Sorry, but you don't see the contradiction there? If God's "arbitrary whims" are not a problem and they are in fact whims, then God cannot be the source of any morality, nor can we be anything other than whimsical when it comes to our morality. Of course, that is exactly what we observe from religionists; whimsical morality.
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Sorry, but you don't see the contradiction there? If God's "arbitrary whims" are not a problem and they are in fact whims, then God cannot be the source of any morality, nor can we be anything other than whimsical when it comes to our morality. Of course, that is exactly what we observe from religionists; whimsical morality.
If we assume God exist and concerns himself with how man and other social animals behave towards others of their species,* then that "Gift of God" is via evolution, just like man and they were formed.
* Hard to believe God is concerned about this, when He could have given Hitler a heart attack, with no evidence of his active interference, which he seem not to want to clearly show (again assuming the absence of clear demonstration of concern is not due to his non-existence.)
In the prophesy Isaiah or other it was said he will bring his people back from four corner of the world to their land . Did it happen ? ye 1948, Jews had plenty of time to return to ther land 1800 years . Did they, Not, They were persecuted many time , even in Spain , Portugal, France , Germany , pogrom in Russia , they just moved from one country to an other . 1904 there was a movement to go Uganda and British had a movement to Palestine they did not go . So a pitchork was necessary up thei ass , now 1948 they went . Who's fault is it ?
do you believe the Bible to be literal, arauca?
Prove that god did it.
You're looking at this from the mainstream Christian perspective ...
This point has been brought up many times throughout the thread.
I would hope so, but think for my post to reflect that, the first word (If ) must be removed.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The objection is that divine-command ethics appears to reduce determinations of good and evil to essentially random expressions of will. It's like flipping a coin or rolling dice.
If good and evil are merely expressions of will, then it doesn't seem to matter whether that person is Adolph Hitler or Yahweh on his mountaintop. The 'Euthyphro' objection still seems to be applicable either way.
The individual doing the willing either has some reason or justification for his/her expression of will, or else he/she doesn't.
If there is some sound reason for choosing A rather than B, then that would be what justifies the identification of A as good. It wouldn't be good merely because it was willed.
If no reason or justification exists for choosing A rather than B, then willing A instead of B would appear to be an arbitrary and random act.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't think that the ancient Hebrews gave much thought to Greek-style philosophical ethics.
The Hebrew interest was in loyalty, in unquestioning obedience to what essentially was their tribal chieftain drawn large and projected up into the sky. It's evident throughout the Bible in the ubiquitous 'Lord' language, which is how the ancients would address a king.
It marks the distant origin of the 19'th century German philosophical interest in philosophies of will, derived from protestant pietism, secularized by people like Nietzsche, and realized in 1930's Germany as the Fuhrer prinzep.
We still see similar currents today in fundamentalist Islam, which shares many of the ancient Hebrew presuppositions.
All that human beings need to be concerned with is the proper identity of the will they are following. Our task is to obey the the Lord's/Allah's/the Fuhrer's will as unquestioningly and completely as possible.
Or alternatively... to heed nothing but our own personal will and to do whatever we damn well please.
The Hebrew interest was in loyalty, in unquestioning obedience to what essentially was their tribal chieftain drawn large and projected up into the sky. It's evident throughout the Bible in the ubiquitous 'Lord' language, which is how the ancients would address a king.
It marks the distant origin of the 19'th century German philosophical interest in philosophies of will, derived from protestant pietism, secularized by people like Nietzsche, and realized in 1930's Germany as the Fuhrer prinzep.
We still see similar currents today in fundamentalist Islam, which shares many of the ancient Hebrew presuppositions.
All that human beings need to be concerned with is the proper identity of the will they are following. Our task is to obey the the Lord's/Allah's/the Fuhrer's will as unquestioningly and completely as possible.
Or alternatively... to heed nothing but our own personal will and to do whatever we damn well please.
Thought this was a really moving poem. I ran across it ''by accident,'' while looking online for something unrelated.
''prayer of an agnostic''
I tried so hard,
to see your face
but when I needed you most
you left my place
I wanted a reason
to carry on this plan
but I was left alone
with very little to understand
I saw the miracles
I heard the truth
but was thrown in darkness
just casted out in my youth
when I needed to be sure
no one could be found...
even those close to me
never even made a sound
It was all I could take
I couldn't stand much longer and be strong
even when the words I wanted came
they had sadly took to long
I really was faithful
standing by your side
but when I was standing in the darkness
why did EVERYONE run and hide?
so this is my prayer
perhaps the last one to you.
Until I can be sure that what I once preached was true.
I heard so many cries
help build others faith from the lowest stone
But how come when I was unsure
I was left to stand on my own
I really am sorry.
but I just want to be fair
so I wont hold your name
until I know that I can care
so good bye my king,
my old savior and lord.
If we meet one more time
I hope to me your adored
''prayer of an agnostic''
I tried so hard,
to see your face
but when I needed you most
you left my place
I wanted a reason
to carry on this plan
but I was left alone
with very little to understand
I saw the miracles
I heard the truth
but was thrown in darkness
just casted out in my youth
when I needed to be sure
no one could be found...
even those close to me
never even made a sound
It was all I could take
I couldn't stand much longer and be strong
even when the words I wanted came
they had sadly took to long
I really was faithful
standing by your side
but when I was standing in the darkness
why did EVERYONE run and hide?
so this is my prayer
perhaps the last one to you.
Until I can be sure that what I once preached was true.
I heard so many cries
help build others faith from the lowest stone
But how come when I was unsure
I was left to stand on my own
I really am sorry.
but I just want to be fair
so I wont hold your name
until I know that I can care
so good bye my king,
my old savior and lord.
If we meet one more time
I hope to me your adored
The 10 commandments were given to Moses as a guide to the to a specific people of that time, place, and circumstance. You do realise this? Not for ''mankind''.
Mankind are at different levels of spiritual awareness. Some are born with that discipline, and some aren't.
This can be understood when you read the discourse between Jesus and the Pharisees in John 8.
With that out of the way, why do you believe that God concerns himself with ''how man and other social animals behave towards others of their species''?
I agree that it is hard to believe that this is the case, but why do you believe it?
jan.
Yes there is such a reason, as I have several times explained. Every social animal, man included, has Darwinian selection developing rules of behavior within the social group that lead to its greater chance of healthy, productive survival and achievements.
For example: "Don't have sex with your sister" is universal in social groups that have male / female divisions and in lower than man animals biological indicators of who is "your sister" exist. For example a litter mice delivered by Cistercian section and immediately separated and separately raised to sexual maturity, will not mate with each other if any non sibling is available. They have some common characteristics to their fermions.
If you like to believe with no supporting evidence that God marks each litter with distinct fermions that's your choice, but Darwinian selection is why that is true, IMHO. For more details see this link: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3117649&viewfull=1#post3117649 but post 2150 of this thread partially copied below gives some of the evidence.
At least show it wasn't possible by any other means. I mean, you have a mythology that people followed, and then that mythology was inspiration for doing something. Is that really a miracle?Do you really think that's possible?
jan.
wynn,
There's nothing ''new'' in what I'm saying, it can all be coroberrated in the scripture.
Also, it has nothing to do with whether I believe what I'm saying, or if I believe what other people say. It's the starting point to all serious religious discussion about God.
Non of that is new, and is quite obvious when you break it down.
Of course if there is a secular/modern mean of what it means to believe in God, where the goalposts shift to suit modern society, then one can be a practising homesexual, a priest that proclaims to not believe in God of the scripture, or to believe that nature is origin of biological structures. Hey, you can even have disco's every Friday. IOW, you can do what you like, unless the big bosses who can make you lose your job, say otherwise.
But it's not belief in God according to any scriptures. It doesn't even come closes.
That doesn't make any sense.
I can't help thinking this is coming from your own hang-ups regarding theists.
Scared of confidence?
That's a new one.
jan.
There's nothing ''new'' in what I'm saying, it can all be coroberrated in the scripture.
Also, it has nothing to do with whether I believe what I'm saying, or if I believe what other people say. It's the starting point to all serious religious discussion about God.
Non of that is new, and is quite obvious when you break it down.
Of course if there is a secular/modern mean of what it means to believe in God, where the goalposts shift to suit modern society, then one can be a practising homesexual, a priest that proclaims to not believe in God of the scripture, or to believe that nature is origin of biological structures. Hey, you can even have disco's every Friday. IOW, you can do what you like, unless the big bosses who can make you lose your job, say otherwise.
But it's not belief in God according to any scriptures. It doesn't even come closes.
That doesn't make any sense.
I can't help thinking this is coming from your own hang-ups regarding theists.
Scared of confidence?
That's a new one.
jan.
Yes I know that and that the Jews have 13 fundamental rules or beliefs - given my Rabbi several centuries ago.*
Well first, I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe god is concerned with how social animals behave towards other members of their social group. (Those rules adapt as the social group changes. For example killing any human invader from the next valley that came into your valley was once moral behavior as doing that helped your group say 4000 years ago. Main change the last 4000 years have made is the that "other valley" is now much farther away. It is still a moral duty to go and kill some on other side of world if there is oil there and they don't practice same type of government you do.) Instead I think the social rules / morality evolves much faster (at least 10,000 times faster) than the physical characteristic of your body do but both evolve by the same Darwinian selection mechanism.
*
Very few, if any, Jews believe in Hell, most do not believe in same sort of heaven that Christians do.**http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm said:
Their "resurrection" for most is achieved on Earth after the Messiah comes and perfects Earth - Something Christ did not do, so he is not their Messiah. There are three examples of the resurrection cited in Jewish holly books and called resurrections. All are restoration of recently dead to life again - Some what like is done in US hospitals hundreds of times each day. Back then what determined being in the "dead state" was much more confused than it is today. Probably none would have met modern requirement for being in dead state - just a deep coma they recovered from, in modern terms.
**BTW, most if not all of what Christians believe and the Jews do not is borrowed from Greek beliefs - for example belief in virgin birth and Hell being two important examples but they take confused POV on there being only one god - have three but not a many as the Greeks did. However, the Greeks did have one great god, Zeus, thanks to Cronus eating a wrapped up stone he though was baby Zeus.
In my brief post 2143 summary of Greek beliefs note Gaea gave virgin birth to Uranus, who she then had 12 + 3 + 3 children with and he "Uranus threw the 3 Cyclopes and the 3 Hecatonchires into Tartarus, the darkest pit in the underworld." or Tararus is their term for Hell.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the point. We don't know.
A materialist is perfectly within their rights to see it as a natural phenomenon (untill further notices), and a theist is perfectly within their rights to see it as a miracle (untill further notice). It's no difference from saying the universe poofed out of nothing, or it was manifested by God. But to ask for proof, is asking too much imo.
jan.
That is just so much BS, Jan. All it does is show the intolerance, arrogance and ignorance of believers who believe they are special amongst the rest of us. Pure crap.
Um, no. If you don't know, then the default position is natural causes, because that's all we have any evidence for existing. If you had evidence of god, you wouldn't need faith.
Do you really think that's possible?
jan.
No.