The Atheism Thread - Part 6

[Marvolo]

I was, in fact, describing people like you. I think that you are dangerous and that Jesus, being a decent kind of guy so far as we can tell, would have hated you.

Jesus would have been annoyed with the majority of modern Christians especially people like Peace Warrior. I doubt he would have hated anyone tho. Not really in his character. Unless it's a fig tree with no figs lol. He smitted the **** out a that fruitless tree.

 

[moviedoors]

They can't all be right.

Interesting. You're one of the first atheist I've come across that admits a belief in absolutes.

I just stopped here. That was disingenuous, pedantic quote mining and you know it.

 

[Feenix]

Jesus would have been annoyed with the majority of modern Christians especially people like Peace Warrior. I doubt he would have hated anyone tho. Not really in his character. Unless it's a fig tree with no figs lol. He smitted the **** out a that fruitless tree.

I've read through PW's posts in the Jesus Christ thread. He's condescending to them, too. The most vile comments I've ever read are from Christians towards other Christians. If you're even somewhat liberal in your views, the most conservative of them attack like rabid dogs. It's disturbing.

 

[moviedoors]

I'm sure you have an example of this and it's not just a far fetched assumption you made to "prove" a point that isn't valid.

I'd love to see this too. You can run around in *********ory philosophical circles all you want, but let's see something that's actually provable.

 

[Marvolo]

I've read through PW's posts in the Jesus Christ thread. He's condescending to them, too. The most vile comments I've ever read are from Christians towards other Christians. If you're even somewhat liberal in your views, the most conservative of them attack like rabid dogs. It's disturbing.

Speaking of disturbing behavior. A young man in my community took his own life recently. He had been depressed and going through some stuff. Some Christians I was around who didn't know the boy or anything about his life were talking about him and how he was burning in hell for taking his own life and his lifestyle. It's sadistic. It's not enough that a young life was tragically cut short but these bastards have to imagine he's in eternal damnation as well. It's psychotic.

 

[SV Fan]

I've read through PW's posts in the Jesus Christ thread. He's condescending to them, too. The most vile comments I've ever read are from Christians towards other Christians. If you're even somewhat liberal in your views, the most conservative of them attack like rabid dogs. It's disturbing.

Maybe he's Mormon or a Scientologist

 

[Shikamaru]

So you're saying that morals evolved too? Sheesh, what is it with atheists and evolutionary concepts?!? j/k t:

I know you're joking, but the answer is yes.

But seriously, if your assertion is that morals evolved, then how do you explain the duality of the cannibal's morals I mentioned? He was fine with murdering and eating another person's adult family member, but yet he believed it would be patently wrong for another cannibal to murder and eat his own adult children. How do we get from this cannibal's mindset to murder is wrong, period, without some type of outside influence or higher law?

Of course the theoretical cannibal would have such mentality. What you're essentially describing is the primitive "tribe mentality" that social progress is slowly bringing to an end. A mentality which religions consistently encourage and promote, by the way. We see such mentality throughout our history and even today, through the people that try to spread things like racism, sexism, and homophobia. And as history points out, those beliefs can be very dangerous to our species as a whole. That's how we know the theoretical cannibal's morals are not justified. We got from the cannibal's mindset to "murder is wrong" through millenias of trial-and-error and through witnessing the consequences such mindsets can have on everyone. The solution is to become more open minded. We are more open minded today than we were back then (at least in the Western world) and we will hopefully continue on this road.

Not so much morals as they were tenets in the form of the Ten Commandments.

All principles that can be found in societies with no correlation to the Abrahamic faiths whatsoever. Both the decent ones (don't murder, don't steal, etc.) as well as the totalitarian ones.

Yet interestingly, from the very beginning, with Able and Cain we find that murder was wrong. Why was it wrong for Cain to murder Able? Cain certainly thought it was the right thing to do; didn't he?

Cain learned from the Creator that murder was wrong.

Your Cain/Abel analogy is essentially your cannibal example but in a different context. I already addressed that point.

However, may I ask what your point is? Are you suggesting that the only thing keeping you away from murdering someone is because God said it is wrong?

Please elaborate.

Well, just off the top of my head...

Bible condoning rape:
Judges 21: 10-24
Numbers 31: 7-18
Deuteronomy 20: 10
Judges 5:30
Zechariah 14:1-2
Exodus 21: 7-11

Bible condoning pedophilia:
Numbers 31: 17-18

Bible condoning slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:2-11
Exodus 21:20-21
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Luke 12:47-48

If you want the full list, I recommend doing a Google search or reading the whole Bible itself. Whatever works for you.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I used to be a humanist. My morals back then are a lot different than they are now, which is understating it, but they did not change through self-awareness or some intrinsic thought process without any outside causation or influences being acted upon. The doctrines and tenets from the Holy Bible severely reshaped my morals to a higher plane.

As I said, there is no good "doctrine" or "tenet" in the Bible that has been constructed by and first introduced to humanity through the Bible. All the morals and set of principles that today's decent human beings follow pre-date Judeo-Christian beliefs. Principles like "murder is wrong" and "stealing is wrong" have been adopted by religions and long after they have been adopted by humanity in the first place. The more social progress occurs, the more religions are forced to adopt these principles in order to survive in the modern world. They are constantly behind and constantly have to play catch-up. For example, the Catholic Church only apologized and declared anti-semitism as wrong in the 1960's...two decades after the fall of fascism at the hands of the Allies.

I understand your sentiment, and forgive if I said or implied ALL atheists, however, SOME atheists do.

I had (had = he and his wife moved to another State) a co-worker and fishing buddy who claimed to be an atheist. (No biggie there, I claim to be a theist.) Although he finally came to the point of acknowledging that there was a Creator to the Earth/universe, he simply refused to follow the doctrines of the Creator stating, "The doctrines of atheism were much more fun to follow and besides, they gave him his Sunday's off."

First of all, there was no "sentiment" on my part. I don't get offended by such statements, especially when they're very poorly thought out.

Second, your whole case scenario is a very flawed one in the first place. If your fishing buddy claims to have "acknowledged" that there is a God, then he is by definition not an atheist. He would be categorized as a theist. Furthermore, your fishing buddy sounds more like a deist, so the idea that he believes in a creator but doesn't follow the doctrines of any religion is by no means a contradiction.

Although I am not a huge dawkins fan, I watched it based on the other attendee. Any points from the speaker you wish to highlight and discuss here?

To give you an "in a nutshell" of his lecture, he defines goodness as "that which supports the well being of conscious creatures". Maximizing the well being of conscious creatures is the best general definition of good, minimizing it (or maximizing the suffering of conscious creatures) is the best general definition of bad. He describes this in greater length in his book ("The Moral Landscape") and in the lecture I linked.

An aside: I can't wait for the Batman-Superman versus Lex movie. I am in the camp of thinking Lex would be better portrayed by someone older (than 30) and who had the ability to get a LOT darker than what gene hackman portrayed in the original Superman movie. (IMHO, tommy lee jones comes to mind for the part of Lex)

I can't really say I'm looking forward to it.

 

[childeroland]

As far as God, I was/am/will be referring to The Creator.

As far as knowledge in and of itself, I know a lot of atheists that reject painfully evident scientific knowledge in order to remain atheistic.

What painfully scientific knowledge is this?

Interesting. You're one of the first atheist I've come across that admits a belief in absolutes. Do you also reject situation ethics and or morals' clarification in favor of absolutism?

I didn't say I believed in absolutes. I asked what knowledge you were speaking of and on what basis does it lay?

A Christian's belief in the Creator's existence, much like an atheist's belief in the Big Bang Theory (hereafter: BBT) is a matter of faith.

No it isn't. The Big Bang Theory has scientific evidence behind this, so it is not a matter of faith.

On the basis that He has given us His Word. True believers in Him (there are fakers) generally refer to it as the Holy Bible.

On what basis do you claim the Bible is His Word?

Wisdom, knowledge and the parameters for life also come out of His Word. Actually, the term, parameters, and the article phrase, The Ten Commandments, are interchangeable within my personal worldview.

And on what basis do you base the veracity of this Word?

On the basis of both my stated premise and thesis within the bounds of this discussion and thread; specifically, lacking or refusing to accept knowledge of the truth would cause someone be in error.

But on what basis is your premise? On what basis do you make claims for this truth and knowledge?

I've already stated as much, and incredibly, I have yet to have anyone, including you childeroland, answer as to how a macro-evolution model for life on earth introduce morals. The claim has been made it has done so, but notably, no one has addressed HOW macro-evolution would introduce morals approaching the quality of something being right or wrong.

Someone above (CosmicPinchy, I think) addressed that question. Morals has been well-explained by evolution. For example, Group selection (selection of altruistic traits in social animals that would help them get along better in groups that would better ensure survival), Reciprocal altruism (acting in a manner that reduces one's own fitness while increasing another's with the expectation that the other will reciprocate the favor at a time of need) are but two explanations that evolutionary biology and psychology provide.

This is precisely my point. The cannibal LACKED KNOWLEDGE of the Creator and therefore created within his own mind what was right or wrong, which is what macro-evolution must insist should happen were it true.

But pre-Christian peoples by and large didn't violate the morals the cannibal lacked knowledge of, so where did their morality come from?

However, the cannibal, without a higher law or law giver, selfishly made an exception for his actions while at the same time denigrating the exact same actions of another cannibal. At best the first cannibal was a hypocrite as far as right and wrong is concerned, and at worst the cannibal wholly understood his personal hypocrisy, but even so made allowances for them anyway. In other words, the cannibal refused to accept the obvious knowledge of right and wrong for his own selfish reasoning.

But without knowledge of this higher law, what exception is he making, and why would it be selfish? How could he understand his personal hypocrisy without it? Hypocrisy of what, without knowledge of this higher law? How could he refuse to accept something he has no knowledge of?

Herein lies the duality of reason; namely, the cannibal excused his actions while condemning the exact same actions by another. Are you unable to perceive the moral dichotomy?

If he has no concept of the higher law you imply would keep him from being a cannibal, what moral dichotomy? According to you, without knowledge of this Creator, he doesn't have any morals for there to be a dichotomy of.

The BBT is not proven and remains improvable, yet a lot of atheists CHOOSE to believe in it anyway. On the other hand, as I stated before, I wholly and completely admit I have faith in the Creator creating the Earth and universe.

There's a mountain of evidence behind it, and more being uncovered all the time. It isn't a matter of belief but understanding this is the prevailing cosmological model until a better one comes along, if and when it does. Not the same as faith, which you "wholly and completely admit," even as you make knowledge claims for it.

Why won't atheists admit their faith based tenets?

Such as?

 

[Thundercrack85]

You have to wonder if Peace Warrior knows anything about other religions.

Or anything else, for that matter.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

So understanding, if anyone in any other religion is either ignorant of or rejects the Truth (i.e. Christ Jesus) from the Creator, then they have made their conscience decision to seek "life" from other than the One that created their lives.

What a sugary, buttery way to say that people of other religions are going straight to freaking Hell. Even those who are ignorant of Christianity and never had a chance to hear about it.

 

[The End]

"I find one claim uncomfortable, I find this other claim MUCH more comfortable, therefore the first one is false and the second one is true". That's seriously flawed.

You say god exists and Jesus is the truth; prove it.

Also,


An evolutionary model wouldn't necessarily predict selfishness. Beneficiary attributes are more likely to be passed onto the next generation and as a societal species, cooperation with each other has been to our benefit. That is how humanity has grown and become dominant.

Also,

The facts that support evolution are massive. Human chromsome 2, alone, shows that we have common ancestry with apes.

It's incredibly arrogant to proclaim that people are somehow doomed if they don't subscribe to your theological view when you cannot demonstrate that your view is actually true or even likely to be true.

 

[Feenix]

The key in all of this is to remember what an individual is ultimately seeking with/in his or her life. Some individuals seek fame and personal glory, some seek great wealth, some seek pleasures of the flesh or any combination of these things or more et cetera. A macro-evolutionary model for the Earth predicts precisely only selfish individuals seeking their own comforts (e.g., survival of the fittest). Frankly, macro-evolution cannot have anything better to offer.

On the other hand, the "religion" of the Creator promises life eternal as a reward for seeking the best for others instead of one's self. While we were/are all created as eternal beings, and we will all exist for eternity, we are also all appointed to die once (Heb 9:27). However, the Creator leaves it up to us to make a personal choice as to whether or not this appointed death is the only death we will endure. The promise for eternal life also comes from the Creator, but through only one Way, which is belief in Christ Jesus (John 14:6), for He alone is Truth and able to offer Life eternal.

So understanding, if anyone in any other religion is either ignorant of or rejects the Truth (i.e. Christ Jesus) from the Creator, then they have made their conscience decision to seek "life" from other than the One that created their lives.

That's not true. Survival of the fittest and macro-evolution do NOT go hand in hand. Macro-evolution is about adaptation. A species that is the "fittest" during one point in time can become extinct because of changing environments and climate, etc. When it comes to the human race, being selfish is detrimental to our survival. We can see this in economical form around the world. The countries that have the most socialist policies in place have the happiest citizens and the highest quality of life. They help one another and thus their lives are more enriched because of it. Not surprisingly, these countries are also very secular.

The second part, also not true. You get an eternal life for pledging servitude to a vengeful and petty god. How else can murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc get into heaven? All they have to do is repent. The majority of their lives were spent taking the best from others, not seeking it. You don't have to be a good person to get into heaven, you just have to be obedient to a god that commits mass murder on a daily basis.

 

[The End]

It's like people arguing over interpretations of Lord of the Rings, to be honest. I don't see what relevance the book has unless someone can demonstrate good reason to believe its true.

 

[SpideyVille]

My pastor often used to say that we should not read the Bible as though it were a history book. That's where there's still things in it, like in Proverbs for example, that I choose to read, think about, and accept as being valuable because they can lead to positive results, whereas other stuff that talks about condemning others is something I ignore because it seems to be the complete opposite of what Jesus would talk about when he said to love each other.

It also doesn't help that the New Testament seemed to retcon the Old Testament in many ways, thus making it unclear of whether or not to follow something that was stated in the Old Testament.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm literally cringing and wincing at PW's interpretation of evolutionary theory. Inappropriate extrapolation and logical fallacies abound...

 

[regwec]

It's like people arguing over interpretations of Lord of the Rings, to be honest. I don't see what relevance the book has unless someone can demonstrate good reason to believe its true.

LOTR is more exciting, has a more consistent moral compass, and is probably more relevant to Western culture nowadays. So it's not a perfect comparison.

I'm literally cringing and wincing at PW's interpretation of evolutionary theory. Inappropriate extrapolation and logical fallacies abound...

In a sense, it's comforting. I have never met anyone who properly understood the principles of empirical evidence who also believed in the supernatural. So, he's typically ignorant.

 

[Doctor Evo]

In a sense, it's comforting. I have never met anyone who properly understood the principles of empirical evidence who also believed in the supernatural. So, he's typically ignorant.

Eh, that depends, at least in part, on how we define "supernatural," in my opinion. People often use that term as a sort of conceptual placeholder for phenomena that have yet to be adequately explained using the scientific method. In that case, the term is being used in a non-literal fashion, and is somewhat compatible with an adherence to what you call the "principles of empirical evidence."

Of course God, virtually by definition, doesn't fall into that category.

 

[regwec]

Well, "supernatural" in the sense that I seek to describe means above or beyond nature, which nothing is.

 

[SpideyVille]

So, I've had this question in the back of my mind for a while now, and hearing my mom talk on the phone about something that happened to my brother this weekend, it just reminded me of it. But basically, what is the purpose of prayer?

This is something that I've often struggled to understand even while I was in church since I've never really heard any kind of definitive answer as to why it is needed, and I feel like a lot of people have the "wrong" impression of it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, it depends. In some religions, it's a simple act of worship. Like in Islam, for example. You typically pray to show your respect / reverence.

But generally in Christianity, particularly modern Christianity, it's a sort of hopeful wish fulfillment deal.

Christianity is all about bestowing.

Not to say you can't "pray" (read: hope / ask) in a similar fashion in other religions, but it's more about the reverence than wanting something.

 

[Marvolo]

Well, it depends. In some religions, it's a simple act of worship. Like in Islam, for example. You typically pray to show your respect / reverence.

But generally in Christianity, particularly modern Christianity, it's a sort of hopeful wish fulfillment deal.

Christianity is all about bestowing.

Not to say you can't "pray" (read: hope / ask) in a similar fashion in other religions, but it's more about the reverence than wanting something.

Prayer in a nutshell:

 

[KevanG]

God is the Borg?

 

[Perfect Cell]

God is the Borg?

He will add your biological and theological distinctiveness to His own. Your culture will adapt to service Him.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To be fair, maybe God can be persuaded to change his plan? I assume that's why the football teams keep praying. Trying to curry favor.

 

[KevanG]

To be fair, maybe God can be persuaded to change his plan? I assume that's why the football teams keep praying. Trying to curry favor.