T-Nation Atheists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
475

[quote]agshag wrote:
With all due respect, there is one thing that I have never understood with respect to the atheist position.

How do you explain how you know the difference between right and wrong? You may not always do the right thing, but surely you have to admit that deep down there are some universal truths as to what is right and wrong. Now you can tell me that you learned from your parents, society, etc and I will agree with you. But where did your parents learn? So you can see where I am going with this…at some point when humanity began, someone had to write this on our hearts (soul?). Where did this come from then?
[/quote]

Good question.

For me it comes down to an anthropological question. I believe that, before the advent of farming, human society had far less developed ideas regarding ethics and morality.

When farming became established, two things happened. First, people had time on their hands during which they simply had to wait for their crops to grow. Second, people became rooted in particular places, and towns began to form.

While towns offered protection from threats (nomads and such), there were no guarantees of protection from the other people living within the town. I believe that the real origins of morality and ethics started at this time. The reason for this was ultimately for the mutual benefit of all the people of the town. If I don’t steal from my neighbor, and he doesn’t steal from me, we can live together much more harmoniously.

For me, in the present day, this still holds true. Even disregarding all philosophical and religious arguments, there are very pragmatic reasons for living a life that is in accordance with the chosen values of our society. Philosophy and religion are really luxuries that can be taken only after survival is more or less assured.

My anthropological training is admittedly weak. These developments may well have predated the advent of farming. However, I am fairly certain that it would have taken groups of people living together for the seeds of moral and ethical systems to even be necessary.

Todd

476

? It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.?

? The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.?

477

[quote]agshag wrote:
With all due respect, there is one thing that I have never understood with respect to the atheist position.

How do you explain how you know the difference between right and wrong? You may not always do the right thing, but surely you have to admit that deep down there are some universal truths as to what is right and wrong. Now you can tell me that you learned from your parents, society, etc and I will agree with you. But where did your parents learn? So you can see where I am going with this…at some point when humanity began, someone had to write this on our hearts (soul?). Where did this come from then?
[/quote]

Heey agshag, nice to have someone else from the christian camp willing to engage in some intelligent conversation. As to answer your question, it comes down to a matter of survival and instinct. Why don’t animals kill and steal from the others in their pack/pride/whatever you call a group of them? When humans as we know them first came about, banding together was the only way to survive, its easier to fight predators when there are 10 of you as opposed to one.

So now that people are sticking together to prevent external threats, what about the internal ones. Obviously if they were to start stealing/raping/murdering each other their coalition wouldn’t last very long. So to me it seems like these things became taboo, because it was detrimental to the survival of the tribe. And things just kinda took off from there.

478

[quote]agshag wrote:
With all due respect, there is one thing that I have never understood with respect to the atheist position.

How do you explain how you know the difference between right and wrong? You may not always do the right thing, but surely you have to admit that deep down there are some universal truths as to what is right and wrong. Now you can tell me that you learned from your parents, society, etc and I will agree with you. But where did your parents learn? So you can see where I am going with this…at some point when humanity began, someone had to write this on our hearts (soul?). Where did this come from then?
[/quote]

Personally my favorite none faith based view point on morals is that they are an evolving process.

That we are becoming more and more aware of right/wrong in the conventional sense, and as a society we progress.

I.E. there are no moral absolutes, because the morals we have to day are still being developed, and will continue to develop.

I don’t agree with it, but I find the idea fascinating to say the least.

479

[quote]Omnivore wrote:
? It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.?

? The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.? [/quote]

Too bad that this violates many of the principles upon which this country is founded. Don’t blame the schools if the CHURCHES cannot develop messages that are compelling enough to convince people.

Todd

480

T-Nation Christians - 152

T-Nation Athiests - 478

Oooh, make that 479.
We are kickin’ some ass here, LOL!

481

I didn’t want to spoil the Christian thread, so I brought over one of the answers JPBear gave to campdirector. I have a few questions.

Anyway, pretty much everyone seems to be following both threads, so…

[quote]JPBear wrote:
campdirector wrote:
I don’t normally respond to many threads but I felt the need to jump in here. I have many doubts and problems with religion. I was raised in a strict Baptist household and for years I believed everything that was spoonfed to me. Now things do not seem quite so clear to me. Why would a God who is perfect create man just so man should spend all of his time showering God with praise? Why does he need us to worship him? And if he loves us so much like the Bible tells us, why would he condemn us to eternal suffering in hell if we don’t do everything according to his will? Why would he do that?!?

My biggest problem is that you can only enter Heaven if you believe that Christ was killed for your sins. What about those who have died without knowing Christ? Children are born into cultures that have different beliefs and their parents do not teach them the ways of Christ. They never know they have to accept Christ. I have a hard time believing they are sent to hell for this.

I can’t believe that an all-loving God would do this.

A book that I just read that is very interesting is “Shakasta” by Dorris Lessing. Interesting take on the Creation Story.
CD

I think the biggest problem with this line of thought is the assumption that humans deserve God’s love and forgiveness.[/quote]

If God is the Creator, why would he create beings undeserving of his love and forgiveness?

Actually, Eve “sinned” (and actually did so before she understood right from wrong) and her sin was visited upon all her descendants for ever.

It’s a bit like if you disrespected your mother and she slapped you and your kids as punishment. Would you accept that?

If men are sinners it is because He made us sinners. Whatever we are, is his Will, He must take responsibility. By the simple definition of an Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator, nothing can happen that is not his Will.

Why? Couldn’t He just have said “Mankind - You Are Forgiven Your Sins.” All the rigmarole is simply unnecessary.

I don’t get how killing his Son makes up for eating the forbidden apple.

Doesn’t the whole thing ring weird to you?

Perfect justice? Come on, eternal punishment for evil done during an average of 60 years? And not just abandonment or ostracization, but active suffering?

Not one of our civilized societies would consider years of torture a fitting punishment for a crime. Yet, that’s what should be accepted from an infinitely loving God? Where’s the forgiveness?

Why did God create sinners if he finds them so abhorrent?

Why would an omniscient being create anything, anyway? He won’t learn from us (He knows all), He can’t even be entertained by us (since He already knows everything that will happen before it happens)… so, why even bother?
]

482

Pookie,

Excellent post. For me, it goes back to one of my previous posts. Religion raises more questions that it answers, and the questions raised by religion tend to be more inane than the original questions were.

JPBear’s sense of justice does not sound like anything I would ever want to be a part of.

Todd

483

[quote]pookie wrote:
I didn’t want to spoil the Christian thread, so I brought over one of the answers JPBear gave to campdirector. I have a few questions.

Anyway, pretty much everyone seems to be following both threads, so…

JPBear wrote:
campdirector wrote:
I don’t normally respond to many threads but I felt the need to jump in here. I have many doubts and problems with religion. I was raised in a strict Baptist household and for years I believed everything that was spoonfed to me. Now things do not seem quite so clear to me. Why would a God who is perfect create man just so man should spend all of his time showering God with praise? Why does he need us to worship him? And if he loves us so much like the Bible tells us, why would he condemn us to eternal suffering in hell if we don’t do everything according to his will? Why would he do that?!?

My biggest problem is that you can only enter Heaven if you believe that Christ was killed for your sins. What about those who have died without knowing Christ? Children are born into cultures that have different beliefs and their parents do not teach them the ways of Christ. They never know they have to accept Christ. I have a hard time believing they are sent to hell for this.

I can’t believe that an all-loving God would do this.

A book that I just read that is very interesting is “Shakasta” by Dorris Lessing. Interesting take on the Creation Story.
CD

I think the biggest problem with this line of thought is the assumption that humans deserve God’s love and forgiveness.

If God is the Creator, why would he create beings undeserving of his love and forgiveness?

The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Actually, Eve “sinned” (and actually did so before she understood right from wrong) and her sin was visited upon all her descendants for ever.

It’s a bit like if you disrespected your mother and she slapped you and your kids as punishment. Would you accept that?

If men are sinners it is because He made us sinners. Whatever we are, is his Will, He must take responsibility. By the simple definition of an Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator, nothing can happen that is not his Will.

The fact that God has provided his Son to atone for the sins of those who believe is just a testament to his mercy.

Why? Couldn’t He just have said “Mankind - You Are Forgiven Your Sins.” All the rigmarole is simply unnecessary.

I don’t get how killing his Son makes up for eating the forbidden apple.

Doesn’t the whole thing ring weird to you?

According to God’s perfect justice, death and hell are the appropriate consequences for my sin.

Perfect justice? Come on, eternal punishment for evil done during an average of 60 years? And not just abandonment or ostracization, but active suffering?

Not one of our civilized societies would consider years of torture a fitting punishment for a crime. Yet, that’s what should be accepted from an infinitely loving God? Where’s the forgiveness?

Only when you truly understand the gravity of your sin (especially the sins of the heart, which each of us struggle with) and your inability to live a sin free life, can you see Jesus in the right light.

Why did God create sinners if he finds them so abhorrent?

Why would an omniscient being create anything, anyway? He won’t learn from us (He knows all), He can’t even be entertained by us (since He already knows everything that will happen before it happens)… so, why even bother?
][/quote]

can I take a stab at this?

484

[quote]haney wrote:

can I take a stab at this? [/quote]

by all means, so long as your argument doesn’t consist solely of biblical passages :stuck_out_tongue:

485

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Pookie,

Excellent post. For me, it goes back to one of my previous posts. Religion raises more questions that it answers, and the questions raised by religion tend to be more inane than the original questions were.

JPBear’s sense of justice does not sound like anything I would ever want to be a part of.

Todd[/quote]

If at least it raised interesting questions.

My problem with it is that even the basic premises are so ridiculous, I just can’t understand how any adult, capable of reading and understanding, can accept any of those things. If it was a fantasy novel (well, it is, but if it was marketed as such) the critics would pan it as being inconsistent and silly with unbelievable characters.

486

[quote]haney wrote:
can I take a stab at this? [/quote]

Please.

487

May not be an afterlife. I hope there is because life is good but, I don’t want the ride to end when this life is over. What do you call someone that wants to believe but, finds it hard to believe or decide on a religion? I have been in situations where I believed I was dying and I started to repent because there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole. I guess I am spiritual since I find it impossible to rule out an afterlife.

488

[quote]Jonesy20 wrote:
May not be an afterlife. I hope there is because life is good but, I don’t want the ride to end when this life is over. What do you call someone that wants to believe but, finds it hard to believe or decide on a religion? I have been in situations where I believed I was dying and I started to repent because there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole. I guess I am spiritual since I find it impossible to rule out an afterlife. [/quote]

is that a picture of deadpool?

489

[quote]Jonesy20 wrote:
May not be an afterlife. I hope there is because life is good but, I don’t want the ride to end when this life is over. What do you call someone that wants to believe but, finds it hard to believe or decide on a religion? I have been in situations where I believed I was dying and I started to repent because there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole. I guess I am spiritual since I find it impossible to rule out an afterlife. [/quote]

Others may disagree, but, as far as I’m concerned, you just described yourself as agnostic.

Todd

BTW: I can vouch that the “no atheist in a foxhole” thing is not entirely true.

490

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Too bad that this violates many of the principles upon which this country is founded. Don’t blame the schools if the CHURCHES cannot develop messages that are compelling enough to convince people.
Todd[/quote]

I’m sorry. I should have mentioned that this is a quote from one of the original Founding Fathers of this country, Thomas Paine in The Existence of God–1810. I’m sure he would be very surprised at your comment and would probably take you to task seriously for it.

The Founding Fathers of our nation (not T-Nation) were, for the most part, devout Christians. They founded the United States, arguable the greatest nation in the world, as a Christian nation, based on the Bible, submitted to God, and devoted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. One only needs to read the quotes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, Franklin, Webster, Paine, etc. to see that the majority believed in and submitted to God as the Sovereign of the Universe. They actually cited Bibilical violations as reasons for breaking free of the tyranny of Britian.

We enjoy the freedoms and prosperity that we do today due to the wisdom and guidance of these men who formed a Constitution rooted in their Christian faith. These foundational guiding principles are what made and make this country great.

The church has always had the MOST compelling message of all.
It is a shame that we as a people have forgotten this heritage and seem to want to forsake it for something else.

491

-If God is the Creator, why would he create beings undeserving of his love and forgiveness?

I have read most if not all of the Bible and can find no mention of this. I think this is simply a human ideal of the whole worthiness/unworthiness thing. There is a 14th century Franciscan named John Duns Scotus that taught that God would have become man even if Adam had not sinned, since He willed that in Christ humanity and the world should be united with Himself by the closest possible bond. I think this rings pretty true.

-Actually, Eve “sinned” (and actually did so before she understood right from wrong) and her sin was visited upon all her descendants for ever.

I think this is simply a case of looking only at the English translation with the term “Original” Sin. The Germans have a much better word for it in that they call it “Inherited” sin. If you look at as simply the baggage that we hand down to our kids because of our own wounds, then it makes more sense.
Something else that you have to keep in mind is that we are trying to use words to express divine concepts which is all but impossible. So Yes, even as a devout Christian it does ring weird to me.

-Why would an omniscient being create anything, anyway? He won’t learn from us (He knows all), He can’t even be entertained by us (since He already knows everything that will happen before it happens)… so, why even bother?
One word…love. That is the only thing that we can truly give back to God that is ours.

I would like to thank each of you who have responded to my posts with your thoughtful answers. I am not so arrogant as to think that I will not learn something from each of you. One thing I applaud each of you on is the fact that you have thought your belief system through.

492

Here’s another one I’ve brought over:

[quote]awesomepossom wrote:
Ok, I’m going to make a feeble attempt at this. God created us for a relationship. Much like a marriage relationship. (Bride of Christ, etc.) So as part of that we tell God how cool he is and ask for guidance and help (worship) and also on the flip side of that, God likes to tell us how cool we are and He likes to help us. Why does God want a relationship? I don’t know. But the “worship of a sovereign God” is not supposed to be one sided.[/quote]

It doesn’t make sense. A relationship works between peers or equals. An omni-potent/scient being has no need for a relationship. There’s nothing he can get from it.

And a relationship between a God and a man? It’s as if you had a relationship with bacteria.

Er, anything that happens or can happen is by the very definition “God’s Will.” So if it’s possible for you to be damned eternally, well it occurs because God wills it so.

What can stand against God’s will?

It would’ve been easier to simply create us “sinless” (OK, according to the story, he did) but also make sure we remained that way. Or is that impossible for God?

All from His rules. Why all those games?

“Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?” - Ron Patterson

Seriously. How does killing another living creature “please” God in any way? This is some dumb primitive shit. I’m sorry, but it is.

How does that work? What do the blood of Christ and goats and bulls have that works so well in eradicating sin?

How about dogs? How much dog does it take to erase, say, one night of drinking and cussing?

Is there a chart somewhere?

A gift to us? Isn’t everything a gift from God? What are we going to create by ourselves?

And God, what does he get out of it?

I think not many of you have pondered the logical conclusions of having a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, etc.

Your “God” is basically some kind of uber-human; a Man with great powers, but with all the fallibilities we have. He can be angry, jealous, loving, remorseful, etc.

It is possible to imagine a Being greater than that god. Who’s the Meta-God?

God makes all the rules. If he wished for anything at all to be different, he’d need to but “wish it” and it would be so.

If He doesn’t, then it’s because the status quo is perfectly acceptable to Him and having some of His creations end up eternally tormented doesn’t bother him.

Love and Justice, yup.

So when you come upon an annoying conundrum, you just ignore it? It seems somewhat an important point to me, if we’re discussing a God who’s supposed to be pure love.

He provides everything. The way, the ground around it, below it, above it.

No, the real issue should be that guy in Siberia. Why isn’t your just God giving him his fair chance too? What about infants who die before they can even form a coherent thought and are incapable of “knowing” Jesus? They already have souls, right?

493

If I may, one more question along the same lines. Are you familiar with the term “the Watcher?” It is essentially the part of you that is not your body and not your mind. It is the part of you that can actually sit and watch your mind work. Try it and you will see what I am talking about. Simply take a few minutes to observe your thoughts. OK, so who is doing the observing?

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:

Good question.

For me it comes down to an anthropological question. I believe that, before the advent of farming, human society had far less developed ideas regarding ethics and morality.

When farming became established, two things happened. First, people had time on their hands during which they simply had to wait for their crops to grow. Second, people became rooted in particular places, and towns began to form.

While towns offered protection from threats (nomads and such), there were no guarantees of protection from the other people living within the town. I believe that the real origins of morality and ethics started at this time. The reason for this was ultimately for the mutual benefit of all the people of the town. If I don’t steal from my neighbor, and he doesn’t steal from me, we can live together much more harmoniously.

For me, in the present day, this still holds true. Even disregarding all philosophical and religious arguments, there are very pragmatic reasons for living a life that is in accordance with the chosen values of our society. Philosophy and religion are really luxuries that can be taken only after survival is more or less assured.

My anthropological training is admittedly weak. These developments may well have predated the advent of farming. However, I am fairly certain that it would have taken groups of people living together for the seeds of moral and ethical systems to even be necessary.

Todd[/quote]

494

[quote]haney wrote:
agshag wrote:
With all due respect, there is one thing that I have never understood with respect to the atheist position.

How do you explain how you know the difference between right and wrong? You may not always do the right thing, but surely you have to admit that deep down there are some universal truths as to what is right and wrong. Now you can tell me that you learned from your parents, society, etc and I will agree with you. But where did your parents learn? So you can see where I am going with this…at some point when humanity began, someone had to write this on our hearts (soul?). Where did this come from then?

Personally my favorite none faith based view point on morals is that they are an evolving process.

That we are becoming more and more aware of right/wrong in the conventional sense, and as a society we progress.

I.E. there are no moral absolutes, because the morals we have to day are still being developed, and will continue to develop.

I don’t agree with it, but I find the idea fascinating to say the least.

[/quote]

I would say there are moral absolutes, but that there are no absolute moral categories-you never face the exact same moral question twice-however there was an absolutely right and wrong set of actions for each case.