ok.
i see them as philosophies. not as religions.
which means we don’t have the same definition of the word “religion”.
if we use yours, i suppose i’m not an atheist. but something like a religious man without a deity.
fine
i can now agree with this :
[quote]
I don’t believe atheistic/agnostic/highly secular civilization exists outside of being a short (relative) last state before either a demographic-civil collapse, or religious revival. Most likely the collapse. [/quote]
[quote]kamui wrote:
ok.
i see them as philosophies. not as religions.
which means we don’t have the same definition of the word “religion”.
if we use yours, i suppose i’m not an atheist. but something like a religious man without a deity.
fine
i can now agree with this :
[quote]
I don’t believe atheistic/agnostic/highly secular civilization exists outside of being a short (relative) last state before either a demographic-civil collapse, or religious revival. Most likely the collapse. [/quote][/quote]
I’ll have to point out that religion doesn’t denote a deity.
However they are philosophies in that they came up with a comprehensive path to live life. They are religions in the way that they require you to live “religiously” and they have a god, even though it would be different than Christianity.
I would also like to mention that some folks have a dislike for “western” religions for some reason, however Judaism and Christianity are both considered oriental in origin.
[quote]kamui wrote:
ok.
i see them as philosophies. not as religions.
which means we don’t have the same definition of the word “religion”.
if we use yours, i suppose i’m not an atheist. but something like a religious man without a deity.
fine
i can now agree with this :
[quote]
I don’t believe atheistic/agnostic/highly secular civilization exists outside of being a short (relative) last state before either a demographic-civil collapse, or religious revival. Most likely the collapse. [/quote][/quote]
While there are different flavors of the above (some even open or actually including the divine) just the fact that morality (some sort of understanding of “good” vs “wrong” living and or thinking) arises from concepts that science can’t falsify, causes me to answer yes, it is religion. What does it mean to live in harmony with the universe? I suppose, scientifically, that when (on earth) when leaping from a height, you fall. Or, with some kind of engine, fuel, and aerodynamics, you fly for a time. Scientifically, the universe isn’t concerned with our ‘harmony’ any more than it is with the ants’. As in, zero concern. So, at least implied, there is something transcendental. Each, with it’s own way (besides whatever similarities) of alluding to it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, why would there need to be a new and everlasting covenant in the first place? If god really were this omniscient unchanging, benevolent being, why wouldn’t he/she/it teach love from the beginning instead of lording over so many centuries of blood?[/quote]
The question itself would indicate that we have no choice, but we do. If we did not have freewill we would just go about our daily shit with out incident.
I do not know why, out of all his creation did he choose to have a ‘relationship’ with us over everything else in creation. But our interaction with creation and indeed the creator is way different than everything else, that we know of anyway.
I do think it is a valid question, one that will not be answered likely in this life time is why he made things like he did and indeed why does a good God allow suffering.
I do debate the whole “centuries of blood” thing though. While there is a fair share of blood in the OT, there is also a lot of tranquility, peace and wisdom there as well.
My biggest question is why is suffering necessary? I’d rather just write an essay or something, but life is often harsh. And for many faithful, even harsher.
I understand what you are saying, but in my case, I just have to trust. When I do show the faith as explained biblically, it just works out as directed by the faith put in.
I can argue a Prime mover all day long, but these are the things I cannot just insert logic in and come out shiny on the other end. I know this, the more faith I have the better things work out. It’s a wonder I ever doubt, but I still do…
Sorry Tirib, didn’t mean to barge in.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, why would god reveal the truth in “stages” instead of from the beginning? Why sanction atrocities like the killing of infants, only to teach people later that it’s actually better to turn the other cheek? It makes no sense.
It’s blatantly obvious that this god concept, like the thousands of other god concepts conceived by men over the ages, reflects the evolving morality of the people that created it. They were savages, so they created a savage god. When they became more civilized, they created a more civil god.
God didn’t make men in his own image; men make god in their own image. [/quote]
Creator isn’t a concept, it’s a fact. Your understanding may vary, but the Creator is the same. Man cannot make the Creator.
Aside from that you look at it from one side. For example, your example of killing is tragic for humans to take, but it’s merely a transition for God, and one that brings the person involved closer to him.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Average Catholic Children per marriage: 7
Average Atheist Children per marriage: 1.X
I think we’ll out run 'em.[/quote]
I got one with enough personality and attitude for 7, I’ll stick with two.
Sloth, can you clarify why you believe it’s impossible for atheists to have morals? Why would morality require believing in a supernatural being?
Pat, it’s actually more than asking why a god would allow suffering. I’m asking why a benevolent god would actually command suffering, in the most egregious manner I can imagine, for example telling people to bash the heads of infants against the walls. I simply cannot condone that as anything other than savage, primal hatred.
indeed
the universe itself doesn’t care.
gravity is a bitch
thermodynamic is a bitch
entropy is a bitch
the vast majority of the universe is dead.
morality doesn’t come from being part of a mechanical universe. it comes from from being alive in this universe.
i should even say alive against this universe.
because the universe is constantly trying to kill you and make you go back to the inorganical dust.
a living being is something that try to resist the universe, as long as it is possible.
for this reason, a living being has its end in itself.
it is its own finality.
and this finality is the basis of all axiologies.
without it, moral, with or without god(s) would be meaningless.
i’m not sure we have the same definition of the world transcendantal, but i suppose we can agre on this one.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, can you clarify why you believe it’s impossible for atheists to have morals? Why would morality require believing in a supernatural being?[/quote]
Because morality as a notion of good, evil, right, or wrong becomes reduced to risk assesment. The murderer, the thief, the liar, and the despot aren’t wrong or evil. They’re simply willing to take on more risk to satisfy their own ‘good.’
Morality which rises above opinion, independent of how much risk one is willing to accept in satisfying desires, is no less a fairy tale. Break out the electron microscope, the telescope, or the kaleidescope, and you won’t bring “evil” into focus. Try to introduce a mathematical forumla showing the theoretical existence of “good,” “rights,” and “justice.” We can smash subatomic particles together from here to eternity and “morality” won’t be found.
To believe in morality as something that actually exists (not what fits your convienance, “I don’t want to be murdered”) is to have faith in the supernatural. For an atheist to have morals (as if they own something dug up from the ground, measured on a meter, or obtained by evaporting off a solvent) they have to reach beyond the jurisdiction of science. Neither the laws of the universe or the process of evolution give a crap if one human being destroyed all of creation and every living organism with it. So, the fairy tale business, well, that little jab goes bye-bye for the moral atheist.
I’m headed to chemistry. This was done quick and messy, but I gotta go.
just one more thing about morality and evolution.
i won’t say that morality “comes from evolution”.
i think it actually comes against evolution.
mutation and selection, the main “motors” of evolution are passive phenomena, not active ones.
as such, even if they can have “good” consequences for a specie in the long run, mutation and selection are never a goal, an end, a finality for a living organism.
life, by nature and definition, try to preserve itself. it doesn’t try to be “selected”. because being selected means dying.
therefore, even if morality emerged from evolution, it stands absurdly and sublimely against it.
somewhere along the road, one specie became conscious of itself and conscious of its environnement. and this specie, our specie, started to understand the extreme rarity and fragility of Life, and therefore said a big “NO” to the main motor of natural evolution : death
morality comes from this transgression and is transcendantal because of this transgressive nature.
maybe that’s why most myth depicts the origin of culture as a theft or a crime.
morality is more than altruism or cooperation. it’s the “absolutized” version of altruism and cooperation : love and communion.
an absurdity rooted in our mind.
you can call that faith, if you want.
you can be arrogant, and call that “fairy tales” too.
but there is reason if every culture in the world has its own fairy tales.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Sorry Tirib, didn’t mean to barge in.[/quote]No need to apologize Pat. I Sincerely welcome your comments any time. We will likely continue to disagree quite a bit, but I do welcome your comments.
Sloth, thanks for answering my question. Why are you assuming that you need a supernatural source in order to have values? People can value love and self-sacrifice without believing in a deity. Are you disagreeing with this?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, thanks for answering my question. Why are you assuming that you need a supernatural source in order to have values? People can value love and self-sacrifice without believing in a deity. Are you disagreeing with this? [/quote]
Because without a supernatural source, there is no actual morality in a purely natural universe. There are laws of thermodynamics, yes. However, there’s no law in my bio or chem text stating that humans MUST continue to exist in the universe, much less that they shouldn’t kill each other. And I doubt my future physics text will prove any different.
To clarify the diety question, because Kamui brought something to my attention. Originally this thread was only considering theistic ‘supernaturlism,’ so I had been responding with only that in mind. In which case labels such atheism, theism, and religion have not necessarily been used with all variations in mind. There are non-theisic (atheist, at it’s most pure meaning, simply no God(s)) religions (or flavors of the same religion). In other words, due to the original topic I’d been in the mind to interchange theism and religion throughout my responses, not thinking to drag in how non-theist religions fit in. So, I can give them their due respect in so far as dictating morality, the good life, and the recognition of immorality and the wrong. But, only because ultimately they look towards a source no less a “fairy tale” or supernatural.
In fact, my stance is that in a purely natural universe all claims of morality, immorality, right, wrong, good, evil, ‘good life,’ justice and injustice, etc., are merely opinions (none more ‘true’ than the next) and/or simply words reflecting the degree of risk one is willing to accept to achieve desires which have no instrisic right or wrong themselves. To claim otherwise is to embrace the supernatural.
I like your distinction between atheistic, nontheistic, and theistic beliefs. I’m still not clear though why you believe a system of moral values must have a supernatural origin. There are many intangibles like beliefs, emotions, attitudes, perceptions, etc. which do not exist in the physical world, but are entirely natural. I think you may be confusing physical with natural?
Why would an atheist be incapable of valuing love and self-sacrifice? I just don’t see the correlation between believing in the supernatural and valuing human life, happiness, etc. You can be an altruistic, atheistic, naturalist.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Average Catholic Children per marriage: 7
Average Atheist Children per marriage: 1.X
I think we’ll out run 'em.[/quote]
I got one with enough personality and attitude for 7, I’ll stick with two.[/quote]
Lol, we got a lot of developing countries hitting our numbers with 14 kids and such.
[quote]forlife wrote:
There are many intangibles like beliefs, emotions, attitudes, perceptions, etc. which do not exist in the physical world, but are entirely natural[/quote]
Don’t forget religious belief, awe, faith, and reverance.
And none of the the above fix the appropriate emotions to the appropriate circumstance. Do I laugh it up with my pals, basking in the wonderful feeling of fellowship…while we beat some homeless fellow down. Or, do I feel anger and aggression well up within me, having walked up on others doing such a thing? Love, fear, anger, or whatever, isn’t morality. They’re simply emotions, each hopefully felt within appropriate circumstances. But what decides that, regardless of individual opinion? The most guns? I wouldn’t call that morality, since it could shift with whoever has the better fighting force.
Yeah, feelings are natural. But justice? Good? Righ? Evil? Again, depends how your emotions line up to what actions, thoughts and circumstances.
I never suggested that emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc. are morals. I used them to demonstrate that just because something doesn’t exist in the physical world doesn’t mean it is supernatural. These things are all perfectly natural, and there’s no reason to claim otherwise. So why would morals be any different?
What is it about morals, if not the fact they don’t exist in the physical world, that makes them supernatural?
Maybe an atheist values human life and well being for its own sake, rather than because a god said we should value human life and well being.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I used them to demonstrate that just because something doesn’t exist in the physical world doesn’t mean it is supernatural. [/quote]
And, that’s fine. But, I don’t think it accomplished what you set out. In fact, I think it speaks to an uncertainty with your own position. See, I flat out made the claim that justice and injustice, good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral exist outside of the natural world (the whole telescope-microscope stuff). With an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, you bring forth emotions, but not the actual subject of my claim. You might as well have mentioned lemurs or sea shells (I understand why you chose emotions, but it serves no more purpose), anything but the experiencing of Morality with a capital M.
Because not only do they not exist in the physical, but are also absent in the natural world.
Or maybe he doesn’t.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Or maybe he doesn’t. [/quote]HAHAHAHA!!! Sometimes they make it so easy. It really is just that simple LOL!