DescentBB

There is just too much propaganda on the net today. Out of those three who is really growing faster.

It probably comes down to which group is breeding faster, as cold and calculating as that sounds.

I think so, TC, and I'd dare to guess that the winning group is Muslims.

Afraid so.

Not that easy.

I wish human beings would 'grow up' and throw off the dangerous fairy tales of religion...

(Though it's pretty clear that human beings would find some other way to divide and war against each other in non-religious skirmishes.)

Hitler 'grew up', embraced various scientific theories of his time, and tried to cleanse the human race. Today certain people have 'grown up' and are trying to centralize government for the entire world. It's not a matter of growing up, its a matter of evil ambitions and giving place to deception. You're not free of religion just because you've embraced Atheism (editorially speaking). The truth is that the increasingly Atheistic aspect of our society has problems all its own.

Not saying that "religion" doesn't bear the faults that should be laid at its doorstep, but getting on a high horse and stating that "If only" people would embrace Atheism invites deception.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:but getting on a high horse and stating that "If only" people would embrace Atheism invites deception.

He didn't. Reread.

Atheism makes it easier to see evil for what it really is: evil. Otherwise we're left with evil packaged as the will of God.

There's nothing wrong with religion. I know, I know, a statement like that coming from me. It's when it's used as a reason to gain power and control or influence large numbers of people to some end, it becomes a dangerous problem. Humans will always have a desire for a spiritual explanation to life. It's called religiosity and there's a part of the brain devoted to it. It won't go away anytime soon.

If there is no God then religion is a completely useless waste of time and energy and should be immediately dismissed. If there is, who needs a religion to seek him out?

[ Post made via Android ]

flip wrote:If there is no God then religion is a completely useless waste of time and energy and should be immediately dismissed. If there is, who needs a religion to seek him out?

[ Post made via Android ]

That's true, so why do we have bozos like these running around telling us we're going to hell just for breathing? He's certainly not doing a very good job of "selling" Christ or God.

http://www.dailybarometer.com/right-to-preach-1.2692059

If I'd known this moron was going to be speaking on campus that day, I might have gone down there, stood by and exercised my "freedom of speech" by flipping him the bird in silent protest.

I think religion is also a social bonding thing. Humans always want to belong to some "tribe" that others don't, so the socialization and religiosity parts of the brain are BOTH satisfied.

tunnelcat wrote:

flip wrote:I think religion is also a social bonding thing. Humans always want to belong to some "tribe" that others don't, so the socialization and religiosity parts of the brain are BOTH satisfied.

Totally. But I'd rather be part of a game clan and make video games my religion. At least no one gets hurt in the "holy wars" (well, butt-hurt maybe...).

Taking the complexity of all things into account, it is a hard thing to just dismiss the idea that there is a God. Oh yeah, I didn't say that social bonding stuff, TC did. I think there are very good reasons to believe in creation over the social aspects of it but I respect the closed and narrow-mindedness of others .

To make clear I actually agree with you TC. From what I've seen, a great deal of people just go to church so they can fit into their fine community. It's like a club for the fine, upstanding professionals around here and it seems they are almost required to attend to keep their standing in the community. They are getting their reward now.

Hitler 'grew up', embraced various scientific theories of his time, and tried to cleanse the human race. Today certain people have 'grown up' and are trying to centralize government for the entire world. It's not a matter of growing up, its a matter of evil ambitions and giving place to deception.

Interesting I was just thinking about Hitler a few days ago. Seems his whole basis for his beliefs were steeped in Christianity. He professed belief that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had started a revolt to overturn the jews until they killed him, which also seemed to be widely accepted by the population there. They saw the Jews as scourge and that God's will was to actually wipe them off the earth. Honestly, the deep seated motive was to eradicate all jews from off the earth and therefore break prophecy, but that's a different story. No jews, no temple, no return . That's why I promote belief in Jesus to whoever cares to listen and usually have nothing but contention in the church. Although, if I don't get up a clap for somebody for doing their duty or has an improper understanding of his authority and purpose, I tend to stand out. Go figure. Whether I'm right or wrong initially, that seems to be the test. Standing against the crowd. Hitler had a lot of encouragement from the Church in his day, I don't trust them either.

You know I do seem to remember that he had the support of the catholic church over there. I know that he was involved in the occult, but that he had religious motives, however screwed up, is news to me.

Supposedly both protestant and catholic consented.

The government of Vatican City has a unique structure. The Pope is the sovereign of the state. Legislative authority is vested in the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, a body of cardinals appointed by the Pope for five-year periods. Executive power is in the hands of the President of that commission, assisted by the General Secretary and Deputy General Secretary. The state's foreign relations are entrusted to the Holy See's Secretariat of State and diplomatic service. Nevertheless, the pope has full and absolute executive, legislative and judicial power over Vatican City. He is currently the only absolute monarch in Europe.

This is the religious model for government and it is starting to mirror the American Church. Scary and resilient as hell.

EDIT:

Although it is often referred to by the term "the Vatican", the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929, while the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times. Ambassadors are officially accredited not to the Vatican City State but to "the Holy See", and papal representatives to states and international organizations are recognized as representing the Holy See, not the Vatican City State.

Ok I was wrong. This is where to look. These guys have been around for 2000 solid years.

vision wrote:Atheism makes it easier to see evil for what it really is: evil. Otherwise we're left with evil packaged as the will of God.

Wow.

Lets be clear here: Pretending that the crusades were biblical is basically willful misinterpretation of the Bible. The wars that occurred in the old testament have to be viewed in context; it was a time when big, bloody invasions of the land were basically the norm. There can be more discussion about the biblical wars, but it's also misinterpretation of the Bible to pretend that they were something that was purely evil.

Furthermore, without God, there is no concrete universal standard by which to define good and evil. True Atheism leads to true normative moral relativism, which strips you of the right to any claims about good or evil. The popular US version of atheism that everyone claims isn't really ideologically pure, and cherry picks whatever is convenient from many sources. If you want to make claims about good and evil, you need to do so against a standard, and making up your own only works for you; not everyone. If you want to use the Bible's definition, then you can't be an atheist, and we can talk about how you're misrepresenting God in your claims.

snoopy wrote:Wow.

Wow.

I had to do some searching for this one, but South Park did an episode about the very subject of human nature and what happens when a population tries to eliminate all religion. Even the Atheists couldn't get along.

Go God Go XII

The moral was that there is always something that will take it's place. It can't be eliminated, only transformed, because it's one of those desires hardwired into the brain, AND there will always be conflict between different groups of people because of it.

You can believe God is the ultimate ethical authority either

1) without reason, but then anyone can believe in anything as their ultimate ethical authority just as easily; religion has no advantage
2) with reason, but then you are conceding by appealing to a higher authority than God

For instance, if there is no "good" outside of what any religion says, then how can we compare the ethics of different religions, as long as they are self-consistent?

Deep.

Jeff250 wrote:You can believe God is the ultimate ethical authority either

1) without reason, but then anyone can believe in anything as their ultimate ethical authority just as easily; religion has no advantage
2) with reason, but then you are conceding by appealing to a higher authority than God

Here's what I'd argue: with reason, and the reason being the character of God Himself. No higher authority, but God's "rhyme and reason" to defining right and wrong is by the standard of what He is like. Since He made the world, it bears evidences of what He is like. Since He made us explicitly in his image, we're the closest thing to the sum total of what He's like. Furthermore, He made the world to bring glory to Himself, so ultimately what's "good" is what brings glory to God, and what's "bad" is what doesn't (basically by either imitating what He's like or not). The authority behind the belief is rooted in the idea that we are created by God for His glory.... so in a sense the whole world has a single purpose in which right and wrong is rooted.

I'd be interested to hear what other ultimate ethical authorities you can cite that would also carry a justification for their claim to universal applicability.

Jeff250 wrote:For instance, if there is no "good" outside of what any religion says, then how can we compare the ethics of different religions, as long as they are self-consistent?

My point is that you can't. If you don't believe in a universal standard, then you're stuck with normative moral relativism, and any self-consistent set of beliefs is equally valid. You could even argue your way out of logic, if you wanted to, ultimately ending up at any set of beliefs being equally valid. Since I claim to hold to a universal standard, I also have the place to compare everything else by that standard. If you want to believe the popular cherry-pick atheism, you're welcome to, but I'm pointing out that it's inconsistent to claim atheism also claim that God is evil.

snoopy wrote:...but I'm pointing out that it's inconsistent to claim atheism also claim that God is evil.

Well yeah that, and you can't call something that doesn't exist evil. So it's not inconsistent, it just doesn't make sense.

snoopy wrote:The authority behind the belief is rooted in the idea that we are created by God for His glory.... so in a sense the whole world has a single purpose in which right and wrong is rooted.

So is the ultimate ethical rule then that you can make whatever ethical rules for anything you've created?

If God commanded you to murder (which you could even argue he has according to some traditions), what recourse would you have? Wouldn't you want to object according to some basis? God's character might be what most people would consider "evil"--but if God is the ultimate authority, then we could never call it that.

snoopy wrote:I'd be interested to hear what other ultimate ethical authorities you can cite that would also carry a justification for their claim to universal applicability.

Atheism doesn't pigeonhole anyone into moral relativism. What is goodness is like any philosophical question... what is being, what is knowledge, what is personhood, etc... there's no simple answer. For almost any practical use, you know it when you see it. But I think that attempting to come up with a simple solution cheapens the problem.

Jeff250 wrote:For instance, if there is no "good" outside of what any religion says, then how can we compare the ethics of different religions, as long as they are self-consistent?

It makes your ethical claims weak. When you're accusing someone of being evil, all you're really doing is pointing out that what they did is contradictory with what some being in another dimension wanted him to do. So what?

Evil is whatever defiles your conscience. Even a serial killer would admit what he did was evil, just that there was no component there to prevent him. Good and Evil are pretty much universal. I'm still more of the mind of Snoopy here. To understand this from a Christian perspective you have to take this verse into account:

The servants of the householder came and said to him,
‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field?
Where did this darnel come from?’
"He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’

People forget that Angels have free-will also.

Jeff250 wrote:So is the ultimate ethical rule then is that you can make whatever ethical rules for anything you've created?

If God commanded you to murder (which you could even argue he has according to some traditions), what recourse would you have? Wouldn't you want to object according to some basis? God's character might be what most people would consider "evil"--but if God is the ultimate authority, then we could never call it that.

1. Yes, if you happen to be the all-powerful God, and created everything from nothing... then it's really your prerogative. A really weak analogy: if you make a programming language, you can set the rules of the language however you want to.

2. Well. That's kinda loaded. First, if I knew I had an undeniable mandate from God to kill someone, then I wouldn't consider it murder... just like I don't consider the killing that solders do murder. Second, about any scenario I can think of would involve an uncharacteristic request/mandate from God (His character coming from what I know of the Bible), which would then make me reconsider the idea that this was really coming from God. In a practical sense, I don't think your hypothetical is very plausible, because it smacks of contradicting God's nature.

Jeff250 wrote:Atheism doesn't pigeonhole anyone into moral relativism. What is goodness is like any philosophical question... what is being, what is knowledge, what is personhood, etc... there's no simple answer. For almost any practical use, you know it when you see it. But I think that attempting to come up with a simple solution cheapens the problem.

See now you're almost contradicting yourself right there. You're not stuck in moral relativism, but at the same time you really can't know what exactly good and evil is. Your reference to "knowing it when you see it" basically hearkens to culture and the opinions of the masses. There are (and were) different and/or "primitive" cultures that were perfectly okay with lots of things that are now considered unimaginable in the USA. Where they wrong? Where they right? "It's complicated" can't justify sending people to the electric chair, at least in my opinion. If you want to rely on the masses' opinion as the standard of right and wrong that's okay, but it's still a form of moral relativism.... and it still takes your right to judge other cultures' behaviors as right or wrong.

Jeff250 wrote:It makes your ethical claims weak. When you're accusing someone of being evil, all you're really doing is pointing out that what they did is contradictory with what some being in another dimension wanted him to do. So what?

A couple angles: If ethical claims that are based on God (static, all-powerful, all-knowing) what does that make ethical claims that are based on people's opinions? How long has slavery been considered something that's wrong? What about human sacrifices? Genocide? The masses' opinion of right and wrong changes by the day. God has the upper hand because His take on right and wrong has never changed. Ever.

Second angle: You present a deistic view of God, like (if He existed) He wound the clock and let it go, and is now frowning because we're not doing what He wanted. The God of the Bible isn't sitting back and watching. He's actively involved in what's going on. When He wasn't happy with what people were doing, He flooded the earth, made everyone speak different languages, made the earth open up and have people fall in, make snakes appear and kill hundreds of people, made it stop raining for years on end,..... So what? We're all lucky that He's holding Himself back, otherwise we'd all be destroyed because we're not perfect.

...And that's the point of what Christ did. God is perfect, and expects perfection from everyone. He made us, and it's His prerogative to demand whatever He wants from us. We're all imperfect (actually, if we're honest with ourselves, we're downright evil to the core)... but instead of just wiping the slate clean and starting over again, God chose to send His Son to take on all of our imperfection, so that when God looks at us (Christians), He see Christ's perfection instead of our evilness.

So what? Ultimately you either get to hang out with God or not. When that time comes, you're going to want to hang out with Him, and if you're not a Christian you won't get to, and it'll be eternally agonizing to know that you can't.

But then, if God doesn't exist... eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die... and that'll be the end of it.

See, I don't think anyone could ever feel slavery was good. They pushed past the feeling until they became mean, miserable sonofabitches that didn't feel the guilt anymore. Or they rationalize it, thinking that those enslaved are somehow created or evolved inferior to themselves.

Yes Snoopy, and ultimately we will actually partake of His very nature. The end of all prophecies and the end result of faith, to be like Him in our very nature again.

snoopy wrote:1. Yes, if you happen to be the all-powerful God, and created everything from nothing... then it's really your prerogative. A really weak analogy: if you make a programming language, you can set the rules of the language however you want to.

Then from what authority do we get *that* rule? You've only postponed the problem. In any case, I don't think you buy it--do you think that it would be right for God to create a universe where murdering people was good?

snoopy wrote:2. Well. That's kinda loaded. First, if I knew I had an undeniable mandate from God to kill someone, then I wouldn't consider it murder... just like I don't consider the killing that solders do murder. Second, about any scenario I can think of would involve an uncharacteristic request/mandate from God (His character coming from what I know of the Bible), which would then make me reconsider the idea that this was really coming from God. In a practical sense, I don't think your hypothetical is very plausible, because it smacks of contradicting God's nature.

To rephrase my point, does your reasoning hold up in a universe where God's character were different from what you presently understand it to be? What if God were a big jerk who liked murdering people for fun? Would you still think that God were all-good simply because his actions were self-consistent with his character, or would you want to call him out on some other basis?

snoopy wrote:See now you're almost contradicting yourself right there. You're not stuck in moral relativism, but at the same time you really can't know what exactly good and evil is.

You're right in that I don't know what is right or wrong 100% of the time, but do you either?

snoopy wrote:There are (and were) different and/or "primitive" cultures that were perfectly okay with lots of things that are now considered unimaginable in the USA. Where they wrong?

I'm comfortable with not being able to easily answer questions like what is right or wrong in this far away country or what is right or wrong 200 years ago because we didn't evolve our concept of ethics to deal with these kinds of situations. These situations aren't practical. We shouldn't be surprised that our understanding of ethics doesn't easily deal with them.

snoopy wrote:A couple angles: If ethical claims that are based on God (static, all-powerful, all-knowing) what does that make ethical claims that are based on people's opinions? How long has slavery been considered something that's wrong?

Again, I'm not suggesting that there is an ultimate ethical authority, so I certainly don't mean to say that it is people's opinions. In any case, I think that most people who held slaves would agree with the ethical statement that it is wrong to enslave people. They just disagree with us factually concerning who people are.

flip wrote:See, I don't think anyone could ever feel slavery was good. They pushed past the feeling until they became mean, miserable sonofabitches that didn't feel the guilt anymore. Or they rationalize it, thinking that those enslaved are somehow created or evolved inferior to themselves.

Exactly. Moreover, surely the slaves thought that slavery was wrong, so there was far from a unanimous verdict.

I'm comfortable with not being able to easily answer questions like what is right or wrong in this far away country or what is right or wrong 200 years ago because we didn't evolve our concept of ethics to deal with these kinds of situations. These situations aren't practical.

Not entirely true. Seems a great deal of our law is based on models 1000's of years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

It all comes down to fundamental beliefs. I can't understand why Jeff doesn't see creation as he doesn't understand how I do. Fascinating.

Is the morality of a deed inherent, or is its morality determined by God (God said this is immoral, so it is)?

Slavery has been mentioned. Is slavery inherently moral or immoral? Could there ever be a situation where it is moral to enslave someone?

I believe God made it inherent. Like an internal compass we all have in common. Think about what it would take to enslave another man. You pull up on the shore and stack them like tuna's, lose a portion on the way, and then sell them like fish at the market. If anyone thinks it through, It would have to be inherently evil for the person to make those decisions at each juncture.
That internal compass is what differentiates us from all other animals. Take Pavlov's dog's for instance. Strike a bell and each time they salivated uncontrollably. They had no control over the chemicals released that causes salivation. It's no so with man. He has control, by his decisions, over which chemicals get released into his bloodstream. So, in my opinion, to be chemically unbalanced is in reality the result of too many wrong decisions releasing bad chemicals into the body. That makes it inherent to me, but by design.

flip wrote:Take Pavlov's dog's for instance. Strike a bell and each time they salivated uncontrollably. They had no control over the chemicals released that causes salivation.

nope, that's called conditioning. something taught in junior high biology.

Well, that's the way it was taught when I was in school . The terminology doesn't change the analogy. We have free will, animals don't.

EDIT: Honestly I can't see anywhere I tried to define it. Just used as an example, what the hell you noping about?

Jeff250 wrote:Then from what authority do we get *that* rule? You've only postponed the problem. In any case, I don't think you buy it--do you think that it would be right for God to create a universe where murdering people was good?

Jeff250 wrote:To rephrase my point, does your reasoning hold up in a universe where God's character were different from what you presently understand it to be? What if God were a big jerk who liked murdering people for fun? Would you still think that God were all-good simply because his actions were self-consistent with his character, or would you want to call him out on some other basis?

It still comes back to the prerogative of the creator for me. When we create, we're limited by many things around us. God created from nothing. There was literally nothing outside of Himself to guide or limit what He created. Ultimately, the rule comes from the idea that God isn't subject to rules... He created the universe how He wanted, and there was literally nothing else in existence to have any effect upon it... which leaves God himself as the guiding factor by which He created. Taking a step back from your hypothetical... if some god created a world where murdering people was a good thing, it would probably be a reflection of his character (So, with the benefit of knowledge of the way this universe works I wouldn't approve), but it would be normal, and inhabitants of that would wouldn't have any reason to think that any other way should be better.... so, from the perspective of this universe, where God originally defined that murder was an evil thing to do, then I'd say that this second hypothetical universe would be a bad thing. It isn't really about self-consistency... it about the idea that creation is a reflection of the creator... and the created have to pick what they're going define their perception of the world by.... and they're really kinda stuck with what's revealed to them.

Jeff250 wrote:You're right in that I don't know what is right or wrong 100% of the time, but do you either?

I'm comfortable with not being able to easily answer questions like what is right or wrong in this far away country or what is right or wrong 200 years ago because we didn't evolve our concept of ethics to deal with these kinds of situations. These situations aren't practical. We shouldn't be surprised that our understanding of ethics doesn't easily deal with them.

As far a me knowing specific instances of right and wrong you're right, I don't know the answers most of the time. I'm just asserting that it's ultimately been defined for us. We're imperfect in our understanding of the definition provided, and many times don't actually care, but it's been given to us.

And this all started with me pointing out that atheism doesn't provide a universal standard of right and wrong, which was implied in the original claim to which I responded. Christianity claims a universal standard, and thus can consistently claim that other beliefs/culture/actions are evil. Atheism doesn't have such a standard, therefore it doesn't have any foundation upon which to claim good and evil. Popular pseudo-atheism claims the thoughts of the popular masses as a foundation, which I'm arguing is a significantly weaker foundation than the one claimed by Christianity.

Jeff250 wrote:Again, I'm not suggesting that there is an ultimate ethical authority, so I certainly don't mean to say that it is people's opinions. In any case, I think that most people who held slaves would agree with the ethical statement that it is wrong to enslave people. They just disagree with us factually concerning who people are.

Exactly. Moreover, surely the slaves thought that slavery was wrong, so there was far from a unanimous verdict.

My argument was against your statement that claiming God as a basis for defining good and evil in ethical arguments makes them weak. My opinions are weak, the masses' opinions are weak, claiming no ultimate ethical authority is weak when compared to God as a basis for ethical authority. I was arguing why I make that claim.

snoopy wrote:Taking a step back from your hypothetical... if some god created a world where murdering people was a good thing, it would probably be a reflection of his character (So, with the benefit of knowledge of the way this universe works I wouldn't approve), but it would be normal, and inhabitants of that would wouldn't have any reason to think that any other way should be better....

Maybe, or maybe that God would create a universe just like this one instead. It's his choice, right?

snoopy wrote:And this all started with me pointing out that atheism doesn't provide a universal standard of right and wrong, which was implied in the original claim to which I responded. Christianity claims a universal standard, and thus can consistently claim that other beliefs/culture/actions are evil.

For what it's worth, *I* don't propose a universal standard of right and wrong, but a lot of others do... [1], [2], [3], etc. Ultimately, they all have the same weakness that your theory does--you end up with some justification that you can't back up and that only postpones the problem. I don't think that we should be able to ground all of ethics in reason because I don't think it's entirely rational.

snoopy wrote:Popular pseudo-atheism claims the thoughts of the popular masses as a foundation, which I'm arguing is a significantly weaker foundation than the one claimed by Christianity.

I don't know what popular pseudo-atheism is, but instinctively I'd expect the opinion of the crowds to be more relevant in an ethical decision than the contents of a register in another dimension.

flip wrote: The terminology doesn't change the analogy.

yeah it does. it causes it to fall apart based on terrible understanding.

what the hell you noping about?

well, when I see a bad analogy using quite terrible understanding of something that's being used, i call people on it. Yours is particularly terrible to the point where I don't even know where to start.