I just don't want to eat cute animals.
Ugly animals I'm totally fine with.
Printable View
I just don't want to eat cute animals.
Ugly animals I'm totally fine with.
Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? Doing good fueled by fear or the promise of some reward doesn't really rank high on my list of qualities. It seems to me more like one clear case of mass-induced hypocrisy. Which is essentially what any church in the world is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
And to get around making the whole thing more appealing they throw in God's Design, meaning everything is god's desire. So, you eventually only need to feel very sorry for all the crap you do in order to be saved. Everything else is governed either by god's desire or the devil's plans.
Atheists like myself however feel no special need to be good other than the desire to be so or by some imposition of the social circle around us. We are only fueled by ethical or moral values our societies implanted on us since birth and by our own level of empathy towards another human being.
Atheits can be utter creeps. Others are really great men and women. The majority just sits in the middle. Just like with religious men and women. There are creeps, great and so-so people.
I see. I'm afraid to ask... what kind of selection is that? And, just out of curiosity, do you extend that to other things? Like, are ugly people less less worthy of your attention? Fat people? Black people? White? From another country? Old?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Or is it just animals you don't find attractive that you see as disposable?
No. If he were forced to cannabalism, I.E- trapped on an icy mountain top with a female soccer team, he would eat the fat chick, and share her with the hot blond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
That was meant to be a joke :). I eat all animals indiscriminately. The real selection criteria is how delicious they are.Quote:
I see. I'm afraid to ask... what kind of selection is that? And, just out of curiosity, do you extend that to other things? Like, are ugly people less less worthy of your attention? Fat people? Black people? White? From another country? Old?
Or is it just animals you don't find attractive that you see as disposable?
In some places, eating dogs is illegal while eating cows and pigs are fine, because somehow, eating dogs is more cruel than eating other things. I find it ridiculous.
That makes a lot of sense. Although if it's a soccer team, I will probably be the one getting eaten.Quote:
No. If he were forced to cannabalism, I.E- trapped on an icy mountain top with a female soccer team, he would eat the fat chick, and share her with the hot blond.
Great cyberfish, thanks for twisting that knife in my soul. Sometimes I feel it's better to eat cows than fish, because I can eat a whole fish in one meal whereas a single cow would probably last me a while. Most of the time I think it's better to eat fish because fish are cold-blooded, and they taste better.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Not to sound defensive -- I think drugs and alcohol are basically harmless*, and I've done tons of both of them, altho this does not address the more philosophical issue you are referencing/regurgitating -- but I'm pretty sure that talk show wisdom derives from the twelve step movement, which demands participants place their faith in a high power. The 12 step thing is pretty successful, or at least extremely popular, for people who cannot control themselves and have gotten themselves into difficult situations and must completely change. As a consequence you have all these happy, non-addicted people running around afterward going, "Oh, I realized I was using drugs and alcohol to fill a void in my life that is now occupied by the Holy Spirit" -- bulls**t. You're just talking about a program you completed and that's all. If you were a liar before, it probably won't be that much harder for you now :p Anyway, I don't have a big problem with that except it fosters this idea that people use drugs and alcohol to "fill a void". I "filled a void" for 45 minutes today doing push-ups, hooray. I filled a longer one reading. What "fill a void" means in the context of drinking and getting high is very much different than what it would mean in a spiritual context. Lot of uncritical crap in public discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Also I guess if you get into big doses of psychedelics that can be profound on a level I'd equate with spirituality, but I'm an athiest, so I believe the "spiritual" experiences of the religious are experiences we all have anyway. That doesn't means LSD will help you understand spirituality, more like if you have a spiritual dimension (we all do, obviously, you can develop that how you like) then it will be hard to ignore on 5 or 6 hits of acid. Actually even stimulants have a spiritual significance IMO, but it is easier to dismiss.
Also, logically Mario, from a secular, rational, EMPIRICAL scientific perspective, saying drugs and alcohol are not the truth -- that there is something fake about them -- is totally absurd. Not saying they are bad or good, but they are real.
*nb, you can kill yourself with relatively harmless things if you want to make the effort
You guys scare me. :D MK27 in particular.
Very interesting discussion. You do realize we have debated about God in this thread and have yet to start a flame war. I'd call that positive cboard progress. :D
Personally, I think circumcision is a good thing. I was
circumcised and it's the best thing that ever happened
to me.
+1 for circumcision.
I don't think there is a good. I do "good" things because that's what my momma taught me. I really don't think it goes any further than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
The universe laughs at us for worrying about such silly crap.
A more interesting question for me, rather than the definition of good/evil, is "why be good?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I confess sometimes the nihilist approach is very appealing to me too. I do have some of it in me. Not so much on this aspect, but in other matters (like life and death).Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
No my friend..there's the point where psychology cannot help you and they point you to priest. Exorcism is pretty rare...one catholic priest in Vatican says that about 98% of "possessions" are in fact psychological disorders the rest are real possessions and the only way to "heal" the person is through the ritual of exorcism.
I don't know how you look at it...is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Because you're an unreflective bumpkin :p. There is obviously a rational and empirical element -- social animals (like homo sapiens) which cannot do any good for anyone else tend to end up ostracised and/or dead. This does not mean they have to do good for everyone, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
I heard of an interesting study lately whereby pre-verbal babies were shown simple morality plays with puppets and clearly demonstrated a passing of judgement on characters who did "bad" things to other puppets. Being well behaved probably has a significant natural/genetic component, or at least our genetic heritage has left us with capacities the evolutionary purpose of which is making moral distinctions.
Most likely, being "bad" is much more of a learned activity. Eg, AFAIK all carnivorous mammals must learn to hunt.
Again, this is just the aliens playing mind games with the clergy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
That is sort of where I was going with my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
My personal opinion is that it makes more sense to define good/evil in a way that it gives you a reason to be good/evil. Otherwise, you are most likely worrying without a reason. Creating restrictions rather than freeing yourself from them.
But it goes the other way around for some. They worry about such silly crap that is why the feel it goes further. Which makes them serious crap for them. Saying that it doesn't "go further" implies that either they are stuck to worry, which is not a very optimistic approach. My point being that the worrying makes it wort it for many people, as the alternative is worse for them.
Gonna raise the TMI flag on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Sure, but as a religious person you must dismiss the logic of nature and make it seem like we need the Church to morally guide us, because it is the foundation of rational morality, when in truth religion is a perversion of such whose historical significance is simply about power and politics, and for whom "morality" is a means of social control used to justify ancient hegemonic political structures and endlessly perverse, abhorrent behaviour by it's followers (eg, Manifest Destiny).Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
So what is good or bad anyway? How does one define that?
It can be relative for each person. Is there an absolute definition of these two?
Well, I don't know. The answer is on your side, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
I mean, what on earth do you think an atheist as to say about exorcism? And why exorcism? Don't you agree that is a strange question? I'd expect to be asked... I don't know... what do I think of churches values concerning good or evil, or at the very least questions concerning the doubtful nature of being an atheist (I agree it's hard to believe there is such a thing is true atheism). But exorcism? Weird.
But you want an answer, right? Fine.
I think its an ignorant ritual fueled by the church dogma. But that is exceedingly embarrassing in our modern societies and so the church rarely feels comfortable discussing or even hearing it mentioned.
Right, so now we pretend it is all just subjective and relativistic without God to provide a reference point. Maybe y'all should try reading some other book...Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
Few words here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
-ignorant
-embarrassing
-modern
What is ignorant about it?
Why embarrassing? Because of the science?
Modern? Modern technology, modern lifestyle, modern values? Modern as opposed to what? Church teachings?
Anyway, Church's mission is not spectacle, but to provide the good news of salvation, to spread the faith in Jesus Christ.
So every exorcism is kept in secret, not to give too much attention to devil (spectacle) and to keep possessed person's dignity.
Is that your conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Yes, as I said before I think the vast majority of people who claim to believe in God are lying. They may have very good reasons to do so -- such lies are no real crime. Religion is not completely without some redeeming value.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
However, I think they are also aware of the "moral weakness" inherent in this stance, and as a defence they make these kinds of arguments (that objective morality is impossible without a God), all of which can be dismissed reductio ad absurdium.
The fact they believe and support the notion people get possessed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
Because the idea of possessions and exorcism very closely rubs against the notion of superstition. A word very dangerous to any church, and avoided at all costs. It's the fastest way to lose your supporters and the faithful, in these day and age where even Faith is becoming a luxury.Quote:
Why embarrassing? Because of the science?
Right. Yeah. Whatever.Quote:
Anyway, Church's mission is not spectacle, but to provide the good news of salvation, to spread the faith in Jesus Christ.
So every exorcism is kept in secret, not to give too much attention to devil (spectacle) and to keep possessed person's dignity.
They don't believe here....they actually preform the ritual and through the name of Jesus Christ heal the person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
It happens that possessed person can't stand any elements which are being used in the process of exorcism (sign of cross, holy water, name of Jesus Christ...). Self suggestion?
Superstition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I think you should study exorcism. See what other side says about it.
Otherwise..this doesn't make any sense at all.
See, that is the problem why people are so judgemental towards religion. No one really understand what the religion is all about. No one actually took time to study church's teachings and yet they take every right to spit on it based on superficial information they gathered from the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
That my friend is an ignorance.
Why does a religious person need to dismiss the logic of nature? Who said that a religious person needs a Church? Don't forget that there were Christians before there was a Church, not the other way around. As for the first Church it was the one that was being chased after, not the one in control. As they are a lot of small Churches without any power. I think you are oversimplifying facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
What I think is that you are speaking mostly about the Catholic Church exercising its power in some societies in which it has a lot of followers, thus power. And its followers not being real believers anymore, thus being corrupted.
So, in order to clarify, are you opinions referred to any kind of religion, the leaders of any kind of religion, the Christian religion in general, the Catholic Church's religion, the leaders or the majority of the followers of the Catholic Church, something else?
You have no idea how wrong you are. And that, my friend, is ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
How about that for being judgmental?
This is classic. No, Church was founded the first time Jesus gathered apostles. All the teachings and traditions of these apostles are kept in Catholic Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
Every other church came after and only contributed to disunity. Most of them appeared on amercian soil, about 33000 different protestant churches. That is not the unity...that is not christianity.
I am amazed by your logic and conclusions. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
No, you just cannot accept that some people will not concurr that the Emperor is well dressed when he is standing around naked in plain sight. Most of us are surrounded by religious people and always have been. There is no need to consult the media. I talk to religious people almost everyday. I have friends who are Deacons. I've read many parts of the Bible and other core religious texts. I've gone on retreats with Sufis. I've sat through sermons. Some of my best friends are born again Christians. We go hiking together. I've heard all their arguments, etc., they are of course always interested in a potential conversion :pQuote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
But you will call me ignorant as long as I deny the existence of God. There is no God and there are is no genuine devil involved in possession or exorcism. That is not ignorance, that is enlightenment.
The Catholic Church was just very successful. Like Europe. But here's an analogy: just because a country is small and insignificant from a global perspective does not mean it is free from internal tyranny. You can be an essentially powerless person and still be obsessed with obtaining and wielding in anyway you can. Like North Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
However, small, insignificant Churches will be unappealing to such people if they have better choices and so, to give them credit, they often do appear unusually nice and unconcerned with dominating others. I think this is harder for some religions than others (Christianity and Islam) due to their nature (but, eg, Sufis seemed to have escaped that, and I think there are some Christian sects too). On the other hand, there are also small cult Churches so insanely power mad that most people will avoid them, and these small cults are the inverese -- anything by nice. I have no doubt that there are plenty of fringe Fundamentalist groups in the world that would eagerly kill most of the world's population, and enslave the rest. If they could. Glory to God!
In general I think what I'm saying applies to all Religion, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
I tried different approaches to respond to this...but it always comes down to same conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I won't fight since it doesn't make much sense. Faith is never discovered through the words of man, but through the good acts and opened heart. That's why it's been said that faith is gift to all those who seek.
So, one of us is very wrong...let's wait to find out. Maybe one of us will get an answer tomorrow? Till then, we got many lines of code to write down.
Is that a faith or a statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Because there is really no other conclusion. Faith is, you say, a search for truth. I say, so is the rejection of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
Of course it is. If you want to believe, all you need to do is believe. This circular logic has sustained religious thinking since its inception.Quote:
I won't fight since it doesn't make much sense. Faith is never discovered through the words of man, but through the good acts and opened heart. That's why it's been said that faith is gift to all those who seek.
However the implicit result of that logic is that only through faith do I find love and goodwill towards men. And that is completely wrong. It's the exclusive nature of religious thinking, that I have the most serious issue with.
And that profound lie, I denounce every opportunity I have.
I suppose rationally, you cannot rule out the possibility, now matter how remote it seems. I would put it in the same category as UFO's -- lots of people will say there is evidence, but I still haven't seen any that's very convincing. And I'd love to believe they're out there. But I really can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotunix
Of course, aliens might not want us to have any evidence. I find the concept of extra-terrestrial life far more believable than that a omniscient divine being created reality. But it might not want us to have any evidence either.
The idea that some religion has an inside angle here is ridiculous. Without proof, anyone is free to make up whatever they want about "God" and no one, including God, is going to stop them. So why would I believe 99.9% of religious observations about this (preposterous) divine being is anything more than the human imagination at work? That's why the fact of the matter is that religion is really and truly just about human politics. I have no doubt there. I'd refer you again to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
This is a fundamental principle without which rational thought is not possible.
Could I say that in the search of Truth you believe that Religion is the wrong approach?Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Religions say they have proof. You just don't accept that proof because it is not convincing enough for you. Because what we do is:
1) You create some axioms, self-evident truths. You cannot prove or disprove them.
2) Using those axioms and logic built everything else.
The first depends solely on how convincing it is for you. Nothing else. If you don't accept the basics of the string-theory in physics for example, the rest don't matter at all. But don't you think that the people that believe/disbelieve the theory have valid reasons?
And imagination? Everything is our imagination. You have your senses that collect data, but from there and on its your imagination. We create models and ideas. We create words to describe things. Reality is just a label you give to things.
To begin any logically/scientific process you need axioms. Self-evident truths. Things that you cannot prove or disprove. If you accept the existence of God and the afterlife as axioms then you can easily built a whole religion which is as logical as algebra. Both uses axioms and expand them with logic. Both have a reason of existence.
My point is that there are truths without proof in science, which I am guessing you accept. Why is it bad to use truths without proof outside science?
You can believe that your wife will even give her life away for you, but you have no proof. Unless she already did or she tried to. But people want to believe in that kind of love, even though they have no proof.
So seeing that even scientists use things without proof and that some ideas are worth believing even without proof, religion is just one more thing like that. People believe in it emotionally (as they believe in love) and logically (as they believe its axioms).
Another point I want to make is that believing and knowing are different. You believe that gravity will exist in 10 minutes. You don't know that, since you cannot know the future. As you might believe in evolution, but there is no way of knowing.
With logic you go nowhere, that is why these discussions lead nowhere. If somebody wants to believe in something and that something doesn't contradict with the rest of his/hers ideas, then there is no reason for him/her not to believe in it.
Should religion give an opinion about science? My answer is yes. As science should give an opinion about religion. Everybody can give any opinion they like. The ones that have the final decision are the People. If progression is limited because of that, so what? Nobody said that we have to progress as quickly as we can. Religion in some cases does indeed result in having a smaller rate of progression. That doesn't mean it is bad or good. As progression is not our primarily goal.
Exorcism is like witch burning in that it needs to be abolished by everyone's religious leaders.
I actually have experience being exorcised, not as a church practice, but by another Catholic who shall remain anonymous. However, I can't imagine it being "better" as a church practice.
We got into a heated argument, but I think they were afraid of being physically attacked. What happened was basically what you would expect from movies. The person had a bottle of holy water and chose to dump it all over me, complete with, "The power of Christ compels you!"
Anyway, you would expect that this is not the time to break out a magic ritual, no matter what the argument was actually about. It's not one of my proudest moments, but no experience has been as demeaning. You do not demonstrate God's love for me like that. I refuse to even talk about God now.
Or the 2% has the I-believe-I-am-possessed disorder and exorcism is the most effective cure.Quote:
No my friend..there's the point where psychology cannot help you and they point you to priest. Exorcism is pretty rare...one catholic priest in Vatican says that about 98% of "possessions" are in fact psychological disorders the rest are real possessions and the only way to "heal" the person is through the ritual of exorcism.
Has there been placebo-controlled studies on exorcism?
Ok....back to the topic at hand.
Scientists create artificial life. Or did they?
Yes, this is a very succinct description of circular logic, which is the cornerstone of theology.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
I vaguely agree with this, however, I believe the only axiom fundamental to science is the logical validity of deductive reasoning. Logical axioms, like a phenomenon cannot be it's own cause (the chicken and egg principle, or there's a reason for everything) are of the exact same nature as 1+1=2. Do you have to believe in "1" or do you merely have to understand what "1" means in order to reason logically? Once you understand what one means, you will also understand that 1+1=2.Quote:
And imagination? Everything is our imagination. You have your senses that collect data, but from there and on its your imagination. We create models and ideas. We create words to describe things. Reality is just a label you give to things.
To begin any logically/scientific process you need axioms. Self-evident truths. Things that you cannot prove or disprove.
However, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated with either sound deductive reasoning or through empiricism. Occam's Razor will stop you at every point -- and if you want to ignore that, then anything goes. The universe began from the belch of a giant rabbit. Why not?
Certainly you are free to believe what you want.
That's where our opinions differ. Logic brought us computers and satellites (for better or worse). I believe all you need is logic, and your senses, to explain the whole shebang. Call me old fashioned. Of course, if you know that your core beliefs defy logic, then you would have to defend those by arguing that logic has certain (arbitrary, and defined by you) limitations -- limitations which logically it does not have. Is that circular reasoning? I don't think so, but lets say it is. No matter what you want to do, you will have to accept that in any case, and it is certainly the last one and only one you would have to accept.Quote:
With logic you go nowhere, that is why these discussions lead nowhere.
I would say they did if that life can reproduce, and it is genetically a new species. Which presumably it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
It is a step. My opinion is that it is too early to say. Too many ifs here and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
If I am not mistaken, the whole thing wasn't artificial, just the DNA, so I guess partially they created one. DNA is important but it is not everything.
I believe that they are far from creating any complex artificial organism. Meaning that they will have to experiment a lot more on micro-organisms.
So if the question is "Is this the beginning", I would say no. It is a step, not the first step of something completely new.
Nah. Not in my humble book at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
There's nothing artificial in those cells. Everything is natural. The genetic material was "chemically printed, synthesized and assembled [sic]" and then inserted into the cells. Here "artificial" is being used as man-made. WHich is quite alright, mind you. But to me, just an extension to the concept of cloning.
I happen to look at artificial life as a life-form that doesn't depend on chemical reactions to live, reproduce and sustain itself. That is, "Artificial" as being outside the scope of nature.
I don't think making artificial cell is that strange.
Its a chemical solution. Just a complex one.
Anything we make has a root in nature.
Lets use a more complicated example. An example where you have more than one option.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Don't you have to agree on quantum physics in order to reason logically with them? Is there any proof that they exist. No. It is just a theorem. It is a way to describe things. In other words, an answer to the a lot of questions regarding physics. There are other theorems as well.
If you accept quantum physics you accept some basic self-evident truths. Think of Shroedinger's cat example. You accept the duality of things. The idea of possibilities. A lot of people disagree. Ordinary people as well as scientists, because they don't find it satisfying enough.
You cannot really expect comparing religion to science will not be met with a certain degree of jaw dropping and scorn. And, let me tell you, also by the ministers of these religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
There's only the mystery of Faith. And that's the only thing that is relevant to religion. I can't believe I'm the one giving you a hand here, but I need to remind you that contrary to what is implied even by me on previous arguments, Faith is not belief. It transcends the notion of belief.
Faith defines Truth, regardless of any evidence contrary to it. And this is why Science cannot substitute Faith. Ultimately, Faith is a gift given to you by God and not something that you can reach on your own without his eventual consent. And hence why it is ultimately the one truth. Faith comes from God.
I'm not interested at this point in discussing what I think of this. I think it should be clear to you by now I give it no credit. But I find it insulting to Religion that you choose to represent their defense in such a weak argumentation.
Wrong. Totally wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I'm saying wrong one more time.Quote:
If you accept quantum physics you accept some basic self-evident truths.
You don't accept anything in science, except for the fact that everything, even the most demonstrated piece of evidence, can become questionable at a certain point in the scientific process. You open yourself to all options and you explore all possible ways to destroy your own theories. Or at least this is the basic principle by which science should be governed.
Ultimately I could say science is not concerned with truth. But with knowledge.
I was very reflective... in the past. I spent six months doing nothing but "reflecting" right after school. Some of the more productive reflection involved various substances, some of it didn't. I've looked as deeply as I can at reality, and I just don't see anything there but particles.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
I maintain my good behavior because it feels right, but I do understand that the reason it DOES "feel right" is because of conditioning.
That is true only if you rely merely on your Faith. Otherwise, if there is evidence (a scientific for example) that the Truth is not really true, then you have two contradictory ideas. You have to abandon one. Otherwise your ideas are not really logical, which is fine, but not something really interesting talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Further than that, I am not comparing religion and science. I am just pointing out that science and religion both accept self-evident truths. The have starting points. There is not really sense in proving the starting points, as you defined them as self-evident, or something that cannot be proven. At least as long as you don't have completely new information.
For me faith is belief. In my mother language they are the same word. In the english language, faith and belief can have the same meaning. If you are using Faith in a more theological way, that is fine, but I was talking about belief, in the everyday meaning. Trusting something.
There is trust/belief, as well as imagination in both science and religion. Maybe my phrasing is bad. I would be more accurate if I said that theology, science and philosophy all use some basic principles. Those are having some starting points (axiom) that cannot be proven and using them to expand logically the general idea.
I would disagree on that. I believe science is concerned with the truth. But that is another discussion, that has been done a lot of times among scientists and philosophers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
You accept them when you want to analyze them further. Even temporarily accept. Doesn't matter if you question them or doubt them. They are the starting point, which starting point you simply accept. You accept it for no strict logical reasons I might have to say. They still have to be convincing, reasonable etc etc. But you cannot expect to find any proof, as that has no meaning. The same, for me, is trying to find proof for God. It doesn't really make sense, at least for how some religions define God.
In any case, religious people can still be doubtful and try to destroy their own ideas.
No, you don't. You can believe in a God and still believe in nature, and the logic of nature, at the same time, because God is the creator of nature...Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Hence the area of theology known as natural theology.Quote:
You can believe in a God and still believe in nature, and the logic of nature, at the same time, because God is the creator of nature...
Actually it can be...Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Sound deductive reasoning:
Question 1: How did I get here?
Answer: I was conceived in my mother, and was formed in her belly, and then born into the world.
Question 2: How did my mother get here?
Answer: She got here the same way I did (i.e. was born from her mother).
Question 3: Ok, so how did all the people before her get here?
Answer: They most likely came into the world the same way I did, from their mothers, though I can't *prove* this with scientific evidence because I wasn't around when they walked on the earth the same as I do now, and thus did not witness their being born into the world. However, it is generally an accepted fact that each person all the way up the line of humans came from their mothers.
Question 4: Ok, so logic tells us that there had to be a *first* human (obviously, two, because we haven't met any humans who was conceived asexually) on the planet, who all the other humans descended from. So how did the first human(s) get here?
Answer: Well, here is your answer: God created him (and her).
There is your "proof" of existence in God. If you don't believe this, then most likely you believe a different theory: evolution. If you believe in evolution, then how do you explain how everything before humans got here? Logic tells us there has to be a first of everything, or else there wouldn't be a second, a third, and so on. So, as you can see, that is justifiable logical deduction to believe in the existence of a God.
Wrong. True FAITH in something is both believing and trusting in it, hence Faith in God is the belief that He exists, and He is true (i.e. never lies), and will always do what He says. And, yes, one can not *prove* that the object of his faith exists with physical evidence. That's what makes it faith. It is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I don't know where you got your definition of faith from, but its obviously not the Bible, since that is the basis of Christian faith...
No, you're wrong. Faith is not truth. They're two separate things. And, it is not just a "gift given by God". It must be sought for on one's own initiative, and you must exercise the faith often to keep it alive in you, if you want to possess it. Oh, and the Bible says that without faith, it is impossible to please Him. Just so we're clear on that too...Quote:
Faith defines Truth, regardless of any evidence contrary to it. And this is why Science cannot substitute Faith. Ultimately, Faith is a gift given to you by God and not something that you can reach on your own without his eventual consent. And hence why it is ultimately the one truth. Faith comes from God.
I like watching John Lennox (Mathematics professor at Oxford)
debate Richard Dawkins (former professor at Oxford and current
God of all internet Atheists) debate about the existence of God.
Intelligent, well thought-out debates about such an interesting
topic.
Says who? The Bible? You know what they say about the devil, don't you? That he knows the bible like the back of his hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer_P
And you know why they say that?
Next time you question my knowledge of the Bible and my knowledge of christian faith, I'll have no more talking with you. You clearly are too wrung up in your own thinking that are incapable of having a theological discussion without bringing in your cult into it. You represent nothing but your own faith. Keep that in mind when you presume you can speak for all of Christianity. Much less the Roman Catholic Church, which you don't belong to.
Says me. :) But not just me...the Bible/Word of God, also says it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Quote of edited version:
That's a pretty big assumption that I was presuming that, now isn't it... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
For the record, I wasn't presuming that I was speaking on the behalf of anyone.
However, if you're worried that I'm lying, I suggest you look up the greek word translated as "faith". Yes, "faith" can sometimes be translated as religious truth (i.e. the gospel itself), but it has a much deeper meaning than that, and includes the trust/reliance on God and the belief as well. Moreover, true "faith" is always accompanied by action.
Bible is word of God? I thought humen wrote it.
Either you are completely ignorant about religion or you are being sarcastic. Either way you just flare up more useless answers, in an already out of topic discussion, that is getting more and more general. I mean, what possible productive response did you expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by siavoshkc
As for what is faith and belief you can get a lot of meanings.
But there is a scientific belief. The one that comes with a deep rational process involving emotions, logic, wants among other things. You don't merely choose such believes. Thus, if you want to believe, but you find no reason to, you cannot truly believe. Not in a scientific way of belief, since you are not true on principals that come with it which require you to use to logically convince yourself. As you cannot truly believe because you are afraid.
On the other hand, you don't need any "special" faith given by God nor to believe without doubt in order to be a "faithful believer". Nor do you just have to hope or trust that your beliefs are true.
My understanding is that people believe in a lot of ways, for different reasons and perceive their beliefs differently. You cannot oversimplify and say that Christians are believing in this certain way and not any other.
That been said, there is nothing wrong of blind faith or believe without a reason. Or to believe just because you want to. In the contrary, they are must stronger beliefs. They are just too personal to be interesting to the rest. But there is also the kind of belief that you can reason with it, find the reasons and feelings behind it on one degree and see if they are reasonable to you.
If I explain my belief in a reasonable way, explain the reasons I believe in it, my feelings behind it, my thoughts and you still think that I don't truly believe, then you are just not being subjective. You are not accepting certain principles to judge a belief.
So going back to answering "if Christians believe in God", you have to use some principles to judge their beliefs. Which principles? Well, use more scientific ones. Which would be judging the irrelevant/temporarily reasons (i.e. believing because you are afraid) from the relevant reasons (i.e. believing because it is meaningful for you) behind a belief. Or use other principles that you generally use to judge any scientific belief.
Because I can agree that a (certain) little child that is afraid to say no to his parents doesn't truly believe, but not a (certain) professor in theology. Their belief is most likely not the same.
My point is that you cannot choose to be selective how you judge a belief. The same principles you use to judge a belief in physics you should use to judge a belief in a religion or an idea. That is being subjective.
Who/what created God? If he is an exception to your rule of things having to have a first, then why couldn't life on earth be an exception to it?Quote:
Actually it can be...
Sound deductive reasoning:
Question 1: How did I get here?
Answer: I was conceived in my mother, and was formed in her belly, and then born into the world.
Question 2: How did my mother get here?
Answer: She got here the same way I did (i.e. was born from her mother).
Question 3: Ok, so how did all the people before her get here?
Answer: They most likely came into the world the same way I did, from their mothers, though I can't *prove* this with scientific evidence because I wasn't around when they walked on the earth the same as I do now, and thus did not witness their being born into the world. However, it is generally an accepted fact that each person all the way up the line of humans came from their mothers.
Question 4: Ok, so logic tells us that there had to be a *first* human (obviously, two, because we haven't met any humans who was conceived asexually) on the planet, who all the other humans descended from. So how did the first human(s) get here?
Answer: Well, here is your answer: God created him (and her).
There is your "proof" of existence in God. If you don't believe this, then most likely you believe a different theory: evolution. If you believe in evolution, then how do you explain how everything before humans got here? Logic tells us there has to be a first of everything, or else there wouldn't be a second, a third, and so on. So, as you can see, that is justifiable logical deduction to believe in the existence of a God.
Also, those 4 'questions' leading you to quite possibly the most unlikely answer isn't sound deductive reasoning (well, at least not in my book, someone correct me if I'm wrong). I find it much more likely that over millions of years of Earth existing some molecules managed to arrange in such a way as to create a very simple form of life (single cellular organisms) than a man up in the sky creating everything.
That said, I'm not really good at chemistry.
Oh no, not another creationism vs evolutionism thread. Religious debates are useless and can only end with a disaster (or if we are lucky, the topic is locked before it happens). Anyway, please STOP. To all religious people - this is not the place to share your religious beliefs. And to all others - religion means people believe in it and don't accept evidence that doesn't support their beliefs, no matter how solid it is. So... what was the original topic again?
Theistic Evolution is what C_ntua describes. It's one of those funny bits of religion. When faced with the harshest of evidence, comes around to produce yet another explanation, subtracting previous teachings. If anything, I take my hat to Creationists. At least they don't flinch even at the face of the most demonstrable theories.
It's another case for the Occam's Razor that MK27 so insists on... and unfortunately it seems you keep ignoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
I do feel inclined to pose you the question, C_Ntua, if you are a man of science. By "man of science" I mean someone who seeks to demonstrate through testable practices and laws, or that accepts testable practices and laws as a means of demonstration.
Next question would be what if you are wrong? Do you question the possibility of being wrong? I mean, do you contrast your explanation with the fact that you aren't in fact producing evidence of the existence of a God? That all you are doing is justifying his existence through dialectics?
Third and final question is, if you assume the existence of God only through a careful and elaborate use of logical reasoning, what if I come to you and tell you that, according to my own reasoning, there's not in fact one God, but there's many? There's a god for crops, another for love, another for the animals, etc. How do you propose to tell me I'm wrong? What tools or manner of speech can you use to ever question my own reasoning? Certainly not your Bible or your own teachings. Do you agree? I mean, these are the product of your own logic. I could denounce them as one big lie you use to propagate your creed.
That, C_ntua, is the difference between religion and science. There's no similarity like you are so desperately trying to convey. And it's a shame you didn't take my earlier advice. That you don't need to bring in that similarity. Your creed is defined by your Faith. And your Faith alone. Faith is what leads you to the truth. You don't play on the same sandbox as science. And you don't want to.
By trying to make a comparison between both, something that even your fellow ministers at the roman catholic church avoid when explaining the source of their creed, you are in fact renouncing your beliefs. And really you are making a lot of scientific folk give you the candid smile reserved to those who don't have a clue of what science is about and how a set of laws and theories come about.
^^^
That wasn't my post! Wrong quote.
Scrolling down you can see it is Programmer_P's
Apart from that, I agree with your reasoning. The statement is simply wrong because logic doesn't tell us there is a beginning of everything. That would be against the idea of infinity. And contradictory, also, because then God would have to be created by somebody else.
As I said, I am not making a comparison between religion and science, but between the belief that you use for both. You don't have to separate belief from faith. The process is one, the emotions and thoughts behind it that is. Even though they refer to two completely different things. I don't see why someone has to use a careful scientific process to solve a math problem, but not use an even more careful scientific process when it comes to his own religious beliefs which are far more important. But the process of truly believing somethings is not reserved only for science or religion. It is just a human process that can be used for anything.
My point being again that "humans can believe, truly believe". That can be a god, a theorem or anything else.
And if your Faith leeds you to the truth then Faith cannot be Truth. And what leads you to your Faith in the first place? A belief that your Faith is correct?
Am I am not catholic either.
I am not speaking in general either. My whole point is to show that being religious in the end is not a great mystery and never was. It is just something people believe in. Their believe can be as "scientific" as the beliefs of a scientist in physics. Just use science because people give credit to it. Belief in your spouse is the same thing for me as well.
Because I usually hear people saying that this "X belief is stupid". Or something negative. As a "better" way to judge a belief would be a scientific approach. Applying certain criterias that most of us would agree upon. Otherwise, it is just how you feel about it, just an un-thought opinion, something completely personal. But I would be that the same person that says that, if he was a scientist judging a theorem in physics (based on a belief) he would try to use a different process of judging a belief.
I am not demanding everytime you hear a belief to sit there and analyze it, but if you really want to get to the truth, you would have to.
I meant there has to be a first thing of everything that is in our world of reality. That doesn't mean that there can't also be other worlds too, other realities, of which the laws of physics and logic, as we know it, don't apply to. Infinity is one of those things that exist outside the concepts of time. God exists in a timeless realm, in which there is no past, no present, and no future. They're all the same. And hence, God does not have to have a creator, because He is the one that created everything, including time. And He is even the originator of the concept of creation. Without Him, nothing but Him would exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
Ugh! You are right. Sorry for that. Both of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
You don't really justify why there has to be a first time for everything in reality. Nature shows as also that there are a lot of things that go in cycle, which gives us the impression that they were there from infinity. So there are things that have a start, others seem not to. Like the seasons will have a cycle. They don't really have an end or a beginning, neither a certain progression. They change in an infinite loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer_P
In any case, my question is "why can't the world have existed from eternity"
I can also go on saying that maybe God "built" the world, rather than created it. The world used in Greek version of Genesis (pe-o) means "do", "make" ,"create". So it can mean "create" in the sense created in from nothing, but also just "made" in the sense built the world from pro-existing materials. Which could be timeless as God. Genesis starts with "In the beginning" but that doesn't necessarily mean in the beginning of time.
Think also then "who created time". Since if you use the beginning of time the time God created the world, then there was no time before the beginning. Genesis doesn't say that God created time (whatever that would mean). Neither space. You get my point.
Well, either its the beginning of time or the beginning of our world, i.e. when it was created.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
And yet we count time in years, months, days, hours, etc...Quote:
Think also then "who created time". Since if you use the beginning of time the time God created the world, then there was no time before the beginning. Genesis doesn't say that God created time (whatever that would mean). Neither space. You get my point.
And there is a first of each one of those measurements.
Time is a way of determining when something happened, is happening, or is going to happen. And that is all based on human ideas, human expressions, or on what humans can understand.
Either God created the concept of time, or else man did. Either way, the fact remains that everything in our world that can be *seen* with our eyes has a beginning somewhere (as well as an end), including us. So it follows, if God doesn't exist, how did the *first* of each of those things get here? Explain that one with your "science"...
A very interesting and surprising take on faith that I've not heard. Interesting indeed. But actually faith does not as much come from God but faith does exist because of God. Faith is about implicit trust. Essentially that is what God wants and why religion to some seems like a cruel joke. The crux of the matter is this: Anyone can believe and trust in something they can prove, test, reproduce, etc. That is a cakewalk. However it takes a different kind of trust or fatih, if you will, to believe in something that has little or no proof, cannot be tested scientifically, and cannot be proven scientifically. Hence this is why I never attempt to prove God b/c it just is not possible. There are one thousand or even one million perfectly sane and valid rebuttals to whatever proofs one would offer up. God cannot be proven to exist. It's just not possible. But that's how it is supposed to be. For someone to trust in God when they have no earthly physical reason to trust in God is exactly what God wants. That is faith. Faith is about trusting in God when you have no reason to...except that you trust he is God and he is in control - and that is what He wants. Plain and simple that is the entire fundamental reasoning behind Christianity. The angels worshipped b/c they had no choice and were made for that purpose. Mankind however has this little thing known as free-will and he can choose to have faith in God or choose not to. To have someone trust in you that has the free-will and right not to....is something special. It is crazy sounding but the movie 'Bruce Almighty' is theology in a nutshell. Hollywood actually did a very good job portraying the issue of free-will in funny story.Quote:
Faith defines Truth, regardless of any evidence contrary to it. And this is why Science cannot substitute Faith. Ultimately, Faith is a gift given to you by God and not something that you can reach on your own without his eventual consent. And hence why it is ultimately the one truth. Faith comes from God.
That kind of trust requires humans to let go of most everything they cling to every day of their life. It requires them to reach beyond their own capacities to understand and just simply...trust. So that is why faith is the most important aspect of religion be it Christan or otherwise. In a sense religion will never 100% make sense to the human mind b/c it is not supposed to. Now for me personally I'm a theological nutcase and I love theology b/c it does provide answers and the Bible has a major historical context...that even non-believers cannot deny. It is not a history book nor a science book but the story of the redemption of mankind complete with an introduction, a climax or denoument (sp?), and a closing or solution to the problem introduced. However the final piece of the puzzle is even though we do have a significant amount of evidence of God and we have a lot of historical context for Jesus...it takes a leap of faith to believe he was the son of God instead of just another man and that God is indeed God. That takes pure faith and I'm willing to accept that.
For me arguments about religion and science are absolutely ridiculous. One relies on pure logic and proof and one ultimately requires faith. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Also replies like 'thats what the Bible says' only work for those who have the presupposition that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. If one does not have that presupposition then that sentence means nothing to another individual and you might as well say ...well it must be true b/c that is what Bob said. This is why most religious people just cannot argue their faith or more appropriately be involved in apologetics. Apologetics is the 'science' of defending the faith using reasoning and logic...however that reasoning and logic requires a couple of presuppositions. So apologetics works great between churches b/c they are just arguing the details of one another's faiths whereas theological apologetics does not work with those who do not share those pre-suppositions. Some institutions like the Institute for Creation do a major disservice to the church. They are trying to scientifically prove God or prove this or that in the Bible. And while 'perhaps' there may be some evidence of a flood, or some other event in the Bible...attempting to approach the Bible as a history book or science book, in my opinion, is a complete misinterpretation of the Bible as well as a bit of isogesis - that is reading meaning into a text that was not put there by the original author.
If you look at how Paul argued or defended the faith to the Romans he used their everyday language, history, colloquialisms, and the like to express to them what he was trying to say. The Romans, above all people, would never just settle for....trust me it's this way b/c the Bible says it is. Hence the phrase....when in Rome do as the Romans. Paul was the master at expressing the Christian faith in terms that the audience could grab a hold of and he strayed away from using 'religious talk'. This is why Paul was most effective with the Romans whereas someone like Peter or another disciple or teacher would not be. Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel who was a well known Roman scholar. In those days apprenticeship was essentially like going to college. The Romans wouldn't have even listened to Paul had he not been Gamaliel's apprentice.
For the interested parties I found a document that lists some of the more common Biblical hermenutical errors. Some of you will be able to identify with these quite well based on past religious experiences you have posted about. Many lay people commit these errors without knowing any better which is to be understood since they have not been formally trained in hermeneutics. I, myself, have had enough traning to construct messages and teachings using hermeneutics and I still commit some of these errors. I do not have enough training in the field to write a theology book, commentary, apologetical letters, or be a consultant on doctrinal consistency as it relates to Scripture. This type of skill is usually learned beyond the graduate level and into doctoral territory. One of my professors was one who helped write the new Bible version called The Message. He was responsible for interpreting Paul's letters to the churches into more common English. That is a job I would be wholly unqualified for.
Some common hermeneutical errors:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/st...icalErrors.pdf
So what is the moral of the story? Bantering back and forth will never reach any conclusion except for this: Science can be proven and is easy to believe (for the most part) and religion makes absolutely no human sense and is difficult for the human mind to follow.
Do we really need go through 500 posts to end up back at the same place we started? I think not.
Actually this thread has been pretty tame. If you look at the topic it is about scientists creating life so inevitably this discussion is going to get into discussions about God and the like. I am attempting to temper some of the religious zeal and fervor of some so we can maintain some semblance of order and respect as we talk about this very difficult topic.Quote:
Oh no, not another creationism vs evolutionism thread. Religious debates are useless and can only end with a disaster (or if we are lucky, the topic is locked before it happens). Anyway, please STOP. To all religious people - this is not the place to share your religious beliefs. And to all others - religion means people believe in it and don't accept evidence that doesn't support their beliefs, no matter how solid it is. So... what was the original topic again?
Please do not let this thread degrade into creation vs. evolution and let's keep our emotions at bay. The thread is quite interesting so far.
Guys, I just saw a really awesome film called Man From Earth.
It's about a guy who has lived for 14,000 years. It's available
on Netflix streaming. It's brilliant. He talks about jesus.
Science doesn't only require pure logic. It requires more logic than religion, yes, far more in some cases. But not only logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
When you say science is easy to believe but religion is not, you don't consider the majority of people. The everyday ones. Do you think "believing" quantum physics is easier than believing in a God? Not for the everyday person. For a scientist it maybe. But that is because he is a scientist.
Go back a few years. They burnt "scientists", but everybody respected the gods.
The difference is that you have a choice in religion, not to believe in it. Where in science you usually don't. In science you don't have to strongly believe something, where in religion you do. In science the belief isn't vital, where in religion it is. Those are the kind of the differences.
But in any case, I am just using science as an example to express my thought that you the process of believing something can be similar no matter the thing you believe. Apparently it is a bad example :)
Yup, loved the movieQuote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Exactly. :) That is the point I was eventually trying to get to, but you put in much better words than I did. Faith/trust/belief in God is not something that comes from logical reasoning. That's why there are not many that have faith. If the existence of God could be scientically proven, then a lot more people would believe in God. But it cannot, and God intended it that way, because man needs to understand that not everything in life can be figured out. There are some things that will always remain a mystery to the human mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
However, the real reason I brought up the "deductive reasoning" in an earlier post to sort of prove that God exists was simply to make it less of a jump to get to the ultimate truth in the matter: i.e. that God does exist, and even (let's just suppose for a minute...) He didn't, what harm is it to believe in God anyway? None. AFAIK, there is no atheist theory that something dark and bad will happen to you if you do believe and trust in a God. And so, even if it can't be logically proven that God exists, why can't everyone just take it on faith?
But, no...people would rather believe in aliens and evolution and the "Big Bang Theory".
There are so many answers. What is wrong with evolution and the big bang theory (provided its initial state existed from ever). They are not my favorite theories, but why can't they be true??Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer_P
And does space has a beginning or an end? For us it seems endless, infinite. So not everything has a beginning and an end.
The meaning of infinite is less appealing than having a beginning or an ending, I don't disagree on that. But it is not beyond the human imagination.
Your argument that there has to be a creator for everything is rational. They point is why is it not logical for you the argument of something existing from ever. I find both arguments reasonable.
In case you think evolution is not reasonable, still God could have partially created the world, not necessarily everything.
EDIT: In earlier posts I said that the world can be evidence for some that God exists. But not necessarily. You can explain the world existing without God as well, that is only what I am arguing about.
Its not logical, because things don't change from a state of "being around from eternity, with no beginning" to now dying (or "ending"), and bringing forth seed which has a beginning. Yes, there are things that are infinite, but infinite things do not change to finite things over time, because infinite things neither have any beginning or end.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
Right...Quote:
In case you think evolution is not reasonable, still God could have partially created the world, not necessarily everything.
So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. :D This gets better and better....
Thinking out loud, if God only created some things, how did the things He didn't create get here??...
There will be no harm done for me to believe I will become a millionaire overnight.
I still don't.
If you have the ability to freely choose what you will believe in, that's good for you.
The rest of us find it quite difficult.
I make a personal choice to believe in absolute creation theory. However I cannot prove that to a believer from the Bible nor can I prove it to a non-believer scientifically. In essence it is a personal choice of mine. It is not something I could go an create a new religion off of or create some doctrine off of. There isn't enough evidence in the Bible to support it. So coming from the mindset of a former pastor it is not something I would preach from the pulpit b/c it does not have enough grounds in Scripture.Quote:
So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. This gets better and better....
I think the issue here is often we so-called religious people turn away more people by our attitude and 'churchiness' than we do by the idea of believing in God. Everyone believes in something and a choice not to believe is still a choice to believe in something. The problem I see is with the attitude of those who should know better. I believe that people are turned off to God not by the idea of God or by the idea of believing what the Bible says but b/c those who say they do believe act worse and have less respect for others than those who do not believe in anything. And that, my friend, is a sad accusation on the church but one that I feel is quite accurate and true.
Often Christians feel they can brow-beat or Bible beat people into believing and while that works to an extent the end does not justify the means. I want to ask you why do you want others to believe in your and my God? Is it for your own personal satisfaction or is it because you genuinely believe it will better their life? I mean why all the fuss? What you are conveying with statements like:
...is pure Biblical ignorance of the facts. I'm actually ok with a divinely guided evolutionary theory but I'm also ok with everything just...happened. Either way it does not detract from my view of a very powerful God nor do I feel it is a battle I must fight. Early on I felt as if every battle was one I had to win but wisdom and maturity have taught me that is not the case. As I said Genesis purposely does not give enough information about creation or the processes involved in it. Therefore it is isogesis to read into it seven literal days as it is to read into it there is no evolution. Do I feel that God creating cellular life and guiding it along the way to create humans is any less powerful than God creating people from the word go? Absolutely not...and this post is the reason for that. Scientists have not been able to create life from non-life so it is a very powerful statement to say that God indeed did do that just as much as it is to say he created everything as we see it in seven literal days. So you see the point of the early chapters of Genesis is not to be a scientific timeline of what happened but more to convey the power and the majesty of God. Genesis does not give much airtime to the creation story b/c it does not need to b/c that is not the point of the book. I invite you to read some commentaries about Genesis and do some research as to the true intention and goal of the book as well as the author, his background, where he comes from, etc., etc. It is only then that you can truly understand what the author is trying to convey. So I'm not sure if you are in Bible college right now or you are just quoting phrases you've heard but I invite you to a deeper study of your faith. Be like the Bereans and study your faith and question those things which are told to you by your pastor and your leaders. Measure them by the Bible and what it says and stop relying on what you have heard or what the new catch phrase in the church is. You will be much more effective at communicating to others just what your faith is and what it is not. I assure you the intent of our faith is not to turn people away from God but unfortunately the approach you are taking to discuss faith and the tone you have with others is going to do just that.Quote:
So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. This gets better and better....
I want each person here to know that I both respect you as fellow programmers and as people. I may not agree with your decisions not to believe in my God but I do respect your right to choose one way or the other and none of you are any less or more in my eyes for choosing to believe or not to believe.
In that case, the reason why is more than just "my momma taught me." The reason is that because my momma taught me, I feel mentally wrong when I do something that goes against that teaching. I tend to want to avoid those feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
I've tried for a long time to find an explanation for the good/evil distinction in a way that does not appeal to a supreme being, and I've never found one.
Ultimately, I think morality is simply what is passed down through the generations. The tendency for morality to achieve a coherent form which is generally agreed upon by the majority of people, is simple Darwinian selection. Those versions of morality which lead to the deaths of their proponents do not survive for very long.
This is a simple way of explaining why most people believe that killing is wrong. Those who kill others are usually killed themselves, simply out of a need for self-preservation on the part of their enemies. These peoples' moral concepts die with them.
Yeah, that's the only sensible, non-hyperbolic defence of faith I've heard, I think most of the world's clergy do tow this line -- it's more of a fringe activity to pull out the Shroud of Turin or claim that "there has to be a first thing of everything that is in our world of reality" therefore that is God, which is just reasoning backward to a first cause. The big bang would could be naively interpreted that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
Beyond cultural imperatives tho, I don't see how that could happen. I think it is a reasonable "choice" to make if your Church does good things for the world. When I was homeless, I got a lot of assistance from Churches and religious organizations like the Salvation Army and individual citizens who obviously were acting on a moral code that they found expressed in religion (from Evangelists to Rastafarians). And to their credit, those people seemed less likely to make personal judgements about me than anyone else (esp. government types, who are often terribly spineless) -- I was just a human being to them.
This is why I find it strange that on another level, the Christian religion, almost as much as Islam, seems to be a public purveyor of the most disgusting, draconian, mean spirited politics in the world. They are just barely ahead of the Nazi's in terms of the palatability of their program.
That's why I called you an unreflective bumpkin before ;) There is an obvious logical/rational basis to morality and it's observable in all social mammals. If you cannot get along with anyone (ie, you cannot distinguish "good" behavior from "bad", or you always choose "bad"), you do not survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
I agree. I believe good and evil is relative, thus they don't really exist. Unless you define them yourself in some way. In other words, they can exist in a personal level, but anything good can be bad for someone else and vice verta.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
In any case, society plays a major role in morality. For one, if you are taught something, you more likely believe it. Second, there is a great social pressure if you have an idea that is not "socially acceptable". Third, society will decide which ideas "survives", increasing the chances of you hearing that idea in contrary of others.
But we are talking now about a universal good/evil. Something that would apply to everybody. And we are talking about morality from the universal point of view.
Individually, you can have whatever beliefs you choose to have. Thus you define good and evil yourself and truly believe in it. Your beliefs are made based on a lot of things.
So, concluding I say that there is no universal good/evil, but there is a personal one (my point of view)
So the World can be infinite then, since it hasn't have an end, I can say it hasn't have a beginning, thus its state hasn't change. It can be infinite and change infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer_P
God can have created the things that have a beginning, but not have created the things that don't necessarily have one. If you believe everything necessarily has a beginning then you can skip that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer_P
So we assume that
1) Infinite things cannot change state to finite things and vice verta
and I say "The World can be infinite and its state not change", so the 1) doesn't apply to the World.
You're wrong. The meaning of the words "good" and "evil" as polemic terms (one being the opposite of the other) is universally understood and I'd bet money they exist in all human languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
You are just saying what counts as one or the other may vary from individual to individual. That is certainly true, and part of the reason I believe Christianity is a corrupting influence: most of what they claim is "good" is just repeating common wisdom (it was not invented by Moses) and much of what they claim is "bad" is not bad at all, unless you use the bible for your definitions.
So again, it is religious thinkers who would like us to believe in "the relativity" of morality because they are the biggest pervayors of extremely relativized (to the point of nonsense) morality. Without religion, I am sure there would be a much more homogenized, reason based understanding of "good" and "evil" as empirically obvious. But religion opposes this with the claim that sense and reason are not sufficient authorities. Hence "God" is just a figurehead for POWER.
Hmm...a good question. Perhaps I should question my own motives more. I think the reason for saying all that I said was sadly more for personal satisfaction than anything else. :D I guess I like debates and winning arguments, though I probably shouldn't carry over that mindset when talking about God to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
As do I. I have respect for everyone here, and some of you have helped me with my programming difficulties. I do not wish any ill on anyone, even if they do not believe in what I believe in. Ok, I guess its time to adjust my thinking a little...Quote:
I want each person here to know that I both respect you as fellow programmers and as people. I may not agree with your decisions not to believe in my God but I do respect your right to choose one way or the other and none of you are any less or more in my eyes for choosing to believe or not to believe.
One of these days I'll get older and wiser (I hope...), and stop going about things the wrong way. In my defense though, I can say I am only 18... ;)
Depends on what you mean by "World"...Quote:
Originally Posted by C_ntua
The Bible says that there will be an end to this world, a very graphic one. And there will be a new heaven and a new earth. So, even though we have not seen this end yet, doesn't mean there wont be one...
Yes, I agree with that reasoning. It could be the things that don't have a beginning or an end, and are infinite, are just *here* and have always been here, and God didn't create them. But He definitely created the things that have a beginning.Quote:
God can have created the things that have a beginning, but not have created the things that don't necessarily have one. If you believe everything necessarily has a beginning then you can skip that part.
Only if by "world" you mean "earth" and you believe that the earth is infinite.Quote:
So we assume that
1) Infinite things cannot change state to finite things and vice verta
and I say "The World can be infinite and its state not change", so the 1) doesn't apply to the World.
I believe the earth is finite, had a beginning, and will one day have an end also.