View Full Version : Atheist Billboards To Debut During Holidays
LaoSexMachine
11-15-2008, 07:26 PM
Atheist Billboards To Debut During Holidays
Message Questions Existence Of God
Russell Haythorn (russell_haythorn@thedenverchannel.com), 7NEWS Reporter (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/7newsteam/5347714/detail.html)
POSTED: 9:22 pm MST November 13, 2008
UPDATED: 10:38 pm MST November 13, 2008
DENVER -- A controversial billboard will likely be popping up in a neighborhood near you, just in time for the holidays.The billboard is paid for by a Colorado atheist group. The message sits against a blue sky backdrop and says, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."Ten billboards will pepper metro Denver, while one will be put up in Colorado Springs."And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot," said Joel Guttormson, with Metro State Atheists. "To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."Pastor Willard Johnson of Denver's Macedonia Baptist Church called the billboards a desperate effort to discredit Christianity."The Bible is being fulfilled. It says that in latter days, you have all these kinds of things coming up, trying to disrupt the validity of Christianity," Johnson said. "If they don't believe in God, how do they believe they came about? We denounce what they are doing. But we do it with love, with gentleness, with decency and with compassion."Bob Enyart, a Christian radio host and spokesman for American Right to Life, said it's hard to ignore the evidence."The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous," said Enyart. "Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator."The billboards will go up Nov. 17. The atheist group, called Colorado Coalition of Reason or COCORE, also wanted to put up signs in Fort Collins and Greeley, but a billboard company there refused to carry the message.Johnson said atheism is a rebellion against Biblical principals and the billboard will likely offend many Christians.COCORE said this is about First Amendment rights."And I've read the First Amendment up and down and nowhere does it say that I have to care about your feelings. We're either 10 to 16 percent of the population, and the reason we don't really know is because people are scared to come out because they're ostracized by the people around them," said Guttormson.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17977308/detail.html#-
Video: Atheist Billboards Pop Up In Town (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17977308/detail.html#)
Invisigoth
11-15-2008, 08:26 PM
I wouldn't characterize Atheists as non-believers, quite the opposite: believers in free will.
Skutatos
11-15-2008, 10:20 PM
I wouldn't characterize Atheists as non-believers, quite the opposite: believers in free will.
And a religious person can't believe in free will?
LineDoggie
11-15-2008, 10:48 PM
I predict Paint Ballons within the 1st week....
NeedsABetterName
11-16-2008, 02:00 AM
I predict Paint Ballons within the 1st week....
Does that give me a right to 'paint balloon' the dozens of Christian billboards in my city?
Free speech. If my freeway can have 'God Loves You; Come to x Church' billboard on it, it can have a 'Don't Believe? You're not alone' sign, too. Right next to it, in fact.
Eztyga
11-16-2008, 02:07 AM
Thank God for that.
Oh wait...
LineDoggie
11-16-2008, 02:16 AM
Does that give me a right to 'paint balloon' the dozens of Christian billboards in my city?
Free speech. If my freeway can have 'God Loves You; Come to x Church' billboard on it, it can have a 'Don't Believe? You're not alone' sign, too. Right next to it, in fact.
Calm yourself sparky, I wasnt advocating it, just predicting it will happen. And Religious institutions get vandalized all the time, or didnt you notice that?
budgie
11-16-2008, 03:59 AM
Just in time for teh holiday season too. I don't mind atheists but do they have to play the Grinch?
Kilgor
11-16-2008, 04:37 AM
Question everything....
"Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator."(Bob Enyart)
Logic rocks!
angry cow
11-16-2008, 06:04 AM
FAITH /feɪθ/[feyth] –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
Given that there is no proof that God does or does not exist, any belief in regards to God's existence or lack thereof is based on faith, not science, and therefore constitutes a religion in and of itself.
Given that there is no proof that God does or does not exist, any belief in regards to God's existence or lack thereof is based on faith, not science, and therefore constitutes a religion in and of itself.
So, Atheists are good, then?
Calanen
11-16-2008, 06:23 AM
Given that there is no proof that God does or does not exist, any belief in regards to God's existence or lack thereof is based on faith, not science, and therefore constitutes a religion in and of itself.
Can't you say that about everything, such as:
- the Smurfs;
- Puff the Magic Dragon;
- gargoyles;
- fairies.
Is the disbelief in fairies or the Smurfs, a religion in itself?
angry cow
11-16-2008, 09:05 AM
Can't you say that about everything, such as:
- the Smurfs;
- Puff the Magic Dragon;
- gargoyles;
- fairies.
Is the disbelief in fairies or the Smurfs, a religion in itself?
My point isn't that they are good or bad, its only that they are making a conclusion based not on any scientific basis, but rather on their own feelings and beliefs, just as in any religion. From a strictly scientific perspective, one can not say God exists or does not, merely that he may or may not. Concluding the existence of God to be false can only be based on personal feeling, not on any factual understanding of the world around us. Its a belief, and often times found with a set of assertions and assumptions such as is the case with Secular Humanism. This makes it a belief system. Devotion to the lack of a deity is not any different from devotion to a deity. So yeah, maybe not a religion per se, but it looks, smells, and acts like one. Hell, they even have billboards encouraging them to fellowship with each other. It shows up in the same places on forms and ID tags, and is just as capable of creating extremist viewpoints as any religion.
XShipRider
11-16-2008, 09:13 AM
If one's faith can be shaken by a billboard, that person's faith is probably questionable from the start.
Macs.
11-16-2008, 09:19 AM
If one's faith can be shaken by a billboard, that person's faith is probably questionable from the start.
...which is a compliment to anyone who thinks that free thinking is the way to go.
Weasel
11-16-2008, 09:31 AM
If one's faith can be shaken by a billboard, that person's faith is probably questionable from the start.
Well said!
Who cares if others believe? Who cares if non-believers need billboards?
So, Atheists are good, then?Most atheist I know are actually more moral than the christians I have known.
See... the atheist has to live with their deeds... and accept it.
The typical ignorant christian... has a free pass.
"I'm going to screw this guy over but jesus will forgive me"
Johnny_H02
11-16-2008, 02:20 PM
Put it this way, "Why not?" Atheists can still appreciate Christmas I'll quote Marcus Brigstock "I like Christmas because I like Turkey, Presents & My Family and in that order".
People can enjoy the "Custom" or "Tradition" and "Celebration" of Christmas without being religious its that simple.
Merfeller
11-16-2008, 02:22 PM
Just in time for teh holiday season too. I don't mind atheists but do they have to play the Grinch?
Like everyone else in this country, their cause trumps all others and they want their damn 15 minutes.
Oh lordy. Why would you care? Bunch of fools thriving on negative attention. Meh.
StickyPop
11-16-2008, 06:34 PM
I don't see a problem with this when you drive down the interstate and see "You are living a life of sin, repent or be eternally damned", or something to that effect. I personally have nothing against religion, I think it can be a good thing, but that doesn't mean I want it being shoved down my throat. If I like it or not, its up there and there isn't much I can do about it. Same goes for this.
Macs.
11-16-2008, 06:46 PM
Oh lordy. Why would you care? Bunch of fools thriving on negative attention. Meh.
"Don't believe in God? You're not alone."
What a offensive and negative statement... :lol:
Violet Fashion by Mindy
11-16-2008, 06:50 PM
Given that there is no proof that God does or does not exist, any belief in regards to God's existence or lack thereof is based on faith, not science, and therefore constitutes a religion in and of itself.
Ahm whats more believable.
That life started with a few simple acids, bacterias and ****
Or a big bearded man made a garden, made some guy and a naked chick who ****ed things up anyway?
Macs.
11-16-2008, 07:01 PM
Ahm whats more believable.
That life started with a few simple acids, bacterias and ****
Or a big bearded man made a garden, made some guy and a naked chick who ****ed things up anyway?
...the scientific answer of "we don't know how, but we are willing to learn" instead of theories.
Calanen
11-16-2008, 07:04 PM
If one's faith can be shaken by a billboard, that person's faith is probably questionable from the start.
If one's billboard can be shaken by faith, then that person's billboard is probably questionable from the start.
Calanen
11-16-2008, 07:06 PM
...the scientific answer of "we don't know how, but we are willing to learn" instead of theories.
No silly. Wherever we don't know, we say 'It was God.' and then say "And you cant prove it wasnt God, so it must have been.'
When will you learn how to think clearly young man? Penance of Three Hail Marys and an Our Father for you, and make an act of contrition.
Kilgor
11-16-2008, 07:12 PM
Most atheist I know are actually more moral than the christians I have known.
See... the atheist has to live with their deeds... and accept it.
X2
Many of the "Christians" I know are immoral scumbags, especially the ones in business.
They would prostitute their own mothers and still call themselves men of god.
Redguy
11-16-2008, 07:53 PM
X2
Many of the "Christians" I know are immoral scumbags, especially the ones in business.
They would prostitute their own mothers and still call themselves men of god.
As I'm hoping you already know, all cultures have bad apples. Although I'll level with you, as a Christian I have serious issue with the way many members of today's church are behaving. No Christian has to be perfect, just try and be a bit less of a ****.
martinexsquaddie
11-17-2008, 05:21 AM
we are getting buses we "theres probably no god so relax and live your life"
harder to hit with a paint bomb.
atheist and proud my kids are growing up to know mean the real meaning of Christmas pressies
and easter choccy eggs.
as far as I know neither are mentioned in the bible imho if it had more choccy treats might be tempted.
so taking over pagan feasts and claiming they are Christian bit dubious personally:)
"Don't believe in God? You're not alone."
What a offensive and negative statement... :lol:
I don't believe in God. Nor do I care that members of my family do. I do not feel alone. It's a non-issue for me and I really just don't see why people would bother with it unless they were just attention seeking.
unless they were just attention seeking.That is what it is in my opinion.
Most of the atheist and agnostics I have ever known take a stance on everyone free to choose without outside influance. These billboard atheist... arent really helping their own cause. Prob would be happier with a hobby/puppy/girlfriend.
:P
Russian_dude
11-17-2008, 08:43 AM
Can't you say that about everything, such as:
- the Smurfs;
- Puff the Magic Dragon;
- gargoyles;
- fairies.
Is the disbelief in fairies or the Smurfs, a religion in itself?
Exactly. Is vacuum a gas?
Russian_dude
11-17-2008, 08:45 AM
No silly. Wherever we don't know, we say 'It was God.' and then say "And you cant prove it wasnt God, so it must have been.'
When will you learn how to think clearly young man? Penance of Three Hail Marys and an Our Father for you, and make an act of contrition.
Ah, the "God of the Gaps" (in knowledge).
boet faas
11-17-2008, 10:15 AM
we are getting buses we "theres probably no god so relax and live your life"
harder to hit with a paint bomb.
atheist and proud my kids are growing up to know mean the real meaning of Christmas pressies
and easter choccy eggs.
as far as I know neither are mentioned in the bible imho if it had more choccy treats might be tempted.
so taking over pagan feasts and claiming they are Christian bit dubious personally:)
Thank you, it takes a non-Christian to point this out to "Christians". These nonsense is not in the bible and therefore unchristian, why then are so many people involved in this. I bet there is more depressed people on christmas than on any other day of the year, why... because they somehow feel they need to spend this holy day with family and friends, that is bollocks.
Creeper
11-17-2008, 10:33 AM
Most atheist I know are actually more moral than the christians I have known.
See... the atheist has to live with their deeds... and accept it.
The typical ignorant christian... has a free pass.
"I'm going to screw this guy over but jesus will forgive me"
LOL ! So true !
Yet, I would twist your point slightly: "the Ignorant Christain believes he/she has a free pass,, per sea. But he/she can not pull that 'pass card' out of their wallet.
boet faas
11-17-2008, 10:37 AM
LOL ! So true !
Yet, I would twist your point slightly: "the Ignorant Christain believes he/she has a free pass,, per sea. But he/she can not pull that 'pass card' out of their wallet.
Yeah, but ignorant people dont have that luxary. Imagine Jesus as a very good defence lawer that gets you off the hook in the court of eternal judgement.
Macs.
11-17-2008, 10:44 AM
Yeah, but ignorant people dont have that luxary. Imagine Jesus as a very good defence lawer that gets you off the hook in the court of eternal judgement.
Cool, so I can go around and rape and kill a few people before I leave... ?
Creeper
11-17-2008, 10:45 AM
Yeah, but ignorant people dont have that luxary. Imagine Jesus as a very good defence lawer that gets you off the hook in the court of eternal judgement.
Ok, good point. Imagine everyone being held accountable for their action(s) , be it bad / good without the 'defense' at the table,,,, taking responsibility for one's actions,,,,Who then would be morally functional ?
I for one applaud the billboards from the Atheist groups.
(am I tracking my own thoughts ! LOL)
Ok, good point. Imagine everyone being held accountable for their action(s) , be it bad / good without the 'defense' at the table,,,, taking responsibility for one's actions,,,,Who then would be morally functional ?
Nobody .
Creeper
11-17-2008, 10:55 AM
Then,, are we screwing ourselves ,,morally speaking,,, by believing that we have 'free pass' at the court ?
Then,, are we screwing ourselves ,,morally speaking,,, by believing that we have 'free pass' at the court ?
I'm not sure I follow.
2Sheds_Jackson
11-17-2008, 11:18 AM
Can't you say that about everything, such as:
- the Smurfs;
- Puff the Magic Dragon;
- gargoyles;
- fairies.
Is the disbelief in fairies or the Smurfs, a religion in itself?
Well like we talked about in the other thread...IMO it's not the disbelief that's the religion, it's what you substitute for it. Humans are human because we are self-aware - we question our existence and purpose. If any of those things on your list included an explanation as to the origin or purpose of the universe, and you disbelieved in any of them...that would mean that you are using some criteria of your own to create that disbelief....which would mean that you must be subsisting an alternate explanation -even if you are the only believer in that mechanism, even if it exists only in your head, even if you can't articulate it, and it has no dogma, no ritual and you never tell anybody else about it...it's your religion.
It goes like this:
A: gargoyles created the universe
B: no they didn't that's silly
A: what's your explanation then?
B: _________ (fill in the blank - no matter what it is, involving robots, Xenu, a supreme being that died, or just coincidence....it's a religion every bit as valid as any other.
As to the billboards, I say bring 'em on...who cares?
Creeper
11-17-2008, 11:18 AM
I'm not sure I follow.
ok,, say you have a zillion 'get out of jail' cards at your disposal,,chances are that you may have a few questionable moments in your life, i.e. stealing candy from the store etc,, or better yet screwing ur best friends wife,,,but its ok with the higher ups because you have a zillion of those cards.
let say ,, for a moment ,,you do not have a zillion cards to bail your happy arse out. you will pay the penalty for stealing candy or screwing the old MILF across he block,,,,,
what would you do ?
(is my point any clearer ?)
ok,, say you have a zillion 'get out of jail' cards at your disposal,,chances are that you may have a few questionable moments in your life, i.e. stealing candy from the store etc,, or better yet screwing ur best friends wife,,,but its ok with the higher ups because you have a zillion of those cards.
let say ,, for a moment ,,you do not have a zillion cards to bail your happy arse out. you will pay the penalty for stealing candy or screwing the old MILF across he block,,,,,
what would you do ?
(is my point any clearer ?)
Ok, I think see what you're saying.
Well, the whole idea of even needing a 'get out of jail' card is rooted in the belief that we (everyone) are going to be judged according to our actions- this includes intent. Forgiveness does not rule out a need for obedience.
If one were to willingly commit wrongdoing with the thought that he/she would be forgiven for it anyway, it's still in violation because of several reasons; not the least of which being that such behavior/attitude cheapens the sacrifice that's already been made on our behalf which allows for the 'get out of jail' card to begin with (see: the crucifixion). Another reason would be that it's hypocritical to do wrong and expect special treatment- this much is evident to your average bear.
In fact, the Bible specifically warns against this mindset:
Romans 6:15 " What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."
Hebrews 10:26 " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"
IronFinn
11-17-2008, 12:39 PM
Yeah, but ignorant people dont have that luxary. Imagine Jesus as a very good defence lawer that gets you off the hook in the court of eternal judgement.
But doesn´t christiany say that one has free will? What kind of free will is to be judged if you choose not to be a believer?
Creeper
11-17-2008, 12:42 PM
Exactly,, thank you. You developed the point extremely well.
Ok ,, I would like to see more of these addys come from atheists more often,, not just during the holidays.
I wonder how the current social setting may react.
sepheronx
11-17-2008, 12:47 PM
Everybody needs to voice their opinion these days. Just because one has a feeling and opinion that an entity does not exist, does not make them any more correct then the believers. What is the most disgusting is the fact that they HAVE to choose a specific date to combat believers and try to change others to their own views. It is the lack of respect that is what hurting civilization.
Also, to say that you know Christians that are worst then atheist.....Way to generalize everyone.....
Exactly,, thank you. You developed the point extremely well.
Any time.
I am interested, however, in your opinion of the converse.
If there's no God or absolute arbiter of moral right and wrong, what is to keep us from doing bad things except the degree to which we think we can get away with it?
sepheronx
11-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Any time.
I am interested, however, in your opinion of the converse.
If there's no God or absolute arbiter of moral right and wrong, what is to keep us from doing bad things except the degree to which we think we can get away with it?
Many will beat the words of "Because we are capable of caring for others and keeping civilization together without faith". They think that you can create civilization with others on the respect of no actual punishment if wrong doing was committed. I will admit that religion is no better then the rest, but I am agnostic, so I am a little from both columns.
Macs.
11-17-2008, 12:55 PM
If there's no God or absolute arbiter of moral right and wrong, what is to keep us from doing bad things except the degree to which we think we can get away with it?
Cultural, society formed moral.
sepheronx
11-17-2008, 12:57 PM
Cultural, society formed moral.
Although, noticing in most people today, it is common greed and selfish perception that is what controls most people. I bet it was no different back then. So that thought could be mute.
Cultural, society formed moral.
Right. But that authority only extends as far as my ability to conceal or excuse my wrongdoing. If I can murder somebody for fun and ultimately get away with it because I'm clever, or rich, or popular or whatever; what justification is there for even having morals to begin with?
Macs.
11-17-2008, 01:16 PM
Right. But that authority only extends as far as my ability to conceal or excuse my wrongdoing. If I can murder somebody for fun and ultimately get away with it because I'm clever, or rich, or popular or whatever; what justification is there for even having morals to begin with?
Well, maybe the average human is "better" than believing he can do bad to other people, he maybe wants to be accepted in society and have a clear mind.
And even people who have very strong believes are not excluded, thinking of Pedophile priests, Gangbangers that are often very ""religious"" and all other kinds of criminal religious people - They all believe in a higher authority but still do crimes. Or that famous TV Priest in the US (Forgot his name) who was literally teaching for decades about the evil Homo******s, and about Hell and was later busted to have had *** with a male prostitue and doing Meth. I think that he had (and still has) a very strong belief in a higher authority and even Hell - Seems no matter of how much you try to scare people into doing "the right thing" there will always be people who seriously breach the laws.
Well, maybe the average human is "better" than believing he can do bad to other people, he maybe wants to be accepted in society and have a clear mind.
Well, I guess this point comes down to one's perception of human nature.
Personally, I feel there's enough evidence out there to support the notion that even your 'average joe' is capable of the very worst behavior when he or she thinks they stand a chance of getting away with it.
And even people who have very strong believes are not excluded, thinking of Pedophile priests, Gangbangers that are often very ""religious"" and all other kinds of criminal religious people - They all believe in a higher authority but still do crimes. Or that famous TV Priest in the US (Forgot his name) who was literally teaching for decades about the evil Homo******s, and about Hell and was later busted to have had *** with a male prostitue and doing Meth. I think that he had (and still has) a very strong belief in a higher authority and even Hell - Seems no matter of how much you try to scare people into doing "the right thing" there will always be people who seriously breach the laws.
I agree 100%. In all those cases mentioned, I'm willing to bet those people felt justified -or at the very least felt as though they would be absolved of their crimes- which brings me back to my original post regarding forgiveness vs. willful wrongdoing.
So we're all claiming to be Übermensch already?
LOL
martinexsquaddie
11-17-2008, 01:56 PM
bill hicks said it
"i was surrounded by a bunch of christians after a show. We don't like what you said about jesus.
ok so um forgive me :)"
clean
11-17-2008, 02:50 PM
O God! How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world!"
RECON DOC
11-17-2008, 02:58 PM
O God! How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world!"
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
(http://shakespeare.about.com/od/act1sce3/g/innature.htm)posseses it merely that it should come to this.
clean
11-17-2008, 03:20 PM
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
(http://shakespeare.about.com/od/act1sce3/g/innature.htm)posseses it merely that it should come to this.
Think, without googling it, they would have any idea what we're talking about?
RECON DOC
11-17-2008, 04:23 PM
Think, without googling it, they would have any idea what we're talking about?
Probably not. I'm a big fan of the Willmeister myself.
Calanen
11-17-2008, 05:37 PM
But doesn´t christiany say that one has free will? What kind of free will is to be judged if you choose not to be a believer?
Yes that is a difficult conundrum for said divine being.
Divine being makes a creature which, using the faculties given to it, reasons and believes that there is no divine being.
Divine being becomes angry with said creature, created by the Divine being, and puts it in a furnace for all eternity.
Basic consumer legislation puts at least part of the blame with the manufacturer.
BlackFlag
11-17-2008, 05:39 PM
I'm an atheist, and most the girls i've had relations with were Roman Catholic. Muahahahahaha. Holy water boils when I touch it.
spineshank00
11-17-2008, 07:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH23kuniRNI
snakebiteleader:
If there's no God or absolute arbiter of moral right and wrong, what is to keep us from doing bad things except the degree to which we think we can get away with it?
None.
If I can murder somebody for fun and ultimately get away with it because I'm clever, or rich, or popular or whatever; what justification is there for even having morals to begin with?
None.
It's a cold world. (j/k)
However, last I checked history, belief in a supreme being hardly kept people from doing things that were considered wrong(Bathsheba...Uriah, for instance).
Often enough, it gave them rationalizations to do it, sometimes the impetus. Perhaps, after(if it wasn't church or whatever ordained 'wrong') they might have felt guilt (fear of punishment). Lotta good confessional to personal supreme being does to the victims of a believers wrongs.
...but, He does forgive.
The justice system of a civilised society doesn't, and it's not even infallible.
Although, noticing in most people today, it is common greed and selfish perception that is what controls most people. I bet it was no different back then. So that thought could be mute.
Quoted for truth(but, not the one you perceived/ way you meant it)
Russian_dude
11-18-2008, 06:24 AM
Any time.
I am interested, however, in your opinion of the converse.
If there's no God or absolute arbiter of moral right and wrong, what is to keep us from doing bad things except the degree to which we think we can get away with it?
Genes. We are programmed to not want to do too many bad things. Why? Because early societies with those genes were more cohesive, thus had more children survive and passed those "good" genes more effectively.
Explains why even in countries that have never heard about jebus, people still lead lives about as moral as x-tians (and sometimes more moral).
Calanen
11-18-2008, 06:37 AM
Genes. We are programmed to not want to do too many bad things. Why? Because early societies with those genes were more cohesive, thus had more children survive and passed those "good" genes more effectively.
Sort of. We are pack animals like wolves and monkeys. The pack sorts out the 'errant' members pretty quickly. Police and governments are just bigger versions of the micro pack enforcers.
Explains why even in countries that have never heard about jebus, people still lead lives about as moral as x-tians (and sometimes more moral).
Forget about Jebus, it's about *stability*. You cant do anything if you have people burning things and killing people.
snakebiteleader:
None.
It's a cold world. (j/k)
However, last I checked history, belief in a supreme being hardly kept people from doing things that were considered wrong(Bathsheba...Uriah, for instance).
Often enough, it gave them rationalizations to do it, sometimes the impetus. Perhaps, after(if it wasn't church or whatever ordained 'wrong') they might have felt guilt (fear of punishment). Lotta good confessional to personal supreme being does to the victims of a believers wrongs.
...but, He does forgive.
The justice system of a civilised society doesn't, and it's not even infallible.
Well, my point was never to suggest that belief in, or admission of, a "supreme being" is a deterrent for bad behavior. My point is to suggest there is no basis for 'justice' or 'right and wrong' without some supreme moral arbiter.
Genes. We are programmed to not want to do too many bad things. Why? Because early societies with those genes were more cohesive, thus had more children survive and passed those "good" genes more effectively.
This explanation doesn't satisfy me. If it all comes down to genes and chemical exchanges- we're simply glorified microbes going nowhere in particular- by what basis does one enforce the notion of the rule of law, for example? Is it merely out of the need to survive? Why then, am I not justified in stealing from your bank account if it's an easier means of survival, than say, getting a job?
Explains why even in countries that have never heard about jebus, people still lead lives about as moral as x-tians (and sometimes more moral).
I suppose that comes down to what moral standard you employ. Take cannibalism, for example.
spineshank00
11-18-2008, 09:57 AM
I suppose that comes down to what moral standard you employ. Take cannibalism, for example.
Or crusades, witch burnings, suicide bombings, genocides etc..
Basillicus
11-18-2008, 10:00 AM
This explanation doesn't satisfy me. If it all comes down to genes and chemical exchanges- we're simply glorified microbes going nowhere in particular- by what basis does one enforce the notion of the rule of law, for example? Is it merely out of the need to survive? Why then, am I not justified in stealing from your bank account if it's an easier means of survival, than say, getting a job?
People have formed societies that provide certain type of security because that benefits the people and the society alike. In a total anarchy everyone should protect their own interests and provide their own living. Organized society with laws that are being enforced frees people from some of these obligations, this in turn benefits e.g. trade and science which in turn improves prosperity of the society and it's members. Therefore having rules improves chances of survival. In a way people trade some of their freedom for security. If you could steal money and get away with it it would mean that others could steal the money from you and get away with it.
Or crusades, witch burnings, suicide bombings, genocides etc..
That goes back to what I said about people willingly committing such things in the name of God.
But then, if there is no God, no golden standard to measure our actions, how are we to know that these things are "wrong" to begin with? I mean, what basis is there for thinking so?
Macs.
11-18-2008, 10:11 AM
But then, if there is no God, no golden standard to measure our actions, how are we to know that these things are "wrong" to begin with? I mean, what basis is there for thinking so?
It's pretty much impossible to answer in my opinion because this envolved out of evolution.
Or another question: If you believe in God, what basis is there to make people believe that the Religion (And rules/sins that come with them) they were born or turned to is the right one, out of those thousands and thousands that are teached on this planet ?
People have formed societies that provide certain type of security because that benefits the people and the society alike. In a total anarchy everyone should protect their own interests and provide their own living. Organized society with laws that are being enforced frees people from some of these obligations, this in turn benefits e.g. trade and science which in turn improves prosperity of the society and it's members. Therefore having rules improves chances of survival. In a way people trade some of their freedom for security. If you could steal money and get away with it it would mean that others could steal the money from you and get away with it.
I agree. But if cooperation and working for the common good is correct:
A) how do we know and understand this to be the correct thing?
B) why are we so ****e to putting our own needs and wants ahead of "the group"?
spineshank00
11-18-2008, 10:24 AM
That goes back to what I said about people willingly committing such things in the name of God.
But then, if there is no God, no golden standard to measure our actions, how are we to know that these things are "wrong" to begin with? I mean, what basis is there for thinking so?
Human beings, humans or man (Origin: 1590–1600; < L (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) homō man; OL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin) hemō the earthly one (see humus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus)),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-2) also Homo sapiens — Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "wise human" or "knowing human"),[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-3) are bipedal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism) primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate) in the family Hominidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-5) DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA) evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) about 200,000 years ago. Humans have a highly developed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization) brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain), capable of abstract reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction), language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language), introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection), problem solving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving) and emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion). This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forelimb) (arms) for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool) than any other species. Humans are distributed worldwide, large populations inhabiting every continent on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) except Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica). The human population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population) on Earth is greater than 6.7 billion, as of July, 2008.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-popclock-6) There is only one extant subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. As of 2008, humans are listed as a species of least concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_concern) for extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_for_Conservation_of_Nature).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-iucn-1)
So the modern human is about 200,000 years old (if you don't buy in to the creationist scam. then obviously the earth is about 6,000 years old and the discussion ends here). For how long have peple known about the christian God? I would say a maximum of 3-4 thousand years according to the bible at least. Do you really believe that people didn't have morals back then?
How about animals? Do they believe in god? How come gorillas and other ape species have rules on how to behave within a pack?
Our morals don't come from gods.
Or another question: If you believe in God, what basis is there to make people believe that the Religion (And rules/sins that come with them) they were born or turned to is the right one, out of those thousands and thousands that are teached on this planet ?
I don't believe that there is anything that I, personally, (or anybody else) can do to make someone else believe what I believe to be true. While it's incumbent on me to share my personal convictions and reasons for thinking so to people that will listen, I could never force it on anyone to any positive effect.
I don't have access to anyone's inner-thoughts but my own, and am thereby only responsible for them (thank goodness). The same applies for everyone else.
Basillicus
11-18-2008, 10:43 AM
But then, if there is no God, no golden standard to measure our actions, how are we to know that these things are "wrong" to begin with? I mean, what basis is there for thinking so?
There is not "wrong" or "right" in a bigger meaning, I don't know why should there be. Some things may be hardwired into us, others are learned by observing the society around us. Most people think it's wrong to murder innocent people, it doesn't depend on which religion they follow. Then again e.g. ****** moral varies quite a lot from society to another. What people feel is "right" is a combination of influences from a number of things, and even if a person in a western country is a believer only small portion of those things can backed up with the fundamental Christian values. Well, this ofcourse depends on how liberal or conservative the person is.
I agree. But if cooperation and working for the common good is correct:
A) how do we know and understand this to be the correct thing?
B) why are we so ****e to putting our own needs and wants ahead of "the group"?
A) I'd say it's a combination of many things. Mostly people don't get to choose the culture they live in, they either learn to adapt to it's norms or suffer the consequences. If a person breaks the rules he is punished in some way. Most people want to live as a part of a society rather than outside it, so this is one reason to try to follow these rules.
B) Are we? Mostly people benefit in a long run when they follow the rules. If they don't they risk being e.g. imprisoned, executed or banished. In free societies there are ways to change the rules when people feel their personal freedoms are being limitted too much.
boet faas
11-18-2008, 10:47 AM
sin is nothing more than the disobedience to the will of God.
So the modern human is about 200,000 years old (if you don't buy in to the creationist scam. then obviously the earth is about 6,000 years old and the discussion ends here). For how long have peple known about the christian God? I would say a maximum of 3-4 thousand years according to the bible at least. Do you really believe that people didn't have morals back then?
Well, I happen to 'buy into the creationist scam', but I assure you I have no idea how old the earth is, if that's what you were implying.
That aside, the Bible says rather explicitly that people have known about God since our inception. If one is to believe in the 'christian God', then one must believe that all other religion is a divergence from the real McCoy, as it were.
How about animals? Do they believe in god? How come gorillas and other ape species have rules on how to behave within a pack?
Our morals don't come from gods.
Do animals believe in God? I'm not sure. I don't know if they possess the faculties necessary to do so.
But, if we are to suppose that animals are created beings like ourselves, they must take their cues from elsewhere as well-- more so even, if we are to assume they are neither creative nor self-aware.
Macs.
11-18-2008, 10:56 AM
I don't believe that there is anything that I, personally, (or anybody else) can do to make someone else believe what I believe to be true.
I used the wrong wording, what makes you (If you are someone who believes in a certain Religion) sure that the one Religion with all it's rules and sins is THE right one. There are a handfull of Religions with billions and hundreds of millions of followers then there are around 150 (if memory serves me right) Religions with around a million each followers. Some are similar, some have complete different rules - Even if you were certain there is a God, it still would be like playing roulette to followed "the one right" religion.
While it's incumbent on me to share my personal convictions and reasons for thinking so to people that will listen, I could never force it on anyone to any positive effect.
That's a sane and rational logic, but the thing is that the big religions are pretty much based on "spread the word" otherwise they wouldn't have Billions of followers.
There is not "wrong" or "right" in a bigger meaning, I don't know why should there be. Some things may be hardwired into us, others are learned by observing the society around us. Most people think it's wrong to murder innocent people, it doesn't depend on which religion they follow. Then again e.g. ****** moral varies quite a lot from society to another. What people feel is "right" is a combination of influences from a number of things, and even if a person in a western country is a believer only small portion of those things can backed up with the fundamental Christian values. Well, this of course depends on how liberal or conservative the person is.
Ok, I think we can agree that murder is pretty much universally understood as being bad. But why is that?
A) I'd say it's a combination of many things. Mostly people don't get to choose the culture they live in, they either learn to adapt to it's norms or suffer the consequences. If a person breaks the rules he is punished in some way. Most people want to live as a part of a society rather than outside it, so this is one reason to try to follow these rules.
B) Are we? Mostly people benefit in a long run when they follow the rules. If they don't they risk being e.g. imprisoned, executed or banished. In free societies there are ways to change the rules when people feel their personal freedoms are being limitted too much.
A) Fair enough. I don't wish to discredit the impact one's cultural situation has on their outlook. However, I'm talking about the foundation- the basis for 'civilized life'. The concept of murder, the concept of theft, etc. Things that are far deeper than customs and mores. Where do they come from?
B)I disagree. Lots and lots of people take the 'short route', make ruthless power grabs, rule with an iron fist, are corrupt, etc. Crime and war are two symptoms of our overall selfish nature, imo, and there's plenty of that to go around.
spineshank00
11-18-2008, 11:21 AM
Interesting research:
Results
[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.
[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.
[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openNote%28%272005-11note/n6.html%27%29)
[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of ****** partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of ****** practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.).
Discussion
[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.
[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9 (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html#figures)). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.
[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, *** related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
Conclusion
[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.
There's more following this link:
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
I used the wrong wording, what makes you (If you are someone who believes in a certain Religion) sure that the one Religion with all it's rules and sins is THE right one. There are a handful of Religions with billions and hundreds of millions of followers then there are around 150 (if memory serves me right) Religions with around a million each followers. Some are similar, some have complete different rules - Even if you were certain there is a God, it still would be like playing roulette to followed "the one right" religion.
Compare and contrast, I suppose. If people want to know badly enough, they'll find out.
Matthew 7:7
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you
That's a sane and rational logic, but the thing is that the big religions are pretty much based on "spread the word" otherwise they wouldn't have Billions of followers.
Well, there's 'spreading the word' and then there's 'spreading the word by the sword'-the latter invariably being the result of people mixing or confusing 'the word' with their own ambitions.
Basillicus
11-18-2008, 01:13 PM
Ok, I think we can agree that murder is pretty much universally understood as being bad. But why is that?
Who knows, perhaps it's just one of those primitive instincts that guide the behaviour of every living creature and that have evolved over time. If you put two creatures of the same species and different *** into same space, eventually they'll probably start to reproduce rather than kill each others. Or if either one of them is "murderous", the genes won't survive to the next generation.
A) Fair enough. I don't wish to discredit the impact one's cultural situation has on their outlook. However, I'm talking about the foundation- the basis for 'civilized life'. The concept of murder, the concept of theft, etc. Things that are far deeper than customs and mores. Where do they come from?
B)I disagree. Lots and lots of people take the 'short route', make ruthless power grabs, rule with an iron fist, are corrupt, etc. Crime and war are two symptoms of our overall selfish nature, imo, and there's plenty of that to go around.
A) I think these also derive from basic primitives. Successful creature must protect it's assets in order to survive. Emotional bonds between individuals have many obvious benefits, and when those bonds break, e.g. a member of a group is killed, it will invoke negative reaction.
B) Most of these things are caused by a relatively small group of people while the large majority doesn't have problems living as a member of a group. And even antisocial criminals form communities in prisons. The human nature may be selfish, but selfishness doesn't necessarely hurt others. Most people want to e.g. rise in the hierarchy of the society for selfish reasons but while doing so they also benefit the society.
Who knows, perhaps it's just one of those primitive instincts that guide the behaviour of every living creature and that have evolved over time. If you put two creatures of the same species and different *** into same space, eventually they'll probably start to reproduce rather than kill each others. Or if either one of them is "murderous", the genes won't survive to the next generation.
A desire for self-preservation is a given, as is a desire to propagate the species. But I'm talking about human beings here- and addressing those behaviors that supersede mere instinct. Murdering or raping the other person in the room out of boredom, for example. How would you classify this?
A) I think these also derive from basic primitives. Successful creature must protect it's assets in order to survive. Emotional bonds between individuals have many obvious benefits, and when those bonds break, e.g. a member of a group is killed, it will invoke negative reaction.
B) Most of these things are caused by a relatively small group of people while the large majority doesn't have problems living as a member of a group. And even antisocial criminals form communities in prisons. The human nature may be selfish, but selfishness doesn't necessarely hurt others. Most people want to e.g. rise in the hierarchy of the society for selfish reasons but while doing so they also benefit the society.
A)So, survival is the both the basis of, and reason for morality- to survive and as feel good as possible. It would seem morals are flexible and ultimately selfish. To a degree, I agree with you; I think that's exactly the way things are run in this world: dog-eat-dog.
I do disagree, however, in that it is woefully insufficient, as it reduces pretty much everything to a series of stimuli/response.
And if in the end, everything is simple, selfish pursuit, I can justify all sorts of bad behavior, can't I?
B)I disagree that it's a relatively small group of people behind the world's social ills. See above.
martinexsquaddie
11-18-2008, 03:09 PM
people used to think if you did bad stuff god would punish you so don't do bad stuff.
trouble was people did bad stuff any way:(
the reason most peopled don't do bad stuff is they don't want to or they know they can't get away with it.
the way you stop bad people is by making them stop and making sure they don't get away with it.
no god needed
That is what it is in my opinion.
Most of the atheist and agnostics I have ever known take a stance on everyone free to choose without outside influance. These billboard atheist... arent really helping their own cause. Prob would be happier with a hobby/puppy/girlfriend.
:P
Yeah. I don't appreciate others fostering their faith on me, and by the same token I don't foster my belief system onto other people. Basic social respect if you ask me.
And Leia just smiled at me. I'm in.
snakebiteleader:Well, my point was never to suggest that belief in, or admission of, a "supreme being" is a deterrent for bad behavior. My point is to suggest there is no basis for 'justice' or 'right and wrong' without some supreme moral arbiter.
Okay. Here I would posit the values laid down by the community or rep./legislative bodies of that community, or kings or despots.
As far as a "basis", well...
I dunno. C.S. Lewis wrote something like (totally paraphrasing, here), you can only feel as much pain as you yourself are capable of, i.e., you can't literally feel someone else's pain. I've always taken this to mean two things:1)You can use your own pain as an analogue and empathize, or 2)you can be a socio-pathic monster. Both are equally possible options as we've seen via history's population of socio-paths.
That choice will always remain no matter where the 'golden rule' comes down to the plebes from(be it G-d or State).
(note: not implying that was what C.S Lewis meant by it. I think he meant to imply the need for a Supreme being. It's JMO)
Ok, I think we can agree that murder is pretty much universally understood as being bad. But why is that?
A) Fair enough. I don't wish to discredit the impact one's cultural situation has on their outlook. However, I'm talking about the foundation- the basis for 'civilized life'. The concept of murder, the concept of theft, etc. Things that are far deeper than customs and mores. Where do they come from?
B)I disagree. Lots and lots of people take the 'short route', make ruthless power grabs, rule with an iron fist, are corrupt, etc. Crime and war are two symptoms of our overall selfish nature, imo, and there's plenty of that to go around.
Most of this can be explained as survival skills for evolved pack animals. I think Calenan raised this point earlier. Humans bond. Murdering someone that someone else has bonded to is destructive and elicits a reaction. Lower mammals do this too, do they what. There was a war between a pride of lions and a hunting dog pack in Africa a number of years ago after a pregnant female from one was killed by the other. Can't remember the exact details. Both sides pretty much wiped each other out and killed a bunch of people at the same time. It went for DAYS, or something ridiculous like that. Elephants can demonstrate the same kind of socialisation and in India have a tendancy to take it out on people; there have been instances of elephants mounting organised attacks on human villages; the bastards organise and synchronise using ultrasound. There is a social reaction to it. Add to that higher cognitive skills and things are going to get out of hand sometimes. It depends on what view you want to take really, whether you believe in that or believe that God is the source of everything. But the trick is you can find rationals for both points of view. So in the end, why worry?
I'm about to break into s Dire Straits song now. There must be laughter after rain...
Basillicus
11-18-2008, 04:14 PM
Murdering or raping the other person in the room out of boredom, for example. How would you classify this?
I'm not sure if I get your point. I doubt a person who rapes and kills another one for fun and thinks that it is right is hardly mentally fully stable.
I'd say the only difference between human and other animals is your somewhat excessive mental capabilities. Along all the good things it also gives us the ability for extremely irrational and destructive behavior.
A)So, survival is the both the basis of, and reason for morality- to survive and as feel good as possible. It would seem morals are flexible and ultimately selfish. To a degree, I agree with you; I think that's exactly the way things are run in this world: dog-eat-dog.
I do disagree, however, in that it is woefully insufficient, as it reduces pretty much everything to a series of stimuli/response.
And if in the end, everything is simple, selfish pursuit, I can justify all sorts of bad behavior, can't I?
B)I disagree that it's a relatively small group of people behind the world's social ills. See above.
If you lack any morals you might be able to justify your deeds for yourself, but the people around you might not approve it. On the other hand you may think that morals of the people around you don't comply with what you think is right, then you could try to explain your point of view to them but it's up to them if the accept it or not. But in any case IMO there isn't any universal truth.
For example my personal morals comply mostly with the morals of the society where I live. Partially I probably have just absorbed morals from the people around be and partially they are based on things that I have considered rationally. I try to act according to these morals because doing right feels good and I can be pround of myself (selfish reason), and sometimes it also benefits me when people think I'm a good person (another selfish reason). Sometimes I do also something immoral for selfish reasons. Then I may get punishment in some form from other people, or I may punish myself trough my conscience. There are some things people do that I don't fully accept, and sometimes I talk with people about them and try to make my point. Some agree, others don't. If I'd move to some fundamental muslim country they'd probably consider that I'm immoral person since I'm e.g. an unbeliever and I drink alcohol. My personal opinion is that they are wrong and I am right, but I don't believe there is any universal factor that would give me high ground.
I think that the best solution is that in the end people think thoroughly what they think is truely right and what is not and hopefully base their opinions on rational reasoning, rather than override their own thoughts with some old writings and teachings of religious leaders who claim to have authority given by supernatural forces that cannot be proven to exist. This is not something you should outsource, it is something you have to really think through yourself.
I'm not sure if I get your point. I doubt a person who rapes and kills another one for fun and thinks that it is right is hardly mentally fully stable.
Well, I'll disagree with you here as well. Put anybody in a situation where they don't stand to be penalized for their actions, and they're capable of doing all kinds of awful things. There's no doubt in my mind that people would (and do) rape or killwith full knowledge that it's wrong. Although, I suppose that's neither here nor there.
I'd say the only difference between human and other animals is your somewhat excessive mental capabilities. Along all the good things it also gives us the ability for extremely irrational and destructive behavior.
Mostly agree. Although I wouldn't classify all destructive behavior as irrational- some of it is very rational.
If you lack any morals you might be able to justify your deeds for yourself, but the people around you might not approve it. On the other hand you may think that morals of the people around you don't comply with what you think is right, then you could try to explain your point of view to them but it's up to them if the accept it or not. But in any case IMO there isn't any universal truth.
Obviously, I disagree.
I think that the best solution is that in the end people think thoroughly what they think is truely right and what is not and hopefully base their opinions on rational reasoning, rather than override their own thoughts with some old writings and teachings of religious leaders who claim to have authority given by supernatural forces that cannot be proven to exist. This is not something you should outsource, it is something you have to really think through yourself.
Agree with the bold. But obviously do not agree that "old writings and teachings of religious leaders" should automatically be thrown out. On what basis? Because they're old?
I know it seems like I'm flogging a dead horse here, guys; but the overarching point I'm trying to make is this:
If there is no God, or at the very least no such thing as moral absolutes, by what right should I be disallowed from doing whatever I want (this includes the bad stuff)?
When the sun enters its terminal stage and destroys the planet, and we are presumably long forgotten, what difference would it make if I, or Hilter, or whoever else, made life miserable for others?
A desire for self-preservation is a given, as is a desire to propagate the species. But I'm talking about human beings here- and addressing those behaviors that supersede mere instinct. Murdering or raping the other person in the room out of boredom, for example. How would you classify this?
A)So, survival is the both the basis of, and reason for morality- to survive and as feel good as possible. It would seem morals are flexible and ultimately selfish. To a degree, I agree with you; I think that's exactly the way things are run in this world: dog-eat-dog.
I do disagree, however, in that it is woefully insufficient, as it reduces pretty much everything to a series of stimuli/response.
And if in the end, everything is simple, selfish pursuit, I can justify all sorts of bad behavior, can't I?
B)I disagree that it's a relatively small group of people behind the world's social ills. See above.
The more complex an organism the more complex it's behaivours. Alluding to my previous statement, go check out what elephants and chimpanzees get up to. Animals rape, animals demonstrate anti-social and sociopathic behaivours. Animals demonstrate bonding and socialisation. Hell, there is that photo of an orangutang trying to spear fish in the wild. We are not the only complex organism on the planet.
The idea that survival is 'selfish' has always struck me as being in the same vein as liberal white guilt. A self-hating generalisation based on a self-hating generalisation. Survival can be absolutely selfless, because it is not necessarily survival of the individual themselves that is important. People simplify these things too much. And I'd disagree that survival has anything to do with 'as feeling as good as possible'. So really I don't agree with your premise as to what survival is, 'surviving and feeling as good as possible'.
Also bear in mind that, if you take an evolutionary approach, we are the product of some 2 million years of evolution into a more and more complex an organism. So the it is perfectly reasonable to think that the mentallity of that organism has evolved somewhat beyond stimulus response. And also that an evolutionary explanation is that some animals with well developed pack behaivours (not all animals have needed these behaivours to survive) have survived and those behaivours are passed on. People deal too much in absolutes in that respect. The only pre-requisite for survival is that the approach works; there may be other approaches that may also work. Survival is really, really lazy in the end.
The idea that survival is 'selfish' has always struck me as being in the same vein as liberal white guilt.
Survival at the expense of others, rather.
Survival at the expense of others, rather.
But who are these others you are talking about?
But who are these others you are talking about?
Well, actually, you've managed to get me turned around.
My issue is not with survival.The desire to survive is a given.
My issue is with the notion that morals are essentially a survival mechanism.
Basillicus
11-18-2008, 05:01 PM
Agree with the bold. But obviously do not agree that "old writings and teachings of religious leaders" should automatically be thrown out. On what basis? Because they're old?
They shouldn't be thrown out automatically, but the problem is that when you consider them, you cannot pick the parts that you like and throw the rest away and still retain the absolute authority. You either accept that it is the full, only, and absolute truth, or then not. And accepting the values of fundamental Christianity, or Islam for that matter, can be difficult in a modern enlightened society where scientific knowledge and human rights are on a totally different level than in the middle east among these nomadic tribes some 2000+ years ago.
I know it seems like I'm flogging a dead horse here, guys; but the overarching point I'm trying to make is this:
If there is no God, or at the very least no such thing as moral absolutes, by what right should I be disallowed from doing whatever I want (this includes the bad stuff)?
When the sun enters its terminal stage and destroys the planet, and we are presumably long forgotten, what difference would it make if I, or Hilter, or whoever else, made life miserable for others?
If you step on the rights of other people, some of them will defend themselves or the others and there will be consequences. Do they have the "right" to do that? Well, I think the whole question is meaningless. If you ask my personal opinion, the ansver is yes, they have a right to put you down if you harm them. In practice it's the law that defines what rights you should have, and what rights other people have, and what kind of consequences there will be and to whom. This is dependent on the society where you live, and it's morals since the laws tend to reflect them.
But eventually nothing really matters as you pointed out. Do I like it? I guess not, but the truth isn't always nice, and there doesn't seem to be much rational reasons to believe otherwise.
Well, actually, you've managed to get me turned around.
My issue is not with survival.The desire to survive is a given.
My issue is with the notion that morals are essentially a survival mechanism.
I would hazard that it's more that morals have developed from a survival mechanism. That survival mechanism being extended and highly developed socialisation in a highly evolved social organism. So perhaps what we are dealing with is a chronological issue.
They shouldn't be thrown out automatically, but the problem is that when you consider them, you cannot pick the parts that you like and throw the rest away and still retain the absolute authority. You either accept that it is the full, only, and absolute truth, or then not. And accepting the values of fundamental Christianity, or Islam for that matter, can be difficult in a modern enlightened society where scientific knowledge and human rights are on a totally different level than in the middle east among these nomadic tribes some 2000+ years ago.
It may surprise you, but I agree. "Fundamental" Christian values and "modern enlightened society" are completely at odds with each other. Then again, this has always been the case.
If you step on the rights of other people, some of them will defend themselves or the others and there will be consequences. Do they have the "right" to do that? Well, I think the whole question is meaningless. If you ask my personal opinion, the ansver is yes, they have a right to put you down if you harm them. In practice it's the law that defines what rights you should have, and what rights other people have, and what kind of consequences there will be and to whom. This is dependent on the society where you live, and it's morals since the laws tend to reflect them.
Nobody is questioning the right to defend yourself. At no point did I ask if it one had the 'right' to self-defense.
Also, I'm using 'morals' as shorthand for 'right and wrong', 'lawful and unlawful', 'justice and injustice' and yes 'moral and immoral'. They all seem pretty related to me.
But eventually nothing really matters as you pointed out. Do I like it? I guess not, but the truth isn't always nice, and there doesn't seem to be much rational reasons to believe otherwise.
Again, if this is the case, why bother with questions of right and wrong to begin with? You make me angry? I shoot you. In the end it's no big deal, right?
I would hazard that it's more that morals have developed from a survival mechanism. That survival mechanism being extended and highly developed socialisation in a highly evolved social organism. So perhaps what we are dealing with is a chronological issue.
Hmmm, maybe. Although it's kind of chicken-or-the-egg as far as I'm concerned as I tend to think their true origin lies elsewhere.
Again, if this is the case, why bother with questions of right and wrong to begin with? You make me angry? I shoot you. In the end it's no big deal, right?
My short answer to this is that there are immediate consequences to these actions. But that is perhaps not the answer you're looking for.
Some people are sociopathic and will experience either no emotional response or pleasure for doing what you have described. These people are a minority and seem to form a psychological profile that has been well studied and is still being studied (note, we are in this example talking about civillian society). They often have similarities in their upbrinings and backgrounds, sometimes maybe not (it's a complex area and I am not a professional so I can't give you all the details). The vast majority of humans cannot simply kill another human and feel nothing. Many people cannot even kill an animal and feel nothing, good or bad.
Does the universe care? Well, no, it's a collection of matter. Do other people care and can they do something about it? Yeah, pretty much. And a society is borne.
Hmmm, maybe. Although it's kind of chicken-or-the-egg as far as I'm concerned as I tend to think their true origin lies elsewhere.
Well, that's the thing, and I eluded to that in a previous post; you can explain it using either approach if you want to. So it depends on what you want to do. What do you want to do?
It's inherantly unknowable with absolute certainty. Unless you end up going to heaven when you die; then you'll probably get a good idea of whats going on.
My short answer to this is that there are immediate consequences to these actions. But that is perhaps not the answer you're looking for.
Some people are sociopathic and will experience no emotional response or pleasure for doing what you have described. These people are a minority and seem to form a psychological profile that has been well studied and is still being studied (note, we are in this example talking about civillian society). They often have similarities in their upbrinings and backgrounds, sometimes maybe not (it's a complex area and I am not a professional so I can't give you all the details). The vast majority of humans cannot simply kill another human and feel nothing. Many people cannot even kill an animal and feel nothing, good or bad.
Does the universe care? Well, no, it's a collection of matter. Do other people care and can they do something about it? Yeah, pretty much. And a society is borne.
Well, again, I'm not talking about sociopaths. I think anybody is capable of doing anything in the heat of the moment, subsequent guilt notwithstanding.
Not to be depressing, but again if there is nothing more than what happens between birth and death, what does it matter if others care or not? What good reason is there for not pursuing the maximum amount of satisfaction in my few short years- "good" and "bad"?
Well, that's the thing, and I eluded to that in a previous post; you can explain it using either approach if you want to. So it depends on what you want to do. What do you want to do?
I'm just trying to give some insight on my beliefs by raising what I think are some valid questions. You're free to take from it what you will.
I appreciate the civil discourse.
Well, again, I'm not talking about sociopaths. I think anybody is capable of doing anything in the heat of the moment, subsequent guilt notwithstanding.
Not to be depressing, but again if there is nothing more than what happens between birth and death, what does it matter if others care or not? What good reason is there for not pursuing the maximum amount of satisfaction in my few short years- "good" and "bad"?
I would respond, what is your definition of satisfaction, and why is living a satisfied life a bad thing? Perhaps you have answered your own question though, simply by using the term 'bad'. Why would you do things that you believe are 'bad' in the first place? There is a value judgement here, and that value judgement I think gives you that answer. Because you need to have values to make that judgement in the first place, irrespective of where they came from.
So, if you are going to derive satisfaction from something that your own values define as bad, well, I am not really sure what you want me to tell you.
Strikes me that the bible goes on about the importance of worshipping God a lot. The strict 'christian' alternative is to spend a lifetime worshipping the God that created you in order to worship him. If you think this is more meaningful, well, ok. I am unconvinced personally.
I'm just trying to give some insight on my beliefs by raising what I think are some valid questions. You're free to take from it what you will.
I appreciate the civil discourse.
Thanks for doing so.
And it makes a nice change, doesn't it?
I would respond, what is your definition of satisfaction, and why is living a satisfied life a bad thing? Perhaps you have answered your own question though, simply by using the term 'bad'. Why would you do things that you believe are 'bad' in the first place? There is a value judgement here, and that value judgement I think gives you that answer. Because you need to have values to make that judgement in the first place, irrespective of where they came from.
So, if you are going to derive satisfaction from something that your own values define as bad, well, I am not really sure what you want me to tell you.
The pursuit of satisfaction, rather. And nowhere did I imply living a satisfied life was a bad thing.
However, people do seek satisfaction through means that we would consider 'bad' or 'wrong'.
This is the very question I'm asking: If there is no moral absolute, where does this value judgment come from?
If right and wrong are the result of evolutionary processes (i.e. survival of the fittest), what does it matter if someone should consider a particular action good or bad as long as the end result is that I get what I want?
Thanks for doing so.
And it makes a nice change, doesn't it?
Any time.
Indeed.
The pursuit of satisfaction, rather. And nowhere did I imply living a satisfied life was a bad thing.
However, people do seek satisfaction through means that we would consider 'bad' or 'wrong'.
This is the very question I'm asking: If there is no moral absolute, where does this value judgment come from?
If right and wrong are the result of evolutionary processes (i.e. survival of the fittest), what does it matter if someone should consider a particular action good or bad as long as the end result is that I get what I want?
Hmmm, I find this is complex because there seems to be more than one question here. Also, I'll qualify that I don't have the answer, only an answer, and by answer I mean opinion. And by opinion I mean something that I just made up.
The origin of the values we have discussed. So for the sake of this post let us assume that this is a situation in which God does not exist, because if God exists it's irrelevant because we have our answer.
The next question seems to be, why does it matter what people think about your approach to getting what you want? In a situation in which God does not exist, the Galactic view of the situation would be it doesn't.
The more immediately personal view would be along the lines of, who are these people and why should you care what they think? If you value their opinion then there may have been some sort of bonding, which would be explained with the whole advanced social animal hypothesis. Then it would be do with that opinion as you see fit, you have freedom of choice as far as anyone can determine. I don't see any contradictions here so it seems to work in my head at least.
If they are a stranger, then the explaination would be in order to be aware of the response that it could illicit from them, as that may effect your welfare.
So that is my opinion, as far as I can understand the question.
And in the end, I think we get back to the agreeing to disagree anyway.
As an after thought, it's almost like the last Matrix movie. What is love (baby don't hurt me)? It's just a word, what is important is what the word expresses, regardless of whether or not it is an evolved complexity or if it was created through divine will. The problem with the evolutionary explanation I think is that people seem to take it as de-valuing the strength of their relationships with others because the explanation seems so mundane, self-serving and selfish. I don't find this personally, because I find the results are anything but, and to me that is what is important.
The pursuit of satisfaction, rather. And nowhere did I imply living a satisfied life was a bad thing.
However, people do seek satisfaction through means that we would consider 'bad' or 'wrong'.
This is the very question I'm asking: If there is no moral absolute, where does this value judgment come from?
If right and wrong are the result of evolutionary processes (i.e. survival of the fittest), what does it matter if someone should consider a particular action good or bad as long as the end result is that I get what I want?Easy answer... have addressed this many times when xians ask how could I... a more or less agnostic person... be moral since I have no acountability/whatever.
Easy... not stealing is a moral I was taught inside and outside sunday school. It's common sense for a society to succeed... theft is illogical therefore it's something that is obviously not going to be tolerated by the masses.
Again... Killing/murder. Since I fear no "hell or damnation" why not go crazy and kill everyone that ever did me wrong.... easy, because I was taught that as a child and even more so it's wrong, that to adhere to a rule I must live by it too and set examples. Also...I know the law of man will likely punish me for any random atheist/agnostic unrepenting killings. It's logical that my only life I'll ever have is to have as free and successful as possible and staying out of prison makes sense to me.
I could go on and on with reasons for being moral while not fearing retribution in an afterlife.
Christians often tell me in reply... "If I didnt have to answer to god... I'd be robbing banks and kicking peoples asses on a regular basis"
Which kinda goes along with their mantra... Be a prick... you'll be forgiven.
I have said it before and will say it again.... some of the most dispicable people I have ever known... as far as total douchebags and parasites on society.... claimed to be Mega Christians. That applies to some of the sweetest I ever knew too.
Eknytz
11-18-2008, 09:49 PM
I think God makes sense, it's undeniable.
I don't think God is some old bearded guy in the sky but is some kind of force.
It even scientifically makes sense.
Even if you go way far back to the big bang -what made it happen???
Something can't start from nothing, there was some kind of force of something ,something with the ultimate power, not necessarily some greek god character esque god.
The power or force or whatever you wanna call it that many would refer to as "God".
I do not know if he is truly conscious or anything but it is undeniable that he exists.
personally I think the real question is -is there an Afterlife
(God I hope so)
Basillicus
11-19-2008, 03:34 AM
If right and wrong are the result of evolutionary processes (i.e. survival of the fittest), what does it matter if someone should consider a particular action good or bad as long as the end result is that I get what I want?
It matters because cooperation enhances chances of survival, and other people might not cooperate with you if they don't accept your behaviour.
I think God makes sense, it's undeniable.
I don't think God is some old bearded guy in the sky but is some kind of force.
It even scientifically makes sense.
Even if you go way far back to the big bang -what made it happen???
Something can't start from nothing, there was some kind of force of something ,something with the ultimate power, not necessarily some greek god character esque god.
The power or force or whatever you wanna call it that many would refer to as "God".
I do not know if he is truly conscious or anything but it is undeniable that he exists.
I kind of approve your point. However I also assume you probably are a Christian or that you follow some other religion, so my question is that what connects your reasoning that there is some higher force and the religion you follow? Because I don't see any connection. If there is some higher force, it could be a divine creature of some specific religion or it could be something totally different that we know nothing about. Religious people often waste huge amount of time trying to reason that their God could exist, but it's useless since even if we somehow could prove this it still would be entirely different thing to prove that some specific religion is the only correct one.
offspring
11-19-2008, 03:58 AM
X2
Many of the "Christians" I know are immoral scumbags, especially the ones in business.
They would prostitute their own mothers and still call themselves men of god.
i honestly think if jesus came back today that he would be at a frat party with a beer in one hand and a bucket of chicken wings in the other talking with prostitutes and drunks. and i think today that "christians" would crucify him for that.
that's my two cents
Daft Ego
11-19-2008, 04:18 AM
I think God makes sense, it's undeniable.
I don't think God is some old bearded guy in the sky but is some kind of force.
It even scientifically makes sense.
Even if you go way far back to the big bang -what made it happen???
Something can't start from nothing, there was some kind of force of something ,something with the ultimate power, not necessarily some greek god character esque god.
The power or force or whatever you wanna call it that many would refer to as "God".
I do not know if he is truly conscious or anything but it is undeniable that he exists.
personally I think the real question is -is there an Afterlife
(God I hope so)
Contradiction right there. But I know what you're trying to get at.
Anyways, a belief in a higher power does not immediately validate Christianity or any other religion. That higher power could be pure energy for all that matters. That said, it's plausible that something greater might exist, but religion itself is definitely not a good way of interpreting it, let alone perpetrating its (religious) influence on how countries are being ran.
My 2 cents.
Bia:I have said it before and will say it again.... some of the most dispicable people I have ever known... as far as total douchebags and parasites on society.... claimed to be Mega Christians. That applies to some of the sweetest I ever knew too
Southern Baptist background?
(ducks)
SnakeBiteLeader:If right and wrong are the result of evolutionary processes (i.e. survival of the fittest),
There are things such as synergy and symbiosis. "survival of the fittest" is a simplification, if not a butchering of the theory of evolution.
Basillicus:It matters because cooperation enhances chances of survival
Agreed. Which brings up the phenomenon of people who don't cooperate...and the strange places they have led us in history.
No easy answers, guess.
Hey, is that lint...in my navel...how'd that get there? Well, first, there was nothing, then...p-)
spineshank00
11-19-2008, 04:45 AM
I think God makes sense, it's undeniable.
I don't think God is some old bearded guy in the sky but is some kind of force.
It even scientifically makes sense.
Even if you go way far back to the big bang -what made it happen???
Something can't start from nothing, there was some kind of force of something ,something with the ultimate power, not necessarily some greek god character esque god.
The power or force or whatever you wanna call it that many would refer to as "God".
I do not know if he is truly conscious or anything but it is undeniable that he exists.
personally I think the real question is -is there an Afterlife
(God I hope so)
It even scientifically makes sense. No it doesn't. You just debunked your own argument by saying "Something can't start from nothing" and then proceeding to say magic did it. (which off course doesn't need to come from nothing)
You see how easy it is to do research when invoking magic every time you don't understand or know something.
martinexsquaddie
11-19-2008, 04:57 AM
we are oe the 3rd rock from a fairly unremarkable sun on the western spiral arm of one of countless galaxies each containing billions of stars in a universe thats still expanding.
not exactly centre of anything.
unless you think the entire night sky is a put up job then you are an idiot
Macs.
11-19-2008, 05:00 AM
I think God makes sense, it's undeniable.
I don't think God is some old bearded guy in the sky but is some kind of force.
It even scientifically makes sense.
Even if you go way far back to the big bang -what made it happen???
Something can't start from nothing, there was some kind of force of something ,something with the ultimate power, not necessarily some greek god character esque god.
The power or force or whatever you wanna call it that many would refer to as "God".
I do not know if he is truly conscious or anything but it is undeniable that he exists.
personally I think the real question is -is there an Afterlife
(God I hope so)
Well, the way you spin it you could say that the universe is "God" or the nature is "God". And then you write it's undenieable that "HE" exists, well I thought you didn't believe he was somekind of man with a big beard... :)
It's a theory, nothing else. It doesn't make scientific sense.
The one thing about Religion is, and that's what it always comes back to: There is no rational fact-based reason to believe that what is written in any of these books/scripts is true. Period. You can quote as many Bible verses as you want and hold the supposed deathrobe of Jesus into a camera as long as you want.
A historic source by length doesn't means that it's anywhere near the truth.
The reason why people choose to believe in it is always a matter of choice based on believing something, not rational proving something. That's the difference between people who believe and practice a religion and those who do not. Some people are more ****e to believe in things they can't prove based on whatever reason (For example people who can't imagine how the earth and humans were formed out of a evolutionary process and thus choose to believe in a "easier" more appealing story to them) and those who simply see the world from a rational viewpoint.
unless you think the entire night sky is a put up job
Well, it might be. Depends on the definition of a "put up job". Could be a film projected from millions of years ago with screen stars that are long dead.
Macs.
11-19-2008, 05:22 AM
Well, it might be. Depends on the definition of a "put up job". Could be a film projected from millions of years ago with screen stars that are long dead.
Welcome to the 1700's.
It maybe didn't reach you, but you realise that mankind actually sent humans to space and also landed on the moon and did HUGE efforts of investigating the space.
Macs.:It maybe didn't reach you, but you realise that mankind actually sent humans to space and also landed on the moon and did HUGE efforts of investigating the space.
It took how many light years for the light of stars to reach you, but they might have all burnt out by now.
Thanks for the history lesson, though.
and also landed on the moon
Pfft, sure they did.
Macs.
11-19-2008, 05:55 AM
It took how many light years for the light of stars to reach you, but they might have all burnt out by now.
Thanks for the history lesson, though.
Pfft, sure they did.
roflroflrofl
Calanen
11-19-2008, 07:46 AM
sin is nothing more than the disobedience to the will of God.
Whose God?
Violet Fashion by Mindy
11-19-2008, 07:53 AM
sin is nothing more than the disobedience to the will of God.
I don't need some hippy to tell me whats right and wrong.
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:14 AM
People all over the world know the difference between right and wrong because they were craeted like that. The ten commandments is the basis for everyone to descern between what is right and what is wrong. God gave the ten commandments as the very basic starting point for humans to know what is morally correct and incorrect and even an atheist will tell you that there are a ten commandments and they will agree that that the sins mentiond in it is morally incorrect. Not some 200 0000000 0000000 0000 000,03 years of evolution crap or sociatal belonging nonsense. God told us what is right and what is wrong, whether you believe it or not. How intellegent can you be if you think that our complex existance was the act of an accident that happened by chance. "blockheads", that was a very highly intellectual accident I must say!!
Raptus_regaliter
11-19-2008, 10:16 AM
facepalm.jpg at the first sentence.
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:16 AM
Whose God?
Obviously not your God!!!
Macs.
11-19-2008, 10:16 AM
People all over the world know the difference between right and wrong because they were craeted like that. The ten commandments is the basis for everyone to descern between what is right and what is wrong. God gave the ten commandments as the very basic starting point for humans to know what is morally correct and incorrect and even an atheist will tell you that there are a ten commandments and they will agree that that the sins mentiond in it is morally incorrect. Not some 200 0000000 0000000 0000 000,03 years of evolution crap or sociatal belonging nonsense. God told us what is right and what is wrong, whether you believe it or not. How intellegent can you be if you think that our complex existance was the act of an accident that happened by chance. "blockheads", that was a very highly intellectual accident I must say!!
You crack me up.
How old is the earth ?
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:17 AM
I don't need some hippy to tell me whats right and wrong.
Your mother is a hippy.
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:18 AM
You crack me up.
How old is the earth ?
Enlighten me Einstein
Macs.
11-19-2008, 10:21 AM
Enlighten me Einstein
:)
Well, it obviously all started with Adam and Eve.
I have a question regarding the Bible and Adam and Eve. So it started with Adam and Eve, and they had 3 boys Cain, Abel, Seth. Everyone knows that there is something wrong here, in order to procreate, did they have *** with their Mother ? Which also would be a sin.
And even if they had Sisters, did they have *** with them ?
Is creation based on incest ?
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:34 AM
:)
Well, it obviously all started with Adam and Eve.
I have a question regarding the Bible and Adam and Eve. So it started with Adam and Eve, and they had 3 boys Cain, Abel, Seth. Everyone knows that there is something wrong here, in order to procreate, did they have *** with their Mother ? Which also would be a sin.
And even if they had Sisters, did they have *** with them ?
Is creation based on incest ?
You figure that out, it might do you some good.
spineshank00
11-19-2008, 10:39 AM
People all over the world know the difference between right and wrong because they were craeted like that. The ten commandments is the basis for everyone to descern between what is right and what is wrong. God gave the ten commandments as the very basic starting point for humans to know what is morally correct and incorrect and even an atheist will tell you that there are a ten commandments and they will agree that that the sins mentiond in it is morally incorrect. Not some 200 0000000 0000000 0000 000,03 years of evolution crap or sociatal belonging nonsense. God told us what is right and what is wrong, whether you believe it or not. How intellegent can you be if you think that our complex existance was the act of an accident that happened by chance. "blockheads", that was a very highly intellectual accident I must say!!
A highly intellectual post i must say:roll:
Macs.
11-19-2008, 10:40 AM
You figure that out, it might do you some good.
Haha, are you afraid of the answer ?
The only possible way is that they had *** with their sisters. Which is incest that has big sideeffect as you sure know.
Maybe you can spin something out of the Bible.
The same applies to the story of Noah's Ark. The children of Noah's family and his wife's family must have slept with members of their parent's family, or each other.
Niels
11-19-2008, 10:41 AM
You figure that out, it might do you some good.
Good answer to his question man.
that was a very highly intellectual accident I must say!!
Evidently not very.
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:48 AM
Evidently not very.
Yes evidently not in Mac's case. The best part of him got lost in translation.
boet faas
11-19-2008, 10:50 AM
^^^^^^
through his evolutionary process.
martinexsquaddie
11-19-2008, 10:59 AM
well I have my cute electronic dog god on my desk so I'm going to hell if it exists which it does'nt so take your 10 commandants and stuff em.
Macs.
11-19-2008, 11:00 AM
Well Faas, my question still stands. Should be a easy question to someone who eats the truth with a spoon every morning and know exactly how it all was created by god.
Raptus_regaliter
11-19-2008, 11:59 AM
Don't hold your breath. This guy appears to be dead from the neck up.
seraosha
11-19-2008, 02:35 PM
Aw, quit picking on the little heretic.
Eknytz
11-19-2008, 08:45 PM
Contradiction right there. But I know what you're trying to get at.
Anyways, a belief in a higher power does not immediately validate Christianity or any other religion. That higher power could be pure energy for all that matters. That said, it's plausible that something greater might exist, but religion itself is definitely not a good way of interpreting it, let alone perpetrating its (religious) influence on how countries are being ran.
My 2 cents.
What's wrong with calling God He? it's just like calling a ship her like "ohhh the SS Ahab, she's such a fine ship"
it's an expression.
I also do not see anything wrong with pure energy being god.
Pure energy that creates all this, the Universe, us -that sounds alot like God so in my eyes it is god.
[ KOOSHAB ]
11-19-2008, 09:11 PM
If one's faith can be shaken by a billboard, that person's faith is probably questionable from the start.
DING DING DING
we have a winner
boet faas
11-20-2008, 10:34 AM
well I have my cute electronic dog god on my desk so I'm going to hell if it exists which it does'nt so take your 10 commandants and stuff em.
I'd like to but its not mine.
boet faas
11-20-2008, 10:36 AM
Don't hold your breath. This guy appears to be dead from the neck up.
From your avatar I think you beat me to it.
Elemental666
11-20-2008, 11:01 AM
Yet another set of simple questions was gracefully ignored by Boet Faas.
http://au.youtube.com/v/yTQaQ38_OLI
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2111/our20god20is20an20awesomn7.jpg
My eyes are open now, brothers.
boet faas
11-21-2008, 05:51 AM
Three cheers for Boet faas
boet faas
11-21-2008, 06:00 AM
Yet another set of simple questions was gracefully ignored by Boet Faas.
http://au.youtube.com/v/yTQaQ38_OLI
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2111/our20god20is20an20awesomn7.jpg
My eyes are open now, brothers.
It is because you are like a person that only has grade 3 behind his name and then going on to argue with Einstein about the theory of relativity about which he knows nothing about. Just because you read somewhere in one of your playboys that there is no God, and you obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to figure it out for yourself, you want to come here and argue with me about a topic, of which it is blatantly obvious that I know infinitely more about than what you could aquire in a life time. So if you can read this in less than 2 hours we can try again.
Good luck!!
Elemental666
11-21-2008, 06:23 AM
It is because you are like a person that only has grade 3 behind his name and then going on to argue with Einstein about the theory of relativity about which he knows nothing about.
Right, right. That is why you keep avoiding answering straight. You have all that knowledge, but we just wouldn't be able to comprehend it.
Just because you read somewhere in one of your playboys that there is no God, and you obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to figure it out for yourself
I repeatedly asked you to prove me otherwise, you pathetically dodged it every single time. Until I'll see some actual facts, and not quote of scripture BS, I will consider Playboy to be much more reliable than the Bible and yourself.
You want to come here and argue with me about a topic, of which it is blatantly obvious that I know infinitely more about than what you could aquire in a life time
Modesty, another quality the Bible taught you?
Good luck!!
Fall on your face.
Niels
11-21-2008, 06:24 AM
It is because you are like a person that only has grade 3 behind his name and then going on to argue with Einstein about the theory of relativity about which he knows nothing about. Just because you read somewhere in one of your playboys that there is no God, and you obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to figure it out for yourself, you want to come here and argue with me about a topic, of which it is blatantly obvious that I know infinitely more about than what you could aquire in a life time. So if you can read this in less than 2 hours we can try again.
Good luck!!
And you're like a major Retardo Grande who got the bible read to when he was still a susceptible wee bairn and no one ever told him it is nothing more but a story. He goes around thinking he's better and intellectually superior to those who do not share his unfounded beliefs when infact, he knows diddly squat because being open-minded and eager to learn might make him realize reality conflicts with his fantasy.
But assumptions are easily made.
boet faas
11-21-2008, 06:34 AM
Right, right. That is why you keep avoiding answering straight. You have all that knowledge, but we just wouldn't be able to comprehend it.
Someone throw him a bone, good Ubu! Now that wasn't to hard was it?
Modesty, another quality the Bible taught you?
Quality is the key word!
Fall on your face.
rofl
Policía Loco
11-21-2008, 06:36 AM
The same applies to the story of Noah's Ark. The children of Noah's family and his wife's family must have slept with members of their parent's family, or each other.
Many Christian theologists acknoweledge that the Bible is filled with fables. Noah's Ark being one of them. They are just interpreted for concept.
What was, how it got that way, and what will be, is beyond human comprehension. People have their beliefs to attempt to explain it, whether it be science or faith based. Best thing to do is respect those beliefs and shut the hell up.
boet faas
11-21-2008, 06:37 AM
And you're like a major Retardo Grande who got the bible read to when he was still a susceptible wee bairn and no one ever told him it is nothing more but a story. He goes around thinking he's better and intellectually superior to those who do not share his unfounded beliefs when infact, he knows diddly squat because being open-minded and eager to learn might make him realize reality conflicts with his fantasy.
But assumptions are easily made.
Like the assumption that there is actually something between your ears apart from the piece of string holding them together?
Niels
11-21-2008, 06:41 AM
Many Christian theologists acknoweledge that the Bible is filled with fables. Noah's Ark being one of them. They are just interpreted for concept.
And none of those "many" Christian theologists think that brings the legitimacy of the entire bible into question?
boet faas
11-21-2008, 06:44 AM
There are just as many real Christian theologists who does not believe the bible is filled with fables and believe it to be the true inspired word of God. Why not ask them?
Policía Loco
11-21-2008, 06:46 AM
And none of those "many" Christian theologists think that brings the legitimacy of the entire bible into question?
Not the entire Bible. But the tall tales, which are used for "lesson's learned" more or less. But the is easily aligned with recorded history.
Policía Loco
11-21-2008, 06:47 AM
There are just as many real Christian theologists who does not believe the bible is filled with fables and believe it to be the true inspired word of God. Why not ask them?
The drank the purple koolaid before I could get to them.
Niels
11-21-2008, 06:49 AM
There are just as many real Christian theologists who does not believe the bible is filled with fables and believe it to be the true inspired word of God. Why not ask them?
Because I'm addressing his statement regarding theologists that do.
Pray for some reading proficiency, maybe you'll get it one day.
boet faas
11-21-2008, 06:59 AM
Because I'm addressing his statement regarding theologists that do.
Pray for some reading proficiency, maybe you'll get it one day.
A true Christian theologian does not bring the word of God into disripute, so their claims to that title is a fallacy. If they think the bible is a bunch of fables then they obviously question the legitimacy of it, Einstein!
Policía Loco
11-21-2008, 07:08 AM
A true Christian theologian does not bring the word of God into disripute, so their claims to that title is a fallacy. If they think the bible is a bunch of fables then they obviously question the legitimacy of it, Einstein!
The recognition of such, does not negate the entire Bible. They serve the purpose of teaching moral lessons.
BTW, how's the weather in your neck of the woods?
boet faas
11-21-2008, 09:14 AM
The recognition of such, does not negate the entire Bible. They serve the purpose of teaching moral lessons.
BTW, how's the weather in your neck of the woods?
I am not sure I follow?
Macs.
11-21-2008, 10:38 AM
Many Christian theologists acknoweledge that the Bible is filled with fables. Noah's Ark being one of them. They are just interpreted for concept.
Well, ain't that nice. Now they start to say SOME are fables, maybe in the near future they will acknoweledge that it's one big fable... p-)
So if Noah's Ark is ONE of the made up stories... How can someone claim to know that ? That's only a opinion. The Bible is the holy piece. And if you believe the countless other... curios stories, why is exactly Noah's story questionable ?
The basic point remains: Noah's children had to practice incest. PERIOD.
Adam and Eve's sons had to practice incest, either with their mother or their possible sister. PERIOD. Unless you come up with another story how there were suddenly more humans.
What was, how it got that way, and what will be, is beyond human comprehension. People have their beliefs to attempt to explain it, whether it be science or faith based. Best thing to do is respect those beliefs and shut the hell up.It is not beyond comprehension. It may be beyond comprehension to a certain level right now, but the more science is advancing the more answers we get. We know how things came up during the evolution, we know how the Human was changing, we know how animals were changing, we know how the planet earth was changing, all to a certain level and we always get a little more information. And that in the short time that modern science is at work.
The "respect all beliefs" is, for me, a simple excuse to remain ignorant and get away from difficult questions. I don't respect all beliefs, it would be a awful ignorant way of live. Do I have to respect the crazy followers of Islam and Christiany etc (Thinking Al-Quaeda, Westboro Church etc etc etc) with all their nonsense ? Do I have to eat it and smile and say "yes yes, I respect your opinion about raping women in too short dresses" ?
I am not gonna take Bull**** like "the earth is only 10.000 years old" and let people tell me the sky is green because they read it in a book or got it told by a religious nut. Religion is NOT out of reach for critic and if someone is telling me his tales of how GOD put Dinosaur bones in the ground to see if we really believe in him or if we are not true followers, I can only laugh and show absolute no respect for this tale.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.