I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[Astreja]

I don't see why God, being omniscient would be trapped in any perception... in a sense, he is bound by that truth, but that doesn't in any way limit him.

If the past, present and future are known with 100% certainty by your hypothetical god, then it would be incapable of initiating any contradictory actions without invalidating its own knowledge.

 

If living in illusion is what makes life bearable for you, then I don't really have a connection point with you. However, it is when reality starts to break through that illusion that I believe I can offer direction to people.

Frankly, I don't think that you're one iota better off than Me in your relationship to "reality". Until otherwise demonstrated, you just have a different flavour of illusion.

 

What is the difference between mindfulness meditation and contemplation? Can one not contemplate the present?

I choose to call that 'mindfulness' rather than 'contemplation'. No significant differences if we're speaking of a present-only practice.

 

And, are you saying that you never focus on the past or future? I find that hard to believe as it would make life impossible to navigate.

When I'm meditating I try to stay in the present. I do not strive to meditate on the past or future; I get enough of that in My regular thoughts.

 

Someone once said that those who forget history are bound to repeat it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana.

 

Quite frankly, moral-values-from-a-god look just as subjective as moral-values-from-humans. I don't think that moral values can be objective, either.

You have missed the gist of the argument. I am speaking about the grounding of objective moral values not what those moral values happen to be. If one believes in objective moral values one must provide a basis for why those moral value are objective.

And I clearly said that I do not think that moral values can be objective. If they come from a god, they are the subjective morality of that god... Not objective.

[agnosticator]

So morality defined by the different philosophical theories are wrong, because they are not taken from the Bible or given in a vision from God? So when the Greeks laid out reciprocation as a possible foundation for morality hundreds of years before Jesus, they were wrong, while Jesus was right when he did it? Such hypocrisy.

Your answer bears no relation to what I said.

 

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[3]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[4]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[5]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[6]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[7]

"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[8]),

 

and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." (Epicurus)[9]

They were all wrong, because they didn't know Jesus.

 

But, "Do to others..." by Jesus, ooooooh, that must be good then...

 

Again, the question is not what morals are, but whether they have objective grounding. We have to answer that question first, and you have to do it from an atheistic perspective. Otherwise, we are merely speaking about preferences.

 

Ethics/morality are objective, relative, situational, and subjective. The grounding of ethics/morality is life itself;no people or animals=no ethics/morality. It is about relationships between beings.

 

Ethics/morality are objective because life is subject to causality. "Actions have consequences, which arise because of natural, psychological, and social laws."-Francois Tremblay. Because of cause/effect due to our existence, we have needs that are vital to our lives. We must have food, water, etc. to live. In this limited sense, ethics is objective.

It is the starting base for the rest of our ethical and moral system where it becomes situational, relative, and subjective.

[Ouroboros]

So morality defined by the different philosophical theories are wrong, because they are not taken from the Bible or given in a vision from God? So when the Greeks laid out reciprocation as a possible foundation for morality hundreds of years before Jesus, they were wrong, while Jesus was right when he did it? Such hypocrisy.

Your answer bears no relation to what I said.

It does too. Your inability to understand it doesn't excuse you from answering. You claim morality can't exist without God. Well, it does.

 

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[3]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[4]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[5]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[6]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[7]

"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[8]),

 

and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." (Epicurus)[9]

They were all wrong, because they didn't know Jesus.

 

But, "Do to others..." by Jesus, ooooooh, that must be good then...

 

Again, the question is not what morals are, but whether they have objective grounding. We have to answer that question first, and you have to do it from an atheistic perspective. Otherwise, we are merely speaking about preferences.

It proves that morality grows with or without God. So in reality and history you can see it can and it does, so God is not the answer for morality. It's not about objective grounding, but about subjective. Which is the middle ground between vulgar relativism and divine command.

 

The challenge you really have is: to define what absolute morality is, and give an example of it. For instance, how do you go about solving the trolley problem using your "absolute" morality? So far in my studies in ethics I haven't seen anyone being able to argue for absolute morality. It doesn't exist in the sphere of reason and philosophy. The best argument I've ever heard was the idea of using a retreat of representatives (a though experiment) to find what foundational morality we all can agree upon. (And I think the professor was a liberal Christian even.)

[Ouroboros]

If I make a decision based on my Free Will, then that decision was not made by God. Hence the First Cause of that decision was ME, not God. That leaves us with 6 billion First Cause agents currently in action. Where does God fit in there? And how can you NOT see this problem? If I make a decision to lift the pen, what was the First Cause of events for that pen to be lifted? God? Then my decision was caused by God. By me? Then God wasn't the cause.

 

I don't argue for free will, but rather free agency. However, you must show me that an atheist actually has free will before you can justify your claim above. From a materialist perspective man has no free will. As Dawkins so eloquently puts it we are the result of our DNA and "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." IOW, you have no free will, you are simply doing what your DNA directs you to do.

Hah! You didn't answer my question. A free agency executes free actions. The free actions are free will. You try to avoid answering by spinning the wheels.

 

You are using the argument for observed contingency as "proof" of the first cause as being an intellect. And then you claim free will exists, and when I call you on it to be contradictory to your first cause argument, you demand me to prove to you that free will exists? The question is, if YOU believe free will exists and also first cause argument, then YOU have to explain how free will can be "free" and yet not contingent to the first cause. Don't put it on me to prove things you claim to exist. You're just stalling.

 

And no, it's not only doing what DNA directs us to. Do you know what biopsychosocial theory in Psychology means? Do you understand moral subjectivism? The structure is more complex that just DNA. You're taking the ideas to the extreme, just so you can claim the ideas to be wrong, it's called strawman.

 

Jesus commanded you to sell everything you own and give to the poor, and follow him, or else you're not a true Christian. Have you done it yet?

 

Morality is absolute in the sense of it's a required rule based relationship to establish equilibrium in a set of actors. It is automatically the best balance between the actors to create maximum survival. Survival, long life, health, happiness, are the things that drives the actors, and the relationships demand a sense of stability and security. Hence moral grows out of the need of that stability. It's math. It's absolute like math. It exists like math. But it's too complex to be made into a formula (yet).

 

Do you know that animals show behavior of morals? Monkeys, dogs, and I think they've been studied in other animals too. How do you explain that without a Bible, without prayer, and without preachers? Did Jesus die for the dogs too? Did Dog-Jesus hand out bacon instead at the Last Supper?

[Kuroikaze]

Oh hell no, he did not just use this little gem.

 

LNC, you are like a walking bumper sticker. I haven't seen a Christian willing to use such cheesy christianise lines like these in a long time, so thanks for the laugh. Whats next? Quote some Chick tracts?

 

Don't let me down now, you have set the bar for humor quite high, so if you are going to have to start saying some really absurd stuff if you want to keep me laughing.

 

Did you have an alternative definition for religion that you would like to posit? Or, do you just like to rip on others? Please, enlighten me.

 

Do I have an alternative definition of religion? Hmm....lets see....how about the REAL definition. Ya know, the one in the dictionary? That's the book where you look up words and it tells you what the words mean. You might assume this is some new invention (since you apparently are not aware of it) but its been around quite a while, crazy shit huh?

 

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

 

My point is that your statement is just another made up definition from apologetics arguments, back in my days as a christian we used to call statements like this "bumper sticker theology," because that's what it is, short little stock phrases that don't actually mean much, but sound cute and catchy.

 

As for ripping on people, I tried having a reasonable conversation with you. However, that is totally impossible when one party is not reasonable.

[chefranden]

I don't argue for free will, but rather free agency. However, you must show me that an atheist actually has free will before you can justify your claim above. From a materialist perspective man has no free will. As Dawkins so eloquently puts it we are the result of our DNA and "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." IOW, you have no free will, you are simply doing what your DNA directs you to do.

 

So what? DNA neither cares nor knows. However, it constructs an individual that both cares and knows. DNA neither stings nor flies, but it constructs individual bees that can do both. DNA as neither leaves or sap, but it constructs trees that have both.

 

"It's no mystery why organisms sometimes harm one another. Evolution has no conscious, and if one creature hurts another to benefit itself, such as while eating, parasitising, intimidating, or cuckolding it, its descendants will come to predominate, complete with those nasty habits. All this is familiar from the vernacular sense of "Darwinian" as a synonym for "ruthless" and from Tennyson's depiction of nature as red in tooth and claw. If that were all there was to evolution of the human condition, we would have to agree with the rock song: life sucks, then you die.

 

But of course, life doesn't always suck. Many creatures cooperate, nurture, and make peace, and humans in particular find comfort and joy in their families, friends, and communities. This, too, should be familiar to readers of the Selfish Gene, and those other books on the evolution of altruism that have appeared in the years since. There are several reasons why organisms may involve a willingness to do good deeds. They may help other creatures while pursuing their own interests, say, when they form a herd that confuses predators or live off each other's byproducts. This is called mutualism, symbiosis, or cooperation. Among humans, friends who have common cause, hobbies, or enemy is a kind of symbiont pair. The two parents of a brood of children are an even better example. There are genes are tied up in the same package, their children, so what is good for one is good for the other, and each has an interest in keeping the other alive and healthy. These shared interests set the stage for companionate love and marital love to evolve.

 

And in some cases organisms may benefit other organisms at a cost to themselves, which biologists call altruism. Altruism in this technical sense can evolve in two main ways. First, since relatives share genes, any gene that inclines an organism towards helping a relative will increase the chance of survival of a copy of itself that sits inside that relative, even if the helper sacrifices its own fitness in the generous act. Some genes will, on average, come to predominate, as long as the cost to the helper is less than the benefit to the recipient discounted by the degree of relatedness. Family love -- the cherishing of children, siblings, parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, and cousins -- can evolve. This is called a nepotistic altruism

 

Altruism can also evolve when organisms trade favors. One helps another by grooming, feeding, protecting, or backing him, and he is helped in turn when the needs reverse. This is called reciprocal altruism, and it can evolve when the parties recognize each other, interact repeatedly, and confer large benefit on others at small cost to themselves, keep a memory for favors offered or denied, and are impelled to reciprocate accordingly. Reciprocal altruism can evolve because cooperators do better than hermits or misanthropes. They enjoy the gains of trading their surpluses, pulling ticks out of one another's hair, saving each other from drowning or starvation, and babysitting each other's children. Reciprocators can also also do better over the long run than the cheaters who take favors without returning them, because the reciprocators is will come to recognize the cheaters and shun or punish them.

 

The demands of reciprocal altruism can explain why the social and moralistic emotions involved. Sympathy and trust prompt people to extend the first favor. Gratitude and loyalty prompt them to repay favors. Guilt and shame deter them from hurting or failing to repay others. Anger and contempt prompt them to avoid or punish cheaters. And among humans, any tendency of an individual to reciprocate or cheat does not have to be witnessed firsthand, but can be recounted by language. This leads to in interest in the reputation of others, transmitted by gossip and public approval or condemnation, and the concern with one's own reputation. Partnerships, friendships, alliances, and communities can emerge, cemented by these emotions and concerns.

 

Many people start to get nervous at this point, but the discomfort is not from the tragedy that Trivers explained. It comes instead from two misconceptions, each of which we have encountered before. First, all this talk about genes that influence behavior does not mean that we are cuckoo clocks or player pianos, mindlessly executing the dictates of DNA. The genes in question are those that endow us with the neural systems for conscience, deliberation, and will, and when we talk about the selection of such genes, we are talking about the various ways these faculties could have evolved. The error comes from the Blank Slate and the ghost in the machine; if one starts off thinking that our higher mental faculties are stamped and by society or inhere in a soul, then once biologists mentioned genetic influence the first alternatives that come to mind are puppet strings or trolley tracks. But if higher faculties, including learning, reason, and choice, are products of a nonrandom organization of the brain, there have to be genes that help do the organizing, and that raises the question of how the genes would have been selected in the course of human evolution.

 

The second misconception is to imagine that talk about cost and benefits implies that people are Machiavellian cynics coldly calculating the genetic advantages of befriending and marrying. To fret over this picture, or to denounce it because it is ugly, is to confuse proximate and ultimate causation. People don't care about their genes; they care about happiness, love, power, respect, and other passions. The cost-benefit calculations are a metaphorical way of describing the selection of alternative genes over millennia, not a literal description of what takes place in the human brain in real time. Nothing prevents the amoral process of natural selection from evolving a brain with genuine and big hearted emotions. It is said that those who appreciate legislation and sausages should not see them being made. The same is true for human emotions.

 

So if love and conscience can evolve, where's the tragedy? Trivers noticed that the confluence of genetic interests that gave rise to the social emotions is only partial. Because we are not clones, or even social insects (who can share up to three quarters of the genes), what ultimately is best for one person is not identical to what is ultimately best for another. Thus every human relationship, even the most devoted in intimate, carries the seeds of conflict..." (

Pinker

, pages 242-244)

[shantonu]

Just admit it, you're cutting and pasting from some listserv somewhere. But they don't have the answer to my question. he he he.

 

 

That would be easy enough for you to check out. I am still awaiting an answer from you.

 

Name calling is what one refers to when one doesn't have an argument.

 

I did give you an answer. I said that the principles of non-harm contained within Buddhism was my basis for thinking killing babies is wrong.

 

But you're just pretending not to understand the question and answering questions with questions. And that's because you simply want to avoid the issue: is killing babies wrong or not?

 

You're seem like a coward. If you're not a coward, answer the question simply and directly. I've answered your question regarding my basis for believing that genocide is wrong, even though I don't think it is legitimate. Now answer mine: was the killing of babies in 1 Samuel chapter 15 right or wrong?

 

Until you do that simple thing, I don't see why anyone here gives you the respect of engaging with you. You seem like a bullshit artist. If you're not, you'll answer my simple question without further nonsense and delay.

[Ouroboros]

But you're just pretending not to understand the question and answering questions with questions. And that's because you simply want to avoid the issue: is killing babies wrong or not?

Since he refuses to answer that simple question (since he thinks morality is absolute, he should be able to provide an absolute and very direct answer), I will ponder a bit on it, and lets see if he gets the point. Lets go to the Bible and see what it says, God can do anything he wants, moral or immoral actions, because morality is below him and is not absolute to God. Morality is not something that is natural to God. God's morality is different than ours, so it is basically only "absolute" to humans, which of course then means that it is not really universally absolute at all! Because if it was, it had to apply to God too, but since it doesn't apply to God, it is not absolute. The Bible has a relative view on morality, since it doesn't include God as a moral agent.

[shantonu]

But you're just pretending not to understand the question and answering questions with questions. And that's because you simply want to avoid the issue: is killing babies wrong or not?

Since he refuses to answer that simple question (since he thinks morality is absolute, he should be able to provide an absolute and very direct answer), I will ponder a bit on it, and lets see if he gets the point. Lets go to the Bible and see what it says, God can do anything he wants, moral or immoral actions, because morality is below him and is not absolute to God. Morality is not something that is natural to God. God's morality is different than ours, so it is basically only "absolute" to humans, which of course then means that it is not really universally absolute at all! Because if it was, it had to apply to God too, but since it doesn't apply to God, it is not absolute. The Bible has a relative view on morality, since it doesn't include God as a moral agent.

 

Great point. I think you should ban him until he answers the question because he is full of it and is wasting everyone's time with his insincere b.s.

[chefranden]

LNC,

 

What ever the reason for not answering the question you may have, you are facing Eurhyphro's Dilemma. Is the good good because God loves it (or does it). Or does God love and do the good because it is the good that is intrinsic.

 

If it is the former, then the good is arbitrary based on the whim of God at the moment. Thus killing babies could be good or bad depending on the mood of God. This means that the good is not absolute, objective and unchanging. This is the picture of Bible God according to the writings. I call this the great Mafia Don in the Sky.

 

If God loves and does the good because it is good then God does not rule. The good rules and God must subject himself to it. In this case if it is bad for you to kill babies, then it is bad for God to kill babies, and if it is good for God to kill babies, then it is good for you to kill babies.

[Ouroboros]

Chef said it better. It was exactly what I was getting at.

 

The only real answer is to consider morality as a standard higher than the individual. That doesn't mean it is "absolute", even though it is more "universal" than just covering one person. The standard covers a group of people, and is therefore a higher concept than just individual choices, desires, and needs. Morality is there. It is higher than just one human being, but it is lower than God. So it's not absolute in the sense of infinite morality applying to the gods and the universe, but it's absolute only in the sense of applying to a group of people. Over generations what rules should apply to the larger groups and/or the smaller groups, has evolved. Those rules are only absolute in the sense that they apply to humans. For instance, no Christian claims that morality applies to animals, so if they don't apply to all living matter, then what is so "absolute" about it?

 

So the answer isn't as easy as, "pick one choice: absolute morality by divine dictum, or vulgar relativism and sophism." Only those who think in "absolutes" believe their own personal beliefs and views are absolutely applicable to everyone else. Morality in the views of the absolutist is that everyone else should follow their belief, i.e. they are nothing but aspiring dictators.

[Neon Genesis]

What??? Have you ever heard of the term anthropomorphism. You might want to look it up before you read the hands on the face of your watch, it might be alive! Regarding the burning bush, God didn't become the bush, he spoke while Moses was at the bush. Jesus took on human flesh, but he existed prior to that, so that doesn't work either. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or even imply that God is physical. By the way, wind is made up of the atmosphere (oxygen, and other elements) in motion, so, I hate to break this to you but wind is physical. I am not sure what you mean when you say that wind doesn't need to be fine tuned. I don't believe that I brought wind into the discussion. Gravity is a physical force (one of the four basic constants, along with the strong and weak nuclear force and electromagnetism). You are mistaken in your understanding and therefore you have failed to make your point in disproving that you made a category error.

Your argument makes no sense at all. Saying that God doesn't need to have been created because he's has no physical form is like saying invisible pink unicorns are real because they're invisible. It makes no sense at all. For one thing, how do you know an invisible God doesn't need to be created because they're invisible? Have you ever met an invisible god to know this to be true? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that God doesn't have a physical form? If you're going to claim God is an invisible being that doesn't need to be created, you're again going to have to prove it. You simply saying so doesn't prove anything other than you're an adult who believes in imaginary friends.

 

 

It doesn't matter whether you believe in the truth or not, it doesn't affect the outcome. One can disbelieve the laws of gravity and yet, when that person steps off a cliff, the law still holds and they are dead (assuming the cliff is high enough).

This analogy makes no sense. Of course when you step out on a cliff, you're going to fall because we know gravity exists because we've seen the effects of gravity. But you have not demonstrated evidence that we've seen the effects of God to prove that he's real. So again, how can we rebel against something we don't believe exists? Are you rebelling against Santa Claus because you don't believe in him? Remind me to send you a lump of coal for Christmas. Besides, I thought you said gravity doesn't count as an analogy for God because we can see the effects of gravity? So, why are you turning around and using gravity as an analogy? If gravity works as an analogy, then my point still stands that gravity doesn't need to be fine tuned by a god to exist. If the analogy doesn't work, then you can't use gravity as an analogy for God unless you're going to admit God does have a physical form. Again, you are proving that you are nothing more than a hypocrite and a liar.

 

Again, God is more than just loving, he is also just; therefore, rebellion cannot be tolerated.

Why should "rebellion" be punished when most non-Christians aren't going around hurting anyone and just want to live their own lives in peace? Because you say so? Who died and made you god?

 

The Holocaust was not justified and Hitler and his henchmen will suffer punishment for their parts in this tragedy. In your worldview, they have gotten off basically with no punishment for their crimes. God will not violate our freedom, even if it means that we do horrible things, however, it is we who are guilty, not he. Your logic is also tortured in that God did not allow the Jews to be tortured because they rebelled against him, he allows evil people to commit evil acts because he has created us as free agents and cannot violate that. If he did, we would get into what is called the shortest man scenario and all end up as his robots. I don't think any of us want to be robots or pets.

No, it is your religion that supports the Holocaust. Because if Christians believe they will go to heaven if they accept Jesus and Jews will go to hell because they didn't, then according to those beliefs, God does think the Jews deserved to be tortured for not accepting Jesus and Hitler was acting out hell on Earth. Do you believe that Anne Frank is going to hell because she was a Jew and Hitler will go to heaven because he was a Christian? If you do, then how is that not a support of the Holocaust? Coincidentally, Hitler used the exact same arguments you're using against us now to justify the Holocaust. Here's a direct quote from Hitler himself.

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Doesn't this sound awfully familiar to you? And aren't you saying the same thing that Hitler says here?

 

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

And yet you want to claim Christians have the moral high ground over non-Christians? And tell me how is eternal torture justice in any sense of the word?

 

He is also bound by logic and by doing moral actions, so how does that make him any less than God in your estimation?

Can God bake an omelet that's so hot even God can't eat it?

[LNC]

What reason would that be? That we dared to disagree with you?

 

Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it, it is rebelling against God that does. God has given us a conscience and when we rebel against God, that is going to have an effect on our conscience, until we have finally seared our conscience and deadened ourselves to feeling that guilt.

 

Maybe you should try answering shantonu's question to find out? When are you going to answer it? Why are you avoiding shantonu? Are you too much of a coward to ask it or are you just another closed minded xtian that can't stand to face the truth? Answer shantonu's question!

 

shantonu is avoiding the actual issue, which is whether he has standing to actually even ask the questions he is asking. He has not established that fact and therefore to answer his questions would be ultimately meaningless. It would be likened to a food critic questioning the results of the physicists experimental data, having no background or understanding of physics himself. The physicist would be wasting his time trying to explain the answers when the food critic wouldn't have a basis for understanding them. In a similar way, shantonu has not given me reason to believe that he is expressing any more than his opinion that God is somehow doing something wrong. He has not given me a reason to think that he has an actual objective claim against God. Until he does, it would be a waste of time arguing against his opinions as they are not based on anything other than his personal preferences.

 

Why do xtians always say this line? What does it mean? It makes no sense. I thought xtians consider faith to be a good thing yet suddenly when they're debating with the enemy, they use faith as a weapon against them? So, if you believe that we have more faith than you (whatever that means), do you admit you don't have enough faith and thus you aren't a true Christian?

 

Maybe because is verifiably true. Faith that is not based in evidence is foolishness. I have faith everytime I step aboard a commercial airliner (a weaker faith after the past few weeks, I grant you) that the airline personnel have properly inspected and maintained that aircraft, that the pilots are trained and sober to their task, and that the laws of physics are consistent. I have not personally inspected the plane (as if that would do much good with my limited knowledge), I have not inspected the credentials of the flight crew, and I have not retested the laws of physics, I simply have faith that the airline has an interest in delivering me to my destination safely. My faith in God is based upon evidences as well, and those evidences lead me to believe that Christianity is the most logical place for me to put my faith. Faith is simply the exercising of believe that the evidence is pointing me in the right direction and then taking the steps beyond the evidence to those things that I cannot see directly. You, as an atheist, have faith as well as you cannot prove that God doesn't exist and that you will not go to hell for being in rebellion against him. You simply take that on faith. One either has or doesn't have faith in whatever the object of that faith is, and that faith is evidenced by the trust that they put into the object of their faith.

 

Again, YOU are the one left with the bigger question of explaining what created the creator which you have failed to do so. And evolution may not disprove the existence of God in itself, but it most certainly does disprove your inane argument that complexity needs to have been created in order to exist. If you accept evolution as a fact, then you accept it's perfectly possible for complexity to evolve from simplicity by purely natural means without the need to invoke a divine creator. If it's possible for complexity to evolve from simplicity by purely natural means, then you must either accept it's also possible for the universe to have come into existence without having been divinely created or you must deny that evolution is a fact. You can't on the one hand insist that complexity must be created but then exempt evolution from the rules. Complexity must either be created or it can exist without being created, and if complexity can exist without being created as you freely admit, then there's no reason to believe in God. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Did you completely ignore what I had written? Apparently so, as I pointed out that you are committing a category error in asking such a question. Now, I will put to you to defend such a statement as I have already pointed out its error and will not repeat myself. I never argued that complexity needs to be created in order to exist, I believe that was your argument. I would argue that purposeful design requires a designer. I do believe that evolution can explain some changes over time; however, it is yet to be proved that evolution has creative ability, which is required to prove before evolution can be used to explain much of what we see in nature. Again, you are showing that you do not understand either evolutionary theory or cosmology as you are now conflating the two. That is the sort of optimism that Richard Dawkins ascribes to and it is purely a blind faith position. You have ascribed more to evolution than science has given evidence for, and that is to leap into the realm of metaphysics, which is beyond the realm of empiricism and science. So, you let me know in which realm you want to argue, science or metaphysics so that we can keep the arguments strait. If you believe in a realm beyond the physical, then I am willing to argue the metaphysical arguments with you; however, if you limit yourself to the material world, then we must limit ourselves to what science has actually proved and not proved. One thing that science has shown is that the universe, by the currently understood laws of physics, is not a product of some sort of evolution. Time and space (all matter) started at the Big Bang. That means that there was nothing to evolve into the universe. So, you are quite mistaken in your optimistic speculation here, just as Richard Dawkins is.

 

 

Again, if we can't have morality unless an outside source gives it to us, who gave morality to God? By your own logic, you admit that God must be immoral since no outside source gave God his sense of morality. If you don't believe God is immoral, then you must accept that morality doesn't need to have been created by someone else to exist and thus you have no reason to believe in God. And have you ever heard of the phrase common sense? Humans don't need God to come out of the sky and write a holy book to tell people it's a stupid idea to touch a hot stove. If they can figure out that much without God, why do we need God to give us morals? And again, if our morals come from God, why do we need the bible if God already gave us our sense of right and wrong? And it should also be pointed out that it was Christians in the 19th century who used the bible to justify slavery as it was all the most religious states (those ones in the south, you know?) that believed slavery was justified by God. And I find it amusing that you're accusing us of justifying slavery by not believing in your delusions, yet you're the one threatening us with torture to worship your God. What do you call that? Oh yeah, slavery!

 

God, by definition is eternal and immutable (unchanging). Before he created the universe, nothing existed beside him. So, the answer to your question is no one gave morality to God, he is the source of morality. Morality is a reflection of God's character. I don't quite follow how you come to your conclusion that God is immoral based upon your argumentation, it makes no sense. How do you figure that God is immoral because no outside source gave him his sense of morality? That doesn't even follow. Your next sentence is even more non-sensical, in fact, I don't even follow your reasoning here. How could common sense make sense if there was not objective way to measure who had it and who didn't. You have to admit that many people claim common sense who don't actually possess common sense. How do we know? Because, we have an objective way to measure it. However, again you are shifting the argument from does it exist? to how do we know? Let's stick with the original argument of do objective moral values exist before we move on. Unless we establish that fact, and on what basis they exist, we are wasting our time discussing particular cases. So, let me know whether you believe that objective moral values exist and, if so, on what basis. Then we can get into your other comments.

 

And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

 

So, if you believe you're a true Christian, you must prove it by drinking poison and surviving. If you can't drink poision and survive, then according to Jesus, you are not a true Christian and I see no reason why we should believe you. Or if you deny this are you calling Jesus a liar?

 

Do you know the background of the passage that you quoted? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have quoted that passage. Read up on it and then let me know if you still want to use it.

[LNC]

Why don't you just get it over with and admit you want to murder us all because we're atheists since this is obviously what you want as you're basically saying that unless we believe in God, you can do whatever you want to us? I personally find it tragic that you're basically admitting you would be a murderer without God and I think you should really seek psychiatrist help for this. As for how we can define moralty without God, isn't the Golden Rule enough? It would logically make sense to me that a society that does good is going to have less complications as a whole than a society who does bad. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, then wouldn't the values we consider most important logically fall into place? Again, why do we need God to tell us morality if we don't need God to tell us not to touch a hot stove? Our sense of morality has nothing to do with God and everything to do with basic common sense. And if believing in God gives you such a perfect understanding of morality, why is it that even Christians can't agree with each other what's right and what's wrong?

 

Please let me know on what objective basis do you consider these things to be morally wrong? Once you answer that simple question, we can have all kinds of interesting conversations about these issues, but until then, we would be merely talking about your personal opinions, and I am not interested in discussing opinions.

[LNC]

Dude, you're so full of crap. Fine, as above, I'm willing to indulge your bullshit only to amply demonstrate that you are complete charlatan. Let's assume is was not a genocide so as to avoid the little sematical game you are playing. Let's just focus on the killing of babies. Are you saying that didn't happen?

 

Let me anticipate your next line of bullshit:Maybe there weren't any babies in the entire land of Canaan. Does that make God's command moral? It does not. If I say, go and kill John Smith, a particular person, but John Smith is already dead so it's impossible to kill him, does that absolve me of giving an immoral order? Of course not.

 

You should really quit while you are behind because you are embarassing yourself.

 

Dude, you haven't answered my simple question. Are these just your personal opinions, or do you have an objective basis for saying that these actions are morally wrong? I am not interested in discussing whether you like Coke or Pepsi, or any other of your personal preferences. I am interested in whether you have a reason to call these things wrong other than the fact that you just don't happen to prefer such behavior. If you will give me a reason to believe you have an objective basis for your moral code, I will be more than happy to dive right into the particulars of these issues. But until then, you are just giving your opinion and why should I put any more stock in your opinion than that of anyone else in the world?

[nightflight]

Why don't you just get it over with and admit you want to murder us all because we're atheists since this is obviously what you want as you're basically saying that unless we believe in God, you can do whatever you want to us? I personally find it tragic that you're basically admitting you would be a murderer without God and I think you should really seek psychiatrist help for this. As for how we can define moralty without God, isn't the Golden Rule enough? It would logically make sense to me that a society that does good is going to have less complications as a whole than a society who does bad. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, then wouldn't the values we consider most important logically fall into place? Again, why do we need God to tell us morality if we don't need God to tell us not to touch a hot stove? Our sense of morality has nothing to do with God and everything to do with basic common sense. And if believing in God gives you such a perfect understanding of morality, why is it that even Christians can't agree with each other what's right and what's wrong?

 

Please let me know on what objective basis do you consider these things to be morally wrong? Once you answer that simple question, we can have all kinds of interesting conversations about these issues, but until then, we would be merely talking about your personal opinions, and I am not interested in discussing opinions.

 

 

The objective basis is we have to live with each other. Now answer Shan's question.

[agnosticator]

LNC,

 

Faith (religious) is belief that does not require evidence or proof. Normal faith is based upon the ability to verify it objectively. Your religious belief is based upon reason rather than faith as you mentioned faith as it is used everyday as opposed to religious faith.

 

Also, you ignore that the basis of morality has been stated as being objective in previous posts.

[Ouroboros]

Also, you ignore that the basis of morality has been stated as being objective in previous posts.

Because he doesn't want answer. He doesn't want to know. He only wants to tell others what they should believe. He's on an ego-trip, and nothing can bring him back from the intoxicating drug of self-absorption. That's what Religion does to people.

[agnosticator]

Also, you ignore that the basis of morality has been stated as being objective in previous posts.

Because he doesn't want answer. He doesn't want to know. He only wants to tell others what they should believe. He's on an ego-trip, and nothing can bring him back from the intoxicating drug of self-absorption. That's what Religion does to people.

 

He also ignored your post about god as being the source of morality. Yes, he sure doesn't want to answer. I think he's overwhelmed!

[Ouroboros]

He also ignored your post about god as being the source of morality. Yes, he sure doesn't want to answer. I think he's overwhelmed!

I hope he's overwhelmed. Maybe it will make him start using his brain a little.

[shantonu]

Dude, you're so full of crap. Fine, as above, I'm willing to indulge your bullshit only to amply demonstrate that you are complete charlatan. Let's assume is was not a genocide so as to avoid the little sematical game you are playing. Let's just focus on the killing of babies. Are you saying that didn't happen?

 

Let me anticipate your next line of bullshit:Maybe there weren't any babies in the entire land of Canaan. Does that make God's command moral? It does not. If I say, go and kill John Smith, a particular person, but John Smith is already dead so it's impossible to kill him, does that absolve me of giving an immoral order? Of course not.

 

You should really quit while you are behind because you are embarassing yourself.

 

Dude, you haven't answered my simple question. Are these just your personal opinions, or do you have an objective basis for saying that these actions are morally wrong? I am not interested in discussing whether you like Coke or Pepsi, or any other of your personal preferences. I am interested in whether you have a reason to call these things wrong other than the fact that you just don't happen to prefer such behavior. If you will give me a reason to believe you have an objective basis for your moral code, I will be more than happy to dive right into the particulars of these issues. But until then, you are just giving your opinion and why should I put any more stock in your opinion than that of anyone else in the world?

 

Yes. I have an objective basis: the doctrine of non-harm contained within the principles of Buddhism. I've told you that several times. You're just delaying the inevitable spanking. As everyone can see, you're just runnning off into hiding whenever the conversation becomes too difficult. Now, stop hiding: I've told you why I think killing babies is wrong.

 

But I'll do you one better. Let's say my objective basis for condemning baby-killing is the Sixth Commandment--Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder. Deuteronomy 5:17

 

My question is why was the killing of "every man woman and child" not murder? See Joshua 10:40 and 1 Samuel 15:3.

 

Don't run and hide like a scared little boy. Face this issue like the man of God you pretend to be.

[shantonu]

He also ignored your post about god as being the source of morality. Yes, he sure doesn't want to answer. I think he's overwhelmed!

I hope he's overwhelmed. Maybe it will make him start using his brain a little.

 

I like to keep things simple with this guy and for myself as well. That's why I'm pretty frustrated with his obscurifications (is that a word?) and cowardice. I fully expected him to bite the bullet and say that killing babies in those instances was right. I mean, what else can he really say? I gues no one wants to have to defend killing babies.

[Justin]

Shantonu, you should enjoy this. It's right up there with your question of genocide.

 

"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

 

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)"

 

How in the hell are you going to explain this one LNC?

[shantonu]

Shantonu, you should enjoy this. It's right up there with your question of genocide.

 

"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

 

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)"

 

How in the hell are you going to explain this one LNC?

 

And people hold up this book as something that little kids should read a the fount of all morality. Similar fables, when found in the Mahabharata or other Indian epics, are decried as examples of wickedness and barbarity.

[MathGeek]

It's called axiomatic thinking, my friend. Furthermore, we sometimes need to make definitions. How can I see that and you cannot?

 

Even axiomatic thinking must stand up to scrutiny my friend. The materialist must show how something immaterial can exist, not just assume it when it doesn't fit within his worldview. Thoughts, concepts, etc. are immaterial in nature and don't fit within a purely materialistic framework. So, please let me know how you fit them into yours.

 

The ethic of reciprocity is my foundational basis for morality. Since it has shown up in several different religions and even outside of religious contexts, the internal success of many societies (dare I say every successful society) is due to some kind of cooperative effort, then I can say without a doubt in my mind that my axiom stands up to scrutiny. Even the societies of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia espoused this axiom on a day-to-day basis among the citizens who were living under the iron fist of totalitarianism.

 

I can't account for thoughts personally beyond the fact that they are the reaction of electrical signals and chemicals in my brain that are somehow directed toward a conclusion about the material world. Furthermore, concepts (I prefer the term ideas) are just "properties and relations between particulars". Since I am a freak for numbers, if I see a group of things in the material realm and I want to know how many then by the physical and mental process of counting, I come up with a concept called "number". Number is a subclass of concept that relates the thought of "how many" to the physical group that appears before me. Why this occurs, I am unsure but I know it works and since I know it works, then I will use it whenever I can.

 

You do bring up a good point, but it still doesn't dissuade me from the materialist point of view. I think you are trying to undermine a rather rational view of the universe by taking it to some kind of extreme. Just because something is intangible and the materialist makes use of it doesn't mean we are being hypocrites. Since I have the ability to write this post means I have mastered several basic traits that make me a functioning human. Because I cannot find the answers to your charges doesn't automatically mean I need to jump to a "God of the Gaps" argument like you do so often.