With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[robtex]

Will you still be his friend? Will you treat him any differently? There are some here who would, and they're not Christians.

yea he cool guy. i live in area where about 90-95 % of the population is Christian and would have to choose between being a hermit or being friends with Christians. I got a lot of friends. I argue with them sometimes and have been asked by about 25 plus of them in the last two to accept Jesus as my savior, of which, I decline. I come here cause this is safe place to through out theories and argue as opposed to work and neigbors and family.

I think a lot of you too cause you are open minded enough to debate and read opinions of non-christians which many of the locals would never ever do where I live. I realize that you are enlightened enough to at least entertain other theories and thoughts and appreciate that aspect of your personality.

 

[Neildo]

Being a tool to Neildo = Destroying all of his idiotic ramblings.

Oh no, I love debating. This is just not the thread for it. Go ahead and copy and paste and start up a new thread if ya wanna talk about it. This is more of a sympathizing thread in regards to SouthStar which is why I said what I said. Nitpicking and proving/disproving beliefs isn't really cool to be in here and that's what ya started with your little jabs when there's hundreds of other threads already made for that, heh. It just makes people have to clarify their beliefs and start debating them which just side-tracks the whole point of this thread.

Now, I doubt you would try to apply your flawed logic on how humans can only know the concept of God and lack the ability to describe him to any of those beings, so don't do it with God. Just because someone thought of God doesn't make the concept any more real, just like me day dreaming about invisible pink unicorns and how they created the world doesn't make them real

Uh, I don't understand what you're trying to point out. What you're saying here is the whole point of what I said. So in other words, I agree (???).

And by the way, I'd love to hear how my logic is flawed (in another thread) as it made no claims as to there being a God or not, but rather everything we know about God, is all man-made thoughts, which it is. Unless you're the one claiming that God to actually exist and everything we know is due to God's own words?

And the side point was that people can go ahead and believe in what they want to believe. Yes, some flying invisible pink unicorn is quite silly to the majority, but no matter what you say, there is no way to disprove that. That doesn't mean it exists, but rather because there is no way to disprove it, let that person continue believing in their flying invisible pink unicorns if they want.

Belief is just that, a personal belief. The only thing flying invisible pink unicorns does is make it harder for others to join in their belief because it sounds silly, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to a personal belief. Just as if we said the universe has always existed, it is more widely accepted because it sounds more logical and believable than flying invisible pink unicorns, but just because it sounds more logical and believable, it doesn't mean it's exactly true either. This is why I say it's pointless to debate personal beliefs about something in which we don't have the answers to because both sides just wind up talking out of their ass, regardless if one side sounds more logical than the other. When it comes to God being the creator of all or the universe having always existed, we don't know know, so just hop on one side of the fence and leave it at that until one way actually is proven correct and then one can finally start criticizing the other side without talking out of their ass.

I really liked the Invisible Pink Unicorn one.

That's so cliche and over-used though. He coulda been more creative.

it's called a vacuous truth

Yup.

- N

 

[Sirius83]

There is no wrong in following logic instead of faith. If we are wrong to think there is no God, I really don't think we can be faulted for thinking things through rationally and weighing the possibilities, so long as we still lived a good life.

There is no reason why life should have any less of a meaning without God, nor should it mean there is less cause for morals. In fact, there should be more of a meaning, as our time is limited, and there is no here after, at least not as depicted by religion. We should be striving to benefit the human race, aid in our society's advancement, help solve the problems of the world, and perhaps leave some mark that goes down in history...a great invention, a new philosophy, a concept, a work of art. A great deed, whatever you wish.

Morals? Without them, the human race won't continue to advance like we have been in the past. We would be stalling our own progress, and reverting to the ways of the common animal. Shouldn't this alone be enough reason to have morals?

What of people like Hitler? Well, he chose a path that has led to his name being seen in scorn today. That's his punishment right there. Nothing divine, but he has not left a legacy to be proud of. He has left a legacy that has him hated by people who never even knew him. That alone is punishment enough.

Don't think that by choosing a non-religious, or less religious path, you are left without reason for being. You are still who you are, and people should respect you for your actions toward others, not for your personal beliefs on life and death. Be a priest, or be a hard core atheist. Those who choose to judge you based on your religious(or lack of) beliefs, well - it's their loss. The people who deserve your friendship are the ones who judge you on your character instead.

 

[Jenyar]

And by the way, I'd love to hear how my logic is flawed (in another thread) as it made no claims as to there being a God or not, but rather everything we know about God, is all man-made thoughts, which it is.

Everything we know about everything is man-made thoughts. You can't escape thinking like a human, even about things that really exist. If God isn't where you look it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Try this experiment: Imagine the computer screen in front of is a misrepresentation of reality, a man-made figment of your imagination, and turn around. Now look for it without looking back.

Are you surprised that you don't see it, or that it now only exists as a figment of your imagination?

There is no reason why life should have any less of a meaning without God, nor should it mean there is less cause for morals. In fact, there should be more of a meaning, as our time is limited, and there is no here after, at least not as depicted by religion. We should be striving to benefit the human race, aid in our society's advancement, help solve the problems of the world, and perhaps leave some mark that goes down in history...a great invention, a new philosophy, a concept, a work of art. A great deed, whatever you wish.

No reason, definitely... just like there's no reason to believe in God, right? Because there's also no reason why you should strive to benefit the human race and not only yourself. You don't say we should be moral because it's reasonable, or there is any evidence that what you do is for the betterment of mankind, or because you know exactly what love is and how it looks like. But why don't you stay agnostic about these things? After all, all the love in the world didn't stop terrorists from blowing up those children. Why believe in it? Why have faith in it? Why have any hope that the mark you leave on history won't be a scar?

Because you know what causes scars and what doesn't. Not just in your own life, but in everybody else's. You know, even though - by the same logic that people say we can't know God - you can't know. You shouldn't be able to.

Morals? Without them, the human race won't continue to advance like we have been in the past. We would be stalling our own progress, and reverting to the ways of the common animal. Shouldn't this alone be enough reason to have morals?

Another bold statement. You know perfectly well that it isn't only moral people who prosper, or make great contributions to history. In fact, if you really don't believe in God you must admit that "being common animals" - being the smartest, strongest, and most ruthless animal - is what got us here in the first place. Being moral only to the extent that it serves yourself is the same thing: a smart move designed to make your mark and get you remembered - because that's the only legacy you'll leave. You know that for all Hitler did, he is probably more well-known than you'll ever be. Maybe that's all he wanted. If he minded being hated, I think he wouldn't have started a world war. And you call his legacy punishment? Surely you don't believe justice has been served by him just being less than a bad memory?

No, morals isn't about progress, not even about slow, steady progress - because progress is at all costs. Those who really want it won't let moral considerations get in their way. Isn't that the problem? You're talking about moral progress, which leaves all glory behind and serves others, sometimes even at the cost of your own life. That's counter-intuitive, and it leaves you wide open for people who are still common animals - who are still only interested in surival of the fittest, and therefore will stop at nothing to be the fittest.

Considering that, don't you find it surprising that our whole civilization was built on the underdog? Look at all the great empires: Aztec, Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman - are they remember for standing against all odds? Do they deserve respect for everything they achieved, or scorn for the cost of lives that enabled that achievement?

So think twice about whether you're following logic or faith. You have placed your hope in the power of love for no reason other than that you believe it's right, and you believe you know what's "right" for no rational reason, except that you were programmed to believe that, just like I'm accused of being programmed to believe in God. What's the difference between being programmed by your own parents, or someone else's parents? We're all human.

My "good life" is worth nothing if I'm not prepared to love in spite of all odds, against all expectation. It's not whether I think God exists or not that matters, but whether I'm prepared to know Him to that extent. Not to further my cause, but His. I can't extend my life any more than I could start it, by I can extend my love as He extended his.

God started something in me, and I'll be damned if I don't finish it - not because He will damn me, but because not living an eternal life is living a damned life. Life is of eternal worth, and that anything that compromises that worth is immoral. Whether you live to be 10 or 10000 years old. It's not worth more the shorter it is, or less because death isn't a final judgment. We can judge only on moral grounds, and our ability to judge ends with death, after which God will judge our judgment.

 

[Godless]

Everything we know about everything is man-made thoughts. You can't escape thinking like a human, even about things that really exist. If God isn't where you look it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Now I look at the above and Hey!! it works for me, Everything is man made. Even gods, If god is man made then It probably doesn't exist!!.

See how you contradict yourself? First you claim everything that we "Know" is man made, well we Know of some god, however it's man made. If god isn't where we look It does mean it don't exist, WAIT A SECOND!! U said everything is man made, so god must be man made, so in essence we are looking for the illusions, of ancient men, so it may just be that god does not exist.

Godless.

 

[duendy]

haha...good Godless...i agree. 'God' IS man-made. when you study patriarchy mythology this is clear. the man-made creation of upstart he-God usurped the much more ancient poetical-associatative mythos of Goddess
now before you ..'may' turn on my and say 'well Goddess is woman made' i would say, well before you just inverse the argument, explore WHY man-made 'God' usurped Goddess.
it is a very interesting research project

 

[Jenyar]

Aah. But only if don't make a distinction between the knowledge and the thing known. You can't have your cake and eat it - you can't have the knowledge and own the concept.

Did we create trees; are they man-made? No! But we do have some knowledge of them. That doesn't mean we own the concept. We can't even claim ownership of our own unique perception of trees. Do we know everything about trees? No, but enough to know trees from houses. Every kind of knowledge is anthropomorphic - relating to ourselves, in the context of ourselves and our perception of the world. But our knowing something depends on realizing what is self and what is other within that context. Being able to contain an image of something doesn't make it smaller than you, or your perception greater than it. It's just a representation that enables you to know it.

Why aren't you agnostic about trees? Because you base agnosticism on thoughts you have already accepted. You can't ignore what you can walk into, so there's little reason for you to doubt in trees. Your life as a whole bumps into death, so you can't ignore that either. But your thoughts, your reason, your ability to live and make decisions and form ideas? What are you prepared to know?

 

[water]

What are you prepared to know?

"Anything, as long as it is comfortable and confirming what I already know," says ...

 

[Sirius83]

No reason, definitely... just like there's no reason to believe in God, right? Because there's also no reason why you should strive to benefit the human race and not only yourself. You don't say we should be moral because it's reasonable, or there is any evidence that what you do is for the betterment of mankind, or because you know exactly what love is and how it looks like.

Trying to twist around what I've said? What I've stated is that without morals, without wanting to advance as a society, then our very civilization will crumble. That is why there should be reason to benefit the human race and not only yourself. As such, I did say we should be moral because it is reasonable - unless self-preservation of the human race is not reasonable. I can also explain what love is, it's the emotional bond formed as over millions of years, a tight social structure was shown most beneficial to our advancement. It's hard wired into us, but that doesn't mean there's no explanation. I can't tell you what love looks like - it's not a physical object now, is it?

But why don't you stay agnostic about these things? After all, all the love in the world didn't stop terrorists from blowing up those children. Why believe in it? Why have faith in it? Why have any hope that the mark you leave on history won't be a scar?

All the love in the world didn't stop terrorists from blowing up those children. That is so true, and proof in itself that some all-good God does not exist. As such, I'm not putting my faith or belief into it. That's you who is doing that, not me. Why hope the mark I leave on history on't be a scar? By trying not to be some sort of mass murderer or something, that's all.

Because you know what causes scars and what doesn't. Not just in your own life, but in everybody else's. You know, even though - by the same logic that people say we can't know God - you can't know. You shouldn't be able to.

And that right there, Jenyar, is your own counter-proof to God. Why shouldn't you be able to know? Why should we blindly believe in something that is completely illogical, something that has created more problems, more wars, more suffering throughout history than anything else? If we are to believe in this all good, al powerful work of fiction that creates nothing but strife, then why shouldn't we be able to see the proof? Because it simply doesn't exist.

Another bold statement. You know perfectly well that it isn't only moral people who prosper, or make great contributions to history. In fact, if you really don't believe in God you must admit that "being common animals" - being the smartest, strongest, and most ruthless animal - is what got us here in the first place. Being moral only to the extent that it serves yourself is the same thing: a smart move designed to make your mark and get you remembered - because that's the only legacy you'll leave. You know that for all Hitler did, he is probably more well-known than you'll ever be. Maybe that's all he wanted. If he minded being hated, I think he wouldn't have started a world war. And you call his legacy punishment? Surely you don't believe justice has been served by him just being less than a bad memory?

We got here by being the most advanced, simple as that. And yes, we are the most ruthless. But again, you're twisting what I said. "Being moral only to the extent that it serves yourself is the same thing: a smart move designed to make your mark and get you remembered - because that's the only legacy you'll leave." - I never said thats the only reason. I said that something you can try to do, something to put a meaning to life. Not a reason for morals.

I don't really care if Hitler is more well known than I probably ever will be. He's infamous, not famous. I say its bad enough that all his life amounted to was a scab on history. It's past, and I'm not looking for any revenge on him for what he did decades ago. Interestingly enough, for all the evil Hitler was, he was a Christian, and commited those crimes because he felt he was doing the right thing for his religion.

No, morals isn't about progress, not even about slow, steady progress - because progress is at all costs. Those who really want it won't let moral considerations get in their way. Isn't that the problem? You're talking about moral progress, which leaves all glory behind and serves others, sometimes even at the cost of your own life. That's counter-intuitive, and it leaves you wide open for people who are still common animals - who are still only interested in surival of the fittest, and therefore will stop at nothing to be the fittest.

No, having morals is required for proper advancement. Of course there will be people who would only want to better themselves, but that's their choice. The rest of society usually doesn't let people just do what they want to be the fittest.

Do they deserve respect for everything they achieved, or scorn for the cost of lives that enabled that achievement?

They deserve both.

So think twice about whether you're following logic or faith. You have placed your hope in the power of love for no reason other than that you believe it's right, and you believe you know what's "right" for no rational reason, except that you were programmed to believe that, just like I'm accused of being programmed to believe in God. What's the difference between being programmed by your own parents, or someone else's parents? We're all human.

I'm not placing my hope in the power of love. Where did you get that from? That's your standpoint apparently, not mine. I believe I know what's "right" because evolution has shown what is best for us. That's a perfectly rational explanation. I wasn't programmed by any God to do that.

My "good life" is worth nothing if I'm not prepared to love in spite of all odds, against all expectation. It's not whether I think God exists or not that matters, but whether I'm prepared to know Him to that extent. Not to further my cause, but His. I can't extend my life any more than I could start it, by I can extend my love as He extended his.

There you go, you're the one placing hope in love...how am I the one doing that? But I won't comment more on this point. I've already made it clear that religion and God as depicted by religion is a work of fiction when considered with reason.

God started something in me, and I'll be damned if I don't finish it - not because He will damn me, but because not living an eternal life is living a damned life. Life is of eternal worth, and that anything that compromises that worth is immoral. Whether you live to be 10 or 10000 years old. It's not worth more the shorter it is, or less because death isn't a final judgment. We can judge only on moral grounds, and our ability to judge ends with death, after which God will judge our judgment.

It doesn't matter if you live to be 10 ior 10,000 - so long as you do the right things in that time. But life is worth more if its limited than if its eternal, because you don't have infinite time to do what you want to do. So make the living life worth it. I'm not going to spend my precious lifetime of probably not even 100 worshipping some work of fiction. I'll make that short lifespan worthwhile instead, not preparing for a here after I don't know and can't even begin to prove exists.

 

[Jenyar]

Trying to twist around what I've said? What I've stated is that without morals, without wanting to advance as a society, then our very civilization will crumble. That is why there should be reason to benefit the human race and not only yourself. As such, I did say we should be moral because it is reasonable - unless self-preservation of the human race is not reasonable. I can also explain what love is, it's the emotional bond formed as over millions of years, a tight social structure was shown most beneficial to our advancement. It's hard wired into us, but that doesn't mean there's no explanation. I can't tell you what love looks like - it's not a physical object now, is it?

I wasn't trying to twist your words or putting them in your mouth. I was commenting on what you said, and trying to follow your "reasoning".

What exactly is "self-preservation of the human race"? If the human race preerves itself, then what little *you* do matters less, not more. It's doing it *anyway* that is considered moral.

If you asked me what love looks like, I would name properties like tolerance, forgiveness, patience, kindness. These things don't carry weight because they're hardwired - hate and violence is just as hardwired, but you don't promote them. I'm saying that you are making a decision about what to keep and what to throw out based not on reason, or even evolution, but on principles - rules - for what is required for love, peace and happiness to survive. For all you know they will reduce your chances of survival, but does that inform your decision?

Picture a world of terrorists: where they built illegal nuclear weapons and blew away civization, making sure only they survived - they would have the world for themselves (after the radiation had dissipated, anyway). Is that the kind of survival you're talking about? Because whatever you think about it, it's still surival. So tell me, in this hypothesis: does that scenario weigh heavier than a lesser chance of suriving, but a greater quality of life? Does "survival" justify everything, or not?

All the love in the world didn't stop terrorists from blowing up those children. That is so true, and proof in itself that some all-good God does not exist. As such, I'm not putting my faith or belief into it. That's you who is doing that, not me. Why hope the mark I leave on history on't be a scar? By trying not to be some sort of mass murderer or something, that's all.

Blame it on God. Way to assume responsibility for something you believe in as well: what happened there was because of lack of love. We believe love could have prevented it, but why didn't it? Because it wasn't believed - it didn't carry any authority in the decisions that was made. None of those terrorists believed love would get them what they want. I have faith in God, not in spite of those things, but in spite of people not believing in God, just like I have faith in love in spite of people not believing in it. The reason is the same - I'm not in it for what I want, or to further my cause or my grasp on life.

And that right there, Jenyar, is your own counter-proof to God. Why shouldn't you be able to know? Why should we blindly believe in something that is completely illogical, something that has created more problems, more wars, more suffering throughout history than anything else? If we are to believe in this all good, al powerful work of fiction that creates nothing but strife, then why shouldn't we be able to see the proof? Because it simply doesn't exist.

Because "shouldn't" is a vacuum-word. What happened in Russia *shouldn't* have happened. What happened on September 11 *shouldn't* have happened. Shouldn't doesn't have anything to say about reality - about what is and what was and what will be. I know God exists, yet all "reason" suggests I shouldn't be able to. I think that's bad reflection on our application of reason. Not something we should be proud of.

I might just as easily deny love exists. Just look at the world! Show me love, and I will believe! That's it, isn't it? We want the proof to be all there is before we will believe it. I'll say, "prove it to me conclusively, let it come to me!" And you'll say "it's not a physical object now, is it?" and look foolish.

We could go through the same exercise with justice. Prove to me justice exists, and not just our human attempts at creating it. A fantasy. Illogical, against the fact that everyone dies - guilty or innocent. Justice only creates problems, criminals and jails wherever it goes. It inhibits freedom and equality between all people. Care to deny that? You'll only convince me you're biased against so-called criminals (who wouldn't have existed if you hadn't invented "justice" in the first place).

Why should I blindly believe in justice, or in love? Will they ensure my family survives against those who don't believe in them? To satisfy you or your country's version of justice and freedom?

Morals aren't about the survival of the human race. They're about people, individuals, exercising faith in something that doesn't exist globally or generally. It's not about the preservation of the offspring, it's about one man's wife not cheating on him. It's about the impulse that makes people cheat on each other, whether humanity survives for another million years or not.

We got here by being the most advanced, simple as that. And yes, we are the most ruthless. But again, you're twisting what I said. "Being moral only to the extent that it serves yourself is the same thing: a smart move designed to make your mark and get you remembered - because that's the only legacy you'll leave." - I never said thats the only reason. I said that something you can try to do, something to put a meaning to life. Not a reason for morals.

So what is your reason for being moral?

I don't really care if Hitler is more well known than I probably ever will be. He's infamous, not famous. I say its bad enough that all his life amounted to was a scab on history. It's past, and I'm not looking for any revenge on him for what he did decades ago. Interestingly enough, for all the evil Hitler was, he was a Christian, and commited those crimes because he felt he was doing the right thing for his religion.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Incidentally, one of Christianity's humblest, most respected and influencial theologians, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was imprisoned by the Hitler regime for acting too Christian for Hitler's taste. He was hanged a few weeks before Germany surrendered. For being moral. It's interesting that you don't remember him as a Christian. But as you say, it's the past. Maybe it doesn't really matter what he did.

No, having morals is required for proper advancement. Of course there will be people who would only want to better themselves, but that's their choice. The rest of society usually doesn't let people just do what they want to be the fittest.

"But that's their choice". Wasn't it Hitler's choice to decide proper advancement required a war? The rest of society was threatened by that choice, and that's the only reason they didn't let him carry it out. I have a question that might be interesting to hear you answer: what do you think is America's moral obligation to the world? Do we have to wait until something threatens us physically before we act? There is no threat more physical than death; "The wages of sin is death". That leaves us with another question to answer: is it a physical or a spiritual war? What should survive?

They deserve both.

Whatever they deserved from people, they got while they were alive. They "deserved" nothing more. Unless you want to bring "justice" into the discussion.

I'm not placing my hope in the power of love. Where did you get that from? That's your standpoint apparently, not mine. I believe I know what's "right" because evolution has shown what is best for us. That's a perfectly rational explanation. I wasn't programmed by any God to do that.

It's implied by your morality. Morals are guided by love, not by laws, and certainly not by evolution. Evolution has shown as indiscriminate sex, violence and hatred as well - in fact excluding God, it must have shown us to be exactly what you see on the news every day. Aren't we choosing against this nature on another initiative?

There you go, you're the one placing hope in love...how am I the one doing that? But I won't comment more on this point. I've already made it clear that religion and God as depicted by religion is a work of fiction when considered with reason.

I'll await your evidence that justice exists then, if you don't place hope in love. Although I can't see how you'll judge what is moral without some kind of confidence in love.

It doesn't matter if you live to be 10 ior 10,000 - so long as you do the right things in that time. But life is worth more if its limited than if its eternal, because you don't have infinite time to do what you want to do. So make the living life worth it. I'm not going to spend my precious lifetime of probably not even 100 worshipping some work of fiction. I'll make that short lifespan worthwhile instead, not preparing for a here after I don't know and can't even begin to prove exists.

That's completely illogical. Your life is your life. I'm not a Buddhist, you know. Reincarnation is one of the most demeaning and disempowering philosophies around. If eternal life was simply granted without judgment, you would have been right. Lie back and live forever. However, with the same amount of life you and I have on earth: if God grants eternal life based on the recognition of our dependence on Him - confessed by positioning ourselves within the outpuring of His grace by our conduct - then it is entirely possible to miss it with such a blase attitude. Even "playing it safe" ensures you no more grace than not playing by the rules at all. You are simply priviledged to be in a position to make your short lifespan worthwhile. Until the first real test of your faith in your abilities to be moral; and you have to face the reality: that without real justice, or compelling love, there is simply no reasonable reason for choosing either road. You'll die eventually whether you did good or evil. There's a whole book in the Bible dedicated to this question: Ecclesiastes.

Everybody lives and dies, but who is wise?

 

[Sirius83]

What exactly is "self-preservation of the human race"? If the human race preerves itself, then what little *you* do matters less, not more. It's doing it *anyway* that is considered moral.

Self preservation of the human race means the continued survival of the human race as a whole, and not just a select group. What I do does matter, as does what you do, and what everyone else does. Why? Because we make up the human race. We are the humans, and as such, put together are the human race. Therefore, what we do individually, affects the human race as a whole. To state otherwise is to pretend you do not exist as part of the human race.

Re: Looks of love. Those are the properties of love, not the looks. But perhaps I am being too literal. "I'm saying that you are making a decision about what to keep and what to throw out based not on reason, or even evolution, but on principles - rules - for what is required for love, peace and happiness to survive. For all you know they will reduce your chances of survival, but does that inform your decision?" And how do these rules come about? By the course of evolution and advancement of society showing what is best suited to our continued progress and survival. That's where it comes from. And yes, those do inform your decision. Unless of course you act on uninformed decisions.

Re: Terrorist point. Like I said, it's about survival of the human race as a whole, not just the group of terrorists who take over the world and kill the rest of us. That, while possible, is not preservation of the human race as a whole. Survival in this context does not simply mean staying alive, nor have I even suggested so. I'm continually saying both survival and progress; advancement. That's not progress, and so obviously not what I'm talking about.

Blame it on God. Way to assume responsibility for something you believe in as well: what happened there was because of lack of love. We believe love could have prevented it, but why didn't it? Because it wasn't believed - it didn't carry any authority in the decisions that was made. None of those terrorists believed love would get them what they want. I have faith in God, not in spite of those things, but in spite of people not believing in God, just like I have faith in love in spite of people not believing in it. The reason is the same - I'm not in it for what I want, or to further my cause or my grasp on life.

All the love in the world could not stop what happened there, because there are the selfish, "evil" ones in society who would commit atrocities such as that. I'm not going to blame it on God, but I am going to say that's pretty good proof that an all powerful, all seeing, all present and all good God does not exist.

Because "shouldn't" is a vacuum-word. What happened in Russia *shouldn't* have happened. What happened on September 11 *shouldn't* have happened. Shouldn't doesn't have anything to say about reality - about what is and what was and what will be. I know God exists, yet all "reason" suggests I shouldn't be able to. I think that's bad reflection on our application of reason. Not something we should be proud of.

In short, you're relying on religious faith isntead of reason. We don't HAVE to physically see God to know he exists, but there should at least be reason to believe. Good, tangible reason...of which there is a severe shortage. I think that sort of reason is something we should be proud of, because after so many thousands of years of religion, of spending our lives doing the will of a work of fiction, we can finally cast it aside and achieve our true, full potential. A world of free of suffering, free of war, free of hatred...it can be done you know. Over millenia, but it can be done. But only by casting aside blind, boundless faith in something we can't even prove.

I might just as easily deny love exists. Just look at the world! Show me love, and I will believe! That's it, isn't it? We want the proof to be all there is before we will believe it. I'll say, "prove it to me conclusively, let it come to me!" And you'll say "it's not a physical object now, is it?" and look foolish.

We can feel love. We can show love and receive love. God? None of the above. God is an ancient concept of a day we couldn't understand anything that people are finally starting to see past.

We could go through the same exercise with justice. Prove to me justice exists, and not just our human attempts at creating it. A fantasy. Illogical, against the fact that everyone dies - guilty or innocent. Justice only creates problems, criminals and jails wherever it goes. It inhibits freedom and equality between all people. Care to deny that? You'll only convince me you're biased against so-called criminals (who wouldn't have existed if you hadn't invented "justice" in the first place).

Justice IS a human creation. But a necessary creation, so those who try to bring down society's progress do not remain at large doing so. Are you against keeping those who rob and murder away from society? Those who threaten to bring down our civilizatin?

Why should I blindly believe in justice, or in love? Will they ensure my family survives against those who don't believe in them? To satisfy you or your country's version of justice and freedom?

You don't blindly believe in justice, or love. You should never believe blindly in anything, and this includes God.

Morals aren't about the survival of the human race. They're about people, individuals, exercising faith in something that doesn't exist globally or generally. It's not about the preservation of the offspring, it's about one man's wife not cheating on him. It's about the impulse that makes people cheat on each other, whether humanity survives for another million years or not.

That behaviour allows the human race to continue to exist, but not to advance as it should. Those actions are immoral as a result. And as such, morals are about the survival of the human race.

So what is your reason for being moral?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's so the human civilization can continue to survive - AND so it can continue to progress. So society doesn't crumble. We have built a society structure, and in order to preserve that society structure, you need morals.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Incidentally, one of Christianity's humblest, most respected and influencial theologians, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was imprisoned by the Hitler regime for acting too Christian for Hitler's taste. He was hanged a few weeks before Germany surrendered. For being moral. It's interesting that you don't remember him as a Christian. But as you say, it's the past. Maybe it doesn't really matter what he did.

Interesting you say I don't know what I'm talking about, when the very link you gave me points out that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was against Hitler's actions. Hitler was carrying out a clensing of Jews. To him, Bonhoeffer probably was not being Christian. He may have been respected to society in general, but not to Hitler. Hitler is an example of one of the extremes religion can create, and does all the time.

"But that's their choice". Wasn't it Hitler's choice to decide proper advancement required a war? The rest of society was threatened by that choice, and that's the only reason they didn't let him carry it out. I have a question that might be interesting to hear you answer: what do you think is America's moral obligation to the world? Do we have to wait until something threatens us physically before we act? There is no threat more physical than death; "The wages of sin is death". That leaves us with another question to answer: is it a physical or a spiritual war? What should survive?

But Hitler was mistaken. That was his choice, not the choice of society in general. Society doesn't like or need war. That is also the answer to your question right there. America's moral obligation to the world is to ensure less developed countries can develop - if they so desire that progres at the time. Not to wage war on all who disagree with them. But that's for another thread. A physical or a spiritual war? How about option C, neither? Moral. Not spiritual, not physical. Moral. A world of understanding, respect and progress. Religion has brought us war, suffering and opression instead.

Whatever they deserved from people, they got while they were alive. They "deserved" nothing more. Unless you want to bring "justice" into the discussion.

I'm not bringing justice into the equation; you are.

It's implied by your morality. Morals are guided by love, not by laws, and certainly not by evolution. Evolution has shown as indiscriminate sex, violence and hatred as well - in fact excluding God, it must have shown us to be exactly what you see on the news every day. Aren't we choosing against this nature on another initiative?

Evolution brought the good and the bad, because we're not fully evolved. It brought us indiscriminate sex, violence and hatred, yes. But it has also brought us love, which guides morals, which allows us to build our society structure. We choose against this sometimes because we're not perfect. Not because of some evil demon.

I'll await your evidence that justice exists then, if you don't place hope in love. Although I can't see how you'll judge what is moral without some kind of confidence in love.

Again with the justice. I didn't even bring that up. I know that morals, created by love, keeps our society together. I'm not going to put my hope in it because love of one also can create hate towards another. There's a difference between accepting love's effects, and placing hope in it. You seem to think there are clearly defined areas for everything. But that's not the case.

Re: Completely illogical...So in short, you live life one way in the hope that God will grant you eternal life. I'm sorry, but that's completely illogical. If anything is illogical, it's living life as dictated by something with no proof. Now making the best out of what you have - that is logical. However, something you need to realise; I am not a Christian, I don't believe in God. Explaining God by the Bible won't work. Explain God with reason, and I will take it into consideration if it makes sense. We all have logic. Not all of us have faith. Explain God in terms of logic, not faith.

Everybody lives and dies, but who is wise?

The one who is wise is the one who questions the world around him and tries to understand it, rather than blindly following something with no proof and no logic.

 

[water]

I think that sort of reason is something we should be proud of, because after so many thousands of years of religion, of spending our lives doing the will of a work of fiction, we can finally cast it aside and achieve our true, full potential.

And what is this true, full potential?

A world of free of suffering, free of war, free of hatred...it can be done you know.

What convincing proof do you have that "a world free of suffering, free of war, free of hatred" can be done????

 

[TheERK]

And what is this true, full potential?

What convincing proof do you have that "a world free of suffering, free of war, free of hatred" can be done????

Because there is no physical law to suggest the contrary, there is simply no reason why such a state of affairs cannot be reached. If it can be reached locally, then there is no evidence that it can't be done globally.

 

[Halcyon]

Because there is no physical law to suggest the contrary, there is simply no reason why such a state of affairs cannot be reached. If it can be reached locally, then there is no evidence that it can't be done globally.

On the contrary, there is AMPLE evidence to believe so. Everything is relative; it's not possible for everyone to see things exactly the same way. Even if everyone in the world agrees that peace is the way to go, they're each going to have they're own ideas about what peace is and how to obtain it. Peace as a uniform ideal is not possible. You're familiar with the term entropy, yes? "Inert Uniformity," describes the state of a society at peace. "Peace" as a uniform ideal, that is. you can't have the uniformity of "peace" without the "inert." It's inescapable. As long as the human race is not "inert," it cannot have peace.

 

[Sirius83]

And what is this true, full potential?

Religion has long been an obstruction to progress. The Dark Ages were generations of no progress. I think that is a sufficient answer to your question. Without religion, science can progress a lot more freely. Without the dark ages, we would be so far advanced compared to now that we would have people on other planets and be close to(if not already) eliminating problems such as poverty and famine.

What convincing proof do you have that "a world free of suffering, free of war, free of hatred" can be done????

It's all relative, but be literal if you wish. Do some research on what a type 4 civilization is like. It's beyond the likes of Earth in Star Trek. I'm not trying to picture a world free from disagreement, but rather a world where problems can be dealt with, without war. A world where people respect other opinions even if they don't agree - an end to hatred. A world developed to the point of providing food, shelter and an income to all. That's not a uniform society - just a properly developed one.

 

[okinrus]

Sirus, you are incorrect about the so-called "dark ages." The activity of the middle age, such as in musical theory, spurred on the renaissance. For example, a couple of monks writing and performing gregorian chants were the first to write down their music using musical notation. Also, a quotation by George Mead might be inorder.

"Picturing the universe as carrying out the purposes of a divine, rational being, any irrational element was excluded automatically, since God not only was intelligent but had the power to make his intelligence effective. From this source come the the rationalistic characteristics of modern science. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, to mention only four, applied mathematics to the universe with an almost naive trust. Mathematics, the most rational of our disciplines would fit a rational world."

While the Church might have been a little to harsh on Galileo, the Church was also financing much of the science.

 

[gentle]

Here is the bottom line. The old testament summation is a physical walk in a physical wilderness to a physical promised land. The new testament is a spiritual walk in the spiritual wilderness to the spiritual promised land. The roles are re-chosen again by Jesus Christ. He is the passover lamb, John the Baptist plays the role of Elisha, the 12 apostiles take the role of the twelve tribes of Israel and you have the tabernacle ( TEMPLE ) inside you on your journey to Heaven, the new promised land. Jesus Christ is the bread from Heaven as we take communion we take God inside of us for our spiritual food as through his grace he changes our nature to his.

 

[Sirius83]

Those are a few very isolated events. The dark ages are so called for the reason that progress was inhibited. People were persecuted for doing things the church didn't like.

How can science be created by God, when the same science disproves God's existence? Your quote calls upon irrationality being thrown out by God's existence, but yet God's existence in itself is irrational. That doesn't make sense.

 

[okinrus]

Sirius83, what I'm telling you is that progress was not inhibited by the Church. Even so if any progress was inhibited, it was through petty wars and plague. Two factors of which the Church had little to do with.

Galileo was put under house arrest. Mainly because he had previeously told a church offical that he would not write of his theories, and also, the way he wrote them down, by mocking those with differing opinions, he was begging for punishment. Note at that time the proof Galileo gave was not always convincing, because it required trust in the instruments Galileo was using.

Why also do you say God existence is irrational? No, God's existence is not quite irrational. What is meant is that God's existence cannot be fully shown by logical alone, but because nonexistence also cannot be shown the claim is not irrationanl. Rather, the claim is simply outside of logic, neither logical(as based upon worldly evidence) nor illogical.

 

[§outh§tar]

Galileo was put under house arrest. Mainly because he had previeously told a church offical that he would not write of his theories, and also, the way he wrote them down, by mocking those with differing opinions, he was begging for punishment.

Is there anything wrong with mocking those who believed the earth to be flat because the Bible says so and so it MUST be true? Galileo was actually supressed for being a heretic, not conforming to the rules of Church which says don't question or doubt.