[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if we’re going by the average person, and common experience…doesn’t being religious to some degree fit that?[/quote]
It’s not really a basic need. The original assertion was that it isn’t possible to have morals without a higher authority.
I’m trying to show the basis from which you can derive a set of morals without having to resort to a higher authority, starting from common human needs. Religion is not one of them.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No one is average. No one has the same perspective on the world. Life is valued differently by large groups of people around the world. How about if you went and asked all the people around the world if Christians deserved to live? I’m betting that a large part of the world’s population would say they don’t.[/quote]
What if I asked them if they deserved to live? How large a portion do you think would not want to live? If they prefer to live, and furthermore wish others to recognize their right to do so, they must then extend the same consideration back. Every normal, sane human wants to live, ergo arriving at rules like “you must not kill” is rather easy.
In the space of an afternoon, you could knock out a “moral code” that would far exceed the 10 commandments in its reach and comprehensiveness.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Exactly, I’m sure it is just coincidence that never once has an amputee reported a miraculous restoration of a limb. Surely god could do that if he/she/it wanted to do so?[/quote]
It’s apparently to busy amusing Itself doing stuff like this: http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=harlequin+fetus&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=2
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You should be demanding to know why god made it happen in the first place.[/quote]
So your god is a puppet master who orchestrates everything that happens?
If it gives cancers and then puts them in remission, why wouldn’t it cause a limb to fall off and then grow back?
[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Well they do unto others as they do unto themselves, yet I’d hardly consider suicide bombing a “moral” thing to do.
But you consider them a good example of the average human being?
In the Middle East? Sure. [/quote]
How many suicide bombers are there in your family?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, I believe he does. But I can’t say he wouldn’t be offended by such an experiment and heal those who participated. Something about not testing him.[/quote]
You have to wonder about a being who apparently wishes all of his believers to speak of it and want them to convince others of its existence; but gets angry if anyone tries to test its existence by any other mean.
It’s almost like something you’d make up if you had a fictional being to sell and you were afraid people would see through your lies.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if we’re going by the average person, and common experience…doesn’t being religious to some degree fit that?
It’s not really a basic need. The original assertion was that it isn’t possible to have morals without a higher authority.
I’m trying to show the basis from which you can derive a set of morals without having to resort to a higher authority, starting from common human needs. Religion is not one of them.
[/quote]
Well, yeah. The mafia hitman has a different set of morals than myself. So, it is possible for each of us to come up with our own set of morals. Of course, you still need a higher authority to enforce them. Even it’s a government.
[quote]pookie wrote:
forlife wrote:
Exactly, I’m sure it is just coincidence that never once has an amputee reported a miraculous restoration of a limb. Surely god could do that if he/she/it wanted to do so?
It’s apparently to busy amusing Itself doing stuff like this: http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=harlequin+fetus&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=2
[/quote]
We do believe in an all powerful God. So of course restoring a limb would be doable.
And birth defects aren’t exactly foreign to Christians. We do a lot of charitable work with children’s hospitals, after all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, yeah. The mafia hitman has a different set of morals than myself. So, it is possible for each of us to come up with our own set of morals.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure the mafia hitman won’t consider his job “moral.” He’ll probably justify the necessity of it, but from the few interviews I’ve seen given by criminals, they know that what they do is wrong.
God enforces nothing. Any and all enforcement is done solely by human societies, so that doesn’t change.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We do believe in an all powerful God. So of course restoring a limb would be doable.[/quote]
Sure. Pigs could fly too.
The day limb regeneration happens, it will be because men have figured out how to make it happen.
If you rely on god and pray for it, it never will.
Well that’s nice. Why are you trying to prevent your god’s will from being accomplished? If it sees fit to inflict some horrible disease on a kid, who are you to try and reverse that decision?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, yeah. The mafia hitman has a different set of morals than myself. So, it is possible for each of us to come up with our own set of morals.
I’m pretty sure the mafia hitman won’t consider his job “moral.” He’ll probably justify the necessity of it, but from the few interviews I’ve seen given by criminals, they know that what they do is wrong.
Of course, you still need a higher authority to enforce them. Even it’s a government.
God enforces nothing. Any and all enforcement is done solely by human societies, so that doesn’t change.
[/quote]
Why shouldn’t he? Maybe he’s sold on survival of the fittest. Maybe that’s his morality. What you’re now talking about is legality, no?
So you do rely on guns, and a higher authority than the individual, to define at least some morals. Or for some here, not really what is moral, but just what is illegal. If it can be enforced by an armed force, of course.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We do believe in an all powerful God. So of course restoring a limb would be doable.
Sure. Pigs could fly too.
The day limb regeneration happens, it will be because men have figured out how to make it happen.
If you rely on god and pray for it, it never will.
And birth defects aren’t exactly foreign to Christians. We do a lot of charitable work with children’s hospitals, after all.
Well that’s nice. Why are you trying to prevent your god’s will from being accomplished? If it sees fit to inflict some horrible disease on a kid, who are you to try and reverse that decision?
[/quote]
Not trying to be an ass. However, you really don’t seem to understand alot about our view of man’s relationship with God, and God with the world. Christianity is nowhere near monolithic on how, when, and if God intercedes in any measurable way on our physical world today. In my case, I maintain that I have been the beneficiary on divine intercession. That I have had a personal revelation that you would call supernatural. Well, you would probably call it crazy. Fine. But I can’t dismiss it.
However, you ask if we’re trying to prevent God’s deforming of a child. As if I explain - like a pagan explaining why the wind just blew out of the north - every single instance, or act of, nature is directly and specifically planned. If you think about it, that’s obviously not the case as we do try to reverse the disease. I mean, we have/had priests, nuns, pastors, and lay people aid lepers, the mentally handicapped, those with HIV/AIDS, etc. Of course, most atheists I know allow for the killing of perfectly healthy human beings in the womb.
And where’s the obligatory spaghetti monster pic? Did I overlook it in this thread? It’s my favorite atheist icon.
[quote]forlife wrote:
More than a definite maybe, isn’t it a logical necessity? In order for something to exist outside of our particular universe, wouldn’t it have to be in its own universe? What other possibility is there?
[/quote]
You are assuming that for something to exist it must be perceivable buy our current means and subject to our current understanding.
Watt if the being did not exist in a physical universe, but rather in a separate spiritual state which does not require time or space?
Obviously this state is beyond our understanding but it is possible. Not so long ago we were unaware of ultraviolet light because we had no means to perceive it.
You have pointed out that, with our current knowledge, you believe that it is more likely that there is no god, but our level of knowledge is so small and evidence for both so insignificant that it is silly to prefer one over the other. Neither option has enough support to make it a logical preference.
When you consider everything that we don’t understand, what we do understand is statistically insignificant to form a preference.
Edit: I know this is from a few pages back.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doesn’t change existence whether he does or not so it’s an entirely unscientific approach to testing for existence.
I do not think god can be put in a box and tested with defined rules.
Quite beating around the bush. Recovery from an illness is an observable and documentable fact. So answer the question:
Does your god heal people more often than expected by chance alone, or not?[/quote]
If god healed people more often than expected by chance alone, how would we know? Could we say, “Hey god, could you cut out that healing people bullshit so we can see if you are healing people faster than would be expected by chance alone?” Or wait, since we are talking to god now, lets just ask god.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
pookie wrote:
Depends on whether it’s an amputee asking for his limb back.
Exactly, I’m sure it is just coincidence that never once has an amputee reported a miraculous restoration of a limb. Surely god could do that if he/she/it wanted to do so?
You should be demanding to know why god made it happen in the first place.[/quote]
Cocaine’s a hell of a drug.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think you know very much about science.
You claim religions try and twist facts to justify their preconceived notions while twisted your failed grasp on science to justify yours.
You demand scientific proof and evidence for beliefs unlike your own while simultaneously excusing yours as beyond the scope of science.
And probably call religious folks hypocrites fairly often.[/quote]
So…
Science = Able to admit some things are outside it’s current scope.
Religion = Everything in this fairy tale collection is right, we said so.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not trying to be an ass. However, you really don’t seem to understand alot about our view of man’s relationship with God, and God with the world. Christianity is nowhere near monolithic on how, when, and if God intercedes in any measurable way on our physical world today. In my case, I maintain that I have been the beneficiary on divine intercession. That I have had a personal revelation that you would call supernatural. Well, you would probably call it crazy. Fine. But I can’t dismiss it.[/quote]
You may be shocked to hear this, but I don’t call the experience crazy. Ever. Because it’s not supposed to be called crazy, and to imply that it is would be insulting.
It’s called Di-Methyl-Tryptamine.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You should be demanding to know why god made it happen in the first place.
So your god is a puppet master who orchestrates everything that happens?
If it gives cancers and then puts them in remission, why wouldn’t it cause a limb to fall off and then grow back?
[/quote]
No I was say If you think of god in the terms forelife does he should just make bad things not happen, rather than healing after the fact.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, I believe he does. But I can’t say he wouldn’t be offended by such an experiment and heal those who participated. Something about not testing him.
You have to wonder about a being who apparently wishes all of his believers to speak of it and want them to convince others of its existence; but gets angry if anyone tries to test its existence by any other mean.
It’s almost like something you’d make up if you had a fictional being to sell and you were afraid people would see through your lies.
[/quote]
No, I didn’t say he would get angry. I was saying forelife’s “science” was making assumptions about god’s behavior that it cannot, even if it is supposedly testing explicitly the Christian God. You have to admit his science is full of crap.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, yeah. The mafia hitman has a different set of morals than myself. So, it is possible for each of us to come up with our own set of morals.
I’m pretty sure the mafia hitman won’t consider his job “moral.” He’ll probably justify the necessity of it, but from the few interviews I’ve seen given by criminals, they know that what they do is wrong.
Of course, you still need a higher authority to enforce them. Even it’s a government.
God enforces nothing. Any and all enforcement is done solely by human societies, so that doesn’t change.
[/quote]
Even most people in the US think killing in a uniform, at war is not immoral. So are there now stipulations to some of your 100% air tight (expect for a few decenters we classify as insane so we don’t have to count their opinions).
If you sit down and bang out a moral list then enforce it on others, you are forcing your opinions and beliefs on others and are no better than a religion controlling a country forcing their beliefs on others.
6+ billion people from everywhere on the globe will never agree on even the simplest, most basic things.