Do You Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
542

[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m well aware of what atheism is. You are making moral judgments here. I would like to know what standard you are using that provides the basis for these judgments. I would also like to know what authority they have, otherwise we’re just sitting here saying, “Well, the Christian God did this morally repugnant act,” while the Christians say, “Well, the atheists did this morally repugnant act.” We’re not making any philosophical headway with such arguments.

Do you think all humans share a common experience of being human that we could call “Human nature?”
[/quote]

I’d say we all share a common condition called “the Fall.” If you’ve got some other definition of human nature that we can use to develop an absolute morality upon which to judge the Bible and its claims, I’m all ears. Hopefully, this morality will incorporate and “oughtness” as well. I’m probably not going to follow this standard, should you provide it, without a good reason.

543

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’d say we all share a common condition called “the Fall.”[/quote]

No, that won’t do. We can’t bring religious dogma into it.

You’re the one asking where morals can come from if not from God, and then as an answer to the first question, bring God right back in.

If you’re serious with your question and not simply trying to play games, please leave your dogmas aside for the rest of this discussion.

Well again: Do you think such a thing as “human nature” exists? Something that all normal humans share between them.

Examples:

  • Desire to continue on living.
  • Desire to protect/care for family.
  • Prefer living in society rather than isolated.
  • etc.

Does the base concept of human nature even make sense to you? No sense in trying to work out all the specifics if we can’t agree on the base.

544

[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Also where abouts in the bible does it say about god killing 42 children? Thats some amazing atheiest ammo righ there![/quote]

It’s 2 Kings 2:23-24.

You’ll probably also enjoy Isaiah 13:15-18. Rape and infanticide ordered by “benevolent” God.

The Old Testament is filled with similar passages. OT God was one bad ass, angry, cruel mofo. Completely wusses out in the New Testament.

545

[quote]Something that all normal humans share between them.

Examples:

  • Desire to continue on living.
  • Desire to protect/care for family.
  • Prefer living in society rather than isolated.
  • etc.

Does the base concept of human nature even make sense to you? No sense in trying to work out all the specifics if we can’t agree on the base.[/quote]

The concept of human nature makes perfect sense to me. I’m asking for your definition. You’ve provided descriptions of what many humans prefer, but not all. Are values merely contained in the preferences you described? If so, how will the preference to continue living prevent me from killing my fellow man and taking his resources? After all, man prefers to live, he doesn’t necessarily prefer that other men live, and groups of humans definitely don’t care whether other groups survive, unless my survey of history is different than yours.

These preferences, at best, show what man likes, not what he ought to do. If some men prefer to do otherwise, there’s really nothing preventing them within your framework.

[quote]It’s 2 Kings 2:23-24.

You’ll probably also enjoy Isaiah 13:15-18. Rape and infanticide ordered by “benevolent” God.

The Old Testament is filled with similar passages. OT God was one bad ass, angry, cruel mofo. Completely wusses out in the New Testament.[/quote]

You just can’t seem to keep the debate philosophical, can you? Does this need to degenerate into me pointing out all of the atheistic leaders of the 20th century and their fruits?

546

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Something that all normal humans share between them.

Examples:

  • Desire to continue on living.
  • Desire to protect/care for family.
  • Prefer living in society rather than isolated.
  • etc.

Does the base concept of human nature even make sense to you? No sense in trying to work out all the specifics if we can’t agree on the base.

The concept of human nature makes perfect sense to me. I’m asking for your definition. You’ve provided descriptions of what many humans prefer, but not all. Are values merely contained in the preferences you described? If so, how will the preference to continue living prevent me from killing my fellow man and taking his resources? After all, man prefers to live, he doesn’t necessarily prefer that other men live, and groups of humans definitely don’t care whether other groups survive, unless my survey of history is different than yours.

These preferences, at best, show what man likes, not what he ought to do. If some men prefer to do otherwise, there’s really nothing preventing them within your framework.

You just can’t seem to keep the debate philosophical, can you? Does this need to degenerate into me pointing out all of the atheistic leaders of the 20th century and their fruits?[/quote]

I don’t believe there can be a set of absolute and universal ideals. Maybe the idea of sect needs to be introduced into atheism. You could have your “I don’t kill because I don’t want to be killed in turn.” And, the “I don’t want to be killed, but I bet I can kill you and take your resources without getting killed,” atheist. And the “Life sucks. I’ll kill as many as I can before I get killed,” types.

We need some names for the sects. Any suggestions?

547

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The concept of human nature makes perfect sense to me. I’m asking for your definition. You’ve provided descriptions of what many humans prefer, but not all.[/quote]

Ok, so we agree on a common human nature for all men.

Of what I’ve listed, which would you say do not apply to all men?

I’m trying to go step by step, to save time. It’s no use laying out a long, complicated framework if you don’t agree with the basis of it.

Now that we agree on human nature, we need to agree on what values, needs, wants, etc. that common human nature entails.

I listed:

  • A human wants to live.
  • A human wants to protect and be able to care for his family.
  • A human prefers to live in society rather than alone.

Tell me which one(s) you don’t agree with and we’ll amend the list. Tell me if you think of others we could add.

A common human nature should allow us to deduce common values, no?

We’re getting ahead of ourselves here. We haven’t established any common values yet.

As for groups of humans, we’ll get to them later on. But generally, groups of human will compete with other groups for scarce resources. We’ll be dealing only with “all humans” in the abstract to start with.

We’ll get to that to later on.

I wasn’t addressing you. If you’re going to get distracted or angry every time I reply to someone else, let me know.

Do as you wish. Why would it bother me what other people have done?

548

[quote]pookie wrote:

I listed:

  • A human wants to live.
  • A human wants to protect and be able to care for his family.
  • A human prefers to live in society rather than alone.

[/quote]

Seems like these would fall within a range of value, depending on the person.

-A human wants to live, but may willingly endanger himself for the sake of communism, socialism, capitalism, oil, gold, national borders, someone else’s car, etc. And of course, some really don’t value their own lives at all, and would even take a few others out of this world with them.
-A human wants to protect and care for his family, but may endanger them for all the above reasons. Or, he/she may completely abandon them. I’m thinking of all the broken homes and dead beat moms/dads.
-A human would most often live in some form of society. But obviously we don’t all agree on what kind of society.

549

[quote]I’m trying to go step by step, to save time. It’s no use laying out a long, complicated framework if you don’t agree with the basis of it.

Now that we agree on human nature, we need to agree on what values, needs, wants, etc. that common human nature entails.

I listed:

  • A human wants to live.
  • A human wants to protect and be able to care for his family.
  • A human prefers to live in society rather than alone.

Tell me which one(s) you don’t agree with and we’ll amend the list. Tell me if you think of others we could add. [/quote]

I agree that these are the preferences of the human species. But these are also the preferences of badgers and groundhogs, and many other animals. There’s nothing distinctly human about these, and we’d say that animals act on instincts and learned behavior from their parents.

I’m not pretending we have any common ground on this issue. My worldview is antithetical to yours, as I am a Christian theist and you are an Atheist. You’re on your own. I’m waiting for you to derive a morality and a reason to follow it from a scientific naturalist’s perspective.

550

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

I’m not pretending we have any common ground on this issue. My worldview is antithetical to yours, as I am a Christian theist and you are an Atheist. You’re on your own. I’m waiting for you to derive a morality and a reason to follow it from a scientific naturalist’s perspective.[/quote]

How about this, then: all humans share a desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (happiness), and the success of their respective societies and moral codes may be judged by how much the right of each is afforded to each individual in that society, or sharing that moral code.

The Declaration mentions that humanity was bestowed with these three rights by their creator, but certainly you wouldn’t argue that denying the existence of a Creator necessarily voids these rights, would you?

551

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

I’m well aware of what atheism is. You are making moral judgments here. I would like to know what standard you are using that provides the basis for these judgments. I would also like to know what authority they have, otherwise we’re just sitting here saying, “Well, the Christian God did this morally repugnant act,” while the Christians say, “Well, the atheists did this morally repugnant act.” We’re not making any philosophical headway with such arguments.[/quote]

The Golden Rule is a good place to start, inasmuch as it predates Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion extant today. Even chimpanzees, who as far as I know are not Christian for the most part, understand the law of reciprocity.

552

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

I’m not pretending we have any common ground on this issue. My worldview is antithetical to yours, as I am a Christian theist and you are an Atheist. You’re on your own. I’m waiting for you to derive a morality and a reason to follow it from a scientific naturalist’s perspective.

How about this, then: all humans share a desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (happiness), and the success of their respective societies and moral codes may be judged by how much the right of each is afforded to each individual in that society, or sharing that moral code.

The Declaration mentions that humanity was bestowed with these three rights by their creator, but certainly you wouldn’t argue that denying the existence of a Creator necessarily voids these rights, would you?[/quote]

Well, it’s incumbent upon the atheist to avoid borrowing Christian intellectual capital to make moral claims.

There is no Christian God, therefore there is no moral weight behind the idea of “man has rights because they were endowed by the Creator,” namely because Christian theology teaches that man was made in the imago Dei, which was still a common societal presupposition in the Enlightenment period, which provided the intellectual soil out of which the Declaration grew.

553

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

I’m well aware of what atheism is. You are making moral judgments here. I would like to know what standard you are using that provides the basis for these judgments. I would also like to know what authority they have, otherwise we’re just sitting here saying, “Well, the Christian God did this morally repugnant act,” while the Christians say, “Well, the atheists did this morally repugnant act.” We’re not making any philosophical headway with such arguments.

The Golden Rule is a good place to start, inasmuch as it predates Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion extant today. Even chimpanzees, who as far as I know are not Christian for the most part, understand the law of reciprocity.[/quote]

Does it? The Golden Rule contained a preamble that went along the lines of, “Love the Lord your God with all you heart …” - that’s what added the “oughtness”: divine mandate.

Chimps do understand reciprocity. But this is just a behavior pattern that they practice. They don’t have to. They don’t always. Reciprocity also implies that I respond in kind if I’m mistreated. If somebody shoots my sister, I go and shoot theirs. Why must we adhere to the purpose of reciprocity?

554

That would set the foundation then for rationalizing that distinct human consciousness and that of other animals are a matter of perception and not belief.

Animals (and many of them) share very similar traits to us Humans, including compassion, language, love and hate. It is of our understanding then, that we justify ours with emotions and intellect. For the rest of the animal kingdom, well…

Id like to think there was a “master blueprint” for it all. It sure would simplify alot of questions I ask regularly. But I’m not so dim as to accept that there is “one” way or “one” answer to explain how and why it has to be that way. Religion likes to maintain structure/function/order of it so sentient people like you and me can conceptualize. In my honest opinion, it takes alot of patience and humanity to see god’s meaning, but I don’t think many people would recognize it for what it is when they do.

555

[quote]electric_eales wrote:

Can someone please explain the corraltion between communism and atheism please? I do not understand this?
[/quote]

The question is if people, when religion lost its uniting and spiritual power in Europe, people looked for other mass movements to fill that void.

And, sooner than later such mass movements emerged, like nationalism, socialism and of course any combination of the two.

Yet again there were mindless doctrines, infallible leaders, sinners, saints, martyrs, prophets…

556

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Well, it’s incumbent upon the atheist to avoid borrowing Christian intellectual capital to make moral claims.

There is no Christian God, therefore there is no moral weight behind the idea of “man has rights because they were endowed by the Creator,” namely because Christian theology teaches that man was made in the imago Dei, which was still a common societal presupposition in the Enlightenment period, which provided the intellectual soil out of which the Declaration grew.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but I am firmly of the opinion that if Thomas Jefferson had ever heard anyone refer to the words he penned as “Christian intellectual capital” he would have laughed heartily in their faces.

We’ll leave aside the fact that others beside Christians acknowledge a creator (and indeed, whether Jefferson himself did is debatable). Although the concept of the right of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of property may have been penned by a man living in the Enlightenment period, from a Western European (and therefore “Christian”) perspective, these three things are the desire of all mankind. All societies and moral codes, regardless of whether they are Christian, atheist, Communist, anarchist, Zoroastrian or Rastafarian, either respect these three desired conditions of humanity, or they are doomed to failure.

And thank god for that.

557

[quote]orion wrote:
electric_eales wrote:

Can someone please explain the corraltion between communism and atheism please? I do not understand this?

The question is if people, when religion lost its uniting and spiritual power in Europe, people looked for other mass movements to fill that void.

And, sooner than later such mass movements emerged, like nationalism, socialism and of course any combination of the two.

Yet again there were mindless doctrines, infallible leaders, sinners, saints, martyrs, prophets…

[/quote]

Thus, even secular wrongs get dumped onto the religious. I tell ya, we just can’t catch a break these days.

Looking at it like you do though, even our jobs are really micro-religious institutions. Cause see, a job usually has a big boss (the Pope), the lesser bosses (bishops) bad employees (the sinners), fired employees (the excommunicated), employees of the month (saints), and yes, even those who’ve died carrying out their job duties (the martyrs). So, all human productivity is the result of religion!

558

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Well, it’s incumbent upon the atheist to avoid borrowing Christian intellectual capital to make moral claims.

There is no Christian God, therefore there is no moral weight behind the idea of “man has rights because they were endowed by the Creator,” namely because Christian theology teaches that man was made in the imago Dei, which was still a common societal presupposition in the Enlightenment period, which provided the intellectual soil out of which the Declaration grew.

I’m sorry, but I am firmly of the opinion that if Thomas Jefferson had ever heard anyone refer to the words he penned as “Christian intellectual capital” he would have laughed heartily in their faces.

We’ll leave aside the fact that others beside Christians acknowledge a creator (and indeed, whether Jefferson himself did is debatable). Although the concept of the right of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of property may have been penned by a man living in the Enlightenment period, from a Western European (and therefore “Christian”) perspective, these three things are the desire of all mankind. All societies and moral codes, regardless of whether they are Christian, atheist, Communist, anarchist, Zoroastrian or Rastafarian, either respect these three desired conditions of humanity, or they are doomed to failure.

And thank god for that.[/quote]

Jefferson owned a Bible. He just removed the parts that discussed miracles and retained a sort of Christianity that was consistent with his deism, but still largely Christian.

The Declaration, as it’s written, has no moral oughtness behind it if there is no God as the atheists claim.

All societies are doomed to failure, whether or not they respect these conditions. There’s not been one society in history that’s prevailed since man first appeared on the scene.

559

[quote]BluePfaltz wrote:
That would set the foundation then for rationalizing that distinct human consciousness and that of other animals are a matter of perception and not belief.

Animals (and many of them) share very similar traits to us Humans, including compassion, language, love and hate. It is of our understanding then, that we justify ours with emotions and intellect. For the rest of the animal kingdom, well…

Id like to think there was a “master blueprint” for it all. It sure would simplify alot of questions I ask regularly. But I’m not so dim as to accept that there is “one” way or “one” answer to explain how and why it has to be that way. Religion likes to maintain structure/function/order of it so sentient people like you and me can conceptualize. In my honest opinion, it takes alot of patience and humanity to see god’s meaning, but I don’t think many people would recognize it for what it is when they do. [/quote]

Have you read any of the Gospels?

560

The correlation or philosophical relationship between atheism and communism is the following:

the founder of communism, Marx, was an atheist in that he believed metaphysics (ultimate reality) contained no souls, no God, no objective morality, no heaven, no hell; but only a Materialistic (not “love of money”—but rather: all of reality is referenced to matter and Matter alone) foundation composed of 2 basic competing economic forces: proletariat and the bourgeous, that are locked in a historic worldwide struggle.

561

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Does it? The Golden Rule contained a preamble that went along the lines of, “Love the Lord your God with all you heart …” - that’s what added the “oughtness”: divine mandate. [/quote]

Here is the Golden Rule according to Jesus of Nazareth, preamble included. The only time he even mentions God is when comparing him to a good father who gives his child fish and bread instead of a snakes and rocks.

[i]Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.[/i]

Of course, Jesus wasn’t the first to state the Golden Rule:

Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. (Confucius)

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (The Buddha)

This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Vyasa)

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Rabbi Hillel)

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. (Lao Tzu)

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Zoroaster)

What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others. (Epictetus)

What are morals but behavior patterns that humans practice? We don’t have to, and we don’t always. But we recognize that actions have consequences. So do chimps, so they (and we) generally practice the actions (behavior patterns) that we have learned will garner us the most beneficial consequences.

I’m not arguing that we must. I’m stating that we do. And that we do or do not, by nature. Call it “human nature” if you wish, although other animals do it too.

Oh, and putting on my imp hat for a second, let me just observe that responding in kind when mistreated was solidly codified in Judaic law. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life and all that. Did that come from God, or was Moses just making that up?