Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.[/quote]
Than your moral code is your god. You aren’t truly atheist. You believe in something supernatural without reason.[/quote]
To clarify, you are using supernatural synonymously with ‘arbitrary’. Mathematics is not ‘natural’ per se. We impose it upon the natural world to quantify observed phenomena among other things. Does that mean that ‘God’(switching from G-d)is responsible directly for all such arbitrary phenomena of sentient human existence, since all humans born have the capacity to comprehend numbers and mathematics?
Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.[/quote]
Than your moral code is your god. You aren’t truly atheist. You believe in something supernatural without reason.[/quote]
To clarify, you are using supernatural synonymously with ‘arbitrary’. Mathematics is not ‘natural’ per se. We impose it upon the natural world to quantify observed phenomena among other things. Does that mean that ‘God’(switching from G-d)is responsible directly for all such arbitrary phenomena of sentient human existence, since all humans born have the capacity to comprehend numbers and mathematics?
[/quote]
Depends. Do you “believe” in numbers, or do you accept them as abstract concepts that do not actually exist?
If you believe in good and bad, then you have a god of some sort. Good and bad are supernatural.
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
FYI, this argument is one that is used in Kants critique of pure reason and is one of the several where he makes a conclusive case for a case and then against it, showing that pure reason cannot be the only source of knowledge because it itself is flawed.
Not the God but, just that the universe in and of itself must have a cause.
[quote]orion wrote:
Truly religious people are as servile as the next guy, they just already have an almighty surveillance system in place and therefore do not need the state to do it for them.
[/quote]
Very true. I think even one of our own true believers, it may have been Tiribulus, admitted that Christianity is a socialist system by its very nature, it’s just that the “government” is the church, or “a” church as there are many denominations, and the president is God himself. I’ve often argued that the right and left are basically the same: both want government to interfere in our lives, they just disagree on which issues to interfere with.
Other than that, this has been a good discussion as far as religious discussion goes. I tend to agree with SMH. I consider myself agnostic. The cosmological argument tends to prove the possibility of some super force that set the universe in motion and controls it. That’s about it. It is a huge, HUGE leap of faith to go from “some super force” to a personal and loving God who 2,000 years ago sent a son to earth on a suicide mission (as Bill Maher has so cleverly phrased it). ALL religions are superstitious nonsense.
I’ve never been asked, but if someone were to press me, I’d probably respond that I’m currently looking for a new church. Interestingly, the question usually isn’t phrased in terms of “what religion do you practice” but “what church do you go to.” In which case, my answer is not necessarily a lie. If someone were to ask me if I were a Christian, I would probably respond “yes.” Also not a lie since I probably conduct myself in more of a Christ-like manner than most Christians.
If you believe in good and bad, then you have a god of some sort. Good and bad are supernatural.[/quote]
Good and bad are words that we use to describe ideas in our–very natural–heads. Perhaps that’s all they are.
Or maybe not. I don’t know. No one does.[/quote]
“Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.”
This is the statement I was commenting on. If you think good and bad exist, you aren’t atheist.
I never said anything about whether they do or not, or whether you personally do. But believing in them is logically equivalent to believing in god.[/quote]
SMH is again correct - good and bad are words we use to describe ideas. I suppose if someone believes in an absolute Kantian type of good and bad then we can say we are in the realm of the supernatural. But few people, even religious ones, believe in such absolutes. Even a concept such as killing is not absolute. For instance, it is justifiable to kill someone in self-defense or in the defense of others. Although I suppose if you asked a Catholic priest about masturbation he would say that masturbation was always “bad.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:I don’t think Jesus would have approved of using force to provide charity to the poor.[/quote]You would be absolutely correct. What the Son of God came here to accomplish had/has nothing directly to do with politics. Everything Jesus said regarding social responsibility was addressed to those claiming His name. Not the secular society at large. For instance His admonishments about caring for the poor are to be fulfilled VOLUNTARILY by those inside the church. There is no call for government sponsored redistribution of resources anywhere in the New Testament.
HOWEVER, plain communism is taught for those within the church in the second chapter of the acts of the apostles. vv 44-47 [quote]44-And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45-and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46-Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47-praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. [/quote] This is a model for the church. NOT a command for pagan liberal politicians to steal from one group of unbelievers and give it to another group of unbelievers. There IS the command to give charitably to those in need in general in order to proclaim the gospel, but once again that is to be practiced voluntarily by the redeemed of the Lord in gratitude to Him and compassion on the lost which are 2 sides of the same coin.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.”
This is the statement I was commenting on. If you think good and bad exist, you aren’t atheist.
[/quote]
You cannot make it so by declaration. I assert that there is nothing inherently theistic about good and bad. A dog knows what behavior is acceptable and what is not without any theological basis for its behavior.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:I don’t think Jesus would have approved of using force to provide charity to the poor.[/quote]You would be absolutely correct. What the Son of God came here to accomplish had/has nothing directly to do with politics. Everything Jesus said regarding social responsibility was addressed to those claiming His name. Not the secular society at large. For instance His admonishments about caring for the poor are to be fulfilled VOLUNTARILY by those inside the church. There is no call for government sponsored redistribution of resources anywhere in the New Testament.
HOWEVER, plain communism is taught for those within the church in the second chapter of the acts of the apostles. vv 44-47 [quote]44-And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45-and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46-Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47-praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. [/quote] This is a model for the church. NOT a command for pagan liberal politicians to steal from one group of unbelievers and give it to another group of unbelievers. There IS the command to give charitably to those in need in general in order to proclaim the gospel, but once again that is to be practiced voluntarily by the redeemed of the Lord in gratitude to Him and compassion on the lost which are 2 sides of the same coin.
[/quote]
This is getting off track a bit but this is an interesting issue. Are tithes truly “voluntary?” I know that a church won’t send out a secret police force to shake down parishioners who don’t pay up, but aren’t bad things supposed to happen to those who don’t contribute?
BTW, your post shows that religion was invented as a means to impose social order without the need to fund an expensive police force. Fear of punishment from God, Allah, Yahweh, or the Mojo Man became the enforcement mechanism and, to a large extent, it worked. Ricky Gervais said that Jesus is the ultimate unpaid babysitter. His mother would leave him alone and tell him that Jesus would punish him if he did anything bad. And it worked. Worked for me, too. Reading some of the responses in the “What if you learned there was no God” thread leads me to believe that many people still need this unpaid babysitter.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:<<< A dog knows what behavior is acceptable and what is not without any theological basis for its behavior. >>>[/quote]As a man with very extensive experience in working dog training I tell you absolutely false. A dog knows only what it enjoys and what it does not with absolutely no moral content whatsoever. (like many people) Behavior is enforced on an entirely external basis. Dogs left to themselves will maul and kill each other over anything without a second thought. We are utterly unique in that we ascribe morality to behavior for the sake of it because try as we might we cannot escape the image of almighty God that we were created in, broken though it now is.
So not only is your example false because analogously speaking, the dogs would be us and we would be God, but also because it posits proof for the unavoidable theological basis you so vociferously abhor.
Without the image of God in us, our molding of canine behavior would not be possible and would be meaningless even if it were.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:<<< A dog knows what behavior is acceptable and what is not without any theological basis for its behavior. >>>[/quote]As a man with very extensive experience in working dog training I tell you absolutely false. A dog knows only what it enjoys and what it does not with absolutely no moral content whatsoever. (like many people) Behavior is enforced on an entirely external basis. Dogs left to themselves will maul and kill each other over anything without a second thought. We are utterly unique in that we ascribe morality to behavior for the sake of it because try as we might we cannot escape the image of almighty God that we were created in, broken though it now is.
So not only is your example false because analogously speaking, the dogs would be us and we would be God, but also because it posits proof for the unavoidable theological basis you so vociferously abhor.
Without the image of God in us, our molding of canine behavior would not be possible and would be meaningless even if it were.
[/quote]
Dogs are a bad example because they have been selectively bred to live with humans and not in packs like they once did. A better example would be to look at other animals that live in groups (herds, packs, whatever). Such animals, as a general rule, live in harmony and don’t kill among their own species. I realize that there are plenty of examples of animals who eat their young and there’s the black widow spider that eats her mate, but if you look at the higher mammals, those animals we consider to be “intelligent,” you see some definitive social behavior. Why do you suppose that is?
Financial support of legitimate ministry by which one is spiritually fed is the command of God and a privilege. The ten percent tithe is a good guideline. Charity for the poor is separate and personal (for the most part) and a joy if done righteously. If you can’t trust where your money is going you’re in the wrong church.
So you’re saying that God imposed some type of moral code on animals? Yes, I’m really asking. Perhaps this has to do with my Catholic upbringing, but I was taught that animals have no souls. Without a soul there is no consciousness; no ability to reason. If we can determine a supernatural morality through reason, then how could animals, without the ability to reason, be subject to any sort of moral code? Or is this one of those situations where “God did it thi way, so it is good?”
OK Mike I believe ya. You’ve always been pretty square with me, but you’ll have to wait until tomorrow. For now? Animals do have souls, but not eternal ones created in the image of God. Animals are hence not moral agents like us and are thereby exempt from law, morality and judgment altogether. Animals can also reason, but only in a universally amoral manner.
[quote]Simon Adebisi wrote:
So, all dogs do in fact go to heaven?[/quote]More properly speaking from a biblical basis. Animals ARE souls, but they are temporal only and cease to exist upon death so no. No dogs, or any other beings except man, go anywhere when they die. Only we bear the eternal image of God.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Most atheists I know, including me, say that there is good and bad.”
This is the statement I was commenting on. If you think good and bad exist, you aren’t atheist.
[/quote]
You cannot make it so by declaration. I assert that there is nothing inherently theistic about good and bad. A dog knows what behavior is acceptable and what is not without any theological basis for its behavior. [/quote]
Okay, I claim there is nothing theistic about god. Doesn’t make it so.
Good and bad are entirely abstract concepts. They are not a part of the natural world. They do not exist in any tangible form. You can accept them conditionally with the acknowledgment that they don’t in fact exist as more than an evolved chemical reaction. Anything more than that is believing in the supernatural. Meaning they aren’t part of the natural universe any more than god.
You guys are blind to your own faith.
A dog has no concept of right or wrong. Its’ behavior is evolved and learned, having nothing to do with the supernatural concepts of good and evil.
Any language assigning worth is reference to ideas and concepts that have no basis in reality. A true atheist either shouldn’t use them or should only use them conditionally.