Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
There is no God
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
N
Novum
Guest
JM said:
The golden rule - yes, the same one you learned in elementary school - is an excellent starting point for a system of morality. From there, more complex ethical theory can be considered, but I'd say that almost all ethical theory has the golden rule at its base.
No god required.
Some believe science and faith to be incompatible, I can respect your worldview.
And I am not one of them. Science, at times (but not always), can confirm some claims in religion and reject others. For example: A beetle rolling the sun across the sky cannot be taken in the literal sense as science has confirmed that there is no beetle rolling the sun across the sky and the sun does not roll across our sky but we rotate around the sun. Therefore, that rules the literal interpretation of Kephri out. Is it metaphorical? You then have to ask yourself what symbols the beetle would represent in Egyptian religion, the sun, and so on and see if you can arrive at the possibility of it being a metaphor. Obviously this requires an open mind to consider. The rolling of the sun across the sky could be a poetic or literary depiction rather than one meant to be taken as hard fact. That simply leaves the "beetle" figure to contend with.
Wha...? You just said above that no evidence is "enough" for a "scientist". What evidence are you seeing that scientists aren't?
What scientists are you referring to? The secular scientists, the religious scientists, or the Christian scientists? The thing that I was saying, though, was that by philosophy I have determined for myself that things which are do not come from things that are not. This does not necessarily take science but simply common sense. It may be wrong, but I choose to have faith in this claim until something more logical shows its face.
Well, I'm thoroughly confused about your position now.
Hm. :-? Perhaps my post was confusing. I'll reiterate it then as best I can.
------------------------------------------
Philosophy: That which appeals to common sense is ultimately right.
Science: Wrong. Even the most absurd thing can be right (which sometimes is the case).
Philosophy: Not if you understand it. But where is your evidence or rather God-ometer to prove the existence or nonexistence of God?
Empirical Science: It's not any amount of evidence, but rather a lack of evidence that proves that God does not exist.
Science: Hold on, ES. I think philosophy has a point. You cannot always trust your eyes, but the belief in an ultimate Being does not require the neglection of empirical evidence. All the world and the universe are your empirical evidence. If we can't explain the universe's existence without a creator beyond a doubt (let alone simply explain this paradox), then logic and philosophy dictate that - by the patterns of the universe - there must be a creator outside of the universe (or multiverse) who created it. Afterall, Philosophy is saying that - based on your finds, ES, - something does not come from nothing.
Philosophy: I couldn't have said it better. The belief in anything takes faith in order to believe it. There is the matter of the patterns of the universe point though, Science. Some say that using the Creator-creation analogy - as it follows the pattern of cause and effect in the universe - cannot be used to determine if the universe was created or is eternal, because if the universe is eternal then it had no cause but always an effect. Sorry, though, Logic, that rules you out, because now we must accept the continuity of the universe or multiverse by blind faith since we cannot prove the creation of a universe or multiverse by looking within this medium for evidence since all evidence would then be termed as possibly misleading.
------------------------------------------
Now, if you hold to the stance that something that is not empirical evidence cannot be believed, then how would you expect to change your beliefs in the existence of a Creator or a God when even empirical evidence can be faked? Even hard science says to do away with empirical evidence and consider even the possibility of a sort of Matrix scenario. But philosophy, coupled with faith, state that it is alright to believe in a Creator. What's not important is trying to figure out my stance on the subject, but rather trying to figure out where the empirical evidence of the times, scientific theory, and common sense lead you; not biases, prejudices, personal interest, or the like.
Undoubtedly, Science and Philosophy often agree with one-another. Common sense is also reconciled with Science once one understands it. You have to ask yourself, though, if what you believe in is based solely in faith and hope of what new discoveries in Science may bring, or if you have logic and common sense presently on your side.
By the way, I would like to hear your beliefs on the Big Bang, Evolution, Panspermia, Brane Theory, and so on. I could certainly stand to learn more about them and perhaps you can teach me.
And I am not one of them. Science, at times (but not always), can confirm some claims in religion and reject others. For example: A beetle rolling the sun across the sky cannot be taken in the literal sense as science has confirmed that there is no beetle rolling the sun across the sky and the sun does not roll across our sky but we rotate around the sun. Therefore, that rules the literal interpretation of Kephri out. Is it metaphorical? You then have to ask yourself what symbols the beetle would represent in Egyptian religion, the sun, and so on and see if you can arrive at the possibility of it being a metaphor. Obviously this requires an open mind to consider. The rolling of the sun across the sky could be a poetic or literary depiction rather than one meant to be taken as hard fact. That simply leaves the "beetle" figure to contend with.
Wha...? You just said above that no evidence is "enough" for a "scientist". What evidence are you seeing that scientists aren't?
What scientists are you referring to? The secular scientists, the religious scientists, or the Christian scientists? The thing that I was saying, though, was that by philosophy I have determined for myself that things which are do not come from things that are not. This does not necessarily take science but simply common sense. It may be wrong, but I choose to have faith in this claim until something more logical shows its face.
Well, I'm thoroughly confused about your position now.
Hm. :-? Perhaps my post was confusing. I'll reiterate it then as best I can.
------------------------------------------
Philosophy: That which appeals to common sense is ultimately right.
Science: Wrong. Even the most absurd thing can be right (which sometimes is the case).
Philosophy: Not if you understand it. But where is your evidence or rather God-ometer to prove the existence or nonexistence of God?
Empirical Science: It's not any amount of evidence, but rather a lack of evidence that proves that God does not exist.
Science: Hold on, ES. I think philosophy has a point. You cannot always trust your eyes, but the belief in an ultimate Being does not require the neglection of empirical evidence. All the world and the universe are your empirical evidence. If we can't explain the universe's existence without a creator beyond a doubt (let alone simply explain this paradox), then logic and philosophy dictate that - by the patterns of the universe - there must be a creator outside of the universe (or multiverse) who created it. Afterall, Philosophy is saying that - based on your finds, ES, - something does not come from nothing.
Philosophy: I couldn't have said it better. The belief in anything takes faith in order to believe it. There is the matter of the patterns of the universe point though, Science. Some say that using the Creator-creation analogy - as it follows the pattern of cause and effect in the universe - cannot be used to determine if the universe was created or is eternal, because if the universe is eternal then it had no cause but always an effect. Sorry, though, Logic, that rules you out, because now we must accept the continuity of the universe or multiverse by blind faith since we cannot prove the creation of a universe or multiverse by looking within this medium for evidence since all evidence would then be termed as possibly misleading.
------------------------------------------
Now, if you hold to the stance that something that is not empirical evidence cannot be believed, then how would you expect to change your beliefs in the existence of a Creator or a God when even empirical evidence can be faked? Even hard science says to do away with empirical evidence and consider even the possibility of a sort of Matrix scenario. But philosophy, coupled with faith, state that it is alright to believe in a Creator. What's not important is trying to figure out my stance on the subject, but rather trying to figure out where the empirical evidence of the times, scientific theory, and common sense lead you; not biases, prejudices, personal interest, or the like.
Undoubtedly, Science and Philosophy often agree with one-another. Common sense is also reconciled with Science once one understands it. You have to ask yourself, though, if what you believe in is based solely in faith and hope of what new discoveries in Science may bring, or if you have logic and common sense presently on your side.
By the way, I would like to hear your beliefs on the Big Bang, Evolution, Panspermia, Brane Theory, and so on. I could certainly stand to learn more about them and perhaps you can teach me.
The golden rule - yes, the same one you learned in elementary school - is an excellent starting point for a system of morality
Good answer.
From there, more complex ethical theory can be considered
I believe that all of God's laws were templates for doing what is right and for upholding and taking care of his creation. It's up to our consciences, our judgment - generally our ability to handle various situations and to adapt to them - to adapt the templates for proper use. 'Do not lie' could also mean not to deceive. However, if you must lie to save your ultimate life, then by this means do so.
No god required.
God is not explicitly required in theory, but - generally speaking - Christians have more of a psychological influence on them to do what is right than atheists tend to give heed to. Ex: An atheist might argue that he should drink alcohol, participate in promiscuity, and the like because he only has a short time to enjoy life and he has to get it all in before he dies. I, personally, don't view atheists as little devils that wish to sin constantly - afterall we are all people. However, the Christian would (hopefully :wink: ) state that since he had another life coming up he does not need this worldly pleasure. And in fact he may choose to live a peaceful life as a result instead of one of excitement which tends to end in turmoil.
This is simply a generalization of people's tendencies based on their faith. No, God is not explicitly required but the psychological factor is still there.
Good answer.
From there, more complex ethical theory can be considered
I believe that all of God's laws were templates for doing what is right and for upholding and taking care of his creation. It's up to our consciences, our judgment - generally our ability to handle various situations and to adapt to them - to adapt the templates for proper use. 'Do not lie' could also mean not to deceive. However, if you must lie to save your ultimate life, then by this means do so.
No god required.
God is not explicitly required in theory, but - generally speaking - Christians have more of a psychological influence on them to do what is right than atheists tend to give heed to. Ex: An atheist might argue that he should drink alcohol, participate in promiscuity, and the like because he only has a short time to enjoy life and he has to get it all in before he dies. I, personally, don't view atheists as little devils that wish to sin constantly - afterall we are all people. However, the Christian would (hopefully :wink: ) state that since he had another life coming up he does not need this worldly pleasure. And in fact he may choose to live a peaceful life as a result instead of one of excitement which tends to end in turmoil.
This is simply a generalization of people's tendencies based on their faith. No, God is not explicitly required but the psychological factor is still there.
N
Novum
Guest
Hello Packrat!
Strawman. I do not agree that this is an adequate summary of philosophy's "attitude". Without getting too deep into details, consider that philosophy, through its philosophers, has reached and will continue to reach no shortage of findings that appear to go against "common sense".
For example, in the philosophy of perception, the concept of qualia is often posited to explain the subtle 'units' of experience that we each have on a daily basis. Without a fairly extensive education in philosophy, I'd look at you like you were crazy if you started speaking to me about the qualia of experience.
Absurd according to whom? The planets orbiting around the sun was once absurd to the entirety of the population on this planet. Now, the opposite is true.
Strawman again. Science, empirical or otherwise, cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God. It also cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of unicorns, dragons, and honest politicians. ;)
Big strawman. The perceived lack of evidence has caused many people to deconvert and become atheists, but as noted above, a lack of evidence is not a logically valid reason to conclude the nonexistence of a god.
Mmm, I'm not so sure. I'll have a think on that and get back to you later.
That's just not reasonable. We will never be able to explain anything without any shadow of a doubt remaining.
That said, we have a pretty darn good idea nonetheless. Take planetary formation. We have vast knowledge about the stages in which planets form and develop, including a number of photographs (likely available for free on the NASA site) of other star systems in each of these phases!
1. What are the "patterns of the universe"? You haven't defined this term.
2. What about logic and philosophy leads you to believe this?
3. Patterns aside, this is an enormous non-sequitur. Simply because we have not explained (or are not capable of explaining) the universe down to every last quark, why must we posit a god of the gaps to fill in the rest?
Demonstrably untrue. We are both aware of, and have observed, spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles in a vacuum through our study of Quantum Mechanics (QM). You can read a whole lot about this on Wikipedia or elsewhere.
Demonstrably untrue. Take Descartes' classic maxim: "I think, therefore I am". We can posit at least one statement -- "I think" -- that appears to be true without any requirement of faith. From there, we can very easily add "I exist" to our list of faith-not-required statements, and there may even be others as well.
Untrue - not all effects require a cause. Again, our studies of QM have demonstrably shown the existence of uncaused particles.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
I have never made this claim. In fact, I challenge you to find one person on the planet who holds this position.
Take everyone's favorite mathematical equation: 2 + 2 = 4. This statement is true because of the laws of mathematics, which involve sets, subsets, and set operations like addition. There is no empirical evidence to be found here, but I'm sure that doesn't stop you (or me) from believing this statement regardless.
Who, other than god, would fake empirical evidence about his existence? Why would god deceive us?
"Hard science" (a term which you have not defined) says no such thing. Science is, as you have noted, concerned with the empirical alone. It is philosophy that postulates scenarios like the Matrix.
Yes. But as you have recognized, this statement made by philosophy and faith is not a scientific one - science was not involved in reaching this conclusion.
Certainly. Philosophy has been called the "mother of the sciences", because before many fields of science - Psychology, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and others - were considered scientific, they were all sub-branches of philosophy. Once they grew large enough in scope, they "broke off" and became fields of study of their own.
Ever wonder why "Ph. D" stands for what it stands for? ;)
I disagree. Go back to QM again. Some of the things that QM is saying are Really. Damn. Weird. I really recommend you read about it - practically everything that comes out of QM flies in the face of common sense.
False dichotomy. These positions are not representative of all positions people hold on the matter, nor are these positions mutually exclusive.
Personally, I have noted (again, personally) a lack of evidence for a supreme being based on my experiences in this world. As such, I choose to lack a belief in a kind of god. But, as an agnostic atheist, my position is open to change.
My beliefs?
Big bang - makes a lot of sense. Represents our current best science.
Evolution - there is no controversy on this subject among scientists. Practically all of biology is built around the conclusion that not only has evolution happened, but it continues to do so.
Panspermia - I don't think so. There are a number of objections to this theory (you can read some on Wikipedia).
Brane theory - can't say I've read about this to any notable extent. I withhold judgment.
But these are merely my beliefs. While my beliefs are indeed what you asked for, and while I am knowledgeable enough about some of these topics to render an opinion, I will not claim to be the source of knowledge you seem to be seeking. If you were really interested in this subjects, I invite you to check Wikipedia (or the internet as a whole) - you'll learn far more than I'll be able to tell you.
Packrat said:
Strawman. I do not agree that this is an adequate summary of philosophy's "attitude". Without getting too deep into details, consider that philosophy, through its philosophers, has reached and will continue to reach no shortage of findings that appear to go against "common sense".
For example, in the philosophy of perception, the concept of qualia is often posited to explain the subtle 'units' of experience that we each have on a daily basis. Without a fairly extensive education in philosophy, I'd look at you like you were crazy if you started speaking to me about the qualia of experience.
Absurd according to whom? The planets orbiting around the sun was once absurd to the entirety of the population on this planet. Now, the opposite is true.
Strawman again. Science, empirical or otherwise, cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God. It also cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of unicorns, dragons, and honest politicians. ;)
Big strawman. The perceived lack of evidence has caused many people to deconvert and become atheists, but as noted above, a lack of evidence is not a logically valid reason to conclude the nonexistence of a god.
Mmm, I'm not so sure. I'll have a think on that and get back to you later.
That's just not reasonable. We will never be able to explain anything without any shadow of a doubt remaining.
That said, we have a pretty darn good idea nonetheless. Take planetary formation. We have vast knowledge about the stages in which planets form and develop, including a number of photographs (likely available for free on the NASA site) of other star systems in each of these phases!
1. What are the "patterns of the universe"? You haven't defined this term.
2. What about logic and philosophy leads you to believe this?
3. Patterns aside, this is an enormous non-sequitur. Simply because we have not explained (or are not capable of explaining) the universe down to every last quark, why must we posit a god of the gaps to fill in the rest?
Demonstrably untrue. We are both aware of, and have observed, spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles in a vacuum through our study of Quantum Mechanics (QM). You can read a whole lot about this on Wikipedia or elsewhere.
Demonstrably untrue. Take Descartes' classic maxim: "I think, therefore I am". We can posit at least one statement -- "I think" -- that appears to be true without any requirement of faith. From there, we can very easily add "I exist" to our list of faith-not-required statements, and there may even be others as well.
Untrue - not all effects require a cause. Again, our studies of QM have demonstrably shown the existence of uncaused particles.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
I have never made this claim. In fact, I challenge you to find one person on the planet who holds this position.
Take everyone's favorite mathematical equation: 2 + 2 = 4. This statement is true because of the laws of mathematics, which involve sets, subsets, and set operations like addition. There is no empirical evidence to be found here, but I'm sure that doesn't stop you (or me) from believing this statement regardless.
Who, other than god, would fake empirical evidence about his existence? Why would god deceive us?
"Hard science" (a term which you have not defined) says no such thing. Science is, as you have noted, concerned with the empirical alone. It is philosophy that postulates scenarios like the Matrix.
Yes. But as you have recognized, this statement made by philosophy and faith is not a scientific one - science was not involved in reaching this conclusion.
Certainly. Philosophy has been called the "mother of the sciences", because before many fields of science - Psychology, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and others - were considered scientific, they were all sub-branches of philosophy. Once they grew large enough in scope, they "broke off" and became fields of study of their own.
Ever wonder why "Ph. D" stands for what it stands for? ;)
I disagree. Go back to QM again. Some of the things that QM is saying are Really. Damn. Weird. I really recommend you read about it - practically everything that comes out of QM flies in the face of common sense.
False dichotomy. These positions are not representative of all positions people hold on the matter, nor are these positions mutually exclusive.
Personally, I have noted (again, personally) a lack of evidence for a supreme being based on my experiences in this world. As such, I choose to lack a belief in a kind of god. But, as an agnostic atheist, my position is open to change.
My beliefs?
Big bang - makes a lot of sense. Represents our current best science.
Evolution - there is no controversy on this subject among scientists. Practically all of biology is built around the conclusion that not only has evolution happened, but it continues to do so.
Panspermia - I don't think so. There are a number of objections to this theory (you can read some on Wikipedia).
Brane theory - can't say I've read about this to any notable extent. I withhold judgment.
But these are merely my beliefs. While my beliefs are indeed what you asked for, and while I am knowledgeable enough about some of these topics to render an opinion, I will not claim to be the source of knowledge you seem to be seeking. If you were really interested in this subjects, I invite you to check Wikipedia (or the internet as a whole) - you'll learn far more than I'll be able to tell you.
N
Novum
Guest
Packrat said:
What if you were standing on top of a tall building and there was a woman at the edge - ready to jump - who turns to you and asks "Am I fat?"
...would you lie?
What if you were walking down the street and saw a panic-stricken man run past, followed a few minutes later by a large man with a gun who asked which way the panic-stricken man had gone?
...would you lie?
These are thought experiments - you don't need to answer. I'm trying to demonstrate that, in the real world, there are uncountably many "shades of gray" when we're talking about ethical dilemmas. I think the black-and-white "Do not lie" that the bible advocates is all but useless in real-world situations like these.
See, I would argue for exactly the opposite.
As an atheist, I believe that this life is the only one I get. I must do my utmost to live ethically and morally because I know that any lives I ruin will not be redeemed in an afterlife. I must seek courage, love, friendship, trust, and loyalty, and, at the same time, following the golden rule and other ethical theory to live a fulfilled, happy life. This life has infinite value because it is the only life I will ever receive.
But the Christian has no such "restriction" simply because he has been promised an eternal afterlife of bliss. He merely has to do the "bare minimum" to get into heaven, which is hardly a viable ethical theory by which to live. This life has zero value for the Christian, because a mere 80 or 90 years on this planet is literally nothing next to an infinite eternity of afterlife.
Note, I don't actually hold these views, but...
...I think that, if we were to generalize based on the existence of an afterlife, it would go the other way around - the atheist would be largely moral and the Christian would be largely immoral. Of course, I recognize the futility of overgeneralizing, but if we're going to do it, I think it makes much more sense this way than the way you suggested.
Incidentally, the famous philosopher Nietzche (who I'm sure you've heard of) argued this exact point. He claimed that the existence of an infinite afterlife, which is supposedly keeping Christians moral and ethical, is doing the precise opposite because it renders this life absolutely worthless when compared to an eternity of bliss. If you're interested in reading further, I certainly recommend you check Nietzche out.
R
reznwerks
Guest
contrary
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html
Your approach to Christians not needing this worldly pleasure has in effect been the source of much of mankinds griefs. Theists have caused all kinds of strife in the world in the name of God and sent countless millions to wars in sacrafice because if they died they had a better life coming in the here after.It is this hereafter approach that causes those in poverty to remain in poverty with the assumption that this is where God "wants me to be" and if I suffer in this life , I will have a better one later on. Atheists are not likely to risk their life or the lives of others because they know that this life is all they have. Life is special and no one knows this more than your neighborhood atheist.
Who is the better person? The atheist who does good because it's the right thing to do or the theist who does good because he expects a reward? You see your arguement cuts both ways. First off you equate atheists with wanting to abuse their life because they have nothing to lose. Facts differ with your presumptions. Other posts that I have left with links clearly establish that atheists stay married longer than theists and as a percentage occupy less prison space than atheists. At worst their is absolutely no evidence to suggest that atheists tear down the social fabric any more than theists.Packrat said:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html
Your approach to Christians not needing this worldly pleasure has in effect been the source of much of mankinds griefs. Theists have caused all kinds of strife in the world in the name of God and sent countless millions to wars in sacrafice because if they died they had a better life coming in the here after.It is this hereafter approach that causes those in poverty to remain in poverty with the assumption that this is where God "wants me to be" and if I suffer in this life , I will have a better one later on. Atheists are not likely to risk their life or the lives of others because they know that this life is all they have. Life is special and no one knows this more than your neighborhood atheist.
G
Gary
Guest
Christian ethics
It is very obvious to me that you have:
(1) Not studied the Bible
(2) Not considered nor studied Christian or Biblical ethics
If you did know the Bible, you would have read about people who lied to save lives. The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys Pharaoh had commanded them to kill (Exodus 1:15-19). Rahab lied to save the lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Joshua 2:1-24).
If you had studied Christian ethics, you would have known that there are several general ethical positions which Christians take. Some are based on logic, others are based on Biblical principles.
If you are interested, I will tell you more about each of them.
I could not resist.... above is a classic case of making a straw man argument. Your "thought experiment" is a way of you making a few premises, drawing a conclusion; there are "shades of gray". You then continue with your assumptions and so-called dilemmas... claiming that the "do not lie" of the Bible is useless.Novum said:
It is very obvious to me that you have:
(1) Not studied the Bible
(2) Not considered nor studied Christian or Biblical ethics
If you did know the Bible, you would have read about people who lied to save lives. The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys Pharaoh had commanded them to kill (Exodus 1:15-19). Rahab lied to save the lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Joshua 2:1-24).
If you had studied Christian ethics, you would have known that there are several general ethical positions which Christians take. Some are based on logic, others are based on Biblical principles.
If you are interested, I will tell you more about each of them.
N
Novum
Guest
Re: Christian ethics
Both are untrue.
What these people did was, of course, admirable. However, was their behavior sanctioned by god? Did god say something along the lines of "See what these people did; thou shalt look up to them and follow in their ways", or are we to infer god's acceptance of what they did merely because he didn't strike them down with lightning? We can identify with whomever we want in the bible; what should be considered is whether God would identify with them in the same way.
Indeed, what they did is in direct conflict with the 10 commandments. The commandments are not offered as a general guideline, as I'm sure you know. They are very specific, very clear, and very straightforward.
Certainly. Of interest to me is, if "Thou shalt not lie" can be twisted, bent, or even broken, which other commandments - if any - can also be treated in this way?
Gary said:
Both are untrue.
What these people did was, of course, admirable. However, was their behavior sanctioned by god? Did god say something along the lines of "See what these people did; thou shalt look up to them and follow in their ways", or are we to infer god's acceptance of what they did merely because he didn't strike them down with lightning? We can identify with whomever we want in the bible; what should be considered is whether God would identify with them in the same way.
Indeed, what they did is in direct conflict with the 10 commandments. The commandments are not offered as a general guideline, as I'm sure you know. They are very specific, very clear, and very straightforward.
Certainly. Of interest to me is, if "Thou shalt not lie" can be twisted, bent, or even broken, which other commandments - if any - can also be treated in this way?
Who is the better person? The atheist who does good because it's the right thing to do or the theist who does good because he expects a reward?
The one who, in the end, does something selfless to propagate good. So by your definition of this particular theist, the atheist would be the better person. It was not my intention to argue, though, if an atheist who is doing good is better than a theist who is doing good. I was arguing who would be the most likely to do good.
What if you were standing on top of a tall building and there was a woman at the edge - ready to jump - who turns to you and asks "Am I fat?"
I would say, "You're not fat. You're robust." :wink:
What if you were walking down the street and saw a panic-stricken man run past, followed a few minutes later by a large man with a gun who asked which way the panic-stricken man had gone?
I might try to ignore him, pretend like I didn't hear or tell him that it was none of my business or pretend like I didn't know what he was talking about perhaps. At such short notice, it's best not to get involved. I hold to my assumption that 'do not lie' and likewise do not deceive are templates to be used in concordance with discretion.
there are uncountably many "shades of gray"
Yes, but where do the shades of gray come from? They come from black and white which are templates for deciding how black this shade of gray is and then how white this other shade of gray is. How evil? How good? Well, what do we compare them with? The golden rule perhaps? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? Laws are also given to change based on circumstances. I don't know for certain if you would want to interpret some rules in the Old Testament into the literal today and apply them to humanity. The main reason why these rules - the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, etc. were made is to help people live long and healthy lives or for the better of the community as a whole. Otherwise, why would they have been made? With the furthering of the quality of life in mind, how do you think you should use them? With discretion?
I must do my utmost to live ethically and morally because I know that any lives I ruin will not be redeemed in an afterlife.
That is an interesting answer. I had considered how the importance of life here on earth would measure up between Theists and Atheists. I had also come to the conclusion, if a theist does not follow the doctrine of the Golden Rule, that this theist would not be obligated to do what is right. However, if a theist does not follow his religion (in this case a Christian I'll say), then one has to ask how much that Christian believes in their religion or even if they are a Christian at all? Are they just hopping on the band wagon to have hope in this life? If near death will their faith be challenged and fail?
So on the matter of influence, it depends on what motivates you.
He merely has to do the "bare minimum" to get into heaven, which is hardly a viable ethical theory by which to live.
Faith without good works soon dies or else is a deception. The 'Christian' you speak of would probably not be a true Christian as when faced with death they would likely question their faith or even if they have faith in Christ. The bare minimum may work from the beginning but without striving to remain in a relationship with God, you will backslide and likely lose faith when challenged. Thus the Christian is not a Christian to begin with or else loses his faith in adversity.
This life has zero value for the Christian
Not at all. We were given it for a reason one must assume. Life as we know it is not as important as life as Christians should understand it. Our situation in life is transient. Our current situation in life is transient, but important to everyone's future situation in life or lack thereof.
the atheist would be largely moral and the Christian would be largely immoral
A Christian is supposed to be Christ-like or to belong to Christ. There was nothing largely immoral concerning Christ's life. But now that I see an interesting perspective from the other side of the fence, I conclude that the life you live depends on what motivation you give heed to. If you look for pleasure, you will live in more pain than if you were selfless and merely appreciated it when it came your way.
is doing the precise opposite because it renders this life absolutely worthless when compared to an eternity of bliss
I would say that is because he hadn't understood the concept of faith when related to works. What you do affects the way you perceive the world and the way your perceive yourself. Faith is, I think, all that is explicitly required to be saved. But without works, it fails. Therefore these 'Christians' who hop on the wagon for a free ride to paradise may be the ones you speak of. The Christians who give up everything unnecessary in this life to do God's will are the ones with true faith and the ones who are acting as true Christians. Believe me. Considering myself a Christian, I do acknowledge the difficulty of this and strive to inspect each avenue of my life to see if it is hindering me from following God or is helping me.
I think Benjamin Franklin said that Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise. That would be correct if every religion were false, but what Christianity would argue is to say that the only noble enterprise is that which ultimately accomplishes God's will.
Well, I would enjoy speaking with you more, but I must go. I'll try to make a better response to your other concerns as well. I acknowledge that my last post was still a bit confusing and I will try to clear that up. :wink:
The one who, in the end, does something selfless to propagate good. So by your definition of this particular theist, the atheist would be the better person. It was not my intention to argue, though, if an atheist who is doing good is better than a theist who is doing good. I was arguing who would be the most likely to do good.
What if you were standing on top of a tall building and there was a woman at the edge - ready to jump - who turns to you and asks "Am I fat?"
I would say, "You're not fat. You're robust." :wink:
What if you were walking down the street and saw a panic-stricken man run past, followed a few minutes later by a large man with a gun who asked which way the panic-stricken man had gone?
I might try to ignore him, pretend like I didn't hear or tell him that it was none of my business or pretend like I didn't know what he was talking about perhaps. At such short notice, it's best not to get involved. I hold to my assumption that 'do not lie' and likewise do not deceive are templates to be used in concordance with discretion.
there are uncountably many "shades of gray"
Yes, but where do the shades of gray come from? They come from black and white which are templates for deciding how black this shade of gray is and then how white this other shade of gray is. How evil? How good? Well, what do we compare them with? The golden rule perhaps? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? Laws are also given to change based on circumstances. I don't know for certain if you would want to interpret some rules in the Old Testament into the literal today and apply them to humanity. The main reason why these rules - the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, etc. were made is to help people live long and healthy lives or for the better of the community as a whole. Otherwise, why would they have been made? With the furthering of the quality of life in mind, how do you think you should use them? With discretion?
I must do my utmost to live ethically and morally because I know that any lives I ruin will not be redeemed in an afterlife.
That is an interesting answer. I had considered how the importance of life here on earth would measure up between Theists and Atheists. I had also come to the conclusion, if a theist does not follow the doctrine of the Golden Rule, that this theist would not be obligated to do what is right. However, if a theist does not follow his religion (in this case a Christian I'll say), then one has to ask how much that Christian believes in their religion or even if they are a Christian at all? Are they just hopping on the band wagon to have hope in this life? If near death will their faith be challenged and fail?
So on the matter of influence, it depends on what motivates you.
He merely has to do the "bare minimum" to get into heaven, which is hardly a viable ethical theory by which to live.
Faith without good works soon dies or else is a deception. The 'Christian' you speak of would probably not be a true Christian as when faced with death they would likely question their faith or even if they have faith in Christ. The bare minimum may work from the beginning but without striving to remain in a relationship with God, you will backslide and likely lose faith when challenged. Thus the Christian is not a Christian to begin with or else loses his faith in adversity.
This life has zero value for the Christian
Not at all. We were given it for a reason one must assume. Life as we know it is not as important as life as Christians should understand it. Our situation in life is transient. Our current situation in life is transient, but important to everyone's future situation in life or lack thereof.
the atheist would be largely moral and the Christian would be largely immoral
A Christian is supposed to be Christ-like or to belong to Christ. There was nothing largely immoral concerning Christ's life. But now that I see an interesting perspective from the other side of the fence, I conclude that the life you live depends on what motivation you give heed to. If you look for pleasure, you will live in more pain than if you were selfless and merely appreciated it when it came your way.
is doing the precise opposite because it renders this life absolutely worthless when compared to an eternity of bliss
I would say that is because he hadn't understood the concept of faith when related to works. What you do affects the way you perceive the world and the way your perceive yourself. Faith is, I think, all that is explicitly required to be saved. But without works, it fails. Therefore these 'Christians' who hop on the wagon for a free ride to paradise may be the ones you speak of. The Christians who give up everything unnecessary in this life to do God's will are the ones with true faith and the ones who are acting as true Christians. Believe me. Considering myself a Christian, I do acknowledge the difficulty of this and strive to inspect each avenue of my life to see if it is hindering me from following God or is helping me.
I think Benjamin Franklin said that Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise. That would be correct if every religion were false, but what Christianity would argue is to say that the only noble enterprise is that which ultimately accomplishes God's will.
Well, I would enjoy speaking with you more, but I must go. I'll try to make a better response to your other concerns as well. I acknowledge that my last post was still a bit confusing and I will try to clear that up. :wink:
G
Gary
Guest
Re: Christian ethics and the Bible...
Still not convinced? Well, as usual, the answer is in the Bible (for those who look!) "In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?" James 2:25
Gary said:
We shall see.Novum said:
Gary said:
As I said, I doubt you know very much about the Bible. Read Hebrews 11:31 "By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient." Read Hebrews 11:23 "By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict."Novum said:
Still not convinced? Well, as usual, the answer is in the Bible (for those who look!) "In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?" James 2:25
As I said... I think you know very little about Christian ethics and less about the Bible. Are Christians under the Ten Commandments? Or even a higher standard? Think carefully before answering.Novum said:
Gary said:
Where in the Bible do you have the commandment "Thou shalt not lie" as one of the 10 commandments? Chapter/verse please!Novum said:
R
reznwerks
Guest
Re: Christian ethics and the Bible...
The answer to your question is commandment #8 which is about not bearing false witness etc. Instead of me giving my interpretation I will let another Christian site explain it for you.
Meaning: We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbour, but defend them, speak well of them, and put the best construction on everything.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lLr ... =clnk&cd=8
Whats that verse about a taking a log out of your own eye before accusing others? Perhaps you need to read the bible a little more yourself.Gary said:[
Where in the Bible do you have the commandment "Thou shalt not lie" as one of the 10 commandments? Chapter/verse please!
The answer to your question is commandment #8 which is about not bearing false witness etc. Instead of me giving my interpretation I will let another Christian site explain it for you.
Meaning: We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbour, but defend them, speak well of them, and put the best construction on everything.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lLr ... =clnk&cd=8
G
Gary
Guest
Teaching reznwerks about the Bible
Thanks reznwerks... your comments only show that you don't understand either!
The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16)
So that was NOT a general "Thou shalt not lie"
If you want to LEARN about the 9th commandment, read this:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html
Q. 76. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Deuteronomy 5:20. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.)
Q. 77. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name, especially in witness-bearing. (Zechariah 8:16. These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: Acts 25:10. Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. 3 John 12. Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.)
Q. 78. What is forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name. (Leviticus 19:16. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Psalm 15:3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. Proverbs 6:16-19. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Luke 3:14. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.)
Understand?
Thanks reznwerks... your comments only show that you don't understand either!
The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16)
So that was NOT a general "Thou shalt not lie"
If you want to LEARN about the 9th commandment, read this:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html
Q. 76. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Deuteronomy 5:20. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.)
Q. 77. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name, especially in witness-bearing. (Zechariah 8:16. These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: Acts 25:10. Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. 3 John 12. Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.)
Q. 78. What is forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own, or our neighbor’s, good name. (Leviticus 19:16. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Psalm 15:3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. Proverbs 6:16-19. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Luke 3:14. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.)
Understand?
G
gingercat
Guest
Re: Christian ethics and the Bible...
Mutz, what do you exactly mean? It sounds like we should not speak up our convictions if that is going to degrade some people. There are millions of evil is going on and how do you manage to speak the truth without exposing them and without hurting them? It sounds like you are saying exposing evil is not loving thing to do. This is very complicated and only people who are speaking should evaluate themselves instead of others criticize or fingerpoint at people who are speaking up the reality and the truth.
The Bible tells us to expose the evil deeds of darkness. Eph 5:11
reznwerks said:Whats that verse about a taking a log out of your own eye before accusing others? Perhaps you need to read the bible a little more yourself.Gary said:[
Where in the Bible do you have the commandment "Thou shalt not lie" as one of the 10 commandments? Chapter/verse please!
The answer to your question is commandment #8 which is about not bearing false witness etc. Instead of me giving my interpretation I will let another Christian site explain it for you.
Meaning: We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbour, but defend them, speak well of them, and put the best construction on everything.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lLr ... =clnk&cd=8
Mutz, what do you exactly mean? It sounds like we should not speak up our convictions if that is going to degrade some people. There are millions of evil is going on and how do you manage to speak the truth without exposing them and without hurting them? It sounds like you are saying exposing evil is not loving thing to do. This is very complicated and only people who are speaking should evaluate themselves instead of others criticize or fingerpoint at people who are speaking up the reality and the truth.
The Bible tells us to expose the evil deeds of darkness. Eph 5:11
N
Novum
Guest
Packrat said:
A minor nitpick, but notice that the thought experiment did not specify any physical characteristics - height, weight, hair color, or otherwise - about this woman. ;)
I do not agree that these two ends are mutually exclusive. Recall that the US is founded around the recognition that all men (and women) have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I'm not so sure I would agree that being pleasure-seeking completely prevents one from being selfless.
You write well, and I am largely in agreement with a fair bit of what you say. I would, however, alert you to your (repeated) use of the term "true Christian". The "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy, plus the incredible difficulty this forum has had in attempting to define the term "True Christian" in other threads, should alert you that arguing this term is fraught with difficulties, if not an outright impossibility to reach a consensus.
I look forward to your future responses.
N
Novum
Guest
Re: Christian ethics and the Bible...
The 10 commandments were passed down by God, who is therefore the "standard" of which you speak. Which "higher standard" - higher than God - are you proposing? Think carefully yourself, and stop patronizing me.
You know what I meant. Answer the question.
Gary said:
The 10 commandments were passed down by God, who is therefore the "standard" of which you speak. Which "higher standard" - higher than God - are you proposing? Think carefully yourself, and stop patronizing me.
Gary said:
You know what I meant. Answer the question.
N
Novum
Guest
Drew said:
I admittedly have not. Perhaps I'll check him out sometime. Thanks!
Drew
Member
Greetings Novum:Novum said:
Can you clarify at all? I assume that you mean that you see no evidence, either in terms of such things as the following:
1. Any subjective experiences suggesting the presence of a divine "other" who is establishing some kind of "personal" contact with you.
2. Compelling evidence to suggest that the physical universe seems to be the product of an intelligent agent.
3. The problem of suffering - its existence suggests to you that an all-loving God does not exist.
4. The behaviour of believers (e.g. Christians) gives you no reason to believe that they have tapped into something real and significant.
5. The content of the moral code that Christians embrace (as distinguished from their actual behaviour as per item 4) does not strike you as being correct.
This is a long list and one could go on for pages discussing it.
Let me at least say something about item 1 for the present.
It is my belief that "Christian culture" in N. America misrepresents (not through deliberate intent) the nature of the subjective experience we can have of God. I believe that God generally reveals himself to people in extraordinarily subtle ways - there are no "voices in the head" or many of the other elements that we would normally say are constitutive of a relationship with another "personality".
I tend to think that when people say "God told me to do x", they are not generally being truthful. Now I am not talking about audible voices - I am talking about the much more common claim that people sense mental communication with God in the form of "thoughts" that they experience as originating from a distinct "other". Subtle but important point: I am not talking about those who claim that they choose, as a matter of faith, to attribute thoughts to God, but rather those who say that the content of the experience shows this to be the case.
I have difficulty believing the accounts of such people. To keep this post short, I will simply conclude by asking whether it is at least possible that you are looking for the "wrong" subjective experiences when you introspect concerning the existence of a personal God who might be revealing himself to you?
T
thessalonian
Guest
Novum,
I too am curious what this evidence of a lack of evidence is regarding the absence of God in you life.
Just curious as to how many years you think it would take for a chameleon to decide that it should do something to change it's coloration so that it could not be seen? Where is the evidence of the purple and blaze orange and yellow chamelions that did not make it because they were only one color? How does nature seem to get it right so quickly regarding what color or what physical adaptation to make so that a species will be more likely to survive. If the Darwinian natural selection were the mode you would think there would be all kinds of variations within a species for a while before the "mistakes" would die off and leave only the chameleons that could change to different colors.
Blessings
I too am curious what this evidence of a lack of evidence is regarding the absence of God in you life.
Just curious as to how many years you think it would take for a chameleon to decide that it should do something to change it's coloration so that it could not be seen? Where is the evidence of the purple and blaze orange and yellow chamelions that did not make it because they were only one color? How does nature seem to get it right so quickly regarding what color or what physical adaptation to make so that a species will be more likely to survive. If the Darwinian natural selection were the mode you would think there would be all kinds of variations within a species for a while before the "mistakes" would die off and leave only the chameleons that could change to different colors.
Blessings