Athiest query

[turnorburn]

Re: Atheist query

Do you believe those stories about spontaneous combustion, you know that's when a person is just sitting in a chair or in a bed or in the bathroom I heard one guy that his commode went through the floor. Have you heard anything about it and do you believe it

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[Voyageur]

Spontaneous combustion is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I see now that you cannot and will not address my arguments.

 

[Rick W]

Is it rational to believe that science, or the study of the emperical, complete with all it's observable and duplicatable laws, has adequate basis to govern a moralistic or ethical behavior? If animals relying on instinct is natural then why must the human instinct of right and wrong through a belief of a higher authority be judged as unnatural? Why must a belief in a higher authority be constrained to the emperical to prove it's validity?
Voyageur,
You're asking emperical evidence for a moral and ethical issue, belief in a higher authority of right and wrong. Is there moral or ethical evidence to prove the laws of gravity? Would that even make any sense? Do you believe there's no moral evidence to believe in God?

 

[turnorburn]

Spontaneous combustion is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I see now that you cannot and will not address my arguments.

Your asking me to address your arguments? I'm sorry but your asking in the wrong forum.
you need to be here..

 

[Voyageur]

Interesting as your point may be, the ability of science to govern morality and ethics is not the issue here. We're considering the ability of mere belief to substantiate or prove the existence of God. Your argument does not address my argument.

The capacity to believe in a deity is emotional and psychology, not instinctual. But, since you're treating instinct here; animal instinct is a survival mechanism--religion is not.

Why must a belief in a higher authority be constrained to the emperical to prove it's validity?

It must be constrained by the empirical because people of faith make claims that they alone know the ultimate truth (whether the universe was created by a God and what place humanity has within this scheme). What I am positing here is that the ultimate truth cannot be known. Anyone who suggests otherwise is frankly lying. No one can possibly have knowledge of this truth; yet, this does not stop individuals from telling impressionable, ignorant and intellectually lazy people that there is an ultimate truth.

That said, what other means of proving its validity exist? The whole premise of religion is bound up in matters of faith. It exists outside the realm of reason, where evidence is unnecessary and wholly inconvenient.

Voyageur,
You're asking emperical evidence for a moral and ethical issue, belief in a higher authority of right and wrong. Is there moral or ethical evidence to prove the laws of gravity? Would that even make any sense? Do you believe there's no moral evidence to believe in God?.

To the first statement: No I'm not--my questions have nothing to do with morals or ethics. I'm asking for empirical evidence from those who claim to have knowledge of an ultimate truth. The ultimate truth--what created the universe and therefore humans--is unknowable. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If one does, that individual has left the realm of reason and entered to realm of faith, and should therefore admit that they can prove nothing. If that individual admits as much, then their authority is effectively nullified.

Morality is not evidence for the existence of God. One can be moral and ethical without resorting to the proclamations of a deity. If it takes some phantom for a human being to be moral and ethical, then what a sad state of affairs we are truly in.

 

[Voyageur]

Spontaneous combustion is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I see now that you cannot and will not address my arguments.

Your asking me to address your arguments? I'm sorry but your asking in the wrong forum.
you need to be here..

Then why respond? If you have nothing substantial to add to the argument, refrain from the completely useless posts.

Nice graphic, though, which I can only assume is a reference to psychology. But... as I've said, we are talking about theology here, not psychology.

 

[Rick W]

Can my sense of right and wrong be used to solve the problems of the shuttle's reenerty into the earth's atmosphere? No, of course not. Nor can emperical science be used to govern moral behavior and/or beliefs or prove a higher authority toward right and wrong.
You're still asking the same thing but visa versa, by reason of what is observable or any physical evidence thereof.
What scientic principles do you use to govern your sense of right and wrong?
The character Spock, portrayed as a purely logical and scientific fellow, claimed that human emotion and many other characteristics were not logical. You are using the same arguments. I believe the creators of the beloved Spock were indeed demonstrating science's insufficiency and inadequacy to understand the inner nature of humankind.
Is the likeness of Spock as portrayed your endeavor?

What scientific principles did Mother Teresa use to substantiate the motives for her work? She was not driven by any logical scientific principles but by compassion.

...what created the universe and therefore humans...

...(whether the universe was created by a God and what place humanity has within this scheme)...

Ah yes, now I see. There's the crux of the problem huh?
IF there is a higher authority concerning right and wrong then there could be the possibility that said authority is indeed the Creator.
Yes, Voyageur. I see your dilemma. You are compelled to defend your faith in science or more accurately "scientific conclusion" by other men. (Or yourself. Matters not. Still conclusion drawn from data presented)

 

[Rick W]

Belief in God is a moral issue in the first place. Without any morality at all there is no possibility of belief nor can there be. I don't believe because I think there should be an ultimate designer of the universe. I first believe there is a God based on moral issue. Morality fuels belief, nurtures and sustains it.
You can't disprove the existence of God using emperical evidence. Nor can you prove otherwise under the same constrictions to a non-believer such as yourself.
We can gather evidence by result. That is, by observing the outcome of certain circumstances. If you knew me and my past you would have seen the evidence of God working in me. My mother saw it, my friends saw it and can testify that something happened. It was not gradual or intended on my part. I wasn't even looking for God. Nor was there any huge problems in my life. All was pretty much ok as life goes. There was no reason what-so-ever for the change of heart. None. But entire sets morals had changed and I believed.
It's not whether you believe "in" God but whether you "believe" God. But I don't expect you to accept that since there is no data or logic to convince you or anyone else for that matter.

You cannot dismiss morality concerning the belief of a higher authority.

=""]The ultimate truth--what created the universe and therefore humans--is unknowable.

Yes, by your parameters/limits of scientific reason I can see why you would come to the conclusion that "what created the universe and therefore humans--is unknowable.".

For you God too is unknowable. And with that in mind I'll request those who believe to pray that may not always be the case.

I've said my peace.
I've not proven God's existence to you nor can I. But there's no guarantee you'll remain an atheist either. Not where God is concerned. :wink: I was just like you just a few years back.

Merry Christmas Voyageur.
And I honestly mean that.
gotta go.

 

[Voyageur]

Belief in God is a moral issue in the first place.

Potluck, we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about whether something (i.e., a god) could create the universe. No one can possibly know the ultimate truth on this matter. Not you, not I, not the nuclear physicist, not the priest. No one. Morality enters the picture once one decides for themselves based on faith.

[quote:67d44]=""]The ultimate truth--what created the universe and therefore humans--is unknowable.

Yes, by your parameters/limits of scientific reason I can see why you would come to the conclusion that "what created the universe and therefore humans--is unknowable.".[/quote:67d44]

The question is a logical and philosophical one, based on the observable. But, yes, there is no scientific evidence. It is something no one can know because there are no means to know it. One would have to be there at the beginning of time to know, which is an impossibility.

Without any morality at all there is no possibility of belief nor can there be. I don't believe because I think there should be an ultimate designer of the universe. I first believe there is a God based on moral issue. Morality fuels belief, nurtures and sustains it.

This is what you believe; but, this doesn't make it so. It is an assumption, in your case, that God (the Judeo-Christian one) operates morally, and you've based it off the writings of men who wrote the Bible many thousands of years after the fact--and what is more, there is no way of verifying the validity of their claims. Only one source exists and it cannot be checked against anything else.

You can't disprove the existence of God using emperical evidence.

That's exactly what I'm saying. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. It is an impossible endeavor. It cannot be considered with reason. It is a matter of emotion and psychology.

Nor can you prove otherwise under the same constrictions to a non-believer such as yourself.

I don't actively disbelieve, I just know that I cannot prove anything when it comes to the ultimate truth of the universe: it is the most logical position one can take.

We can gather evidence by result. That is, by observing the outcome of certain circumstances. If you knew me and my past you would have seen the evidence of God working in me. My mother saw it, my friends saw it and can testify that something happened. It was not gradual or intended on my part. I wasn't even looking for God. Nor was there any huge problems in my life. All was pretty much ok as life goes. There was no reason what-so-ever for the change of heart. None. But entire sets morals had changed and I believed.

So, I'm to believe because you and those around you felt some emotional and psychological evidence for your belief?

[quote:67d44]
It's not whether you believe "in" God but whether you "believe" God. But I don't expect you to accept that since there is no data or logic to convince you or anyone else for that matter.

You cannot dismiss morality concerning the belief of a higher authority.

[/quote:67d44]

Morality would proceed from the existence of a creator god. If the god's existence cannot be proven, then his part in establishing morals cannot be proven either. That is my position.

 

[Rick W]

Emotions?
lol
I've heard that one before.
"The burning in the bosum is the Holy Spirit working within you." the burning in the bosum...
hogwash
I'm not about to base my salvation or belief on a mere case of the warm fuzzies.
Emotion doesn't foster belief. Belief fuels passion, not the other way around. Belief based on emotion will die. I have no faith whatsoever in my emotions. Got me in trouble far too many times. I put my trust in God that He is faithful, much more than I. I trust He'll keep His promises even though I may not keep mine and I trust He'll forgive me even though I don't deserve forgiveness.

As for everything else you have a belief God does not Exist. I have a belief that He does.

If you're right then I'm ok and I need no salvation. But if I'm right then I'm still ok because I trust Christ saves me because He is faithful. To me that's a rather logical and rational statement. You're putting your faith on only one condition. Is that rational?


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I believe these words. You don't. You may believe these words to be foolishness, I don't.

 

[Voyageur]

Emotions?
lol
I've heard that one before.

I'm not talking about 'warm fuzzies' or fickle emotions. I was merely suggesting that there was an emotional and psychological change within you, which you yourself observed as well as those around you. You and others chose to interpret this as evidence of God working through you. All that I was saying is that this is not evidence enough for me. If it works for your belief system, then that is great. But, it cannot serve as proof of some ultimate truth.

Switching subjects momentarily, I share the opinion of David Hume when it comes to concepts of morality. Hume suggested that the origins of morality are sentiments of approbation or disapprobation. In other words, the origins are emotional: one either has a positive response or negative response to an act. For example, if I witness a murder, I am either repulsed or excited. The establishment of morals and society (even religion) proceed from these sentiments.

Emotion doesn't foster belief. Belief fuels passion, not the other way around. Belief based on emotion will die. I have no faith whatsoever in my emotions.

This is debatable, of course. As I noted above, my perspective is that morality comes from emotional responses (sentiments); and out of it come religion, civilized society, government, etc.

As for everything else you have a belief God does not Exist. I have a belief that He does.

Wrong. I can't prove or disprove his existence, so I truly don't know. Which I believe, of course, is the true state of things.

You're putting your faith on only one condition. Is that rational?

Wrong again. I'm discussing one condition. I have various other reasons for being suspect, though. But, that's for another time and thread.

 

[Veritas]

For example, if I witness a murder, I am either repulsed or excited. The establishment of morals and society (even religion) proceed from these sentiments.

And which established morals are "correct" or "good"? Is it "good" to be repulsed or is it "good" to be excited when witnessing or commiting murder? Or do you really know?

 

[Voyageur]

The majority of people are repulsed by a murder or theft, so that would be a negative sentiment and therefore bad.

 

[RadicalReformer]

The majority of people are repulsed by a murder or theft, so that would be a negative sentiment and therefore bad.

Why are a majority of people "repulsed"?

And why should the majority decide?

Sorry, for jumping in on this thread...

 

[Voyageur]

The majority of people are repulsed by a murder or theft, so that would be a negative sentiment and therefore bad.

Why are a majority of people "repulsed"?

And why should the majority decide?

Sorry, for jumping in on this thread...

Welcome. Don't worry about jumping in. Good questions.

I'll answer your first question with another one: Why do people find pleasure or repulsion in anything?

As far as your second question, I was merely saying that the majority of people are repulsed by murder and theft. The fact that these negative sentiments have been writ large into society is an outgrowth of groups of people finding them immoral. The majority in various societies apparently did decide that they were bad, and so the question of why the majority should decide on these matters is rather irrelevant.

 

[Veritas]

The majority of people are repulsed by a murder or theft, so that would be a negative sentiment and therefore bad.

ahhh... and you have to determine the majority too...

so I guess its what's selected is average, what's average is normal, what's normal is good.

...works alright.

Until you happen to be in a society where it is not repulsive to the majority to murder ...So then what? Does it become good? I'm interested in how relative you think these terms really are... good and bad.

 

[Voyageur]

The majority of people are repulsed by a murder or theft, so that would be a negative sentiment and therefore bad.

ahhh... and you have to determine the majority too...

so I guess its what's selected is average, what's average is normal, what's normal is good.

...works alright.

Until you happen to be in a society where it is not repulsive to the majority to murder ...So then what? Does it become good? I'm interested in how relative you think these terms really are... good and bad.

Well, the question is rather pointless, right? Humanity and civilization have already come to a conclusion on such matters through our collective history. Not only that, but we know that almost all humans are opposed to murder because of the resultant negative sentiments associated with the act; which renders your question moot.

Ask yourself if you think murder is bad or immoral because you feel that it is wrong or because you have to be told that it is wrong by a bearded man in the sky. If your answer tends to the latter, then your moral compass is rather weak.

But, I will grant that societies always have the potential to devolve into a state where they can justify murder, whether they be political assassinations, genocides, etc. If you look to history, there is always that possibility, as we've seen with certain governments such as the Nazis, the Soviets, Darfur, etc. These sort of situations are corrected over time by the general human sentiment that murder is immoral.

 

[turnorburn]

Re: Atheist query

The temperature is rising can you feel the heat, there was no one more innocent than that bearded man in the sky as you put it and yet they demanded he be murdered. Not only then
but now, if he were to walk the streets today the very same thing would happen. But he does
walk the streets today, he lives in each believer. :

The majority of people are repulsed by a murder or theft, so that would be a negative sentiment and therefore bad.

ahhh... and you have to determine the majority too...

so I guess its what's selected is average, what's average is normal, what's normal is good.

...works alright.

Until you happen to be in a society where it is not repulsive to the majority to murder ...So then what? Does it become good? I'm interested in how relative you think these terms really are... good and bad.

Well, the question is rather pointless, right? Humanity and civilization have already come to a conclusion on such matters through our collective history. Not only that, but we know that almost all humans are opposed to murder because of the resultant negative sentiments associated with the act; which renders your question moot.

Ask yourself if you think murder is bad or immoral because you feel that it is wrong or because you have to be told that it is wrong by a bearded man in the sky. If your answer tends to the latter, then your moral compass is rather weak.

But, I will grant that societies always have the potential to devolve into a state where they can justify murder, whether they be political assassinations, genocides, etc. If you look to history, there is always that possibility, as we've seen with certain governments such as the Nazis, the Soviets, Darfur, etc. These sort of situations are corrected over time by the general human sentiment that murder is immoral.

 

[Veritas]

Well, the question is rather pointless, right? Humanity and civilization have already come to a conclusion on such matters through our collective history. Not only that, but we know that almost all humans are opposed to murder because of the resultant negative sentiments associated with the act; which renders your question moot.

Actually, my question still stands, (for the reasons already stated) but if you wish to sidestep it that is fine, I won't press it further.

Ask yourself if you think murder is bad or immoral because you feel that it is wrong or because you have to be told that it is wrong by a bearded man in the sky. If your answer tends to the latter, then your moral compass is rather weak.

I disagree. If the majority in the society I am living in, or if all of humanity somehow changes its mind on moral issues that are indeed good and decide them to be bad... or visa versa. My sentiments about the true good will not change. Yours will.

These sort of situations are corrected over time by the general human sentiment that murder is immoral.

To a certain degree I agree with you; however, my hope and faith does not lie in human sentiment for reasons stated above.

 

[Rick W]

a bearded man in the sky. If your answer tends to the latter, then your moral compass is rather weak.

Bearded man in the sky?
It's your people skills and sense of location that are rather weak.
May I remind you many here revere and worship that "bearded man in the sky".