other people I care about happier, even random strangers... If it's a net gain in happiness and comfort, good. My own standards for such are ridiculously low compared to many.

A requirement that you believe in a deity or that you be theist never really weighs too heavily in my actions. I'll allow for a probability of God existing, but would never change my actions and justifications to tailor to standards set out by such.

That just seems irrelevant. So does that make God irrelevant to the human condition? Perhaps.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality?

[/ QUOTE ] This is the only thing really worthwhile in your post, and it's called projection. It is a very interesting question. Simply put it helps us sleep at night, and it is something that all types of people share the blame in telling stories to kids in an effort to make them feel better.

[Phil153]

If you redirected that hatred inward at your own religion, and your own beliefs, you might become a wise man /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If you redirected that hatred inward at your own religion, and your own beliefs, you might become a wise man /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never had an opportunity to just quote Phil! Glad the opportunity presented itself.

The OPs post is very helpful. I was trying to convey to another poster the arrogant superiority some theists have about atheists. The person I responded that he didn't think "educated Christians" would think that atheists were immoral. I'm going to assume the OP in this thread is educated....

[bocablkr]

Siegfriedandroy,

Do a search - this has been covered many times before. Most people agree, atheists are more moral than theists. They have to be, they don't have a 'get out of jail' free card like the religious people feel they have.

[hmkpoker]

I am 100% atheistic.

Reasons why I don't murder:

1) I am averse to human suffering and would prefer not to cause it.
2) I could get caught, and sentenced to something highly unpleasant.
3) There is very little benefit to be reaped from murder for more.

Seems like I have absolutely zero reason to murder people, even without any kind of morality. I don't know if you've noticed, but atheists aren't running rampant killing people in this society.

[Prodigy54321]

so if you found out there was no god, you would go around killing every person you could get your hands on?

--cause that's what I got out of it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
so if you found out there was no god, you would go around killing every person you could get your hands on?

--cause that's what I got out of it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Aye, but it's the atheists who are immoral /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Nielsio]

So where do you get your morality.

[NotReady]

Don't none of y'all never read no Nietzsche?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't none of y'all never read no Nietzsche?

[/ QUOTE ] I suppose you follow the dictates of Zues.
Much like your felow jesus, Nietzche was just a man.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't none of y'all never read no Nietzsche?

[/ QUOTE ] I suppose you follow the dictates of Zues.
Much like your felow jesus, Nietzche was just a man.

[/ QUOTE ]

and just like Jesus, he had some pretty insightful things to say.

I don't agree with him entirely though. I do believe there are some static moral values that human beings will hold based only on their being human.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Much like your felow jesus, Nietzche was just a man


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is what Nietzsche would say, which is why he said there are no absolutes, which is what the OP was saying, which no one has addressed but sunk to attacking his motives.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Much like your felow jesus, Nietzche was just a man


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is what Nietzsche would say, which is why he said there are no absolutes, which is what the OP was saying, which no one has addressed but sunk to attacking his motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there are absolutes with god either..he's just one more entity with an opinion on the subject..I don't see how even if it was a god that created us would change this..

I do agree that there are no absolutes..but there can be an agreed upon morality based on the morality that naturally develops...

without a god, it is the most powerful who push their morality on others..and with a god, it is the same thing..since god is the most powerful, he pushes his morality on us, but there is still no absolute morality when more than one sentient being is involved.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is what Nietzsche would say, which is why he said there are no absolutes,

[/ QUOTE ]

When we found out there is no absolute time, did we throw away our watches? Or claim they don't exist. Positing a god still leaves morals in a non-absolute state, so nothing even changes in that case.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

he's just one more entity with an opinion on the subject


[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious - do you even see the possibility that what is ultimate is a Person?

[ QUOTE ]

.but there can be an agreed upon morality based on the morality that naturally develops...


[/ QUOTE ]

Problem is some nit always disagrees.

[ QUOTE ]

without a god, it is the most powerful who push their morality on others.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've stated at lest 10 million times on this site alone that all atheistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism - might makes right.

[ QUOTE ]

since god is the most powerful, he pushes his morality on us, but there is still no absolute morality when more than one sentient being is involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

Question begging.

[JefferyLopes18]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are a true atheist, then murder is no worse/better than giving the homeless guy a thousand bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so going by the definition of atheist 'as a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings' I only need to quote your first sentence to completely disregard everything else you wrote. Some atheists are completely hedonistic utilitarians who would say that murder is awarded a large sum of negative points and giving the homeless person money (even though I personally think there are better ways to help the individual) would be a better choice overall. This process of thinking has nothing to do with believing or not believing in God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When we found out there is no absolute time, did we throw away our watches? Or claim they don't exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't deny the existence of the relative. I believe that at some time in the past there was no time, God created time and sometime time may end.

[ QUOTE ]

Positing a god still leaves morals in a non-absolute state


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is what Nietzsche would say, which is why he said there are no absolutes, which is what the OP was saying, which no one has addressed but sunk to attacking his motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what the OP was saying at all. Every single reference he uses is a relative measure, not an absolute one.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious - do you even see the possibility that what is ultimate is a Person?


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean, "person"?..probably no..at least a miniscule probability..

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is some nit always disagrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

putting a god in there doesn't change this

[ QUOTE ]
I've stated at lest 10 million times on this site alone that all atheistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism - might makes right.


[/ QUOTE ]

wow..theistic worldviews reduce to the same thing...the "ultimate" form of it at that..

[ QUOTE ]
Question begging.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain..

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's not what the OP was saying at all. Every single reference he uses is a relative measure, not an absolute one.


[/ QUOTE ]


Boy, did we read the OP different or what?

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Much like your felow jesus, Nietzche was just a man


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is what Nietzsche would say, which is why he said there are no absolutes, which is what the OP was saying, which no one has addressed but sunk to attacking his motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think OP's motives need to be questionned. If OP were interested in a debate about absolute vs subjective morals, he/she would probably make a very different post to introduce it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious - do you even see the possibility that what is ultimate is a Person?

[/ QUOTE ]

DC-8s and body thetans look more reasonable and less anthropocentric in comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
I've stated at lest 10 million times on this site alone that all atheistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism - might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you haven't once bothered to justify it. In fact, if anyone challenges you to give any kind of rational argument as to why you believe this is true, you duck and run.

Moreover, you have it backwards. You've stated at least 10 million times on this site alone that God defines what is good, because he's the Ultimate, the All-Powerful. This is the most essential and inescapable form of the "might makes right" argument. If you don't believe that might makes right, then you can't believe that God, by sole virtue of his being God, makes right. You certainly can't use the argument that because God is so much greater than me, he knows what's right better than I do.

But that is exactly the type of arguments Christians make. In fact, it's the kind of argument God himself makes - have you ever actually read Job? The reason Christians fear that atheism causes immorality, despite evidence to the contrary, is because they have a worldview of might makes right - and they project that worldview onto atheists.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's not what the OP was saying at all. Every single reference he uses is a relative measure, not an absolute one.


[/ QUOTE ]


Boy, did we read the OP different or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to point out a single passage from the OP that indicates absolute moralities? I can point out at least five that focus on relative moralities.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

what do you mean, "person"?


[/ QUOTE ]

A being with reason, will, conciousness.

[ QUOTE ]

at least a miniscule probability..


[/ QUOTE ]

Then do you see that :

[ QUOTE ]

he's just one more entity with an opinion on the subject


[/ QUOTE ]

would be incorrect?

[ QUOTE ]

putting a god in there doesn't change this


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't change the existence of the nit - it just overrules him, and in God's case, righteously.

[ QUOTE ]

.theistic worldviews reduce to the same thing...the "ultimate" form of it at that..


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because God is inherently right, not just because of His power.

[ QUOTE ]


Question begging.

please explain..


[/ QUOTE ]

You said:

[ QUOTE ]

there is still no absolute morality when more than one sentient being is involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

But the question is whether an absoulte being exists. If so, there would be absolute morality.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because God is inherently right, not just because of His power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because of his power. You're defining right based on God. That is, you're saying that what is "right" or "wrong" in the universe is "right" or "wrong" based on the Creator of that universe. This is an argument you've made many times over, and it is a might-makes-right argument. Semantic games can't escape that.

Right is right because of God. God is God because of his power. Therefore, Right is right because of God's power.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is what Nietzsche would say, which is why he said there are no absolutes, which is what the OP was saying, which no one has addressed but sunk to attacking his motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP seems to be saying little more then atheists have no morals and are evil. I'm not sure there's much to address there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And you haven't once bothered to justify it. In fact, if anyone challenges you to give any kind of rational argument as to why you believe this is true, you duck and run.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, I know. I've already done that in this thread alone. And the only time I leave is when the discussion deteriorates to insults.

[ QUOTE ]

You've stated at least 10 million times on this site alone that God defines what is good, because he's the Ultimate, the All-Powerful.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said this as to His omnipotence. Even in this thread I've said God is inherently right. Goodness is part of His nature, not because He's omnipotent, or even because He's ultimate. It's part of the definition of God. He is the absolute standard of good. His goodness therefore defines goodness itself, because He's ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

have you ever actually read Job?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, have you?

[ QUOTE ]

The reason Christians fear that atheism causes immorality


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never claimed that atheists in general are more immoral than Christians, the opposite is often the case - my claim is they can't justify morality.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You want to point out a single passage from the OP that indicates absolute moralities?


[/ QUOTE ]

The entire post is an attack on atheistic morality because it's relative. The implication is that relativism is evil because it can't justify morality which also implies, though not directly stated, that an absolute is required for morality.

[CityFan]

If this absolute being exists and He lays down the rules for what is right and wrong, then as I understand it we have to act according to His rules because He will judge us and we will be rewarded or punished according to His will.

Now, perhaps I'm only repeating what others have said, but where's the morality there? We seem to be the playthings of some kind of all-powerful (and rather sadistic) supreme being. Is that good?

Do Christians really use this world-view to give them comfort in distress? How exactly does that go?

"Hey, life's [censored], but there's nothing we can do about it because we're all just playthings of some nasty [censored] up in the sky. Hallelujah, praise the Lord!"

Talk about advocating responsibility for your own life. That's some sick inferiority complex you've got going on there.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
And the only time I leave is when the discussion deteriorates to insults.


[/ QUOTE ]

If that were true of you, one could argue that you would have left after reading the OP.


[ QUOTE ]
most of you are not really 'philosophers'. and even if you were, you'd be only barely more enlightened (if at all).... in reality, your philosophy is incredibly wicked, since you really cannot possibly have any legitimate ground to criticize the nations of our world who kill thousands, perhaps millions, without legitimate right. in fact, you cannot truly even deem it wrong at all, except in your pointless and arbitrary skull that futilely determines good and evil. arrogant d-bags . you can not truly condemn the murder of millions of jews, 3k americans, etc etc ad infinitum throughout history. you may as well support the killing. would not be at all any more inconsistent w/ your atheistic precepts than condemnation of the death. why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks to me like he's just insulting atheists...

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
A being with reason, will, conciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

human reason?, human will?...no...well, I guess possible

conciousness?..yes, possibly

EDIT: even if all three are true, that doesn't make him inherently "right"

[ QUOTE ]
Then do you see that :

"he's just one more entity with an opinion on the subject"

would be incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

no..you would have to define him as inherently, "right"

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't change the existence of the nit - it just overrules him, and in God's case, righteously.


[/ QUOTE ]

just like if there is any other being more powerful than him..that isn't considered a god.

[ QUOTE ]
and in God's case, righteously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know exactly what this is meant to say..please explain

[ QUOTE ]
No, because God is inherently right, not just because of His power.

[/ QUOTE ]

errr, not the way I see it...that is my contention..that no being can be inherently "right" when more than one sentient being is present.

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is whether an absoulte being exists. If so, there would be absolute morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, there would be absolute morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you are defining god as being inherently "right"

I guess if I consider that as a definition of god, I must concede that it's true, since it's a definition of it..

but that doesn't prove anything

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, because God is inherently right, not just because of His power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because of his power. You're defining right based on God. That is, you're saying that what is "right" or "wrong" in the universe is "right" or "wrong" based on the Creator of that universe. This is an argument you've made many times over, and it is a might-makes-right argument. Semantic games can't escape that.

Right is right because of God. God is God because of his power. Therefore, Right is right because of God's power.

[/ QUOTE ]

zOMG! logic!

<heads exploding everywhere>

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is an argument you've made many times over, and it is a might-makes-right argument. Semantic games can't escape that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't state it any other way. If you think it's a semantic game I can't help you.

[ QUOTE ]

Right is right because of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

God is God because of his power.


[/ QUOTE ]

This premise isn't part of any Christian theology to which I subscribe.

[ QUOTE ]

Right is right because of God's power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right is right for us because it agrees with God's nature. God enforces right through might but it isn't the force that makes it right.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never claimed that atheists in general are more immoral than Christians, the opposite is often the case - my claim is they can't justify morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking any action because we believe in a being that will punish or reward us even in a secondary way could hardly be the basis for a moral system. That's why atheists start out ahead, however the individual choices come out.

luckyme

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Even in this thread I've said God is inherently right. Goodness is part of His nature, not because He's omnipotent, or even because He's ultimate. It's part of the definition of God. He is the absolute standard of good. His goodness therefore defines goodness itself, because He's ultimate.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously some new definition of "good" that I haven't been introduced too.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If that were true of you, one could argue that you would have left after reading the OP


[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously mean insults directed toward me.

[ QUOTE ]

Looks to me like he's just insulting atheists...


[/ QUOTE ]

There are certainly insults contained in the post along with why he's making them. It's the why part you are all ignoring.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And you haven't once bothered to justify it. In fact, if anyone challenges you to give any kind of rational argument as to why you believe this is true, you duck and run.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, I know. I've already done that in this thread alone. And the only time I leave is when the discussion deteriorates to insults.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you haven't. And you frequently leave when the discussion gets tough. I suppose if by "insults" you mean insults toward Christianity, then es. That's exactly what I'm saying. If you mean insults toward yourself, then no.

How about this, as an exercise. State your premises and the inferences that lead to your conclusion from them.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never said this as to His omnipotence. Even in this thread I've said God is inherently right. Goodness is part of His nature, not because He's omnipotent, or even because He's ultimate. It's part of the definition of God. He is the absolute standard of good. His goodness therefore defines goodness itself, because He's ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Later on when I'm not at school I can nail you here. The two of us were having a discussion and I said you were defining God in many different ways. I was saying that's not logically supportable, it would imply that "absolute good" and "absolute power" mean exactly the same thing. You said something along the lines of "now you're getting it." Of course, it's possible that was an attempt to avoid the subject, but it was clearly intended as an affirmation. That is, you do define "absolute good" and "absolute power" as the same thing. Such a definition indicates a pure and dogmatic might-makes-right philosophy. If you're going to claim that you can alternate between "the Ultimate," "the All-Knowing," "the All-Good," "the All-Just," and "the All-Powerful" to describe the same thing, then you have to be consistent in equating the terms. Thus, when you describe an all-good being, you're necessarily describing an all-powerful being as well. And vice versa.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

have you ever actually read Job?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, have you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have. And again I can quote it directly when I'm at home. But to paraphrase, at the end God spends three pages speaking from a dust cloud talking about how powerful he is. He says "Bitch, I made the crocodile, I made the hippo, I made the tiger, I made the mountains, I made the rivers, I made the stars in the sky. I did all that, and you dare defy me?" And then Job says "Oh [censored], [censored] [censored] [censored] I didn't mean it man. You're all powerful, of course I don't defy you." And then God says "Okay cool, you know your place, I'm going to give you a new wife even prettier than the old one" and Job says "Really? Even prettier? Wow, it's a good thing that other old hag bit it then. Thanks God, you're a pal."

Okay, maybe some paraphrasing at the end. But believe me, God says because he made the mountains, and the "leviathan" and the "behemoth," because of that power Job should listen to him.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The reason Christians fear that atheism causes immorality


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never claimed that atheists in general are more immoral than Christians, the opposite is often the case - my claim is they can't justify morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're still talking about the OP, right? You realize that in the post he explicitly states that atheists are wicked and ignorant (actually it was less polite than that, but we'll go with "wicked" and "ignorant")? Moreover, based on my experience, opinion polls in the US about atheists, and Christian doctrine, it's crystal clear most Christians think atheists are immoral. I stand by my statement.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You want to point out a single passage from the OP that indicates absolute moralities?


[/ QUOTE ]

The entire post is an attack on atheistic morality because it's relative. The implication is that relativism is evil because it can't justify morality which also implies, though not directly stated, that an absolute is required for morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thus it's an attack on relative morality. He doesn't even approach the subject of absolute morality. He claims that relative morality doesn't exist, and of course we can infer that he supports an absolute morality (based in large part on his insults and final statement), but that's not his point. It's relative morality that's germane to the discussion.

He's suggesting that we can't say that Hitler is worse than a philanthropist, because relative standards aren't valid. He's not claiming that there are no absolutes among atheists (your interpretation according to your Nietzsche post). He's assuming there are no absolutes among atheists, and then claiming that this somehow implies there's no morality among atheists.

He is in no way saying what Nietzsche said.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly insults contained in the post along with why he's making them. It's the why part you are all ignoring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't see an articulated 'why.' He claims we have no basis for morality. We're wicked and evil. Sharing food with a hungry kid at lunch is no different then genocide. I'm more suprised there's much debate. I think his post amounts to nothing more then a rant of a theist who thinks having his religion is the only way to have morals and everyone else is wicked.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: even if all three are true, that doesn't make him inherently "right"


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming that. The claim is just that He is right. If He isn't, it would be because of a standard outside and above Him, which would mean He isn't God.

[ QUOTE ]

.that is my contention..that no being can be inherently "right" when more than one sentient being is present.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are contradicting what you said about the minuscule possibility of an Absolute Person - unless your position is that the true absolute is an impersonal standard.

[ QUOTE ]

but that doesn't prove anything


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if there isn't absolute morality there is no morality. What we call morality is just transitory opinion.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, based on my experience, opinion polls in the US about atheists, and Christian doctrine, it's crystal clear most Christians think atheists are immoral. I stand by my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there was a recent poll about this that made it into both "30 Days" and "Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t"... and that was the finding. Christians think atheists are not trustworthy and are immoral.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Taking any action because we believe in a being that will punish or reward us even in a secondary way could hardly be the basis for a moral system.


[/ QUOTE ]

God wants us to make the right decisions for the right reasons. That doesn't mean we can.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Goodness is part of His nature, not because He's omnipotent, or even because He's ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
His goodness therefore defines goodness itself, because He's ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a contradiction, by the way? The concepts you're discussing are rational concepts, right? You're not slipping extrarational concepts into an ostensibly rational framework?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is obviously some new definition of "good" that I haven't been introduced too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Search my posts.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you are contradicting what you said about the minuscule possibility of an Absolute Person

[/ QUOTE ]

nice job sneaking in the word "absolute"...you didn't include that when you asked me the question

throw absolute in there and I change my answer to your question.

[ QUOTE ]
No, but if there isn't absolute morality there is no morality. What we call morality is just transitory opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

there is ralative morality..which I don't see as any "better or worse" than this supposed absolute morality...I guess you do?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but if there isn't absolute morality there is no morality. What we call morality is just transitory opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say you've justified this position on this very thread. I am seeing no justification of it. Link please?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That is, you do define "absolute good" and "absolute power" as the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cite.

Someone's about to get nailed.

[kurto]

Sounds to me like God doesn't really allow for us to make decisions...

[ QUOTE ]
You can see how pervasive "God's plan" is by looking in inspirational books and magazines. For example, if we look in the book A Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren, we find this remarkable paragraph in Chapter 2:

Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]
There is also this:
Regardless of the circumstances of your birth or who your parents are, God had a plan in creating you.
Under this view of the universe, God plans everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a contradiction


[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[madnak]

In the first sentence you say it's not because he's Ultimate, then in the second you say it's because he's Ultimate.

[Prodigy54321]

question for you...

there is no god...

this guy named BOB is the most powerful being in existence...BOB has an opinion on morality..is BOB's morality absolute morality?

this is the very same way that god's morality is absolute morality.

----------------------------------

I do not consider BOB's morality to be absolute morality...

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

nice job sneaking in the word "absolute".


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't being sneaky. This is my perception of your two positions:

1. Some possibility of an Absolute Person (sentience implied).
2. More than one sentient being, no absolute.

If I'm misrepresenting you it was unintentional.

[ QUOTE ]

there is ralative morality..which I don't see as any "better or worse" than this supposed absolute morality...I guess you do?


[/ QUOTE ]

If there's no absolute definition of right and wrong then as a practical matter people will still use the idea of right and wrong but there is no way no judge which conflicting views of right and wrong are correct therefore all views have equal value which is the same as no value.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In the first sentence you say it's not because he's Ultimate, then in the second you say it's because he's Ultimate.


[/ QUOTE ]


I said goodness is part of His nature AND because He's ultimate His goodness therefore defines goodness. But His goodness isn't goodness in itself because He's ultimate but because He's good.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If there's no absolute definition of right and wrong then as a practical matter people will still use the idea of right and wrong but there is no way no judge which conflicting views of right and wrong are correct therefore all views have equal value which is the same as no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not logical.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In the first sentence you say it's not because he's Ultimate, then in the second you say it's because he's Ultimate.


[/ QUOTE ]


I said goodness is part of His nature AND because He's ultimate His goodness therefore defines goodness. But His goodness isn't goodness in itself because He's ultimate but because He's good.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying "Ultimateness" is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for God defining good? What are the other necessary conditions? What combinations of conditions can be considered sufficient?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

this guy named BOB is the most powerful being in existence...BOB has an opinion on morality..is BOB's morality absolute morality?


[/ QUOTE ]

But God isn't just the most powerful being in existence. He is self-existent, the ground and cause of all other existence. Your example implies a being that isn't absolute in the full sense leaving room for something higher. God has more than just an opinion about morality.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is, you do define "absolute good" and "absolute power" as the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cite.

Someone's about to get nailed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Found it. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7543091&page=0&vc=1)

Specifically it was that "the source of meaning," "the source of the universe," and "the character mentioned in the Bible" are definitionally identical.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you're saying "Ultimateness" is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for God defining good?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that it's possible to distinguish between the concepts of goodness and ultimacy. They are both attributes of God. His attributes are not in conflict with one another nor do they depend on one another. The whole point is that God is not arbitrary which is what might makes right implies. He is reason, justice, goodness, righeousness and love, and all of these attributes and more are absolute.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

If there's no absolute definition of right and wrong then as a practical matter people will still use the idea of right and wrong but there is no way no judge which conflicting views of right and wrong are correct therefore all views have equal value which is the same as no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true.

Let's say I know that homosexuality is not immoral.
But god says it absolutely is immoral.

Who is correct, and why?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't being sneaky. This is my perception of your two positions:

1. Some possibility of an Absolute Person (sentience implied).


[/ QUOTE ]

not in the sense that I think you are considering them as "absolute"

[ QUOTE ]
2. More than one sentient being, no absolute.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes..

[ QUOTE ]
If there's no absolute definition of right and wrong then as a practical matter people will still use the idea of right and wrong but there is no way no judge which conflicting views of right and wrong are correct therefore all views have equal value which is the same as no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

sentient beings have differing opinions of morality...telling them that one is right and wrong doesn't do anything, which is all that this god does...

just as with any more powerful being, he can force others to abide by this morality, but it doens't change the fact that there are other opinions out there.

there is ONLY this relative morality

you are right that there is no way to judge these conflicting view...

it's not that "might makes right"..it's that "might makes things happen the way that the mightier wants them to"...this is the same if god exists IMO

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

this guy named BOB is the most powerful being in existence...BOB has an opinion on morality..is BOB's morality absolute morality?


[/ QUOTE ]

But God isn't just the most powerful being in existence. He is self-existent, the ground and cause of all other existence. Your example implies a being that isn't absolute in the full sense leaving room for something higher. God has more than just an opinion about morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no God... now what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Found it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how that post makes your case.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Who is correct, and why?


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you decide who is correct?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that it's possible to distinguish between the concepts of goodness and ultimacy. They are both attributes of God. His attributes are not in conflict with one another nor do they depend on one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my citation above. You went a long way talking about how God's attributes can't be considered exclusively.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point is that God is not arbitrary which is what might makes right implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is extremely false. The earliest proponents of might makes right suggested that might was an indicator of destiny or divinity. That remained consistent throughout almost all the cultures where the philosophy was accepted.

[ QUOTE ]
He is reason, justice, goodness, righeousness and love, and all of these attributes and more are absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're suggesting that God is good independently of his Ultimateness. Therefore, there must be some indepent criteria that qualify God as "good." What are they?

If God possesses certain attributes, that is to say if God is the object of certain descriptors, then in order for the descriptors to apply to him he must meet the standards according to which the descriptors apply. Accordingly, if we see that God fails to meet those standards, it's logical to conclude that the descriptor doesn't apply to God. Therefore, God cannot be inherently good. Therefore, God can be the "source" of good only in a limited or contingent sense.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

this guy named BOB is the most powerful being in existence...BOB has an opinion on morality..is BOB's morality absolute morality?


[/ QUOTE ]

But God isn't just the most powerful being in existence. He is self-existent, the ground and cause of all other existence. Your example implies a being that isn't absolute in the full sense leaving room for something higher. God has more than just an opinion about morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you define god as being absolute..there is no arguing that if this god exists, he is absolute...

as with anything that you define in a certain way...

[ QUOTE ]
But God isn't just the most powerful being in existence. He is self-existent, the ground and cause of all other existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how there is more than one "existence"

I guess if you define god as a being who doesn't have to obey anything..logic included..there is no argument here as well.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

not in the sense that I think you are considering them as "absolute"


[/ QUOTE ]

Now who's sneaky?/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

"might makes things happen the way that the mightier wants them to"..


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, just too many words to type.

[ QUOTE ]

this is the same if god exists


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if He's right.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Found it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how that post makes your case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained that clearly in my post above.

Tell me straight out. Are you being logical, or not? Once again I'll say that I think you're using an ostensibly logical context in order to present concepts that are (at best) extralogical. So put it down. If you're actually approaches our logical points with your own reasoning, say so and then we can know that the rules of logic apply to the discussion. If you're just dancing with concepts that you know are not logical concepts, say so and then I can stop trying to have a fist fight with a cloud of mist.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Now who's sneaky?

[/ QUOTE ]

how so? if you think that I do not understand what you mean by "absolute", please define it..I left room for that by saying "that I think you are"

[ QUOTE ]
Not if He's right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm arguing that there is no "right"

if you want to define his as "right", then there is again, no argument...this is one of the things I assumed you were considering as "absolute"

[Prodigy54321]

siegfriedandroy,

why do you make posts that are nothing more than mindless rants with nothing to back your accusations up, then don't respond to any questions or criticisms?

you have been the biggest troll in SMP as long as I have been here

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how there is more than one "existence"


[/ QUOTE ]

This has been the position of mainstream Christianity at least since Augustine. That's why the creation doctrine is so important. God is qualitativly different than everything else. I believe the Bible is unique on that point though I could be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

I guess if you define god as a being who doesn't have to obey anything..logic included..there is no argument here as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

He obeys His nature. The Bible says God can't lie. Christian theology extends that to things like logic, derived from verses like "I am .. the truth".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you being logical, or not?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've stated my position on logic and human reason before though it's been awhile.

I believe that God is absolute logic. Man is created in God's image and that's taken to mean that man's ability to reason is God-given and God-like in a creaturely way. I believe that A is not non-A. That's a formal truism, the devil is in the details.

But I also believe the fall affected man's ability to reason. Along with the fact man is finite, that makes man's understanding of logic and reason fallible.

The real difficulty comes with the ultimate questions and with the Bible's revelation. There are concepts that have the appearance of being contradictory, such as God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. I believe both of these are true but I can't make them fit into an acceptable sylogism. I don't have a problem with this, not because I'm irrational, but because I believe in the finitude and sinfulness of man.

In discussions like this, with rapid give and take and no formal procedures, I may well make a logical error. I'm willing to admit it when it's indicated. There is also the problem of clarity. I may state something badly or someone may simply not understand what I've said. As long as everyone is willing to allow clarification without resorting to insults and accusations, I'm willing to continue. I can't give a full definition of every term every time I use it, though.

[Prodigy54321]

if you define X as something..then if X exists, then that something is possible...

which is fine for most X's..but when X is a supposedly not bound by ANYTHING...then ANYTHING is possible..

X could even make a square circle

you might say..well, making a square circle is different from being outside existence..but it isn't as far as we know.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
siegfriedandroy,

why do you make posts that are nothing more than mindless rants with nothing to back your accusations up, then don't respond to any questions or criticisms?

you have been the biggest troll in SMP as long as I have been here

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I just did a search. I think you're right. He would be banned by the mod for politics.

Another gem by Sigfreid with his usual high content-
[ QUOTE ]
if you are truly atheist, than you are gone. no hope. if you can completely accept atheism and all its implications, than i hope you [censored] rot. most of you have no clue. i am not bright, but smarter than what i read. so i will not give up on you all. love

[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

which is fine for most X's..but when X is a supposedly not bound by ANYTHING...then ANYTHING is possible..


[/ QUOTE ]


Something has to be highest. If the highest is impersonality or chance, then anything is possible. If the highest is a God who is reason, justice, etc., then He defines possibility, but not arbitrarily.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Specifically it was that "the source of meaning," "the source of the universe," and "the character mentioned in the Bible" are definitionally identical.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I've been rethinking this. I don't think that post says or implies that absolute power and absolute good are the same thing. I think they are both attributes of God, and there is a sense in which all God's attributes are equally absolute - theologically this is called God's simplicity, He isn't made up of parts.

But each attribute is also different from the others. His love is not His justice, etc. Nor does one attribute cause another.

To be honest, this whole area is part of the the branch of theology called the Doctrine of God. Battles have raged for centuries over the details of this doctrine. I'm not enough of a theologian to discuss the issue in depth.

My concern was to fight the idea that God is arbitrary, that His might makes or justifies His right. I maintain that. Whether I have some inconsistency in discussing the details of the essence of God doesn't affect that idea.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

which is fine for most X's..but when X is a supposedly not bound by ANYTHING...then ANYTHING is possible..


[/ QUOTE ]


Something has to be highest. If the highest is impersonality or chance, then anything is possible. If the highest is a God who is reason, justice, etc., then He defines possibility, but not arbitrarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have close to no clue what this means...

What do you mean by "highest"? Why does..something have to be highest? is there a limit of what is highest? physics? logic?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
There are concepts that have the appearance of being contradictory, such as God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. I believe both of these are true but I can't make them fit into an acceptable sylogism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm going to bow out. No offense, but these kinds of issues are exactly where I expect the highest degree of rigor, definition, and explanation. If these apparent contradictions can't be logically clarified, then I don't think I will get anything out of the discussion.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "highest"? Why does..something have to be highest? is there a limit of what is highest? physics? logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

I mean in value judgments. Good, better best. For any value judgment to mean anything more than taste.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If these apparent contradictions can't be logically clarified, then I don't think I will get anything out of the discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe God's word is the highest standard for us. Most atheists opt for human reason. See the fall.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who is correct, and why?


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you decide who is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy, I decide I'm correct. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

The only other option is to subjigate my own morals to some invisible spirit who commands me to think homosexuality is immoral. And I don't think it's possible to do this even if I wanted to.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe God's word is the highest standard for us. Most atheists opt for human reason. See the fall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which God? And if you have one in mind, have you tried out all the other ones to be sure you've got the right one?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "highest"? Why does..something have to be highest? is there a limit of what is highest? physics? logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

I mean in value judgments. Good, better best. For any value judgment to mean anything more than taste.

[/ QUOTE ]

then something doesn't have to be "the highest"

Isn't that what we're arguging about /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Which God? And if you have one in mind, have you tried out all the other ones to be sure you've got the right one?


[/ QUOTE ]


Name another God that makes the claims of Scripture and reveals a system that fits reality as well.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
siegfriedandroy,

why do you make posts that are nothing more than mindless rants with nothing to back your accusations up, then don't respond to any questions or criticisms?

you have been the biggest troll in SMP as long as I have been here

[/ QUOTE ]

He induced a pretty good multi-page discussion. Or not. Not everybody sticks to rigor and overwordcount. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Is it bad if the fella comes here to steam?

Carry on.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

then something doesn't have to be "the highest"


[/ QUOTE ]

You asked me what I meant by it. For value judgments (morality, justice, goodness) to mean anything there must be a highest standard or else, as the OP was getting at, everything is relative and it boils down to opinion and might makes right.

But from the human viewpoint, there doesn't have to be a highest. You just have to be willing to deny meaning, value, morality, etc. That's why I brought up Nietzsche in my first post.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Which God? And if you have one in mind, have you tried out all the other ones to be sure you've got the right one?


[/ QUOTE ]


Name another God that makes the claims of Scripture and reveals a system that fits reality as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... The Bible doesn't fit reality well. And I'm pretty certain every religion has scripture which they believe speaks for God.

Besides that... you're deflecting. Did you experience the Muslim God, Jewish Faith, the ancient Greek Gods, African Gods, The Morman Faith, Wicca, Zorastrianism, etc. and try them all out? A short explanation of your experience with all the other Gods and belief systems and how you came to the conclusion that the Bible has it right would be appreciated.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Which God? And if you have one in mind, have you tried out all the other ones to be sure you've got the right one?


[/ QUOTE ]


Name another God that makes the claims of Scripture and reveals a system that fits reality as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

members of other religions can make the same claim..

I'll go with Islam...

Islamic scripture actually explicitely says that when experiences in reality conflict with scripture, it points out that that particular part of the scripture is meant to be taken allegorically..

christians doing the same is not so clearly authorized or encouraged

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
But from the human viewpoint, there doesn't have to be a highest. You just have to be willing to deny absolute meaning, value, morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP...

and yes, I accept this

EDIT: I mean..accept that there are no absolutes for those

[kurto]

My brother is pretty much a born again. I've had this conversation with him a few times and its always the same.

The gist is...

"all other religions are wrong."

"How do you know?"

"Because the Bible says so."

"But their books say you're wrong"

"I know because I feel God"

"They also claim to feel God"

"That's the devil/they're wrong/etc."

"How do you know they're not right and you're influenced by their devil"

"Cause I could tell"

etc to infinity.

Now that I think about it, this year the wife and I have Thanksgiving with my family which includes my brother. He always starts these conversations no matter how much we try to avoid the entire topic. Another one of these fruitful conversations is coming! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe God's word is the highest standard for us. Most atheists opt for human reason. See the fall

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I answer that, As stated above (Question [71], Articles [1],6), sin is an inordinate act. Now there should be a threefold order in man: one in relation to the rule of reason, in so far as all our actions and passions should be commensurate with the rule of reason: another order is in relation to the rule of the Divine Law, whereby man should be directed in all things: and if man were by nature a solitary animal, this twofold order would suffice. But since man is naturally a civic and social animal, as is proved in Polit. i, 2, hence a third order is necessary, whereby man is directed in relation to other men among whom he has to dwell. Of these orders the second contains the first and surpasses it. For whatever things are comprised under the order of reason, are comprised under the order of God Himself. Yet some things are comprised under the order of God, which surpass the human reason, such as matters of faith, and things due to God alone. Hence he that sins in such matters, for instance, by heresy, sacrilege, or blasphemy, is said to sin against God. In like manner, the first order includes the third and surpasses it, because in all things wherein we are directed in reference to our neighbor, we need to be directed according to the order of reason. Yet in some things we are directed according to reason, in relation to ourselves only, and not in reference to our neighbor; and when man sins in these matters, he is said to sin against himself, as is seen in the glutton, the lustful, and the prodigal. But when man sins in matters concerning his neighbor, he is said to sin against his neighbor, as appears in the thief and murderer. Now the things whereby man is directed to God, his neighbor, and himself are diverse. Wherefore this distinction of sins is in respect of their objects, according to which the species of sins are diversified: and consequently this distinction of sins is properly one of different species of sins: because the virtues also, to which sins are opposed, differ specifically in respect of these three. For it is evident from what has been said (Question [62], Articles [1],2,3) that by the theological virtues man is directed to God; by temperance and fortitude, to himself; and by justice to his neighbor.



[/ QUOTE ]

Aquinas,Q72,Fourth Article. In other articles there is reference to the "Fall" as the separation of Man from Divine Justice. Places a responsibility on Man and in this there is the "Gift of Reason". Not trying to be unfair(especially if you are Protestant) but use of Reason seems to be a plus on the field of life.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The gist is...

"all other religions are wrong."

"How do you know?"

"Because the Bible says so."

"But their books say you're wrong"

"I know because I feel God"

"They also claim to feel God"

"That's the devil/they're wrong/etc."

"How do you know they're not right and you're influenced by their devil"

"Cause I could tell"

etc to infinity.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a perfect summary of how most of these conversations go..

it shows that belief MUST come down to evidence..if not, it's irrational...

but since evidence isn't the strong point of belief in a god or gods, they don't like to admit this..

at least if they just ignore that, we can't prove them wrong...and that's all they're clinging to.

[Lestat]

You really bare your true self with these type of posts.

Most atheists refrain from such heinious acts because they have a sense of compassion for their fellow man and the world they live in. Ok, so a few just don't want to go to jail. But...

You on the other hand, basically state the only reason you refrain from murder, rape, pillage, and plunder, is your trembling fear of an invisible man watching your every move. Otherwise, you'd be no better than an animal.

I sometimes think if there really is a god, it will be people like you who will be among the first to lick the fires of hell. In the meantime, Sklansky will be strumming his harp from a cloud lamenting how your gross misunderstanding of probabilities sealed your fate.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky will be strumming his harp on a cloud lamenting how you never saw why.

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome

[DougShrapnel]

NotReady, quick quesiton, is it possible to imagine a world that wasn't created and governed by God?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Sklansky will be strumming his harp from a cloud lamenting how you never saw why.


[/ QUOTE ]

No way. DS would cease to exist in less than 3 minutes from sheer boredom.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
He induced a pretty good multi-page discussion. Or not. Not everybody sticks to rigor and overwordcount. Is it bad if the fella comes here to steam?

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't take much to get a 5 page discussion on religion here. The difference is he did it by making an insulting rant and the not-ready led tangent brought it to a higher level and kept it going. Though his post kicked it off, he gets little credit to where it went.

[DougShrapnel]

Notready is it possible to imagine a world created by an all powerful, always existing being that wasn't an all good being?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He induced a pretty good multi-page discussion. Or not. Not everybody sticks to rigor and overwordcount. Is it bad if the fella comes here to steam?

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't take much to get a 5 page discussion on religion here. The difference is he did it by making an insulting rant and the not-ready led tangent brought it to a higher level and kept it going. Though his post kicked it off, he gets little credit to where it went.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I don't know. He's got y'all running in circles again, so I think the joke's on y'all. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[madnak]

But we like running in circles; it's what we do.

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, yes, it's a lot of fun.

I consider OP good value though. Certainly nobody's immune to criticism, but eh.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

then something doesn't have to be "the highest"


[/ QUOTE ]


No. Nor does the universe "have" to have meaning. Certain consequences follow, though.

Edit: Oops. Went away and when I came back forgot I already answered this. Oh well, at least I'm consistent.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not trying to be unfair(especially if you are Protestant) but use of Reason seems to be a plus on the field of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am Protestant. Though not a 5 point Calvinist exactly I do believe Reformed theology is the best overall interpretation of Scripture. The Reformers are often accused of relying too much on reason.

I believe we should learn as much as we can about reason and logic, and use it to the fullest extent possible. But Scripture trumps human reason, just as God's law trumps man's law. There isn't often a conflict, but when there is, God wins every time.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
But Scripture trumps human reason

[/ QUOTE ]

it's impossible to arrive at - or justify holding - this position without using human reason, is it not? isn't this problematic for you? if you rely on scripture where it contradicts your own "reason," aren't you doing it based on other reasoning? either way you are relying on yourself. everyone is. there's no getting away from it.

so you can say "you're relying on your own reason, which is fallible," but it's not like anyone is doing any different.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it's impossible to arrive at - or justify holding - this position without using human reason, is it not? isn't this problematic for you?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a Scriptural mandate. Though not explicitly stated, it's pretty obvious that God's Word is authoritative. I could construct a syllogism, I guess, that would make it logical as well, though I doubt most SMP'ers would accept the necessary premises.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it's impossible to arrive at - or justify holding - this position without using human reason, is it not? isn't this problematic for you?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a Scriptural mandate. Though not explicitly stated, it's pretty obvious that God's Word is authoritative. I could construct a syllogism, I guess, that would make it logical as well, though I doubt most SMP'ers would accept the necessary premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

my point is, the reason for trusting scripture over your "own reasoning" is that human reasoning is prone to failure. but it's human reasoning that tells you scripture is the one to be trusted when your reasoning and it disagree.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

human reasoning is prone to failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

But I know this primarily from Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

but it's human reasoning that tells you scripture is the one to be trusted when your reasoning and it disagree.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it's also primarily from Scripture.

My reason does tell me that. In this case my reason and Scripture agree.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

human reasoning is prone to failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

But I know this primarily from Scripture.



[/ QUOTE ]

my human reasoning tells me that statement is almost certainly false.

i'll try again. trusting scripture over "your own reason" is a reasonable thing to do, is it not? when you do it, you are not relying any less on your own reason, are you? in fact, it takes a lot of human reasoning to firmly establish in your mind that you ought to trust scripture.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

in fact, it takes a lot of human reasoning to firmly establish in your mind that you ought to trust scripture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reason and logic are involved in understanding and accepting Scripture. Scripture itself appeals to reason - count the "therefores" in the New Testament. The point I'm making isn't that reason is invalid, or that Christians should ignore reason, or for any brand of fideism - it's simply that any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says - which is itself reasonable and also Scriptural.

If you're trying to show that my ultimate judge of truth is human reason let me save you some time. I don't deny the conditonal and relative validity of reason. Scipture informs us of things we can't know without revelation, and Scripture breaks any tie between what I think I know by whatever means and what Scripture says.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

in fact, it takes a lot of human reasoning to firmly establish in your mind that you ought to trust scripture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reason and logic are involved in understanding and accepting Scripture. Scripture itself appeals to reason - count the "therefores" in the New Testament. The point I'm making isn't that reason is invalid, or that Christians should ignore reason, or for any brand of fideism - it's simply that any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says - which is itself reasonable and also Scriptural.

If you're trying to show that my ultimate judge of truth is human reason let me save you some time. I don't deny the conditonal and relative validity of reason. Scipture informs us of things we can't know without revelation, and Scripture breaks any tie between what I think I know by whatever means and what Scripture says.

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't solve the problem

what if you don't believe that scripture is necessarily the word of god (or even that, while it was inspired by god, man may have twisted it a great deal)

[ QUOTE ]
it's simply that any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't work when we are talking about trusting what scripture says that god says

you must come to the conclusion that scripture is to be trusted (or even just to a certain degree) because of evidence.

you could say that you could pray on it..but it's pretty clear that this isn't very reliable

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

this doesn't work when we are talking about trusting what scripture says that god says

you must come to the conclusion that scripture is to be trusted (or even just to a certain degree) because of evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone operates to some extent on incomplete information. But we have to make decisions. I don't claim I can demonstrate objective certainty and I don't always have subjective certainty. But that doesn't mean I have no evidence.

"I believe, Lord, help thou my unbelief".

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

this doesn't work when we are talking about trusting what scripture says that god says

you must come to the conclusion that scripture is to be trusted (or even just to a certain degree) because of evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone operates to some extent on incomplete information. But we have to make decisions. I don't claim I can demonstrate objective certainty and I don't always have subjective certainty. But that doesn't mean I have no evidence.

"I believe, Lord, help thou my unbelief".

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that you had no evidence..I said that it must come down to evidence in this case..

it, now, seems that you agree

[kurto]

I'm a little confused where this is going.

Aren't you trying to debate reason with someone whose entire position is that he blindly accepts that the words of his scripture are 100% with no proof... It seems to me he has taken a position that he chooses to be entirely 'unreasonable.'

There's really no room for debate here since Notready's position is to arbitrarily trust that the text he has is 100% infallible. Since he is rathar open about this, I'm confused where this section of the thread is going.

I think an interesting take is to hear (though we've seen this thread before) whether or not Notready supports sexism, slavery, the earth being a few thousand years old, etc. as outlined in the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it, now, seems that you agree


[/ QUOTE ]

With what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There's really no room for debate here since Notready's position is to arbitrarily trust that the text he has is 100% infallible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really should pay closer attention.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused where this is going.

Aren't you trying to debate reason with someone whose entire position is that he blindly accepts that the words of his scripture are 100% with no proof... It seems to me he has taken a position that he chooses to be entirely 'unreasonable.'

There's really no room for debate here since Notready's position is to arbitrarily trust that the text he has is 100% infallible. Since he is rathar open about this, I'm confused where this section of the thread is going.

I think an interesting take is to hear (though we've seen this thread before) whether or not Notready supports sexism, slavery, the earth being a few thousand years old, etc. as outlined in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

no..

I wouldn't say that you need 100% proof for anything...

here's a summary of what I believe the arguments is about..

sephus said:

[ QUOTE ]
in fact, it takes a lot of human reasoning to firmly establish in your mind that you ought to trust scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady responded:

[ QUOTE ]
it's simply that any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says - which is itself reasonable and also Scriptural.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believed that this was in response to sephus's comment, since it was quoted..

I responded:

[ QUOTE ]
this doesn't work when we are talking about trusting what scripture says that god says


[/ QUOTE ]

basically saying that you can't use this method.."any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says" when the conflict IS..deciding whether or not scripture accurately tells what "god says"..

--it wasn't really going anywhere..just a little side argument of something NotReady said..

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it, now, seems that you agree


[/ QUOTE ]

With what?

[/ QUOTE ]

that, in the case I believe we are talking about..

[ QUOTE ]
it takes a lot of human reasoning to firmly establish in your mind that you ought to trust scripture.

[/ QUOTE ] -sephus

deciding whether or not scripture accurately tells what god says

[ QUOTE ]
it must come down to evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

you seemed to be saying in the post I originally quoted..

that..

[ QUOTE ]
it's simply that any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed you were invluding this conflict in there, since it was what you quoted..am I mistaken?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
The point I'm making isn't that reason is invalid, or that Christians should ignore reason, or for any brand of fideism - it's simply that any conflict must be resolved in favor of what God says - which is itself reasonable and also Scriptural.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm real close to giving up because we are both just repeating ourselves over and over.

you seem to believe that trusting scripture when it and "reason" might conflict somehow sheilds the believer from the errors that naturally come about when people reason. it obviously doesn't. i feel like we could go through 100 iterations of this discussion and get absolutely nowhere so i'm done.

i still hate doing this i don't know why i bothered in the first place.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you seem to believe that trusting scripture when it and "reason" might conflict somehow sheilds the believer from the errors that naturally come about when people reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see the problem you're having in general.

As to the above quote you are misstating what I've said. My position is that human reason in fallible. It's valid but not ultimate. I can't state it clearer than that.

Do you think humans are infallible?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
My position is that human reason in fallible. It's valid but not ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMGZORZZZZZ!!!!

I'm assuming that by "ultimate", you mean "God"

right?

we use human reason to decide..whether we thing a god exists..what we think that god's will is..what is true about god..etc.

so relying on the "ultimate"..IS relying on human reason

I must be missing something here, because I can't understand why you don't immediately see this

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

we use human reason to decide.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think part of the problem is an equivocal use of the word reason. Of course, we only apprehend conceptual truth through the exercise of our faculty of reason. We don't know "God exists" as a concept through our senses or emotions.

But if I don't understand how a certain concept or doctrine can be true and the Bible says it is, then I have to decide to either follow the conclusions of my reason or the authority of Scipture.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I think part of the problem is an equivocal use of the word reason. Of course, we only apprehend conceptual truth through the exercise of our faculty of reason. We don't know "God exists" as a concept through our senses or emotions.


[/ QUOTE ]

is this going to lead to an argument of whether the "heart" or "soul" exists again...because I might kill myself..

if it's not human reason that allows us to know "god exists"..then how do members of other faiths some to this conclusion...

let me guess...

for christians, it isn't fallible human reason
but everyone else is using fallible human reason to reach their conclusions

because otherwise, these mysterious other ways of coming to conclusions wouldn't be so reliable...

you're really killing me here...I hope you realize how easy it is to argue your position when you need have no regard for evidence or logic.

[ QUOTE ]
But if I don't understand how a certain concept or doctrine can be true and the Bible says it is, then I have to decide to either follow the conclusions of my reason or the authority of Scipture.

[/ QUOTE ]

and I don't know exactly what the question here is..please clarify

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]

But if I don't understand how a certain concept or doctrine can be true and the Daily Mail says it is, then I have to decide to either follow the conclusions of my reason or the authority of the Daily Mail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you don't get teh Daily Mail in the US (or maybe you do), but you get the idea...

[luckyme]

NotReady commented -
[ QUOTE ]
But if I don't understand how a certain concept or doctrine can be true and the Bible says it is, then I have to decide to either follow the conclusions of my reason or the authority of Scipture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prodigy, Ignoring the mess caused by jelly's lack of affinity for trees, is that the 'decide' that is in question? ( at this stage of the discussion anyway), or at least one of them.
Realizing that the 'decision' that you don't understand a passage needs to be make based on some thing also.

luckyme

[kurto]

The argument comes full circle.

But the argument still boils down to notready unquestioningly believing the Bible is the word of God. Obviously there is no proof this is the case so its rathar arbitrary.

Reason is removed from the equation when he takes for granted that the Bible is the word of God. I haven't seen a Christian yet argue that this is a 'reasonable' choice. Its entirely faith based.

I think we're saying the same thing... I just thought that Notready ALSO agreed on this so I thought you were kind of both saying the same thing sort of... I'm not sure what I'm saying.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady commented -
[ QUOTE ]
But if I don't understand how a certain concept or doctrine can be true and the Bible says it is, then I have to decide to either follow the conclusions of my reason or the authority of Scipture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prodigy, Ignoring the mess caused by jelly's lack of affinity for trees, is that the 'decide' that is in question? ( at this stage of the discussion anyway), or at least one of them.
Realizing that the 'decision' that you don't understand a passage needs to be make based on some thing also.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

now you've just confused me..

isn't the decision that you don't understand a passage based on human reason?

and I don't think we've been talking about what a passage actually means, but, rather, how we decide if scripture is actually the word of god.

forgive me..I'm a little slow..

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's really no room for debate here since Notready's position is to arbitrarily trust that the text he has is 100% infallible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really should pay closer attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a 'cliff notes' then of what you're saying. I honestly have been following along but there's been so many 'God' threads that I may be confused.

I thought I've repeatedly seen you return to the fact that when in doubt you simply rely on "God's Word." And for that you go to the Bible. But it is not "Reasonable" to conclude that it is, indeed, God's word for many countless reasons. Hence, your argument is not an argument of reason but of Faith.

Am I missing something?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
now you've just confused me..

isn't the decision that you don't understand a passage based on human reason?

and I don't think we've been talking about what a passage actually means, but, rather, how we decide if scripture is actually the word of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I thought it was me that was in a swirl of decisions about decisions. Sure, the decision that you don't understand it is fallible, but I was following along on this level --
Human decisions are fallible.
I make a decision that the bible is true ( at times when I don't understand it or ...).
Therefore that decision is fallible.

seems there are many levels to this,

luckyme, getting giddyheaded following this

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument comes full circle.

But the argument still boils down to notready unquestioningly believing the Bible is the word of God. Obviously there is no proof this is the case so its rathar arbitrary.

Reason is removed from the equation when he takes for granted that the Bible is the word of God. I haven't seen a Christian yet argue that this is a 'reasonable' choice. Its entirely faith based.

I think we're saying the same thing... I just thought that Notready ALSO agreed on this so I thought you were kind of both saying the same thing sort of... I'm not sure what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think that someone COULD come to the conclusion that the bible is the word of god based on evidence...

I DO NOT believe that someone could come to the conclusion that the bible is the word of god based on the fact that the bible says that it is the word of god..

I can't see how NotReady doesn't see this...

the question is whether or not the bible is the word of god...NotReady argued that you can come to this conclusion by relying on what god says....

but the question is what exactly god says in the first place!!

why do I feel like I'm just repeating the same thing

but now he seems to be claiming that we can decide that the bible is the word of god without relying o fallible human reason..I guess by talking to god or "feeling" it or following your "heart" or "soul" or whatever random, baseless method he thinks we can use...

but people of many different faiths use these methods..and come to different conclusions...

it takes simply dismissing all other account and assuming that they are morons or mistaken or something, and assuming that you are not afflicted in the same way to come to the conclusion that anything but human reason can bring us to the answer to this question.

--I know this wasn't really a response to your post, but now I'm on a rant

[Grey]

I posted this in politics, but they're interesting stats so I'm putting them here too. I don't plan on engaging in this thread however.

Atheists/agnostics, even though they make up approximately 10% of the American population, only make up 0.2% of the prison population.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

The explanation for those numbers put forth by Professor Root is that "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character".

Oh, and divorce rates are lower for the non-religious are lower than for any religious group (Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc.). I think it's like 21% vs. 26%.

Of course a lot of this is likely just differences in education (the more educated you are the more likely you are to be atheist, and less likely to commit crimes) but I don't know how successfully you separate and measure the three.

Subjectively, having been raised by a baptist pastor and then becoming an atheist, I see a lot more compassion and deliberation over what's right and wrong among my atheist friends.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I make a decision that the bible is true ( at times when I don't understand it or ...).
Therefore that decision is fallible.


[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady seems to be arguing that this decision somehow escapes this fallability because we can use something other than fallible human reason to make this decision..

but obviously it would only work for christians though, since this often brings people to wrong conclusions (not that one or more specifically wrong, but that they are mutually exclusive)

I obviously think is ridiculous.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument comes full circle.

But the argument still boils down to notready unquestioningly believing the Bible is the word of God. Obviously there is no proof this is the case so its rathar arbitrary.

Reason is removed from the equation when he takes for granted that the Bible is the word of God. I haven't seen a Christian yet argue that this is a 'reasonable' choice. Its entirely faith based.

I think we're saying the same thing... I just thought that Notready ALSO agreed on this so I thought you were kind of both saying the same thing sort of... I'm not sure what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think that someone COULD come to the conclusion that the bible is the word of god based on evidence...

I DO NOT believe that someone could come to the conclusion that the bible is the word of god based on the fact that the bible says that it is the word of god..

I can't see how NotReady doesn't see this...

the question is whether or not the bible is the word of god...NotReady argued that you can come to this conclusion by relying on what god says....

but the question is what exactly god says in the first place!!

why do I feel like I'm just repeating the same thing

but now he seems to be claiming that we can decide that the bible is the word of god without relying o fallible human reason..I guess by talking to god or "feeling" it or following your "heart" or "soul" or whatever random, baseless method he thinks we can use...

but people of many different faiths use these methods..and come to different conclusions...

it takes simply dismissing all other account and assuming that they are morons or mistaken or something, and assuming that you are not afflicted in the same way to come to the conclusion that anything but human reason can bring us to the answer to this question.

--I know this wasn't really a response to your post, but now I'm on a rant

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good summary!

And we've all seen that these threads degenerate into 'stock answers' for the theists. That is... no matter how many times its pointed out that their evidence for their God, which essentially involves a feeling in their heart and that sort of non-material insubstantial evidence, is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for all the other religions out there yet, they are right and all other religions are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that someone COULD come to the conclusion that the bible is the word of god based on evidence...


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I can conceive of this. The Bible is rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, variations, paradoxes... not to mention its recording events 2000 years ago... I suppose if we had a time machine parts could be verified... but take the creation myth alone- all evidence as we understand already contradicts the Biblical account. Not sure what we could find to make it fit?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this in politics, but they're interesting stats so I'm putting them here too. I don't plan on engaging in this thread however.

Atheists/agnostics, even though they make up approximately 10% of the American population, only make up 0.2% of the prison population.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

The explanation for those numbers put forth by Professor Root is that "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character".

Oh, and divorce rates are lower for the non-religious are lower than for any religious group (Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc.). I think it's like 21% vs. 26%.

Of course a lot of this is likely just differences in education (the more educated you are the more likely you are to be atheist, and less likely to commit crimes) but I don't know how successfully you separate and measure the three.

Subjectively, having been raised by a baptist pastor and then becoming an atheist, I see a lot more compassion and deliberation over what's right and wrong among my atheist friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was looking at a bunch of these types of studies..

they don't seem conclusive to me there are too many issues..like what is causing what, who refuses to answer, who is considered just as nonreligious, etc..it's just too much for me to say confidently that atheists commit less crimes than theists...

but it does seem prove the common idea that atheists are immoral or dangerous to society to be wrong..

whether or not they are BETTER in terms of these things, isn't so clear..but I think it is likely

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually think that someone COULD come to the conclusion that the bible is the word of god based on evidence...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure I can conceive of this. The Bible is rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, variations, paradoxes... not to mention its recording events 2000 years ago... I suppose if we had a time machine parts could be verified... but take the creation myth alone- all evidence as we understand already contradicts the Biblical account. Not sure what we could find to make it fit?


[/ QUOTE ]

I just mean that is the type of situation discussed, it must come down to evidence...

in this particular situation (talking about the bible), I agree that that the conclusion that it is the word of god isn't the correct one...but it is evidence that brings me to that conclusion...if this evidence brought someone else to the conclusion that it IS the word of god..at least it could be considered as a rational belief..but coming to this conclusion in the other way discussed cannot be rational.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
in this particular situation (talking about the bible), I agree that that the conclusion that it is the word of god isn't the correct one...but it is evidence that brings me to that conclusion...if this evidence brought someone else to the conclusion that it IS the word of god..at least it could be considered as a rational belief..but coming to this conclusion in the other way discussed cannot be rational.


[/ QUOTE ]

True. I see what you're saying.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if it's not human reason


[/ QUOTE ]

Define what you mean by human reason.
[ QUOTE ]

and I don't know exactly what the question here is..please clarify


[/ QUOTE ]
God is sovereign. Man is responsible. My reason doesn't understand how both can be true. Scripture says both are true. God is ultimate Logic so the two propositions can't actually be contradictory, they just appear that way to my finite, fallible human reason. So I accept that God is sovereign and man is responsible.

God is good and omnipotent. Evil exists. My fallible human reason ... etc.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said arbitrary. My faith is neither blind nor arbitrary. Nor does it lack evidence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for all the other religions out there yet, they are right and all other religions are wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

And we keep pointing out that neither the evidence nor the doctrine is exactly the same, on the contrary, it is unique on both counts.

If Christianity is different from all other religions then if it's right they must be wrong - though distinctions have to be made for those religions that use Scripture,i.e., Judaism and Islam and to some extent LDS(at least formally in certain areas).

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said arbitrary. My faith is neither blind nor arbitrary. Nor does it lack evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is arbitrary in that you have decided to follow a religion based on the writings of a bunch of primitive dudes 2000 years ago. Its arbitrary in that there are literally hundreds of other Gods which I'm willing to bet you haven't studied, haven't tried to communicate with, don't believe in, etc. MOST religious people's faith is random; its a function of who raised you, where you are born, what you were exposed to, etc. In that sense its arbitrary.

And you have no evidence that holds up beyond the kind of evidence every theist lists... and they're always 'feelings based, giving God credit for natural phenomenon, etc' You have no evidence that there is a God. Nor do you have evidence that any of the other religions present or past are more or less accurate then what you believe.

Considering this, I think aribitrary is a great word.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
And we keep pointing out that neither the evidence nor the doctrine is exactly the same, on the contrary, it is unique on both counts.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your evidence that Islam isn't right?
list your evidence that Zorastrianism isn't right
list your evidence that the Jews aren't right
list your evidence that the ancient Greeks didn't have it right

Also, this is just logically flawed. Perhaps there could be multiple Gods?

Finally- there is no evidence Christianity is correct. Matter of fact, reading the Bible is one of the best ways to conclude how ridiculous it is.

To believe in the Bible is to believe that the world is a few thousand years old, slavery is just, misogyny is just, murdering babies is just, disobedient children should be stoned and all sorts of wacky stuff.

Then we get into the problems of the fact that the Bible has changed so many times, you don't even know if what you're reading is remotely like what was written 1000's of years ago.

The evidence is against the Christian Religion. The only evidence out there is the irrational and aribitrary belief of its followers.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Considering this, I think aribitrary is a great word.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your post displays an abysmal ignorance of history, Christianity, philosophy, reason, logic and my own beliefs. You've picked these criticisms out of thin air because some friend or "professor" of yours told you and you blindly, unthinkingly and irrationally decided to believe it with no evidence, no logic and no perception.

Let me know if you ever want to stop trading epithets as a substitution for meaningful discussion.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post displays an abysmal ignorance of history, Christianity, philosophy, reason, logic and my own beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you've shown this. For the record, I was raised a Christian, I'm quite comfortable discussing logic and some inferences can be made about your beliefs from your postings on this board.

[ QUOTE ]
You've picked these criticisms out of thin air because some friend or "professor" of yours told you and you blindly, unthinkingly and irrationally decided to believe it with no evidence, no logic and no perception.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've been out of school for nearly 2 decades, having been raised as a Lutheran, my beliefs have been formed from decades of study and searching. You are the one making baseless assumptions now.

Of course you haven't countered any of my points -- but I will use the word arbitary again, as in you aribitrarily dismissed my post.

[ QUOTE ]
unthinkingly and irrationally

[/ QUOTE ] On the contrary, my post is based on ration. Its theists who argue that their faith in x00th generation copies of a book written by superstitious and unscientific people thousands of years ago are to be trusted entirely based on their blind faith over reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me know if you ever want to stop trading epithets as a substitution for meaningful discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue you're the one avoiding discussion. you've dismissed my comments with no proof, not even specific criticisms... you aribitrarily decide I'm parroting some friend or professor, but fail to address a single point.

Several times I've asked for your experience exploring the hundreds of other Gods man has worshipped in the past and the present. You've offered no evidence that there is a God or that the Christian Faith is rock solid. You've failed on every account.

Calling me ignorant, though, is just trading epitaths.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are the one making baseless assumptions now.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been reading too many of your posts.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are the one making baseless assumptions now.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been reading too many of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for you to address any of my points.. A simple list of the evidence you have that other religions past and present are false. Perhaps just a couple: Islam, Zorastrianism and The Greek Gods will be fine.

Then some concrete evidence that God exists.

follow that with proof that the God that you show exists must be the christian god.

Then dispel that God approved of Slavery, sexism and murdering babies. I've got scripture to support all of these if you'd like.

or you can simply assert that I make baseless assumptions.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
God is sovereign. Man is responsible. My reason doesn't understand how both can be true. Scripture says both are true. God is ultimate Logic so the two propositions can't actually be contradictory, they just appear that way to my finite, fallible human reason. So I accept that God is sovereign and man is responsible.

God is good and omnipotent. Evil exists. My fallible human reason ... etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

another self-protective poisoning of the well...

if you can see that this god is such (whatever you think god is in this case)...you are correct...if you can't see that this god is such...it is because of your fallible reasoning

I hope you see that this argument is just as valid(actually invalid) for arguing anything..it offers no credible argument

and one might argue that it is impossible to disobey logic..but I guess, again, it is just our fallible reasoning that makes us think this...

there is no argument against something that can hold any property, can do anything, be anything..even outside logic...

I could invent my own godly character and it these arguments would be just as "good"

..but they are not credible arguments at all

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are the one making baseless assumptions now.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been reading too many of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, NotReady..

just about every one of your "arguments" goes off of assumptions that have no evidenceto back them up...

and, no, "It's God..he can do whatever the [censored] he wants!", does not make an assumption valid.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I hope you see that this argument is just as valid(actually invalid) for arguing anything..it offers no credible argument


[/ QUOTE ]

The first paragraph is a correct syllogism.

[ QUOTE ]

and one might argue that it is impossible to disobey logic..but I guess, again, it is just our fallible reasoning that makes us think this


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean no one can disobey logic?

[ QUOTE ]

I could invent my own godly character and it these arguments would be just as "good"


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. The argument would be valid. But if one or more primises is false your conclusion would be untrue, unsound.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

and, no, "It's God..he can do whatever the [censored] he wants!", does not make an assumption valid.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed the assumptions I make cause them to be valid. In order for reasoning by finite humans to occur, some assumptons must be made.

Kurto made many allegations of fact about me, Christians and Christianity that he won't back up - for instance, that I believe without evidence - which I've denied many times in the past and listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again - which usually prompts someone like Kurto to claim I've never listed the evidence.

I've never claimed I can prove God exists. I do claim there is overwhelming evidence He exists. I sometimes use God's existence as an assumption in an argument. Kinda like if A=B and B=C then A=C - whether A really = B or not is a different question.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto made many allegations of fact about me, Christians and Christianity that he won't back up - for instance, that I believe without evidence - which I've denied many times in the past and listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again - which usually prompts someone like Kurto to claim I've never listed the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

-you give evidence..

-we show why this evidence does not point to yuour conclusion..sometimes by showing that evidence for mutually exclusive religions is equally credible..sometimes by showing that your explanation has no evidence to back it up, whereas a natural explanation does..etc, etc..

-then you wind up reverting back to how it's not about evidence..that it's about faith..or that our puny human reasoning is the thing that is making the mistake

but still this has no evidence for it

then if we show that something is a logical impossibility, you argue that god doesn't have to obey logic..that is is our understanding that must be wrong

still no evidence

you just keep winding around with arguments that may indeed be valid, but your premises are just postualtion..we can't shwo that they are wrong, because you just come back with..

god can do anything..it is our human reasoning that is fallible

and you make the faulty assumption that we must simply be mistaken due to our fallible reasoning..

I'm not saying that your arguments are not valid, but they have absolutely NO VALUE..because your assumptions cannot be evaluated as true or false...

no reasonable human being can consider the arguments you make to lend credible support to your conclusions

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

-we show why this evidence does not point to yuour conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Example.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

-we show why this evidence does not point to yuour conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Example.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was in response to this

[ QUOTE ]
for instance, that I believe without evidence - which I've denied many times in the past and listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again

[/ QUOTE ]

the recent ones that I had in mind, after searching. turned out to be mostly txag's /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I thought some were yours, which is why I thought that this..

[ QUOTE ]
listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again

[/ QUOTE ]

was true..

could you link this, I can't reacall ever seeing them..and I can't find one through searching

[ QUOTE ]
I do claim there is overwhelming evidence He exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the evidence I'm talking about..I can't find where you provide any..

not that someone has definitely showed why "this evidence does not point to your conclusion"..

but I'm guessing there was at least some argument along the lines of how the ones I was thinking about went.

--my little outline of how most of these arguments go..I thought reflected how they go with you..but it's actually more like how they go with txag..

searching back through your posts, you usually start with the assumption that the christian god exists and the bible is his word...

which is why I am now not so sure that your have listed why you believe these assumptions to be true..because these are the supposed evidences I'm talking about

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

searching back through your posts, you usually start with the assumption that the christian god exists and the bible is his word...


[/ QUOTE ]


That's because my approach to apologetics is primarily philosophical rather than evidentiary. That's why I make a lot of assumptions - to make logical and philosophical arguments.

One bit of evidence I've used in the past for one reason why I believe the Bible is God's word is the fact no one has ever shown an archeological or historical error in the Bible, many of the Bible's mentions of these facts have been independently confirmed and some of them which have been confirmed were held to be obviously false and then later confirmed. I've challenged this forum to name one historical or archeological error in the Bible. Contrast that with the Koran and the Book of Mormon, both of which have such errors.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I've challenged this forum to name one historical or archeological error in the Bible. Contrast that with the Koran and the Book of Mormon, both of which have such errors.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Category:History

Picking a few at random:
"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." - Matthew 27:45

"This mysterious darkness was seen by nobody outside of the New Testament, and was not recorded even by such prolific historians as Philo (around 50 at that time), Pliny the Elder (around 10 at that time), or Josephus (born around that time). In particular, Pliny's Natural History is full of anecdotes at least as bizarre as three hours of mysterious darkness and zombies talking walks from their tombs.

And how big was this darkened area supposed to be? If it was just the Jerusalem area, then it could easily have escaped Pliny's notice, though not that of Philo or Josephus. But if it was also over the rest of the Mediterranean area, then Pliny would have seen it from his boyhood home near Lake Como, Italy. And even if he had not paid much attention to it, his elders would have noticed it.

And many other historians would have either noticed that event or written about it. But they didn't."

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Wise-men. - Matthew 2:16

"This atrocity is not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament, or even by outside historians like Philo and Josephus. They had portrayed him as murderous and paranoid, willing to order the assassinations of family members to keep them from challenging him; in their portrayal, such an atrocity would be completely in character for him.

However, this attempt to kill Jesus Christ in his infancy fits Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile very well; several other mythic heroes had attempts on their life in their infancy: "

[NotReady]

The short answer, which is all I'm going to give because you obviously haven't researched the detailed answer, is absence of a historical report of an event isn't proof the event didn't occur.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
One bit of evidence I've used in the past for one reason why I believe the Bible is God's word is the fact no one has ever shown an archeological or historical error in the Bible, many of the Bible's mentions of these facts have been independently confirmed and some of them which have been confirmed were held to be obviously false and then later confirmed. I've challenged this forum to name one historical or archeological error in the Bible. Contrast that with the Koran and the Book of Mormon, both of which have such errors.


[/ QUOTE ]

you do realize that muslims (not sure about mormons) have explanations for supposed errors in their books just like christians do, don't you.

also, many of the explainations for supposed errors in the bible (and others like the Qur'an or course)..require supernatural events..which can only be made off of the assumption that this god exists..

sure we can't prove that this supposed supernatural event didn't happen or couldn't have happened, but it doens't mean that it did happen..unless you go off the a priori assumption that this god exists..

note that to say that it didn't happen would have to go off the a priori assumption that this god doesn't exist..

so it's not that the event can be evaluated at all..

just that it's not a clearly acceptable explanation of the supposed error

so I/we wouldn't agree that there are no innacuracies in the bible (or other book where the same situation occurrs)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The short answer, which is all I'm going to give because you obviously haven't researched the detailed answer, is absence of a historical report of an event isn't proof the event didn't occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are correct that a lack of evidence for an event does not mean that it didn't happen, but you also have to keep in mind that lack of evidence (especially when evidence would seem to be likely given the event) is considered as fairly strong when the event in question is not in the bible.

also, it is nearly impossible to find evidence that something DIDN'T happen, especially since so much of reliable historical record isn't there...

and most books like these don't really tend to focus on saying that things DIDN"T happen, so it isn't really a surprise that there isn't much historical or archaological evidence that things in books like these didn't happen...thus there isn't much evidence against the accuracy of these books

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you do realize that muslims (not sure about mormons) have explanations for supposed errors in their books just like christians do, don't you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Perhaps you would like to pick one from the Koran and compare it to something similar from the Bible to discuss the differences and why I think the Koran has factual error and the Bible doesn't. The Book of Morman is a slam dunk. And these are only some of the reasons I consider the Bible unique.

[benjdm]

You don't consider the claimed 40-day global flood a historical error ?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't consider the claimed 40-day global flood a historical error ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may interject, remember that post-Greece, in the early centuries Anno Domini, the world was perceived as flat and the boundaries were the Atlantic, Saharan Africa, and India, and Scandinvania, along with Britannia. And there's historical evidence that this was underwater at some point in time. Perhaps the precursor of the tale were fossils found in mountains?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but you also have to keep in mind that lack of evidence (especially when evidence would seem to be likely given the event) is considered as fairly strong when the event in question is not in the bible


[/ QUOTE ]

One example. Historians considered for a long period of time that the Bible was flat wrong about an entire civilization, the Hittites, because there was no evidence. Sometime in the 19th century, I believe, not only was evidence discovered, but abundantly so and showing much of what the Bible stated was accurate.

As I said, the two example given about the darkness and Herod can be defended. Just one argument, using the argument from silence:

The allegations about Herod made in the Bible were well known during the 1st century. There is no historical evidence that these allegations were ever denied or disproved, as far as I know. Same for the darkness. If these events didn't occur, there were many powerful people with strong interests to show them false, but I don't think any attempt was made. Perhaps because they were generally known to be true in the areas they occurred.

Paul challenged Agrippa with certain facts, claiming that Agrippa knew Paul was speaking the truth - a bold position to take if Paul was lying or incorrect.

None of this is absolute proof. But it is evidence. The constant drumbeat that Christians are arbitrary and that their faith is blind rings hollow.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You don't consider the claimed 40-day global flood a historical error ?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's an issue about whether the flood is stated in the Bible to be global the way we understand global. Even if so, the evidence will always be ambiguous for various reasons.

Though I haven't researched it thoroughly I found it interesting that a flood myth or legend is itself virtually global and universal.

For the record, it would not affect my faith if it could be shown conclusively that there has never been a flood that covered the entire globe. I would still believe in Noah and the ark, and that a disastrous flood occurred. If that's sufficient for you to reject the Bible or consider me irrational then I guess it's a question that won't be finally settled in this lifetime.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you do realize that muslims (not sure about mormons) have explanations for supposed errors in their books just like christians do, don't you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Perhaps you would like to pick one from the Koran and compare it to something similar from the Bible to discuss the differences and why I think the Koran has factual error and the Bible doesn't. The Book of Morman is a slam dunk. And these are only some of the reasons I consider the Bible unique.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to do either a disservce to either by haphazardly picking passages...so I'm going to wait and start a new thread concerning this after a couple weeks..we can all go through any parts of religious texts we find error in..and we can try to evaluate them...

If you would like to start one sooner, feel free to...but I will be very busy until about the 18th of this month, and I'd like to be able to put a lot into it

[ QUOTE ]
The Book of Morman is a slam dunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to say that I agree with this from what I know /images/graemlins/tongue.gif but we can certainly argue about this as well

-----------------------------

just as something to think about until then....

the Qur'an has a wonderful little protective mechanism..

it says that when there is a contradiction what the text seems to say and what is actual reality, it points out that this particual section of the text is not meant to be taken literally,but rather allegorically.

--not that the bible doesn't have these protective mechanisms as well..because it does, but this one has great implications for our purposes..

since it would mean essentially that in order to come to the conclusion that there is an error, we would have to assume that the Qur'an is not true..or that Islam is not true

christianity does this as well, but not in such a blatant manner..

this is why it is so hard to evaluate supposed errancy in religous texts

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but you also have to keep in mind that lack of evidence (especially when evidence would seem to be likely given the event) is considered as fairly strong when the event in question is not in the bible


[/ QUOTE ]

One example. Historians considered for a long period of time that the Bible was flat wrong about an entire civilization, the Hittites, because there was no evidence. Sometime in the 19th century, I believe, not only was evidence discovered, but abundantly so and showing much of what the Bible stated was accurate.

As I said, the two example given about the darkness and Herod can be defended. Just one argument, using the argument from silence:

The allegations about Herod made in the Bible were well known during the 1st century. There is no historical evidence that these allegations were ever denied or disproved, as far as I know. Same for the darkness. If these events didn't occur, there were many powerful people with strong interests to show them false, but I don't think any attempt was made. Perhaps because they were generally known to be true in the areas they occurred.

Paul challenged Agrippa with certain facts, claiming that Agrippa knew Paul was speaking the truth - a bold position to take if Paul was lying or incorrect.

None of this is absolute proof. But it is evidence. The constant drumbeat that Christians are arbitrary and that their faith is blind rings hollow.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, and this is why I said that you were correct that lack of evidence doesn't mean that something didn't happen..

the one here is one, and there are certainly many more examples of times when this was shown

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You don't consider the claimed 40-day global flood a historical error ?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's an issue about whether the flood is stated in the Bible to be global the way we understand global. Even if so, the evidence will always be ambiguous for various reasons.

Though I haven't researched it thoroughly I found it interesting that a flood myth or legend is itself virtually global and universal.

For the record, it would not affect my faith if it could be shown conclusively that there has never been a flood that covered the entire globe. I would still believe in Noah and the ark, and that a disastrous flood occurred. If that's sufficient for you to reject the Bible or consider me irrational then I guess it's a question that won't be finally settled in this lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is one such example of how we can't actually agree on what is and is not an actual error..both conclusions demand a priori assumptions

EDIT: it is also an example of how religious texts start to change meaning when it starts to get threatened by evidence against it.

and an example of how chrstianity essentially does the same thing that I talked about islam doing.

and that's why both may never be proven to be innacurate in any way...regardless what the truth is

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, it would not affect my faith if it could be shown conclusively that there has never been a flood that covered the entire globe. I would still believe in Noah and the ark, and that a disastrous flood occurred. If that's sufficient for you to reject the Bible or consider me irrational then I guess it's a question that won't be finally settled in this lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been conclusively shown. But, in any case, it would be irrational for me to reject the bible on one error. I'm just challenging the 'not one historical or archaeological' error claim.

[ThePost]

My fellow 2p2 atheists have already easily proven why the OP is so wrong. But I just wanted to state that it sickens me that people actually think they are correct when saying these kind of statements. I don't get my morality handed to me, But I do have a very strong set of morals. (As do many other atheists).

Long Answer: I very much enjoyed reading the following book, and I think the OP could gain much from reading it as well.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1573929875.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Morality-M...TF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Morality-Meaning-Prometheus-Lecture/dp/1573929875/sr=8-1/qid=1162714086/ref=sr_1_1/104-1699767-4423164?ie=UTF8&s=books)

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
"sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care."

Two problems (that most atheists won't bring up because they deny your premises) even if you are right.

1.It doesn't matter if I have a reasonable reason to care. If I care, I care.

2.If no personal God means that Hitler wasn't a bad guy that simply means that Hitler probably wasn't a bad guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey good to see the drunken thread generated so much response. i have not read a single response (except for yours DS- i heart DS!!) ....i am only 1/2 of 1/2 of 4 times a 1/2 deep so i will respond. i agree with your 1 and 2. however in reality there is a personal god and hitler was a bad guy. as for atheists not accepting the premises of my post, then they are incredibly and incomprehensibly foolish. it is so obvious my two year old pet lizard who lives in my 'terrarium (the office season 2) could easily understand. DS i appreciate your integrity(?) honesty(?) awareness(?) (sorry cant think of the best word) regarding the ultimate moral ethics (lack thereof) that noGod absolutely implies (not implies, what is the word?- FOSTER'S ME!!!). ahhh, necessitates is better. anyway, i will (hopefully) see you in heaven one day DS and we will discuss this a bit more fully!

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care."

Two problems (that most atheists won't bring up because they deny your premises) even if you are right.

1.It doesn't matter if I have a reasonable reason to care. If I care, I care.

2.If no personal God means that Hitler wasn't a bad guy that simply means that Hitler probably wasn't a bad guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey good to see the drunken thread generated so much response. i have not read a single response (except for yours DS- i heart DS!!) ....i am only 1/2 of 1/2 of 4 times a 1/2 deep so i will respond. i agree with your 1 and 2. however in reality there is a personal god and hitler was a bad guy. as for atheists not accepting the premises of my post, then they are incredibly and incomprehensibly foolish. it is so obvious my two year old pet lizard who lives in my 'terrarium (the office season 2) could easily understand. DS i appreciate your integrity(?) honesty(?) awareness(?) (sorry cant think of the best word) regarding the ultimate moral ethics (lack thereof) that noGod absolutely implies (not implies, what is the word?- FOSTER'S ME!!!). ahhh, necessitates is better. anyway, i will (hopefully) see you in heaven one day DS and we will discuss this a bit more fully!

[/ QUOTE ]

btw i have fond memories of reading thfap on a holiday amongst family/friends right beside my swimming pool. was reading the 'i know that he knows that mikel knows that, etc, etc!!' chapter!! ahhhh....what is your iq, sklansk!? you are no hemingway, but fairly decent with numbers /images/graemlins/smile.gif hehe peace

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care."

Two problems (that most atheists won't bring up because they deny your premises) even if you are right.

1.It doesn't matter if I have a reasonable reason to care. If I care, I care.

2.If no personal God means that Hitler wasn't a bad guy that simply means that Hitler probably wasn't a bad guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey good to see the drunken thread generated so much response. i have not read a single response (except for yours DS- i heart DS!!) ....i am only 1/2 of 1/2 of 4 times a 1/2 deep so i will respond. i agree with your 1 and 2. however in reality there is a personal god and hitler was a bad guy. as for atheists not accepting the premises of my post, then they are incredibly and incomprehensibly foolish. it is so obvious my two year old pet lizard who lives in my 'terrarium (the office season 2) could easily understand. DS i appreciate your integrity(?) honesty(?) awareness(?) (sorry cant think of the best word) regarding the ultimate moral ethics (lack thereof) that noGod absolutely implies (not implies, what is the word?- FOSTER'S ME!!!). ahhh, necessitates is better. anyway, i will (hopefully) see you in heaven one day DS and we will discuss this a bit more fully!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey dummy--

1) He doesn't say you're right. He's saying that if one were to accept your extremely flawed premises, that your argument still sucks.

2) Atheists are usually more moral than theists. They have to be to create some kind of order and meaning in their lives. You "personal God" theists--barf--can do whatever you want, since all you have to do to gain access to the hereafter is believe in Jesus, or whatever.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]

Does morality depend upon religion? Most people believe it does, which is a major reason behind the appeal of the religious right. People believe that without faith in a supernatural authority, we can have no moral values--no moral absolutes, no black-and-white distinctions, no firm demarcation between good and evil--in life or in politics. This is the assumption underlying Justice Antonin Scalia's recent assertion that "government derives its authority from God," since only religious faith can supposedly provide moral constraints on human action.......

...... The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual's life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man's nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

With reason as its cardinal value, this code of individualism espouses fixed principles and categorical moral judgments. It demands, for instance, that the initiation of force--the antithesis of reason--be denounced and that an unbridgeable moral chasm be recognized between the criminal and the non-criminal.

Since life requires man to produce what he needs, productiveness is a moral value--thereby making moral opposites out of the industrious worker and the parasitic welfare recipient. Since life requires man to use his own judgment rather than submissively accept the assertions of others, independence is a moral value--making moral opposites out of the person (or nation) acting on his own rational convictions and the one deferring to the consensus of his neighbors (or the U.N.). Since life requires the mind, man's political system must allow him to use it, i.e., freedom is a moral value--making moral opposites out of America, the defender of liberty, and America’s enemies, who seek liberty's destruction.

A morality of reason counters the relativism and the undiscriminating "tolerance" of the left.

It also counters a morality of faith, and establishes a genuine "culture of life." Individualism upholds your sovereignty over your life--and refuses to subordinate the preservation of that life to, say, the preservation of embryonic stem cells in some petri dish. Individualism defends your inalienable right to your life, including your right to end it--and evaluates, say, opposition to assisted-suicide as a desecration of human life, since forcing someone to live who wishes to die is no less evil than forcing someone to die who wishes to live.

There is indeed morality without religion--a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
Taken from: Moral Values Without Religion (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=11127), The Ayn Rand Institute

[She]

Oh, also: Morality vs. God (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=10937), from The Ayn Rand Institute.

[FortunaMaximus]

Cool. Fascinating woman. I hadn't realized she was such a significant part of Old Hollywood. AFAIK, she was controvesial with her novels.

Thanks.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool. Fascinating woman. I hadn't realized she was such a significant part of Old Hollywood. AFAIK, she was controvesial with her novels.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus she had lots of sex, I hear.

[FortunaMaximus]

Quite what I was referring to about with "controvesial". /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it has been conclusively shown.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really judge this. I've done some net research and it appears to me the issues involved cover many scientific disciplines and no laymen is competent to evaluate the technical details.

[ QUOTE ]

it would be irrational for me to reject the bible on one error.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If Scripture is God's inspired word, which it claims to be, then any genuine factual error, in my view, would seriously undermine that claim. I'm not including obivious copy errors and interpretation differences. If the Bible clearly stated there was a global flood and it could be shown with certainty that such a flood never happened, I could not accept the inspired nature of Scripture. Almost all theologians I follow have the same position.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it has been conclusively shown.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really judge this. I've done some net research and it appears to me the issues involved cover many scientific disciplines and no laymen is competent to evaluate the technical details.

[ QUOTE ]

it would be irrational for me to reject the bible on one error.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If Scripture is God's inspired word, which it claims to be, then any genuine factual error, in my view, would seriously undermine that claim. I'm not including obivious copy errors and interpretation differences. If the Bible clearly stated there was a global flood and it could be shown with certainty that such a flood never happened, I could not accept the inspired nature of Scripture. Almost all theologians I follow have the same position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that you think its likely, but (to take a quick shortcut) do you think that the evidence you'd need to conclude a flood never/definitely happened is something that will eventually (hopefully soon) be found? What I guess I mean is, obviously no evidence of a flood isnt conclusive evidence of NO flood...what would it take?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What I guess I mean is, obviously no evidence of a flood isnt conclusive evidence of NO flood...what would it take?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are several problems for ever showing it didn't happen. For me, one of the biggest obstacles is the flood is a miracle, not a natural event. Just showing it can't be explained by science or science can't find the evidence isn't enough, so I'm not sure it's even possible.

All of the miracles present the same difficulty. But the Bible makes hundreds if not thousands of references to people, places and events. If I was going to attack Scripture I would focus on that type of fact. Many have tried. There was a famous archeologist in the 19th century who was convinced Luke made many factual errors in the Book of Luke and in Acts. He spent several years on site trying to find hard evidence of error. He confirmed so many of Luke's facts he reputedley became a Christian. The Bible is absolutely unique on this subject, both to the number of facts presented as fact and the validation of those facts independently of Scripture. There was one just a year or two ago when a tunnel in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Old Testament, was discovered for the first time.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If Scripture is God's inspired word, which it claims to be, then any genuine factual error, in my view, would seriously undermine that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
'Inspired' gives a lot of leeway, as does the interpretations. For example, by my interpretation, you don't make it out of Genesis 1 without encountering a factual error. Obviously, you interpret it differently.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What I guess I mean is, obviously no evidence of a flood isnt conclusive evidence of NO flood...what would it take?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are several problems for ever showing it didn't happen. For me, one of the biggest obstacles is the flood is a miracle, not a natural event. Just showing it can't be explained by science or science can't find the evidence isn't enough, so I'm not sure it's even possible.

All of the miracles present the same difficulty. But the Bible makes hundreds if not thousands of references to people, places and events. If I was going to attack Scripture I would focus on that type of fact. Many have tried. There was a famous archeologist in the 19th century who was convinced Luke made many factual errors in the Book of Luke and in Acts. He spent several years on site trying to find hard evidence of error. He confirmed so many of Luke's facts he reputedley became a Christian. The Bible is absolutely unique on this subject, both to the number of facts presented as fact and the validation of those facts independently of Scripture. There was one just a year or two ago when a tunnel in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Old Testament, was discovered for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats basically what I figured. Just as some specific miracle wouldn't go a long ways towards convincing me of the truth of Christianity, the lack of support for them certainly wouldn't do much to shake your faith. Am I right to assume that the "it was a miracle" defense is only applicable when the thing described in the Bible was described AS a miracle? For example, if the Bible says something exists in some place, and we find it doesnt but it exists somewhere else, can we say something along the lines of "its a miracle that it was moved" (obviously nothing so silly as that I just couldn't think of a good example)?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Am I right to assume that the "it was a miracle" defense is only applicable when the thing described in the Bible was described AS a miracle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point I was making. The flood was obviously what we call a miracle. Trivial or everyday matters are the ones subject to falsification. I've mentioned the Hittite civilization. Though not trivial, had it been shown it never existed it would be illegitimate to "allegorize", for instance.

Another example. There was a poster on here, Jewish, a while back who told me that Jesus' prophecy about the temple being destroyed so that no stone would be left standing wasn't fulfilled because the wailing wall was part of the temple. That initially threw me, but when I researched it I found the remnants of the wailing wall are from a wall that surrounded the temple, not part of the temple itself. Just an example of how some things in the Bible are open to "falsification".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Am I right to assume that the "it was a miracle" defense is only applicable when the thing described in the Bible was described AS a miracle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point I was making. The flood was obviously what we call a miracle. Trivial or everyday matters are the ones subject to falsification. I've mentioned the Hittite civilization. Though not trivial, had it been shown it never existed it would be illegitimate to "allegorize", for instance.

Another example. There was a poster on here, Jewish, a while back who told me that Jesus' prophecy about the temple being destroyed so that no stone would be left standing wasn't fulfilled because the wailing wall was part of the temple. That initially threw me, but when I researched it I found the remnants of the wailing wall are from a wall that surrounded the temple, not part of the temple itself. Just an example of how some things in the Bible are open to "falsification".

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say this, I believe you. Although I would think you would (naturally) do a lot of squirming if presented with said evidence, I think you would probably do as you claim.

I do NOT have similar 'faith' in the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian.

[TimWillTell]

I am a social animal and live by the social codes of my specie.
I have never killed a human, because not killing a human as a behavior is stored in code in my genes.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a social animal and live by the social codes of my specie.
I have never killed a human, because not killing a human as a behavior is stored in code in my genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it isn't encoded in your DNA. We're omnivores. We kill for food, if you recall.

Any misgivings you would have about killing another human being would dissipate rather quickly and run across the chromosomes and hide behind your coccyx if it became your life or his.

The misgivings and inability to kill is social and moral. It's the product of an enviroment that has taught that taking life is bad.

[MaxWeiss]

That (your post) assumes... that an atheist places no value on the fact of being alive and of helping others and enjoying life. Just because we don't believe in any grand cosmic plan form god does not mean we cannot find meaning in our lives and it certainly does not mean that we find it acceptable to do horrible things, or think that it doesn't matter if they happen.

An atheist (a moral one) condemns murder because he recognizes what it is to be alive and how precious that is and that nobody else has the right to take that. Just because we don't have some god looking over our shoulders doesn't mean we cannot be good.

You on the other hand sound like without god you would kill and rape and steal. Without somebody watching you, you would commit acts you understand to be evil. Without somebody watching me, I would continue to try to do good in the world. Which of us is the "moral" person???

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
That's because my approach to apologetics is primarily philosophical rather than evidentiary. That's why I make a lot of assumptions - to make logical and philosophical arguments.

One bit of evidence I've used in the past for one reason why I believe the Bible is God's word is the fact no one has ever shown an archeological or historical error in the Bible, many of the Bible's mentions of these facts have been independently confirmed and some of them which have been confirmed were held to be obviously false and then later confirmed. I've challenged this forum to name one historical or archeological error in the Bible. Contrast that with the Koran and the Book of Mormon, both of which have such errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize this isn't proof of anything of the sort, right?

And its wrong. There are many things in the Bible for which there is no proof of.

And you should realize that even if the Bible is filled with references to real life events, it is ZERO proof of God.

If there was a book saying that Zeus got angry and may the earth erupt and destroy a town... and they found that a volcano did erupt in the time referenced... would that mean that Zeus was real?

Only to someone who used your standards of proof.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Am I right to assume that the "it was a miracle" defense is only applicable when the thing described in the Bible was described AS a miracle?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point I was making. The flood was obviously what we call a miracle. Trivial or everyday matters are the ones subject to falsification. I've mentioned the Hittite civilization. Though not trivial, had it been shown it never existed it would be illegitimate to "allegorize", for instance.

Another example. There was a poster on here, Jewish, a while back who told me that Jesus' prophecy about the temple being destroyed so that no stone would be left standing wasn't fulfilled because the wailing wall was part of the temple. That initially threw me, but when I researched it I found the remnants of the wailing wall are from a wall that surrounded the temple, not part of the temple itself. Just an example of how some things in the Bible are open to "falsification".

[/ QUOTE ]

Both the passages and historical examples are open to interpretation. It would be very possible for someone knowing nothing of the Hittites or the temple ruins to construct a theory of Biblical historicity that makes predictions that would be falsified given our current knowledge. Obviously those particular interpretation fall away as they're falsified. In a sense, then, you could say that the interpretations that have "survived" have withstood scrutiny. That's erroneous however, because any sequence of events would still leave some valid Biblical interpretations. Retroactive "predictions" don't work as evidence.

To some degree scientific theory is vulnerable to same thing. What happens if a theory is falsified? Well, frequently the theory is revised to fit the new data. Kind of tricky, yes. And it can be a judgment call. But a theory makes specific predictions, and a theory claims to describe observations, rather than to present the "truth." Therefore, theories are "stronger" than religious philosophies (at least empirically).

In terms of your examples - that the historical Hittites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites) may have been the Biblical Hittites is no more evidence of the truth of the Bible than that the archaeological Troy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy) may have been the Homeric Troy is evidence of the truth of the Iliad.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of your examples - that the historical Hittites may have been the Biblical Hittites is no more evidence of the truth of the Bible than that the archaeological Troy may have been the Homeric Troy is evidence of the truth of the Iliad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy Days! If NotReady decides to worship Zeus, he can feel comfortable that Zeus exists. Just try to prove there was no Troy. Zeus lives!

And please note: Santa Claus is real. I just found the North Pole on the map.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You realize this isn't proof of anything of the sort, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

You realize there's a difference between proof and evidence, right?

[ QUOTE ]

And you should realize that even if the Bible is filled with references to real life events, it is ZERO proof of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize nothing will ever be either proof or evidence to you.

[ QUOTE ]

If there was a book saying that Zeus got angry and may the earth erupt and destroy a town... and they found that a volcano did erupt in the time referenced... would that mean that Zeus was real?


[/ QUOTE ]

If there was a book saying that Zeus prophesied a volcano would erupt and the volcano did erupt it would be EVIDENCE that Zeus is real.

[ QUOTE ]

Only to someone who used your standards of proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where do I find the official, kurto-approved, good housekeeping set of proof standards?

[Prodigy54321]

not to take NotReady's side or anything /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but I don't think that he ever said or intended to say that any of that is direct evidence that the christian god exists...

this whole topic was started because we were talking about the credability of the Bible, and the (possible miracle) that it is absent of such historical errors as those found in other religious texts.

this is certainly possible without devine intervention (also it could have been changed over time)..but it would lend at least some evidence to the credibility of the bible (at least over other religious texts)...(and of course only if there was truly a way to evaluate supposed errors, but there isn't)

to anyone of the opinion that the bible's credability would crumble if just ONE error was found...it is so far yet to crumble

a few posts above, however, I tried to make the point that claims made in the bible are not falsifiable, since whenever a supernatural being MAY have or COULD have done something, it makes it unfalsifiable.

or the excuse "well that was a man made error" is sufficient as well.

so to the christian, there will never and can never be any errors found in the bible

and this is the same with many religions..

which is why christians say, our book is perfect, and theirs is erroneous..and muslims say, our book is perfect and theirs is erroneous...

there can be NO reasonable evaluation of ANY event that may have involved a supernatural being

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Both the passages and historical examples are open to interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Human beings are finite and fallible.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Both the passages and historical examples are open to interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Human beings are finite and fallible.

[/ QUOTE ]

what exactly is the point you are making..

I'm sure we all acknowledge that if this god does exist, and the bible is his perfect word...there is only one TRUE meaning of a specific passage or historical example...

but even if this is true..it's not like this changes the fact that we can have different interpretations of it...and who is to say which one is right besides God Himself..

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

a few posts above, however, I tried to make the point that claims made in the bible are not falsifiable, since whenever a supernatural being MAY have or COULD have done something, it makes it unfalsifiable.

so to the christian, there will never and can never be any errors found in the bible

there can be NO reasonable evaluation of ANY event that may have involved a supernatural being


[/ QUOTE ]

But I said there are many, many facts stated in the Bible that are not considered miraculous, all of which are at least theoretically falsifiable and none of which have been. That's one of the differences between the Bible and other religious writings, such as the Koran and Book of Mormon.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it's not like this changes the fact that we can have different interpretations of it...and who is to say which one is right besides God Himself..


[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever God says can be twisted. His first command to us was twisted and misinterpreted. When there are thinking beings, both the subjective and objective are real. And we are responsible for our subjective reality.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
you realize there's a difference between proof and evidence, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of any semantic games you want to play, your evidence doesn't really aid your case at all.

You claim you have overwhelming evidence that God exists. Overwhelming evidence = there are some historical events that are mentioned in the Bible. You want to play semantic games... you should replace 'overwhelming' with 'flimsy and insignificant'

[ QUOTE ]
I realize nothing will ever be either proof or evidence to you.


[/ QUOTE ]
There certainly could be proof or evidence that might be convincing. Though you have provided absolutely nothing compelling. All of the 'evidence' or 'proofs' you supply are completely illogical and filled with 'overwhelming' holes.

[ QUOTE ]
If there was a book saying that Zeus prophesied a volcano would erupt and the volcano did erupt it would be EVIDENCE that Zeus is real.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it would be overwhelming.

[ QUOTE ]

Where do I find the official, kurto-approved, good housekeeping set of proof standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could take a community college course on logic? Perhaps a few science courses?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Overwhelming evidence = there are some historical events that are mentioned in the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say this. You should take a high school level course in remedial debate.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it's not like this changes the fact that we can have different interpretations of it...and who is to say which one is right besides God Himself..


[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever God says can be twisted. His first command to us was twisted and misinterpreted. When there are thinking beings, both the subjective and objective are real. And we are responsible for our subjective reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still confused as to what point you were trying to make in your response

was it meant to be an argument against what madnak was saying?..because it seems to be that madnak's argument still stands. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
not to take NotReady's side or anything , but I don't think that he ever said or intended to say that any of that is direct evidence that the christian god exists...


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't a substantial part of this thread him claiming that the 'evidence is overwhelming?'

[ QUOTE ]
so to the christian, there will never and can never be any errors found in the bible


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there are contradictions throughout the Bible which has been covered in this forum many times. Things like different books giving different facts (numbers, years, etc.) for the same events... other historical events for which there is no record, the Biblical representation of astrology, etc. Things that are clearly erroneous.

[ QUOTE ]
there can be NO reasonable evaluation of ANY event that may have involved a supernatural being

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is there is no evidence for the supernatural being. And we have this particularly theist trying to argue that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that the Bible has got it right. And then he lists his evidence which would get him a failing grade in an 'introduction to logic' class.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Overwhelming evidence = there are some historical events that are mentioned in the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say this. You should take a high school level course in remedial debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady, you said earlier that someone kept insisting that you never provide your supposed "overwhelming evidence"...

but you held that you have more than one time..
do you have a link?..I've never seen it.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Overwhelming evidence = there are some historical events that are mentioned in the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say this. You should take a high school level course in remedial debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you have repeatedly given evidence that proves your case. You are the one who said "overwhelming evidence."

In this thread you provided your evidence at Prodigy's request which amounted to-- there are real historical events in the Bible.

You're trying to take jabs at me simply because I point out that your evidence doesn't do anything to prove that God exists.

You used the term 'overwhelming evidence.' Let's see it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't a substantial part of this thread him claiming that the 'evidence is overwhelming?'

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed that he considered it to only be one part of this "overwhelming evidence"..

mostly because even if it is true, it doesn't provide amazingly strong evidence for his claim...but it does provide evidence nonetheless

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are contradictions throughout the Bible which has been covered in this forum many times. Things like different books giving different facts (numbers, years, etc.) for the same events... other historical events for which there is no record, the Biblical representation of astrology, etc. Things that are clearly erroneous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting a thread in a couple weeks so that we can discuss all of these things /images/graemlins/smile.gif I've looked at many of them already and many have what I consider to be good explaination..such that the credibility of the bible isn't hurt much at all if at all..still others I don't find so compelling, and if the explainations are accepted, it causes christans to admit that the bible cannot be trusted 100% to be accurate because of the influence of men.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is there is no evidence for the supernatural being. And we have this particularly theist trying to argue that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that the Bible has got it right. And then he lists his evidence which would get him a failing grade in an 'introduction to logic' class.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I enjoy arguing anyway /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

also, this is one reason why the belief in this god has to come down to "faith"...

they claim to have evidence for god...they claim it is in the bible...

but in order to come to the conclusion that the bible contains evidence to support their claim, they must assume that their god exists...

there isn't a much clearer example of begging the question.

unfortunately, they just don't seem to care..and when confronted with how irrational their methods are, it comes back to faith...and then again we go into how faith is irrational..then they go back to how evidence also supports it..then back and forth forever...

there is no winning against their numb logic /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, you said earlier that someone kept insisting that you never provide your supposed "overwhelming evidence"...


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said that Biblical accurcy is all the evidence for God's existence. What I mean by overwhleming includes much more than that. Look at it this way - if God exists and created everything, everything is evidence of His existence.

The Bible points to nature as evidence of God's existence - "the heavens are telling of the glory of God". Paley's argument is cogent but not absolute to the fallen mind. Natural revelation "ought" to be convincing.

All the theistic proofs are evidence as well. Not absolute proof, but certainly philosophical and logical evidences of God's existence. The failure of science and philosophy, all the "wisdom" of this world which God calls foolishness, is evidence that nothing else accounts for reality as we know it.

There are other arguments that use other types of evidence. Many books have been written concerning these. Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You used the term 'overwhelming evidence.' Let's see it.


[/ QUOTE ]


First you give me the link where I said what you quoted. Let's see it.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I assumed that he considered it to only be one part of this "overwhelming evidence"..


[/ QUOTE ]

He's certainly encouraged to list more.

[ QUOTE ]

mostly because even if it is true, it doesn't provide amazingly strong evidence for his claim...but it does provide evidence nonetheless


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is debateable. To say that there is a Transylvania isn't really evidence that there are Vampires and that they can turn to mist. Finding Transylvania on the map has no bearing to the truth of vampires or what supernatural powers there are.

I could write a book today and claim that there is a God named Pookiebear. Pookiebear predicts that it will rain next week. Sure enough it rains.

According to notready's logic, that is evidence that Pookiebear is real. Simply finding any corresponding element in reality to a text is evidence that everything in the text is real.

If Notready was putting his best foot forward, then I'm afraid to see what else constitutes the rest of his overwhelming evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but I enjoy arguing anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we all do. I also come here hoping to spot a Txag post.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never said that Biblical accurcy is all the evidence for God's existence. What I mean by overwhleming includes much more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. I assumed that..and said a few posts above that I believed that was your position /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I guess I could comment on the rest, but that's a pretty wide range of things (all of which I disagree that they support your conclusion much at all, not to mention whether they amount to "overwhelming evidence")

but anyway,

I've asked you twice if I could have a link to what you claimed you have done before..

you seemed to be pretty mad that someone had denied that you have ever posted what you consider to be your evidence for god's existence, so I assumed that you were telling the truth, but now I'm not so sure /images/graemlins/mad.gif

here's the post I'm talking about to refresh your memory

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto made many allegations of fact about me, Christians and Christianity that he won't back up - for instance, that I believe without evidence - which I've denied many times in the past and listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again - which usually prompts someone like Kurto to claim I've never listed the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

According to notready's logic, that is evidence that Pookiebear is real.


[/ QUOTE ]

You truly, desperately need that debate course.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You used the term 'overwhelming evidence.' Let's see it.


[/ QUOTE ]

First you give me the link where I said what you quoted. Let's see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Link: THE OVERWHELMING LINK (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7925907&page=0&vc=1)

Or I just posted the paragraph here:
[ QUOTE ]
Kurto made many allegations of fact about me, Christians and Christianity that he won't back up - for instance, that I believe without evidence - which I've denied many times in the past and listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again - which usually prompts someone like Kurto to claim I've never listed the evidence.

I've never claimed I can prove God exists. I do claim there is overwhelming evidence He exists . I sometimes use God's existence as an assumption in an argument. Kinda like if A=B and B=C then A=C - whether A really = B or not is a different question.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You used the term 'overwhelming evidence.' Let's see it.


[/ QUOTE ]

First you give me the link where I said what you quoted. Let's see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Link: THE OVERWHELMING LINK (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7925907&page=0&vc=1)

Or I just posted the paragraph here:
[ QUOTE ]
Kurto made many allegations of fact about me, Christians and Christianity that he won't back up - for instance, that I believe without evidence - which I've denied many times in the past and listed the evidence over, and over, and over, and over again - which usually prompts someone like Kurto to claim I've never listed the evidence.

I've never claimed I can prove God exists. I do claim there is overwhelming evidence He exists . I sometimes use God's existence as an assumption in an argument. Kinda like if A=B and B=C then A=C - whether A really = B or not is a different question.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's talking about this /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Overwhelming evidence = there are some historical events that are mentioned in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

According to notready's logic, that is evidence that Pookiebear is real.


[/ QUOTE ]

You truly, desperately need that debate course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rathar then just trying to insult me you could attempt to show how my analogy is any different then what you've posted.

You have already said that a volcano erupting would be evidence that Zeus exists. As historical evidence in the Bible constitutes evidence that God exists. Please explain for me, since I'm 'debate challenged' how these are any different then the pookie bear example.

Thanks for your help.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he's talking about this


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overwhelming evidence = there are some historical events that are mentioned in the Bible.



[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I already explained that? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I never meant to imply that this was the extent of his overwhelming evidence. Only that his evidence he listed didn't real do anything to prove what he claimed.

I don't think even he thought I was quoting him there. Simply writing a shorthand summary of the gist of his argument.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I've asked you twice if I could have a link to what you claimed you have done before.


[/ QUOTE ]

I probably shouldn't have used the word "listed". I've never made a post that included such a list, that I can remember. What I mean is over the course of 2 or 3 years I've discussed many different reasons why I believe and why the Bible is God's word, Christianity is true, etc. Those items in my last post are some of them. There are many I haven't discussed but have probably mentioned somewhere.

What I'm mad about (not really mad, more like frustrated) is the constant drumbeat of "no evidence", the constant idiotic comparisons of Christianity with Santa Claus - it demonstrates an almost total ignorance of history, philosophy, logic, debate and psychology.

I think one reason people today take that position is they worship science and scientists. They think the only true knowledge is that which meets the scientific method and can be demonstrated in the lab (excluding, of course, common ancestor evolution).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Or I just posted the paragraph here:


[/ QUOTE ]

Try again.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think even he thought I was q uoting him there. Simply writing a shorthand summary of the gist of his argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did think that. But that's ok, link where I made that argument.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one reason people today take that position is they worship science and scientists. They think the only true knowledge is that which meets the scientific method and can be demonstrated in the lab (excluding, of course, common ancestor evolution).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they, including me, think this way more because the scientific method has deomostrated time and time again it's ability to bring us to correct conclusions, whereas no other method has ever been demonstrated to do so at nearly the rate of the scientific method..

you can argue that this isn't necessarily true since we come to even THIS conclusion using the scientific method, thus causing it to be illogical...

but people of all beliefs must and do fall behind to scientific method for everthing they do in their lives..never questioning it's strength until it conflicts with a comfortable belief they have...

no other method is close to this record either

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think even he thought I was q uoting him there. Simply writing a shorthand summary of the gist of his argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did think that. But that's ok, link where I made that argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

stop bickering you ninnies /images/graemlins/tongue.gif...

it's very clear what happened (to even both of you I'm sure)..and it doesn't matter one bit.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think they, including me, think this way more because the scientific method has deomostrated time and time again it's ability to bring us to correct conclusions


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this and I'm all in favor of scientific research. I'm not opposing science at all. I'm opposing the idea that science now or ever will have all the answers. It can't, by definition. No examintation of nature will ever tell us why we are here or even if there is a why. It will never tell us what we ought to do or even if it matters. By definition. And it can never say one word, not one single, solitary word, about anything supernatural. By definition. Except "We don't know".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

stop bickering you ninnies


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't usually bicker. It's Monday, and bickering is in my nature, it's something I have to fight to avoid. Losing the battle today.

Edit: A rainy, dreary, November Monday, BTW.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[kurto]

The problem is you haven't even listed anything that appears to have been caused by the supernatural.

Certainly science would have problem explaining the supernatural (until it discovers if what appears 'supernatural' is actually 'natural'.)

But the Bible lists stuff that supposedly happened 1000s of years ago, recorded by people who were far less sophisticated and arguably more superstitious then people of today... yet Theists take the Bible as literal history when they have no reason to believe that the supernatural events ever happened at all or, if something did happen (to use an analogy... like a volcano erupting and ancient man saying that it was caused by a God) that there is any reason to believe it was supernatural.

Do you not find it odd and/or troubling that all the miracles happened thousands of years ago before man had developed science. And now we don't see Red Seas parting, God speaking from the heavens, people walking on water, angels slaughtering babies (unless the baby is shielded by blood markings on the door, of course), canes turning into asps, etc.

Does one conclude that God exists, all the miracles are real and for some reason, they all just stopped?

Or does one realize that the writings of primitive man are going to be rife with errors and superstition precisely because they didn't understand the world as well as we do today?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

stop bickering you ninnies


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't usually bicker. It's Monday, and bickering is in my nature, it's something I have to fight to avoid. Losing the battle today.

Edit: A rainy, dreary, November Monday, BTW.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And we're not ninnies. I have to believe NotReady is enjoying a good quibble as much as the next person on these forums. If we didn't enjoy a good quibble, we'd all have left these forums a long time ago.

I hope, Notready, you realize though I have troubles with your arguments, I'd be more then pleased to be having this conversation over a beer with a friend (or you) and mean you no harm. I'm sure we both feel passion in our convictions.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think they, including me, think this way more because the scientific method has deomostrated time and time again it's ability to bring us to correct conclusions


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this and I'm all in favor of scientific research. I'm not opposing science at all. I'm opposing the idea that science now or ever will have all the answers. It can't, by definition. No examintation of nature will ever tell us why we are here or even if there is a why. It will never tell us what we ought to do or even if it matters. By definition. And it can never say one word, not one single, solitary word, about anything supernatural. By definition. Except "We don't know".

[/ QUOTE ]

you assume that "why?" is a valid question...IMO, there is no "why?" in the sense that people seem to think there is.

some people are not comfortable without an ultimate reason "why"...so they invent ways to support thier idea that there is a ultimate reason "why" and ways to find out this reason "why"..

even you should be able to admit this is true, since this must be affliction that all the "wrong" people must have come down with...many of us, however, believe that it is EVERYONE that has come down with this affliction, rather than just most people.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

.IMO, there is no "why?" in the sense that people seem to think there is.


[/ QUOTE ]

That constitutes an answer. I disagree with it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.IMO, there is no "why?" in the sense that people seem to think there is.


[/ QUOTE ]

That constitutes an answer. I disagree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, I just wanted to point out that it is not a universally accepted fact that "why?" is a valid question...so in some poeple's minds, it is no fault of science that it cannot answer this "question".

if we could be sure that there is indeed an answer to "why?", then if science cannot answer that question, then it would be silly to come to a conclusion of "why" based on scientific inquiry..although I don't see any reason why (if it is a valid question), science wouldn't be able to evaluate it..I think it is more that science has not turned up any supporting evidence, therefore, everyone assumes that the answer to their comforting answer of "why?" must lay elsewhere

still if it can't be evaluated by science, that also doesn't automatically mean that we have another realiable way of coming to that conclusion..it is certainly no where even close to being as agreed upon as is the best way of coming to "how", that is the scientific method.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

still if it can't be evaluated by science, that also doesn't automatically mean that we have another realiable way of coming to that conclusion..it is certainly no where even close to being as agreed upon as is the best way of coming to "how", that is the scientific method.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is science can't answer all the questions. Whether the question "why" is a valid question or not is itself a question and how you answer it matters. So science is incompetent to answer certain questions that can't be avoided.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

still if it can't be evaluated by science, that also doesn't automatically mean that we have another realiable way of coming to that conclusion..it is certainly no where even close to being as agreed upon as is the best way of coming to "how", that is the scientific method.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is science can't answer all the questions. Whether the question "why" is a valid question or not is itself a question and how you answer it matters. So science is incompetent to answer certain questions that can't be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

from what I can tell, the question "why?"'s validity depends on..

1) whether or not the event in question is attributed to a intelligent being.

2) possible whether or not this being has free will (since something may not be considered as an actual answer of to "why" if the intelligent being's decision was made in a deterministic way.

the way I see it, science may be able to answer questions of "why?"..

however, your theory of the answer to "why" is not supported by science...

you claim that this is because your particular question is a special case..

I do not see it that way..because there is no reason so believe that it is a special case that can't be evaluated by science..

even the creation of an entire universe by an intelligent being could be the subject of scientific inquiry...

your idea that "why?" cannot be evaluated by science is based on a priori assumptions

a person that isn't burdened by there constraints may not see your argument that science can't hadle the question "why?" as true.

or course we would have to go off the assumption that your theory is not true in order to come to this conclusion as well..so we're at a standstill

but since I can see no other method of evaluation as as dependable as the scientific method, I will continue to only believe what I have good reason to believe, based on what this method points to...

otherwise, I'm taking a shot in the dark.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

your idea that "why?" cannot be evaluated by science is based on a priori assumptions


[/ QUOTE ]

But it's also based on the a priori of science itself. Science says it can make no statement about the non-empirical or the supernatural. Science can only investigate "nature", according to what science says about itself. See the Talkorigins FAQ on this.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

your idea that "why?" cannot be evaluated by science is based on a priori assumptions


[/ QUOTE ]

But it's also based on the a priori of science itself. Science says it can make no statement about the non-empirical or the supernatural. Science can only investigate "nature", according to what science says about itself. See the Talkorigins FAQ on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

forgive me..in my original statement I made a special note that I was referring to the question "why?" as most people think of it..meaning not just a "why?" like any one fitting the criteria I talked about, but a supernatural "why?" like a meaning of life "why?"..not just the reasoning behind an intelligent being's decision to create us..

then I delved into the types of "why?"s that science could evaluate since the intelligent mind may be able to be "cracked" if you will, if it is just a big puzzle

science could help to explain the reasoning behind decisions.

so in this case, science is not dealing with anything supernatural (well at least anything supernatural in the infinte, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent sence.. since science does deal with the supernatural)..it is dealing withink nature..

but you're right..I went off topic from the real questions of "why?" we are talking about..

sure science can't deal with them, because science doesn't postulate that what would be responsible for this reason "why?" even exists..since it is supernatural...

the question "why?" may only be valid if the reason that this "why?" can be answered (let's say god) is indeed real.

you must assume that god exists in order to believe that "why?" is even a valid question

so the "fact" that science does not answer this "why?" is not evidence that this god exists..

for instance..

I ask "how many fingers does a Sprackerstein (any random thing) have?"

science cannot answer this question since it does not know of the existence of this thing.

the question is only valid if this sprackerstein exists..it is dependent on it's subject's existence...just like in our situation.

so the "fact" that science can't handle this question does not lend any credibility to the question's validity

would you classify science's inability to answer this question as a "problem" or a "pitfall" of science?

is there a reason to assume that there must be another way of finding out how many fingers sprocketstein has?

or is it more reasonable to assume that since science has no evidence that such a being exists, there is no reason to consider the question to even be valid..?

---------------------------------------

EDIT: just to some up..my only real argument here is that..

the fact that science doesn't answer "why?" is not a reason to believe (or support the theory) that there is some other method out there that can help you find out the answer to "why?"

it lends no credibility to it whatsoever.

I'm not saying that there is no other way to come to this conclusion..but doing it this way is irrational

[FortunaMaximus]

<sighs> One can say the same about the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Until there was experimental evidence, which is still shrouded in ambiguity but at least it's a start...

Science was unable to answer this question with even tentative conclusions, except on paper until fairly recently.

Is it not possible, Prodigy, religion just asks the largest and most significant problem in the Universe, from man's view, and simply is millennia away from having the scientific framework to be able to gather evidence for this conclusion?

That, after all, science is eventually going to have to ask this question and hammer out a solution set for it, after everything other scientific question in the natural universe has been asked and answered?

I'd rather not get into semantic or point-by-point quibbles here, and it seems a logical question to ask instead of surfing this long thread looking for similar points. So consider this a lazy summation of the discussion.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
<sighs> One can say the same about the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Until there was experimental evidence, which is still shrouded in ambiguity but at least it's a start...

Science was unable to answer this question with even tentative conclusions, except on paper until fairly recently.

Is it not possible, Prodigy, religion just asks the largest and most significant problem in the Universe, from man's view, and simply is millennia away from having the scientific framework to be able to gather evidence for this conclusion?

That, after all, science is eventually going to have to ask this question and hammer out a solution set for it, after everything other scientific question in the natural universe has been asked and answered?

I'd rather not get into semantic or point-by-point quibbles here, and it seems a logical question to ask instead of surfing this long thread looking for similar points. So consider this a lazy summation of the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

fortuna you confuse the hell out of me quite often (not that that's a bad thing)..so I'm going to respond to what I "think" your criticisms are..

[ QUOTE ]
Is it not possible, Prodigy, religion just asks the largest and most significant problem in the Universe, from man's view, and simply is millennia away from having the scientific framework to be able to gather evidence for this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you ar talking about when I said that science could find answer to "why?"...I certainly didn't mean that we could right now..for even the most simply of intelligent creatures..but I meant that it is not outside the realm of science.

again, I'm talking about simply "why?"s here..not the true meaning of life type "why's" that are dependent on it's subject..but rather "why"s like "why did Bob do that" or een "why did splork create human beings"

[ QUOTE ]
That, after all, science is eventually going to have to ask this question and hammer out a solution set for it, after everything other scientific question in the natural universe has been asked and answered?

[/ QUOTE ]

why would science have to answer a question that isn't even valid unless the subject of it exists (which science has no knowledge of)?

again..will science then ask the question "how many fingers does a sprockelstein have?"

or will it only do so if this sprockelstein is shown to exist?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
why would science have to answer a question that isn't even valid unless the subject of it exists (which science has no knowledge of)?

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the speed limit of light before 1905?

That question and the explosion in physics understandings alone should dictate that to assume that because we don't have evidence yet to prove or disprove that God exists does not mean that we might not stumble upon a theortical framework in where the existence of such an entity is a provable, whether it is positive or negative.

What I find a little disheartening about religion is its inability for the most part, to acknowledge that science could very well help them redefine their knowledge, and there is little doubt that religion, or the need to believe in something, is a necessary component of being human.

I know, confusing people is quite an issue for me in several forums. The variety of reactions is interesting. Anyway, I don't criticize as much as I try to redefine. And that may end up being the same thing, but that is never my agenda in a discussion. An impassioned debater simply introduces too much emotional bias into his discussions and logic suffers.

As for why science should ask this question... Why not? Religion would be improved for combating science less, and if the end result is a faith system with dogma that science can live with, and they worked together in concert instead of trying to disprove the other without enough information to do so, I think humanity would be better off for it, and certainly there would be less warfare. (Now this is personal bias.)

Maybe in the end, it'll come down to not whether or not Sprockelstein exists or how many fingers he has, but how many pies he has his fingers in.

At least the question of whether God exists should be subject to just as rigorous a scientific inquiry as most things that are questioned. I just simply don't think we have enough to ask this specific question yet. Even theists can only point to books and Scripture as proof. And for this agnostic, that's simply unacceptable.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never said that Biblical accurcy is all the evidence for God's existence. What I mean by overwhleming includes much more than that. Look at it this way - if God exists and created everything, everything is evidence of His existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... And if everything existed without god creating it, then everything would be evidence that no god is needed to explain anything. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

then? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
That (your post) assumes... that an atheist places no value on the fact of being alive and of helping others and enjoying life. Just because we don't believe in any grand cosmic plan form god does not mean we cannot find meaning in our lives and it certainly does not mean that we find it acceptable to do horrible things, or think that it doesn't matter if they happen.

An atheist (a moral one) condemns murder because he recognizes what it is to be alive and how precious that is and that nobody else has the right to take that. Just because we don't have some god looking over our shoulders doesn't mean we cannot be good.

You on the other hand sound like without god you would kill and rape and steal. Without somebody watching you, you would commit acts you understand to be evil. Without somebody watching me, I would continue to try to do good in the world. Which of us is the "moral" person???

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere in my post did I assume an atheist places no value on life, or finds it 'acceptable to do horrible things'. This misses the point completely. I believe an atheist can value life and seek to do 'good' (however he interprets the term), or not value life and seek to do 'evil'. Neither way is any better, ultimately. As for finding it 'acceptable to do horrible things', how do you personally interpret 'horrible'. If a madman interprets 'horrible' oppositely from you, and seeks a lifestyle completely opposed to your 'good' one, whose is superior?

I read a page worth of responses, and most of them (like this one) compeletely misconstrued what I said and distorted my words. It is amazing how difficult it is for otherwise intelligent people to understand such an elementary concept. At least Sklansky kind of gets it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
My fellow 2p2 atheists have already easily proven why the OP is so wrong. But I just wanted to state that it sickens me that people actually think they are correct when saying these kind of statements. I don't get my morality handed to me, But I do have a very strong set of morals. (As do many other atheists).

Long Answer: I very much enjoyed reading the following book, and I think the OP could gain much from reading it as well.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1573929875.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Morality-M...TF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Morality-Meaning-Prometheus-Lecture/dp/1573929875/sr=8-1/qid=1162714086/ref=sr_1_1/104-1699767-4423164?ie=UTF8&s=books)

[/ QUOTE ]

And if my morals are 180 degrees opposed to yours? What specifically did I say in my post that is absolutely false?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
You really bare your true self with these type of posts.

Most atheists refrain from such heinious acts because they have a sense of compassion for their fellow man and the world they live in. Ok, so a few just don't want to go to jail. But...

You on the other hand, basically state the only reason you refrain from murder, rape, pillage, and plunder, is your trembling fear of an invisible man watching your every move. Otherwise, you'd be no better than an animal.

I sometimes think if there really is a god, it will be people like you who will be among the first to lick the fires of hell. In the meantime, Sklansky will be strumming his harp from a cloud lamenting how your gross misunderstanding of probabilities sealed your fate.

[/ QUOTE ]

-How do I 'bare my true self' by posting what I believe to be a simple truth?

-"Most atheists dont kill, etc, b/c they 'have a sense of compassion for their fellow man'." Okay, but if most had a 'wicked' sense of hatred toward their fellow man, this would be completely fine (in ultimate reality)- no better or worse either way.

-Nowhere did I state that the only reason I dont do the above 'evil' things is for fear of God. I do believe, though, that that is the only adequate explanation of why people SHOULD (in an absolute, platonic sense) do these things. Please do not slander me by misinterpreting and grossly distorting my words.

As for your last paragraph of insult, you should be ashamed. You speak falsely about things you do not at all understand.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
siegfriedandroy,

why do you make posts that are nothing more than mindless rants with nothing to back your accusations up, then don't respond to any questions or criticisms?

you have been the biggest troll in SMP as long as I have been here

[/ QUOTE ]

He induced a pretty good multi-page discussion. Or not. Not everybody sticks to rigor and overwordcount. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Is it bad if the fella comes here to steam?

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appreciate it, fortuna. Here I am, reading the responses. Sorry, Prodigy, for not attending to them on time. As for 'mindless accusations', blah, blah, blah...- what were these 'mindless accusations' that i made. Many pride yourself on your sharp 'logic', yet you immediately resort to callous, unjustifiable insults simply b/c you refuse (or are incapable? honestly im not sure) to understand a simple truth- IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ULTIMATE, ABSOLUTE, ETC, ETC, ETC...MORALITY - no one here as shown this statement to be false in any legitimate manner.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He induced a pretty good multi-page discussion. Or not. Not everybody sticks to rigor and overwordcount. Is it bad if the fella comes here to steam?

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't take much to get a 5 page discussion on religion here. The difference is he did it by making an insulting rant and the not-ready led tangent brought it to a higher level and kept it going. Though his post kicked it off, he gets little credit to where it went.

[/ QUOTE ]

How was this an 'insulting rant'? I simply stated what I believe to be true. It is something I feel strongly about, and it bothers me that people cannot see something that is so obvious to me.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you are a true atheist, then murder is no worse/better than giving the homeless guy a thousand bucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so going by the definition of atheist 'as a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings' I only need to quote your first sentence to completely disregard everything else you wrote. Some atheists are completely hedonistic utilitarians who would say that murder is awarded a large sum of negative points and giving the homeless person money (even though I personally think there are better ways to help the individual) would be a better choice overall. This process of thinking has nothing to do with believing or not believing in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what I meant by the sentence. You interpreted completely incorrectly. Yes, a utilitarian atheist is certainly free to value whatever he likes (either way). What I MEAN is, ultimately (in the great Platonic sky), murder and philanthropy are no ULTIMATELY morally better or worse than one another. This is obvious if there really is no 'Platonic sky'.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, but if most had a 'wicked' sense of hatred toward their fellow man, this would be completely fine (in ultimate reality)- no better or worse either way.


[/ QUOTE ]

how about

Okay, but if GOD had a 'wicked' sense of hatred ... , this would be completely fine (in ultimate reality)- no better or worse either way.

this statement is true also

also IF man had a "wicked sense of hatred toward his fellow man"...the gods that he invented would also reflect that

would you not argee that ancient civilizations' sense of morality helped to shape the traits of the gods that they invented? (I would say this is true for your religion as well, but you don't have to admit that to admit that the above statement is true)

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe, though, that that is the only adequate explanation of why people SHOULD (in an absolute, platonic sense) do these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

you should watch that old thing by dawkins about cooperation

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
How was this an 'insulting rant'? I simply stated what I believe to be true. It is something I feel strongly about, and it bothers me that people cannot see something that is so obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm.

[ QUOTE ]
most of you are not really 'philosophers'. and even if you were, you'd be only barely more enlightened (if at all)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
your philosophy is incredibly wicked

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
your pointless and arbitrary skull that futilely determines good and evil

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
arrogant d-bags

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, you were cool as a cucumber. Nothing insulting in your OP.

[Prodigy54321]

siegfriedadnroy,

I think all of us can acknowledge that in a world without a god, there is not absolute morality (in the sense you think there is one)

but you make it seem apparent that we are LACKING (in the negative sense) this absolute morality..whereas, we don't believe we are LACKING it because we don't believe that it exists...

furthermore..some of us (myself at least)...do not believe that there is an absolute morality even with a god..I hold that god's morality is only absolute morality in the same sense that if there were an extrememly powerful man who could force his morality on others..that would too be absolute morality.

so we are not just unable to LACK what doesn't exist..but we are unable to LACK what CANNOT exist...

you seem to look at it as if we are supposed to feel bad about not having an aboslute morality

no matter how you look at it, different entities have different senses of morality (god or not)...

if there is no god, we can work together to evaluate our senses of morality and reach reasonable conclusions..

if there is a god, we are forced into obeying one entity's morality..

and who is to say that it is what is best..it may be best for his pruposes, but not for ours...

your christian god find no problem in having children inherit sinfullness from their parents..the child has made no decisions..never chosed to disobey god..never chosen to stray from him in any way..yet he is punished for the choices of people who he may never even know about...

sure, if this god exists, this is the way it is and is part of yoru supposed "absolute morality"...

but I will never agree with this type of morality..and I don't think that any human being should agree with it...

so is your "absolute morality" something to be proud of...are atheists supposed to feel bad about not believing in this strange (what to us would seem evil) morality...

I'd take relative morality as the high ground over absolute morality even if it were possible.

[txag007]

PRODIGY 11-8-06 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=79 72982&Searchpage=1&Main=7895702&Words=+Prodigy5432 1&topic=&Search=true#Post7972982):

[ QUOTE ]
sure, if this god exists, this is the way it is and is part of yoru supposed "absolute morality"...

but I will never agree with this type of morality..and I don't think that any human being should agree with it...


[/ QUOTE ]
PRODIGY11-3-06 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7919033&page=&vc=1):

[ QUOTE ]
If it turns out that I am wrong, then I will also be perfectly fine with realizing that I must be, by definition, mistaken on my disagreements with this god's opinion of morality...why reject something that is true???I certainly wouldn't..regardless of whether or not there is hell involved..I'd be the first in line to worship


[/ QUOTE ]
Change your mind? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

Oooh, txag, you're getting to him day by day... Might just convert the fella yet.

Seriously, though.

[ QUOTE ]
It is something I feel strongly about, and it bothers me that people cannot see something that is so obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why invest the time and the wasted effort in trying to convince them otherwise? Most people are hard-headed and set in their ways you might as well abaptize (yes, abaptize) a fence post.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
PRODIGY 11-8-06 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=79 72982&Searchpage=1&Main=7895702&Words=+Prodigy5432 1&topic=&Search=true#Post7972982):

[ QUOTE ]
sure, if this god exists, this is the way it is and is part of yoru supposed "absolute morality"...

but I will never agree with this type of morality..and I don't think that any human being should agree with it...


[/ QUOTE ]
PRODIGY11-3-06 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7919033&page=&vc=1):

[ QUOTE ]
If it turns out that I am wrong, then I will also be perfectly fine with realizing that I must be, by definition, mistaken on my disagreements with this god's opinion of morality...why reject something that is true???I certainly wouldn't..regardless of whether or not there is hell involved..I'd be the first in line to worship


[/ QUOTE ]
Change your mind? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

no

the second was going off the assumption of something that I don't believe is actually possible in the sense that some of you do...

if something were definitely true, I would not reject it...

If god's morality was that killing people for no good reason was just fine, I would have to admit that this god is what you might call the "abolute authority on morality"..

but it wouldn't change that I feel disgusted when I see someone killed for no reason