|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2001 : 16:25:22 [Permalink]
|
Wow, you're harder to follow than He was/is! 
quote:
It is considered moral to follow the directions of god.
Is it your contention that anything a so-called "god" tells you to do is by default moral?
[by the way, you may want to check out the "A Euthrypho type dilemma for atheists" and "EUTHRYPHO continued" in the General Skepticism forum. Select "Show all topics" in your browser, and look on the last page in that forum, they are some of the oldest topics.]
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/16/2001 16:29:06 |
 |
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 17:42:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
then you need to go back to the OT.
Take as just one example, Father Abraham. He was the most moral, the holiest, man of his day. Islam, Judaism and by extension Christianity all trace their roots back to this one "Holy Man."
But today, in any country that practices these religions, Abraham, the most moral man of his day, would be arrested and doing hard time.
He kept slaves.
When he couldn't get his postmenopausal wife pregnant he rapped one of them. Since a woman slave has no rights of her own, and therefore could not grant consent, any sex with her by her master would be rape.
The shoddy treatment of the bastard Ishmael (when he is 13 Abe hacked off part of his penis with a stone knife) would be considered child abuse.
A voice, that only he can hear, orders Abe to mutilate his own genitalia.
Voices in his head then tell him to murder Isaac. But before he can cut Ike's throat he is distracted by a goat that someone else has left tied to a tree while they went home for lunch. He rustles the livestock and slaughters it.
Isaac, who has seen and heard neither angels nor gods, runs for his life while Abe is busy with the gore and gets out of the country.
I think you may need to go to the NT and see how Abraham's righteousness was credited to him........by faith. Abraham's acts were not all condoned by God, no evidence of that at all. Abraham was an idol worshipping gentile before God called him.
This is a classic mistake, assuming that the Bible condones everything it reports.
I won't even comment on the rest. Seems interesting, every conversation I have had concerning morals(either absolute or otherwise) always leads to a conversation concerning God.
I think that there are certain things that we see as "evil" or "absolutely wrong." I don't think you could really give a good argument that most sane humans could not come to some agreement on absolute morality.
JMHO
Jim
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 17:42:53 [Permalink]
|
As a statement of position, if not already clear, me views "moratity" as having some divine authority as its basis.
Some of us aren't actually from America. If you would be so kind as to use standard American English grammar it would make understanding you a lot simpler for us.
Why would you think that morality would have a supernatural origin when nothing else does? Do you think that the science of Animal Behavior is also supernatural?
It is considered moral to follow the directions of god.
Are you saying that only those who follow the directions of your god are moral? How about other gods in other cultures? How about those who behave exactly the same towards people as those who believe in your god but do so out of respect for the people themselves?
Confess, that in me own cursory search of a few years for salvation, limited it to those religions and a few other areas, still active in my lifetime.
Salvation? You needed to be saved from something?
Know nothing of "Yahweh."
That's god's name. You may have seen it spelled Y-HW-H because to say it out loud will doom you to eternal torment.
Hope you didn't try to sound it out when you saw that I had typed it.
Am not dismayed by the fact, that the holy scriptures shared or borrowed, from each other.
Sigh, no matter how many times I say this it gets reinterpreted. Holy scripture didn't share, it didn't borrow, it stole the entire story and changed the name of the god.
And am certain in my own mind, that the belief in god, predates even the "written word."
I'm sure that you are correct, but you are leaving off the "S". The belief in godS --plural.
The term "Evil," has been and is, personified by Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, which has dozens, by Satan as an example.
Most Mythologists are convinced that the belief in evil spirits and demons greatly predates the belief in gods.
Am too lazy to research *shrug* every point raised, but tink this is the root source for the term "evil."
The word comes from the English (as well it should). In Middle English it was evel and in pre-Norman Anglo Saxon it was yfel
The point of the exercise, was to examine a godless existance. Can the existance of god be proven with science? Of course not, is god the holy scritures? Of course not, they are merely words written by man in an attempt to bring god to those, who haven't exerienced him.
Huh, what? Make up your mind.
If god can be experienced by authors then he can be experienced by scientists. If he is experiential then he is provable.
If he is not experiential by scientists then neither is he by authors. If authors are writing about something that they have not experienced then what they are writing is by necessity a work of fiction.
You can't have it both ways. If you can know about god then you can prove his existence. If you can't know about him then why are you saying things about him?
If god can exist independent of the holy scriptures, can he then exist independent from science?
????
You don't really have a clue as to what science actually is, do you?
Without anyone telling you, no matter what shaped hat they wear, don't you know some things, just aren't the right things to do, and some things are the right things to do?
It's called Animal Behavior, the same way a minnow knows to keep with the rest of the school. The explanation is completely Darwinian, no magic required.
Me grows weary , but please note, me has not resorted to one "quote," as yet, from the bible or otherwise...Oh..,"then you need to go back to the OT," perhaps, what is it?
Old Testament, have you heard of it? If not consider yourself lucky, dreadful stuff.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
You do know that when Voltaire the Atheist wrote this he was talking about Christianity, don't you?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 17:50:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's god's name. You may have seen it spelled Y-HW-H because to say it out loud will doom you to eternal torment.
Hope you didn't try to sound it out when you saw that I had typed it.
Was it someone from this forum that mentioned that it could very well be YaHoo-WaHoo, since they didn't write vowels? I think that name fits much better! 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 22:37:38 [Permalink]
|
near
quote:
Is it your contention that anything a so-called "God" tells you to do is by default moral?
Yes.
",..check out the "A Euthrypho type dilemma for atheists" and "EUTHRYPHO continued" in the General Skepticism forum. Select "Show all topics" in your browser..," sounds interesting, looked around for it, no joy. My browser, IE5.5, doesn't have "Show all topics." 
quote:
As a statement of position, if not already clear, me views "moratity" as having some divine authority as its basis.
Why would you think that morality would have a supernatural origin when nothing else does?
Well, me wouldn't of course, but here, am dealing with the meaning of the word.
"Do you think that the science of Animal Behavior is also supernatural?" Of course not.
It is considered moral to follow the directions of god.
"Are you saying that only those who follow the directions of your god are moral?"
No, don't believe me said anything near it.
"How about other gods in other cultures?"
I'll bite, how about them?
"How about those who behave exactly the same towards people as those who believe in your god but do so out of respect for the people themselves?"
How would you know the difference?
You keep putting words in my mouth, that I had no intention of saying. Is this a form of a slur? 
quote:
Confess, that in me own cursory search of a few years for salvation, limited it to those religions and a few other areas, still active in my lifetime.
Salvation? You needed to be saved from something?
(Looks around wide-eyed..) Oh yes! *LOL*
quote:
Know nothing of "Yahweh."
That's god's name. You may have seen it spelled Y-HW-H because to say it out loud will doom you to eternal torment.
Hope you didn't try to sound it out when you saw that I had typed it.
Yikes!!!  That is really interesting. Do you know where it comes from, would guess Judaism, huh?
Would bet the reasoning would go something like; God is without limits, any definition would impose limits, even his name. Dunno.
quote:
Am not dismayed by the fact, that the holy scriptures shared or borrowed, from each other.
Sigh, no matter how many times I say this it gets reinterpreted. Holy scripture didn't share, it didn't borrow, it stole the entire story and changed the name of the god.
Tsk! A mere quibble. 
quote:
And am certain in my own mind, that the belief in god, predates even the "written word."
I'm sure that you are correct, but you are leaving off the "S". The belief in godS --plural.
An oversight, me stand corrected. 
quote:
The term "Evil," has been and is, personified by Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, which has dozens, by Satan as an example.
Most Mythologists are convinced that the belief in evil spirits and demons greatly predates the belief in gods. (Mmmm...,OK)
Am too lazy to research *shrug* every point raised, but tink this is the root source for the term "evil."
The word comes from the English (as well it should). In Middle English it was evel and in pre-Norman Anglo Saxon it was yfel
Is "pre-Norman Anglo Saxon" the same as "Old English?" And ubilaz is from Germanic. As has been stated, guess me didn't make myself clear, was intending to infer the meaning of the term, derives from the acts of these devils.
quote:
The point of the exercise, was to examine a godless existance. Can the existance of god be proven with science? Of course not, is god the holy scritures? Of course not, they are merely words written by man in an attempt to bring god to those, who haven't exerienced him.
Huh, what? Make up your mind.
If god can be experienced by authors then he can be experienced by scientists. If he is experiential then he is provable.
If he is not experiential by scientists then neither is he by authors. If authors are writing about something that they have not experienced then what they are writing is by necessity a work of fiction.
You can't have it both ways. If you can know about god then you can prove his existence. If you can't know about him then why are you saying things about him?
An excellent "straw-man," bravo! Are you seriously suggesting, that one, who believes in god, can't be a scienist?
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
- Albert Einstein
I'll chose the latter.
quote:
If god can exist independent of the holy scriptures, can he then exist independent from science?
????
You don't really have a clue as to what science actually is, do you?
Yes, I believe that I do. This is another slur, isn't it?
quote:
Without anyone telling you, no matter what shaped hat they wear, don't you know some things, just aren't the right things to do, and some things are the right things to do?
It's called Animal Behavior, the same way a minnow knows to keep with the rest of the school. The explanation is completely Darwinian, no magic required.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 23:32:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes.
",..check out the "A Euthrypho type dilemma for atheists" and "EUTHRYPHO continued" in the General Skepticism forum. Select "Show all topics" in your browser..," sounds interesting, looked around for it, no joy. My browser, IE5.5, doesn't have "Show all topics."
Check for a drop box that says "Show topics from last 30 days" near the top left of a forum. It's a very, very old thread and they can be buried. I'm not sure if I finished reposting all of that one. If not, I apologize. It will eventually get done but you wouldn't believe the time it takes to post one post at a time, sometimes stopping to create a user that posted over a year ago and logging in and out for each poster....ugh! Now that's hell 
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 11:58:01 [Permalink]
|
I think you may need to go to the NT and see how Abraham's righteousness was credited to him........by faith. Abraham's acts were not all condoned by God, no evidence of that at all.
That's very nice but a little after the fact. Abraham is in Genesis not the NT. (Greg- do you have a time line on Abraham?) When he is mentioned outside the OT in the Koran and by Jesus in the NT he is roundly and consistently praised for his virtue and his righteousness, ie: his morals.
God condones his actions multiple (7) times.
Gen 17:3 I am El Shaddai. Walk in My ways and be blameless.
Abe didn't need "faith" as you represent it, as god regularly made personal appearances to him. His "righteousness" is never implied to have come from god but is always presented as his personal attribute.
If Jesus took this to mean that Abraham was blameless (see Bosom of Abraham); I don't know why it isn't good enough for you.
This is a classic mistake, assuming that the Bible condones everything it reports.
As some one pointed out in the Proof of God's existence thread, it is a classic response of some Christians when confronted with sections of the bible that they don't agree with, to change their meaning.
I won't even comment on the rest.
Okay, don't.
Care to comment about the time "blameless" Abe and his wife Sarai (AKA Sarah) took a trip to Egypt and Abraham pretended to be her brother and whored her out to Pharaoh's court?
My point is that morals are not a constant.
Frankly I could have picked any of the Patriarchs, Abraham is just an easy mark. What I'm attempting to demonstrate is that the morals of a man who at the time was venerated for his "righteousness" are extremely different than those a moral man would hold today.
Morals evolve over time.
You should be no more surprised that Abraham lived by a different set of morals than you should be surprised that he never owned a three piece, pin stripped, suit.
Seems interesting, every conversation I have had concerning morals(either absolute or otherwise) always leads to a conversation concerning God.
Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be because Christians insist upon leading it there? If it were up to me it would always lead into a conversation on the science of Animal Behavior and stay clear of superstition.
I think that there are certain things that we see as "evil" or "absolutely wrong." I don't think you could really give a good argument that most sane humans could not come to some agreement on absolute morality.
I'd go even beyond that to say that there was a "morality" (behavior) that extents past the races of humans and incorporates the other species of great apes, bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas (and to a lesser extent orangutans)
------------------------------------
Why would you think that morality would have a supernatural origin when nothing else does?
Well, me wouldn't of course, but here, am dealing with the meaning of the word.
I have just looked the definition of the word morality up in three dictionaries (including one whose publishers parent company is owned by the LDS) and none of them says a word about god or any other supernatural origin. You seem to be applying your own meaning.
"Are you saying that only those who follow the directions of your god are moral?"
No, don't believe me said anything near it…
"How about those who behave exactly the same towards people as those who believe in your god but do so out of respect for the people themselves?"
How would you know the difference?
You keep putting words in my mouth, that I had no intention of saying. Is this a form of a slur?
Actually I am pointing out a slur that you are making, probably without realizing it. I am not putting words in your mouth (although if I did I would use proper grammar) I am asking you questions. If you don't want to ask and be asked questions perhaps a forum is not the place for you.
Salvation? You needed to be saved from something?
(Looks around wide-eyed..) Oh yes! *LOL*
No need to laugh out loud. The "need" of salvation is far from being self evident. In fact if you will look closely you will find that the only people who have told you that you need to be "saved" at all are the same ones who make their livings "saving" people.
Since I have no intention of fleecing you out of your hard-earned money let me be the one to tell you that you are in absolutely no danger. You don't need to be saved. You are fine just the way you are.
"Yahweh."Yikes!!! That is really interesting. Do you know where it comes from, would guess Judaism, huh?
Would bet the reasoning would go something like; God is without limits, any definition would impose limits, even his name. Dunno.
Superstition had it that if you knew anyone's real name you could have magical control over them. God would blast you if you tried such nasty stuff on him.
Holy scripture didn't share, it didn't borrow, it stole the entire story and changed the name of the god.
Tsk! A mere quibble.
Far from a quibble--it shows that the gospels are lies.
If you can know about god then you can prove his existence. If you
can't know about him then why are you saying things about him?
An excellent "straw-man," bravo!
Straw-man? This is very straight and simple logic. Please show how this is in any way a straw-man.
Are you seriously suggesting, that one, who believes in god, can't be a scienist?
While almost 40% of the scientists in the USA profess some belief in a god (Journal of the AAAS, winter 1999) none of them are able to incorporate this belief while conducting science itself. A fact that greatly disturbs some of my Jesuit friends.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
- Albert Einstein
I'll chose the latter.
"There's a sucker born every minute; and two to take him."
---Attributed to P.T. Barnum,
but found in the writings of Abraham Lincoln
You don't really have a clue as to what science actually is, do you?
Yes, I believe that I do. This is another slur, isn't it?
No, merely an observation. Do you go out of your way to find slurs?
It is your choice of course, but I'll tell you, that when i look into the stars, i feel the magic, and I like it.
Is that a boast? Because it makes you sound like you are reveling in ignorance.
Magic is effect without appropriate cause. I can assure you that there is no magic in the stars
And (Voltaire) also said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
Again he is referring to Theism as the certainty which is absurd.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 15:24:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's very nice but a little after the fact. Abraham is in Genesis not the NT. (Greg- do you have a time line on Abraham?) When he is mentioned outside the OT in the Koran and by Jesus in the NT he is roundly and consistently praised for his virtue and his righteousness, ie: his morals.
Now be consistent, either we are talking from the NT or not. Besides, that is not what the scriptures say, anyway. The Bible teaches that none are righteous, not even one(including Abraham). I think you may be mixing terms. Morality is more of a belief, if that word fits, righteousness deals more with how you live your morals(ie. Abraham's faith was how he lived). I may be wrong here. Abraham was commended on his faith in Heb. 11:8. I'm guessing that alot of the admiration you see comes from the fact that 1. He was the father of the Jewish nation, and 2. He had direct contact with God. Abraham was never commended for his overall morality. He was commended because he "believed God," and it was credited to him as righteousness.
quote:
God condones his actions multiple (7) times.
Gen 17:3 I am El Shaddai. Walk in My ways and be blameless.
God condoned his obedience, certainly not everything he did. He screwed up quite a bit. I think you have taken that a little out of context.
quote:
Abe didn't need "faith" as you represent it, as god regularly made personal appearances to him. His "righteousness" is never implied to have come from god but is always presented as his personal attribute.
You still need faith in that Voice and what it is telling you. Abraham beleived God even when he asked him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham had faith that God would not ask him to kill Isaac, and even if he did, God would ressurect him. Did Abraham know these things? I'm not sure he did, and I don't think we can prove he did. He just believed God.
quote:
If Jesus took this to mean that Abraham was blameless (see Bosom of Abraham); I don't know why it isn't good enough for you.
Jesus did not take that to mean he was blameless. He was blameless because God credited him with righteousness(see above). It was only because of his faith. The same way all Christians are "saved".
quote:
As some one pointed out in the Proof of God's existence thread, it is a classic response of some Christians when confronted with sections of the bible that they don't agree with, to change their meaning.
Ok, what does this have to do with me? What I have given you is a commonly accepted view, among Christians, of Abraham. I do not think it has changed. And I am not so sure you could change the meaning in this case. Most critics just hand pick things without looking at the context.
quote:
Care to comment about the time "blameless" Abe and his wife Sarai (AKA Sarah) took a trip to Egypt and Abraham pretended to be her brother and whored her out to Pharaoh's court?
Sure, what is the problem? He actually did it twice, I believe. Abraham was a fallible man, just like any other. You're saying because he was not perfect in his morals, he was not a true believer? Pretty harsh standard, is it not? God called Abraham because He had a plan, not because Abraham was morally superior. Did God condone this particular action? No.
quote:
My point is that morals are not a constant.
Frankly I could have picked any of the Patriarchs, Abraham is just an easy mark. What I'm attempting to demonstrate is that the morals of a man who at the time was venerated for his "righteousness" are extremely different than those a moral man would hold today.
Morals evolve over time.
You should be no more surprised that Abraham lived by a different set of morals than you should be surprised that he never owned a three piece, pin stripped, suit.
Absolute morals are always absolute. People often step outside of them, but that does not mean the standard is gone, it just means we fell short. Torturing a baby is always wrong. Just because it happens, doesn't mean it now becomes right. What we accept as right and wrong has little to do with reality.
quote:
Seems interesting, every conversation I have had concerning morals(either absolute or otherwise) always leads to a conversation concerning God.
Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be because Christians insist upon leading it there? If it were up to me it would always lead into a conversation on the science of Animal Behavior and stay clear of superstition.
That was too easy, wasn't it? My belief is that absolute morals are God based. You may choose to believe in them, I just don't know why you, or any atheist, wastes the time. Are you just following cultural trends? It seems funny to me that all humans, if they are honest, share some sort of morals, even in radically different cultures, and reguardless of beliefs in God.
quote:
I'd go even beyond that to say that there was a "morality" (behavior) that extents past the races of humans and incorporates the other species of great apes, bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas (and to a lesser extent orangutans)
I'm not sure what you mean. Morals have to be expressed in some way. I would find it hard to determine what the morality of a Chimpanzee is. His/her behavior is just an action, we cannot determine the why. Also, why don't all animals share this morality, why only apes? Evolution should not be able to explain morality in any sense, should it?
Who is going to jump into the cage and see if that Ape's morals concerning murder are the same as his?
Evil exists, it's origin is what has everyone stumped.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 08/17/2001 15:33:18 |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 19:37:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have just looked the definition of the word morality up in three dictionaries (including one whose publishers parent company is owned by the LDS) and none of them says a word about god or any other supernatural origin. You seem to be applying your own meaning.
This is the most troubling of your posts, yet, to me personally. Assure you the meaning, that i have applied, is not exclusively mine. But did have the same exerience, searching the meaning from my single trusty dictionary, as well as later in speaking with a couple of friends. Frankly, am stunned, having always thought the distinction between moral and ethical, to be obivious. Do know, that it was pointed out to me at an early age, and have never questioned it, till now. It just well may be, that i have attempted to perpetrate a "regional" convention of the term, "moral." Am not abandoning the point just yet, but must admit to serious doult being raised, to what was the "underpinning" of my orginal argument. Having some time restraints, would like to consult some other sources. The supernatural link with evil, while a bit tenuous, is more easily made, i think.
Might i ask you, can a distinction between ethics and morals be drawn in your own mind?
"Actually I am pointing out a slur that you are making, probably without realizing it."
Am not aware of an intentional slur, sir, cast your light upon it, that i might enjoy it, too.
"I am not putting words in your mouth (although if I did I would use proper grammar) I am asking you questions. If you don't want to ask and be asked questions perhaps a forum is not the place for you."
Really, well, "How would you tell the difference?"
An answer or two, would be nice as well, would you agree? And strictly speaking, your "proper grammer," isn't. I do belive, that i have yet to mention my God, sir, so how might you assume to know of him?
"No need to laugh out loud. The "need" of salvation is far from being self evident. In fact if you will look closely you will find that the only people who have told you that you need to be "saved" at all are the same ones who make their livings "saving" people."
I thank you, sir, but the need is indeed, self-evident, for it is a honest dialog within the self, where it is revealed. It is a most private affair, you see. Where the best of me, is engaged with the worst of me, to define who, i am to be. These most lowest of cynics, that trade fears for coin, will neither gain a cent, nor a member from me. But your note of caution, i trust, is well recieved.
"Since I have no intention of fleecing you out of your hard-earned money let me be the one to tell you that you are in absolutely no danger. You don't need to be saved. You are fine just the way you are.
"
Well, make up me mind, grammar and all! (Thus assured, why do me feel as a christian within a den of lions, still?)
"Holy scripture didn't share, it didn't borrow, it stole the entire story and changed the name of the god."
Tsk! A mere quibble.
"Far from a quibble--it shows that the gospels are lies."
Should you write a book, say Skeptics 1a, that is hailed by all as the loftiest example of reason and clear thinking. And i, as the lowest of brigands with company, raid and plunder your town, steal your book, and return to the land of Nye, where me publishes it as the Muses of NubiWan, would the contents be transformed into lies?
Don't scientists borrow and build, upon each others work, perhaps even steal from under-grads? Change a sign here, invert there, rename theorem, wallah! Nobel Prize!
Small matter, have it your way...
"If you can know about god then you can prove his existence. If you
can't know about him then why are you saying things about him?"
An excellent "straw-man," bravo!
"Straw-man? This is very straight and simple logic. Please show how this is in any way a straw-man."
Slightly different version, uh, more condensed, and its still wrong. I do, and i have, to me, as said, it is a private, personal experience, mine anyway. Prove it to You? *L* Doultful, you insist on looking with inappropriate methods. I'm really trying not to say much about my god at all. Want to stay on the issue of his existence or non-existence, as much as possible. But am a bit too vain, not to attempt a tit for tat game, now and again. *shrug* Saw a post where you dismiss "Love" as a mere emotion, and it is an emotion. But it is also an experience, a very personal one, and if you don't know that, perhaps you should get out more. And i believe, untill one experiences, that most human of ones, their search for god, will be a long one. Ha! I drift. In your example, you presented, what seemed to be exclusive sets, scentists, authors, and was it christians(?). Think i demonstrated, that they overlap, there can be an author, who is also a christian, and a scientist. Which i am not, obiviously. You went on to say something like, one couldn't do science and continue his dialog with his god at the same time, kind'a like chewing gum. Why not?
quote:
"You don't really have a clue as to what science actually is, do you?
Yes, I believe that I do. This is another slur, isn't it?
No, merely an observation. Do you go out of your way to find slurs? "
No, don't go out of my way at all, this is in my face. Your observation, what was it based on, honestly, little if any science has been discussed here? And what was its contribution to the issue? I remain skeptical of your motives.
quote:
It is your choice of course, but I'll tell you, that when i look into the stars, i feel the magic, and I like it.
Is that a boast? Because it makes you sound like you are reveling in ignorance.
Magic is effect without appropriate cause. I can assure you that there is no magic in the stars
Not a boast, more of a delight actually. Really, to who? Might i remind you, the choice of the term magic was yours. I might have chosen wonder, awe, and yes, even glory. What did trigger the Big Bang?
"And (Voltaire) also said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
Again he is referring to Theism as the certainty which is absurd."
From my readings, had the impression of his distain for any smug certainty, where reasonable question could be raised.
Have a good week-end! 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 22:35:21 [Permalink]
|
You still need faith in that Voice and what it is telling you. Abraham beleived God even when he asked him to sacrifice Isaac.
Anybody remember "Son of Sam"? He had a similar experience.
Abraham had faith that God would not ask him to kill Isaac, and even if he did, God would ressurect him.
So have you started writing revisions to the OT? Good it certainly could use them. Those persnickety Jews might object though.
Jesus did not take that to mean he was blameless. He was blameless because God credited him with righteousness(see above).
That isn't what the OT says though. Half a dozen times god comes to Abe and promises him an heir. Each time god Welshes on the deal because Abe isn't righteous enough. The last time Abe is flat on his face on the ground and he starts laughing at god because he's doing the same BS again. Never does god confer righteousness on Abe and never is it even implied that righteousness would come from anywhere else but Abe.
These people were not American Protestants.
What I have given you is a commonly accepted view, among Christians, of Abraham.
What you have given me is a view accepted only among a small minority of Protestants. The views that I presented, although not my own, are held by Jews, Moslems, Catholics and the Main stream Protestants.
Abraham was a fallible man, just like any other. You're saying because he was not perfect in his morals, he was not a true believer?
I don't know how I could possibly make myself clearer. I am saying that he was a very moral man. His morals were exemplary. BUT THEY WERE THE MORALS THAT WERE APPROPIATE TO HIS TIME AND LOCATION. The only reason that I am able to present him in such a bad light is that OUR MORALS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE LAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS.
Absolute morals are always absolute.
No they are not. Morals are conditional.
Torturing a baby is always wrong.
Again conditional. Note above in stories of the child abuse of Isaac and Ishmael. Considered completely moral in the context of the society it was taking place in.
My belief is that absolute morals are God based You may choose to
believe in them, I just don't know why you, or any atheist, wastes the time. Are you just following cultural trends?
You don't, I hope, realize how insulting you are being. I'm not sure who you are insulting more Theists or Atheists.
Yes, Atheists base their morality on cultural trends and their respect for their fellow man.
Most of what present day Christians think of God based morality actually comes from the "Humanism" movement of the 18th Century.
It seems funny to me that all humans, if they are honest, share some sort of morals, even in radically different cultures, and reguardless of beliefs in God.
Very simple explanation…human morality has nothing to do with god. And a good thing for us that it doesn't since there is no god.
Morals have to be expressed in some way. I would find it hard to
determine what the morality of a Chimpanzee is. His/her behavior is just an action, we cannot determine the why. Also, why don't all animals share this morality, why only apes?
You were talking about a basic "human" morality, that is why I included the other great apes. You can also include dogs as their animal behavior (morality) so closely matches ours that they fit right in with human families.
Evolution should not be able to explain morality in any sense, should it?
There are more types of evolution than the purely biological one. There are behavioral adaptations that enhance a creature's ability to survive. Take a school of sardines. Those sardines who posses the behavior of turning left when the rest of the school turns left will live to have offspring who also turn with the school. Those who wind up scratching their heads and wondering where everybody went become lunch for some grouper and don't get to pass on their genes.
All animals that live in groups develop a group dynamic (Animal Behavior) that enhances their chances of survival.
We call our very complicated and ritualized group dynamic "morals." There is quite a lot more to it that staying with the herd, or school, or hunting pack, but then we have a much larger brain and much more complicated needs than sardines.
Who is going to jump into the cage and see if that Ape's morals concerning murder are the same as his?
Did I mention that my wife and I had dinner with Jane Goodall a few weeks ago when she was in town?
Several times I have had the privilege of being in enclosures with low land gorillas. Nothing to be frightened of (but be sure to remember to take off your glasses before you enter)
Evil exists, it's origin is what has everyone stumped.
Are you talking about Evil as a personification?
I find it interesting that none of the religions of Europe (Hellenistic, Roman, Celtic, Germanic or Norse) actually have a personification of Evil.
And yet all of the dozens of religions that come from the Near and Middle East have at least one.
Must be something about all that sand that gets you seeing bogeymen.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 23:09:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Torturing a baby is always wrong.
Again conditional. Note above in stories of the child abuse of Isaac and Ishmael. Considered completely moral in the context of the society it was taking place in.
Babies are still tortured and it's perfectly accepted. Ever heard of circumcision? I have heard many rationalizations for it but what I have seen is that babies feel it severely and it's a procedure done for NO good reason!
Ugh, the whole thing just makes me angry...what so many parents do to babies just because it's a tradition!!!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 11:42:28 [Permalink]
|
Might i ask you, can a distinction between ethics and morals be drawn in your own mind?
No, not really. Ethics only refers to a system of morals.
It might just be my natural suspiciousness, but the definition of "Ethics" sounds less " a "regional" convention of the term, and more like the manipulation of the language by some minister.
The supernatural link with evil, while a bit tenuous, is more easily made, i think.
I would have though so too. What with the word Devil being only a corruption of the word evil and all. But again, going back to the dictionaries, it would seem that we are both mistaken. No supernatural sources are claimed.
You realize, of course, that there is no such thing as "the supernatural." It is only fantasy.
And strictly speaking, your "proper grammer," isn't. I do belive, that i have yet to mention my God, sir, so how might you assume to know of him?… I thank you, sir, but the need is indeed, self-evident, for it is a honest dialog within the self, where it is revealed. It is a most private affair, you see. Where the best of me, is engaged with the worst of me, to define who, i am to be. These most lowest of cynics, that trade fears for coin, will neither gain a cent, nor a member from me. But your note of caution, i trust, is well recieved.
You will pardon me if I don't touch on every point that you make. I am no longer a young man and digging through piles of pretense and affectation looking for nuggets of communication exhausts me.
If you feel the crying need to hide your content with "style" then I can do not more than trust your good judgement, that your content should remain hidden.
And i, as the lowest of brigands with company, raid and plunder your town, steal your book, and return to the land of Nye, where me publishes it as the Muses of NubiWan, would the contents be transformed into lies?
Have you met Snake yet? The two of you should get along quite well.
Slightly different version, uh, more condensed, and its still wrong. I do, and i have, to me, as said, it is a private, personal experience, mine anyway. Prove it to You? *L* Doultful, you insist on looking with inappropriate methods.
So are you saying that the reason I am not finding proof of any gods is that there is something wrong with me, and my methods? That's certainly easy enough to believe, and easy enough to fix. After all that's what working science is about--finding where you have gone wrong and correcting it.
So tell me, what are the appropriate methods?
I will reproduce them and then we shall see what we shall see.
Saw a post where you dismiss "Love" as a mere emotion, and it is an emotion. But it is also an experience, a very personal one, and if you don't know that, perhaps you should get out more.
Oh please, not this Theistic ad hominem bullshit about Xians being the only ones who love again.
And i believe, untill one experiences, that most human of ones, their search for god, will be a long one.
So god is again reduced to a human emotion? Why is it always love that is the emotion Xians claim? Why not Angst or Dread?
Why not reduce god to a gastro-intestineal disorder or some other bodily function.
Emotions are produced by your brain as bile is produced by your spleen. There is nothing more supernatural about one than the other.
Think I demonstrated, that they overlap, there can be an author, who is also a christian, and a scientist. Which i am not, obiviously.
That's okay, I am.
It was you who originally divided them up into exclusionary categories. Making the scientists the goats of the lot. My point is that if one person can prove that there is a god then any person should be able to.
You went on to say something like, one couldn't do science and continue his dialog with his god at the same time, kind'a like chewing gum. Why not?
Science is the study of the natural world. Not the supernatural or the subnatural (you never hear anyone claim to have "sub-natural powers" do you?)
The most popular cartoon among scientists (hanging on the most bulletin boards around here at least) is that one by Harris. It shows a scientist writing an incredibly complicated equation across a chalkboard. It covers the entire left and right hand sides of the board--but in the middle, which is otherwise blank, he has written, "AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS."
You can't do faith and facts at the same time.
Your observation, what was it based on, honestly, little if any science has been discussed here? And what was its contribution to the issue?
If you would care to use it you would find that it can supply actual answers.
I remain skeptical of your motives.
My motives are entirely self-serving. I want to free people from superstition so that they will no longer subject me to its nonsense. The fact that they will personally benefit immensely from this intellectual freedom is completely secondary to me.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 12:34:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you seriously suggesting, that one, who believes in god, can't be a scienist?
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
- Albert Einstein
I'll chose the latter.
LOL! Personally, Nubiwan, I disagree with most of the arguments you've made on this thread but I liked that one. Slater needs a good zinger now and again, just to keep him honest. 
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 14:23:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Abraham had faith that God would not ask him to kill Isaac, and even if he did, God would ressurect him.
So have you started writing revisions to the OT? Good it certainly could use them. Those persnickety Jews might object though.
Sir, it is obvious you have not read the Bible thoroughly. This quote is from the NT, Heb. 11:19. Paul was talking to the Jews when he said this. If you don't understand how the NT and OT relate together, then our argument is really over.
quote:
Jesus did not take that to mean he was blameless. He was blameless because God credited him with righteousness(see above).
That isn't what the OT says though. Half a dozen times god comes to Abe and promises him an heir. Each time god Welshes on the deal because Abe isn't righteous enough. The last time Abe is flat on his face on the ground and he starts laughing at god because he's doing the same BS again. Never does god confer righteousness on Abe and never is it even implied that righteousness would come from anywhere else but Abe.
These people were not American Protestants.
I just don't know where you come up with this stuff. That is not how the story goes. God make certain unconditional promises to Abraham, and certain promises that are conditional. Why? I would never speculate. God DID in fact give the heir Abraham was promised. The only way to prove I'm right would be to write down the entire story and show you why you are wrong. I am just not willing to do that, pick up a Bible.
quote:
What I have given you is a commonly accepted view, among Christians, of Abraham.
What you have given me is a view accepted only among a small minority of Protestants. The views that I presented, although not my own, are held by Jews, Moslems, Catholics and the Main stream Protestants.
What you have given me is your view of what mainstream is. You use the word 'mainstream' as if it is some sort of standard by which I must measure myself. This view is correct, by what the Bible says. I also believe your assumptions about these other 'religions' to be false. Prove yourself.
quote:
Absolute morals are always absolute.
No they are not. Morals are conditional.
Torturing a baby is always wrong.
Again conditional. Note above in stories of the child abuse of Isaac and Ishmael. Considered completely moral in the context of the society it was taking place in.
I was referring to the physical torture. As far as Isaac and Ishmael, I do not condone what was done there, neither does the OT, if it does, it does not say so.
quote:
My belief is that absolute morals are God based You may choose to
believe in them, I just don't know why you, or any atheist, wastes the time. Are you just following cultural trends?
You don't, I hope, realize how insulting you are being. I'm not sure who you are insulting more Theists or Atheists.
Yes, Atheists base their morality on cultural trends and their respect for their fellow man.
Most of what present day Christians think of God based morality actually comes from the "Humanism" movement of the 18th Century.
I was unaware of this insult. As I re-read, I can see how you took it that way. I apologize. Just stating a fact, you base your morals on cultural trends that change, therefore your morals (sense of right and wrong) will change, over time. This does not cause you a problem? This makes it sort of like a fashion fad. Why would you base your morality on a fad? That is why I asked why you, or anyone who believes in moral relativism(ie. atheists), wasted your time with it. I wouldn't waste my time on right and wrong if it was just going to be reversed later.
quote:
Morals have to be expressed in some way. I would find it hard to
determine what the morality of a Chimpanzee is. His/her behavior is just an action, we cannot determine the why. Also, why don't all animals share this morality, why only apes?
You were talking about a basic "human" morality, that is why I included the other great apes. You can also include dogs as their animal behavior (morality) so closely matches ours that they fit right in with human families.
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. I don't understand your example of 'behavior.' They have little to do with each other, in this argument. As you well know, there are a major amount of differences between us and the rest of the animals, in this respect.
quote:
Evil exists, it's origin is what has everyone stumped.
Are you talking about Evil as a personification?
No. Just the concept.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 21:21:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. I don't understand your example of 'behavior.' They have little to do with each other, in this argument. As you well know, there are a major amount of differences between us and the rest of the animals, in this respect.
That's just your ego talking! You need to take a step back and accept that people are animals. Peel away the layers of ritual and customs and somewhere, deep below everything you will see that our motivations are not all that sophisticated. We have very complicated customs and rules etc, but in the end it's all about one thing....creating a society that better insures that it's young can grow up to produce more young that can grow up to produce more young so that they can produce more young....get the picture
It's not pretty, but it's the way it is.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
