Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

ironingbored

wolfsbane wrote: »

:

No, He is holy and almighty and our Creator - so He will punish sin, and deserves our worship.

Any chance he might punish stupidity too? Deserves fawning adulation and praise....Kim Jung Il springs to mind there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I take it you also view any government as vindictive, sadistic control freaks, since they too tend to punish evil and demand observance of the law?

Not any government. Civil law is (usually) a lot more well-thought out and intelligent than the inconsistent ramblings one sees in the bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Might it not be that you are the one who is depraved in your attitude and conduct?

This is quite speculative. Given that you don't know me and most likely will not I feel the above is facetious. Again, a believer surreptitiously attempts to equate anti-theism/atheism with immorality and depravity.

CDfm

ironingbored wrote: »

Why did you see fit to mention dawkins again totally out of context? It get really tedious. Again, instead of answering a question or contributing to debate you make a idiotic comment about Dawkins, starving people and Brian Cowen! Thor help us!

feck i misunderstand moral relativism too

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

It's perhaps worth pointing out here that the only local posters who have attempted to justify widescale slaughter are, well, christians.

Pots. Kettles. The usual.

You presume widescale slaughter can never be justified. But the point remains that those who carry out widescale slaughter need to overcome emotional resistance to it, and they do so by justifying it to themselves(rightly or wrongly).

I'm interested to see some of you claim that emotions are to be regarded on a par with reason when it comes to our actions. That explains a lot of the irrationality coming from the atheists and agnostics here.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, hiding from the cold dark materialist universe under a blanket of emotional morality. :pac:

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

the point remains that those who carry out widescale slaughter need to overcome emotional resistance to it, and they do so by justifying it to themselves(rightly or wrongly).

Yes, and as I pointed out, the only people in this forum who've ever justified widescale slaughter (to themselves anyway), are christians.

Lacking the absolute confidence that a True Believer can have in one of the inerrant ideas that, for example, you carry around, most atheists do not believe that widescale slaughter is justifiable in anything but the most armchair theoretical circumstances, and most find the concept really rather repellent.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm interested to see some of you claim that emotions are to be regarded on a par with reason when it comes to our actions.

Huh?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm interested to see some of you claim that emotions are to be regarded on a par with reason when it comes to our actions. That explains a lot of the irrationality coming from the atheists and agnostics here.

Yes I think that was me? If our emotions are irrelevant to our decision making then what exactly is the point of all that reason? I realise that you guys get your motives and morality from a book, but we atheists have to go back to basics.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and as I pointed out, the only people in this forum who've ever justified widescale slaughter (to themselves anyway), are christians.

Lacking the absolute confidence that a True Believer can have in one of the inerrant ideas that, for example, you carry around, most atheists do not believe that widescale slaughter is justifiable in anything but the most armchair theoretical circumstances, and most find the concept really rather repellent.Huh?

Maybe Robin, because as Christians we accept that it happens and as individuals we accept it. We know that it is wrong and also believe that there are evil people there too.

So we have an acceptance that evil exists and abhor it. That doesnt justify or condone it -its a question of fact and acceptance of fact.

From the bible we can see that even historically people have acted this way and we have a duty to protect ourselves. It also shows up that people as individuals can be caught up in events beyond their control.

So accepting that evil exists and that we dont have the power to change it is a million miles away from condoning it. I may have misread what wolfsbane said but he doesnot appear to condone.

He probably finds it repellant too- he could equally say that for you not to face up to the fact that evil and widespread slaughter exists in this generation as it has throughout the ages and to look at it as armchair theoretical circumstances is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

So each of you from your own perspective acknowlege it is evil but have different ways at arriving at that conclusion.

I would say the bible teaches us that and that atheist thinkers cant supply me with a belief mechanism for that.

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe Robin, because as Christians we accept that it happens and as individuals we accept it. We know that it is wrong and also believe that there are evil people there too.

So we have an acceptance that evil exists and abhor it. That doesnt justify or condone it -its a question of fact and acceptance of fact.

From the bible we can see that even historically people have acted this way and we have a duty to protect ourselves. It also shows up that people as individuals can be caught up in events beyond their control.

So accepting that evil exists and that we dont have the power to change it is a million miles away from condoning it. I may have misread what wolfsbane said but he doesnot appear to condone.

He probably finds it repellant too- he could equally say that for you not to face up to the fact that evil and widespread slaughter exists in this generation as it has throughout the ages and to look at it as armchair theoretical circumstances is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

So each of you from your own perspective acknowlege it is evil but have different ways at arriving at that conclusion.

I would say the bible teaches us that and that atheist thinkers cant supply me with a belief mechanism for that.

Robindch is actually talking about posts which have been made in previous threads, do a search for the genocide thread. In this particular thread, and others if I remember correctly, certain posters have said that it is perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your god.

MrP

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

Robindch is actually talking about posts which have been made in previous threads, do a search for the genocide thread. In this particular thread, and others if I remember correctly, certain posters have said that it is perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your god.

MrP

thanks for clarifying that.

ya cant justify that stuff anyway no chance of that happening he does his own dirty work as he showed Moses and Lot.

11 th Commandment -why buy a dog when you can bark yourself

I think it is written in Romans - Vengence is mine - so by that alone its kind of outabounds in normal circumstances and cant be justified

wolfsbane

ironingbored said:

Any chance he might punish stupidity too? Deserves fawning adulation and praise....Kim Jung Il springs to mind there.

You compare a human sinner with the Almighty God, and think what is right for one must be right for the other. That is indeed stupidity, and will bring its own punishment if persisted in.

Not any government. Civil law is (usually) a lot more well-thought out and intelligent than the inconsistent ramblings one sees in the bible.

So you do believe some governments can justly punish evil and demand observance of the law. It's just that you either misunderstand or despise God's law. You imagine you know better than God.

This is quite speculative. Given that you don't know me and most likely will not I feel the above is facetious. Again, a believer surreptitiously attempts to equate anti-theism/atheism with immorality and depravity.

I didn't think I was being surreptitious. Anti-theism/atheism rationally permit any sort of immorality and depravity.

But that is different from saying that their adherents necessarily do so - for they are just like the rest of us, having consciences that rebuke their immoral and depraved tendencies.

That, not their ideology, is what keeps many atheists from acting out the logic of their beliefs.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes I think that was me? If our emotions are irrelevant to our decision making then what exactly is the point of all that reason? I realise that you guys get your motives and morality from a book, but we atheists have to go back to basics.

Emotions are a very unreliable informant on right and wrong. They may restrain the would-be murderer, but they may just as easily lead him to do the murder. Pity vs contempt; love vs hatred, etc. All emotions.

It is emotions taught by truth that give us strength to do what is right. We determine what is truth by our reasoning faculties. Christians have the advantage of implanted truth, the witness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. But even we can get tripped up by emotion or a failure to follow the logic of the truth.

My complaint to you atheists is that some of you give emotions - what you concede are merely the result of genetic evolution - the same weight as you do reason. Utterly illogical. The more intellectually honest among you concede the point.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

Robindch is actually talking about posts which have been made in previous threads, do a search for the genocide thread. In this particular thread, and others if I remember correctly, certain posters have said that it is perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your god.

MrP

Correct. Or rather, it was perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your God.

God's rule for the present age does not require His people to destroy His enemies. We are to evangelise them all. Those who refuse His call to repentance and faith will be destroyed by Him in the Last Day.

So mass-slaughter would, as Robin says, be only permissable to governments in extremis (WW2, for example). Wilful genocide, never.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You compare a human sinner with the Almighty God, and think what is right for one must be right for the other. That is indeed stupidity, and will bring its own punishment if persisted in.

you have never properly explained why it isn't right for one must be right for the other. You just say it isn't, God is God and can do what he likes.

Which effectively makes any moral judgment you make about God nonsense.

You have no idea if God is or is not moral because you have abandoned the idea that humans possess the ability to determine that.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Emotions are a very unreliable informant on right and wrong. They may restrain the would-be murderer, but they may just as easily lead him to do the murder. Pity vs contempt; love vs hatred, etc. All emotions.

Tempered by reason. I'm not advocating the abandonment of one in favour of the other.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is emotions taught by truth that give us strength to do what is right. We determine what is truth by our reasoning faculties. Christians have the advantage of implanted truth, the witness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. But even we can get tripped up by emotion or a failure to follow the logic of the truth.

Funny how many contradictory religions will say pretty much exactly this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My complaint to you atheists is that some of you give emotions - what you concede are merely the result of genetic evolution - the same weight as you do reason. Utterly illogical. The more intellectually honest among you concede the point.

Firstly, I do not speak for atheists. They may each speak for themselves. Secondly, we consider emotions to be a product of evolution, sure. But we consider reason to be a product of it also. Why is it illogical to use both if their origins are the same?

More to the point, what good is any reasoned decision if it brings me no emotional satisfaction? Emotions are our personal absolutes, our imperatives. Largely uncontrollable forces which drive our behaviour and our very survival. We should not be slaves to them, but nor can we separate them from our reason. Reason is meaningless without emotion. Emotion may survive without reason, though not without consequences.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and as I pointed out, the only people in this forum who've ever justified widescale slaughter (to themselves anyway), are christians.

Lacking the absolute confidence that a True Believer can have in one of the inerrant ideas that, for example, you carry around, most atheists do not believe that widescale slaughter is justifiable in anything but the most armchair theoretical circumstances, and most find the concept really rather repellent.Huh?

I think in the context of this debate - Christians do not have the right to do any such thing.

Strictly speaking - christians should not seek revenge.

Matt Holck

I think emotions help with motivation

CDfm

Matt Holck wrote: »

I think emotions help with motivation

Not really matt - in the context of this part of the argument its a question of fact for christians - you have to put your emotions to oneside.

THen say a government can you can act but only for the common good.

There is very little leeway.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Secondly, we consider emotions to be a product of evolution, sure. But we consider reason to be a product of it also. Why is it illogical to use both if their origins are the same?

I thought you might agree that reason is the thing that separates us from the minerals, vegetables and animals. That is, reason in the sense of our ability to reflect on our existence and to expect our actions to be meaningful.

If you are saying such reflection is no more than a flower's opening to the sun, or a bird's desire to mate, then I see how you cannot see my point.

I think it self-evident that we are more than that, that our reason indicates our spiritual nature. I know an atheist cannot agree, but I thought they would have a high view of reason nevertheless. Your view has certainly been a surprise to me.

More to the point, what good is any reasoned decision if it brings me no emotional satisfaction?

Because it might be the right or most beneficial thing to do. Stopping drug abuse might be emotionally painful, but the best course. Holding down your 4yr old son for the medics to stick needles in him while he screams - a recent experience for my son-in-law, is emotionally painful, but very rational.

Emotions are our personal absolutes, our imperatives.

Wow!

Largely uncontrollable forces which drive our behaviour and our very survival. We should not be slaves to them, but nor can we separate them from our reason. Reason is meaningless without emotion. Emotion may survive without reason, though not without consequences.

Should we reason based on our emotions, or should our emote based on our reasoning? I think rational beings must go with the latter.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

you have never properly explained why it isn't right for one must be right for the other. You just say it isn't, God is God and can do what he likes.

Which effectively makes any moral judgment you make about God nonsense.

You have no idea if God is or is not moral because you have abandoned the idea that humans possess the ability to determine that.

You seem unable to conceive a source of morality, One who defines morality. Or rather, you have become the source of morality and can't accept any other competitors.

But you might agree that a magistrate/judge has a right to fine or imprison an offender, while you and I would be acting immorally if we did so. Scale that up.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem unable to conceive a source of morality, One who defines morality.

Not at all. The problem you have is that by dismissing humans as having no ability to judge God you are also dismissing any ability humans have to determine that God is the source of morality you speak of.

You simply state that he is, which is meaningless because by the logic of your own statements you cannot determine that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you might agree that a magistrate/judge has a right to fine or imprison an offender, while you and I would be acting immorally if we did so. Scale that up.

A judge or magistrate works within the legal system defined by humans.

I therefore, as a human, can judge if a magistrate is or is not acting in a moral fashion.

You claim that I cannot judge that of God because I am a human, not a deity.

The point you (consistently) ignore is that if true this applies equally well to you.

You cannot judge if God is good or evil and therefore cannot determine if he is or is not the source of morality

You can claim he is, but that is simply a declaration on your part. If he isn't you would be none the wiser.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Not at all. The problem you have is that by dismissing humans as having no ability to judge God you are also dismissing any ability humans have to determine that God is the source of morality you speak of.

You simply state that he is, which is meaningless because by the logic of your own statements you cannot determine that.



A judge or magistrate works within the legal system defined by humans.

I therefore, as a human, can judge if a magistrate is or is not acting in a moral fashion.

You claim that I cannot judge that of God because I am a human, not a deity.

The point you (consistently) ignore is that if true this applies equally well to you.

You cannot judge if God is good or evil and therefore cannot determine if he is or is not the source of morality

You can claim he is, but that is simply a declaration on your part. If he isn't you would be none the wiser.

There is a biblical authority on this what is refered to as the "render unto caesar" passages. This is widely held to justify difference between secular and religious authority and their co-existance.

A believer can judge if a law or acts are consistant with their beliefs and has freedom of choice and whether a law is moral or not and whether a law is a good or bad law.. A non believer also has this freedom of choice according to his or her beliefs.A non-believer is bound by secular laws too.


For a judge one would see if he was acting ultra vires and the quality of the judgements is based on facts and presumably his fairness on his interpretation of these facts.You can judge only if the magistrate iss acting within the law and the fairness not morality of the judgements. You can have an opinion on the morality of the law and whether it is just or unjust.

Religious morality is judged with reference to the Bible.

If one reads these passages of the Gospels and its been a while and PDN might clear it up -but you could also view it as an early example in religion or literature to setting up a strawman depending on your beliefs.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Not at all. The problem you have is that by dismissing humans as having no ability to judge God you are also dismissing any ability humans have to determine that God is the source of morality you speak of.

You simply state that he is, which is meaningless because by the logic of your own statements you cannot determine that.

You forget that my determining abilities are not let to their own devices - God has intervened and informed me of His reality, character and morality. He did this by His Spirit and His word.

A judge or magistrate works within the legal system defined by humans.

I therefore, as a human, can judge if a magistrate is or is not acting in a moral fashion.

You claim that I cannot judge that of God because I am a human, not a deity.

The point you (consistently) ignore is that if true this applies equally well to you.

You cannot judge if God is good or evil and therefore cannot determine if he is or is not the source of morality

You can claim he is, but that is simply a declaration on your part. If he isn't you would be none the wiser.

The best you can make of this is that God may be telling me He is moral , but lying. I would therefore have no way of knowing. True.

But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience. And His character I have found to be faithful, merciful and kind to me. That's good enough for me.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

You forget that my determining abilities are not let to their own devices - God has intervened and informed me of His reality, character and morality. He did this by His Spirit and His word.



The best you can make of this is that God may be telling me He is moral , but lying. I would therefore have no way of knowing. True.

But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience. And His character I have found to be faithful, merciful and kind to me. That's good enough for me.

But where does this come into killing people or a race of people or slaughter women and children-surely that cant be justified ?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience.

Yes but that is exactly the point.

If it is possible for you to judge God's morality based on an external standard ("ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience") and conclude that God is good, it is equally possible for someone else to do the same thing and conclude that God isn't good.

My "ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience" tells me that the genocide in the Bible has no justification, certainly not the one put forward in the Bible itself. I conclude that God if he exists is an immoral being.

You inform me that I cannot do that because I am only a lowly human and incapable of judging God to my lowly moral standards. God works on a completely different higher set of standards and it is ridiculous for use to judge him based on my standards.

Then you turn around that you judge him based on your own standards, and surprisingly enough have judged him to be true and good.

Can you see the problem here. You want it both ways. You want to include your standards of morality and ethics when you are looking at God and concluding that he is wonderful and just and good and fair.

But if someone else looks at God and concludes that he is bad and unjust and evil and unfair, you throw your hands up and proclaim that this person has no ability to judge God based on any human level standard.

Trying to have it both ways simply doesn't work. If you are able to judge God I'm able to judge God, we are all able to judge God. The idea that we are only able to judge God if we reach the conclusion that God is wonderful is nonsense.

So can you guys PLEASE stop using that arguement that we lack insight, knowledge or ethical ability to judge God when ever someone on this forum says "You know what, I think that was an immoral thing God did there" Because if we lack it, you lack it also.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Religious morality is judged with reference to the Bible.

True, but more fundamentally a believer has to first judge the Bible as being a source of good morality. Which really means judging God as being a source of good morality.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but more fundamentally a believer has to first judge the Bible as being a source of good morality. Which really means judging God as being a source of good morality.

...which means they have to judge that their own interpretation of their own chosen holybook is a source of good morality.

It's all a bit circular really.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

...which means they have to judge that their own interpretation of their own chosen holybook is a source of good morality.

It's all a bit circular really.

You say this like your own morality is completely immune to Christian morality.

As an aside, the difference, in theory, is that the Christian's morality is there in black and white for all to read, whereas yours is subjective. I think that this is one of the reasons that atheists always do so badly in those 'would you vote for an atheist?' polls. That and they are usually polling religious people

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

...which means they have to judge that their own interpretation of their own chosen holybook is a source of good morality.

It's all a bit circular really.

Exactly

If the God/The Bible is the source of all morality what does one use to judge that the God/The Bible is in fact moral?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, the difference, in theory, is that the Christian's morality is there in black and white for all to read, whereas yours is subjective.

But how does one judge that Christian morality (ie the Bible) is in fact moral?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You say this like your own morality is completely immune to Christian morality.

I tend not to use the word "morality" with reference to how I make my own choices between different course of actions. Too many muddy overtones. "Ethical" is much cleaner, even if it means much the same thing in practice. I also avoid the word "subjective" as its meaning is, well, distinctly subjective.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, the difference, in theory, is that the Christian's morality is there in black and white for all to read, whereas yours is subjective.

The crucial point you have made is that this christian morality exists "in theory" only. To the extent that most (or all?) religious believers who believe they assert a christian morality, believe either that they assert the one right interpretation of many, or the only interpretation. Whereas, in practice, the morality that christians assert is pretty much independent of what's written in the bible. There's so much there, and so much of it is at odds with itself, that one can define whatever morality one wishes, then legitimize it by reference to a book that everybody (at least everybody religious) believes is as close to perfect as they're going to get.

In short, religious morality is personal morality plus intransigence.

As one can see here almost any day, the bible defines a code of conduct as ambiguous as the multiplicity of moral opinions held by the different christians that inhabit this board, from the weird to the dangerous to the honorable.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that this is one of the reasons that atheists always do so badly in those 'would you vote for an atheist?' polls.

Yes, you're quite right, but that's little more than an indication of the success with which religion's endless word-mongering has convinced people that religion alone is good.

Which is an interesting conclusion in itself, since it suggests that people are innately decent, seeking agreed codes of conduct, and not the damaged, immoral creatures that religion tells them they are.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

If the God/The Bible is the source of all morality what does one use to judge that the God/The Bible is in fact moral?

It's the primacy of conscience thing that Ratzinger talks about from time to time (was it sorella who posted a piece about this again yesterday?) I mean, there it is -- out in the open -- you can do what you like, with total authority and still believe yourself possessed of "christian morality".

Can anybody else see this delicious contradiction, or have I been coding too many multithreaded apps?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It's the primacy of conscience thing that Ratzinger talks about from time to time (was it sorella who posted a piece about this again yesterday?) I mean, there it is -- out in the open -- you can do what you like, with total authority and still believe yourself possessed of "christian morality".

Can anybody else see this delicious contradiction, or have I been coding too many multithreaded apps?

I havent seen that one.Can you point me in the right direction.

Perhaps you need a nice cup of tea or has your teapot gone missing?

Ive finally figured out the atheist thing - its does he watch when you know-atheists are soo sensitive :D:D

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Ive finally figured out the atheist thing - its does he watch when you know-atheists are soo sensitive :D:D

You've been drinking, haven't you?

CDfm

atomic -No - not at all - its the OMG thing you hear from atheists.Is this freudian?

Also- I heard a woman with an addict partner use the phrase well "MY Addict" so it made me wonder do extremists do that and talk about my atheist or my believer and do they have support groups.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You've been drinking, haven't you?

this is the one for you Atomic you can say God -it doesnt get any bigger than deicide or is it theicide nowdays

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57527123#post57527123

:D:D

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

I tend not to use the word "morality" with reference to how I make my own choices between different course of actions. Too many muddy overtones. "Ethical" is much cleaner, even if it means much the same thing in practice.

I would also avoid the word relativism. Too french.

I look at morals and ethics differently. Morals define what is right or wrong and are more absolute rules in normal circumstances - as such they are general rules or norms of behavior that apply in normal life.

Ethics is more the interpretation of these rules where you have to balance different priorities both of which may be right.An example might be amputating someones leg against their wishes to save their life.

Take Scott of the Antarctic - when Oates said -I am going out and may be some time- the moral position was clear. If Oates goes out and may be some time he is going to die -this is suicide and is wrong.Morally Scott should have stopped him as allowing someone to self harm is morally wrong.

However, the ethical situation was if Oates stays he will use up our already meager resources we might last another day and even if help does arrive Oates would not survive the return trip. So ethically it could be argued he made the correct choice and left him go as it increased some of the groups chances of survival.

It would have been both morally and ethically wrong to kill Oates to increase the groups chances of survival.

Shakespeare was a fine writer & thinker and I would argue that it is moral to preserve his writings but it is unethical to inflict them on secondary school students as it develops a hatred of both Shakespeare and theater in them.

studiorat

This moral/ethical business has been tested. Various groups were given tests, like for instance, can you kill a person to save 5 people etc.

The tests were performed in many cultures some with religion and some who have no religion. The answers came out pretty much the same between those indoctrinated with a religion and those who had never had any religion or god in their culture.

The conclusion being, fairness, right and wrong etc are inbuilt and are inconsequential of religion.

AtomicHorror

studiorat wrote: »

This moral/ethical business has been tested. Various groups were given tests, like for instance, can you kill a person to save 5 people etc.

The tests were performed in many cultures some with religion and some who have no religion. The answers came out pretty much the same between those indoctrinated with a religion and those who had never had any religion or god in their culture.

The conclusion being, fairness, right and wrong etc are inbuilt and are inconsequential of religion.

It goes even further than that. We've found loads of evidence of these same moral elements built into various simian species right down to small monkeys. Altruism, justice, fairness (There's a wonderful study amusingly called "Monkeys reject unequal pay")... it's all in there. Theory of mind, self awareness- we can even see those in some bird species, which came as a bit of a shock to biologists. Of course culture is in there for many species too. What makes humans unique is that we seem to have coherently combined these features in an unprecedented and complex fashion, but no one feature appears to be unique to us in itself.

CDfm

What may have started as a religius belief could now have become the cultural norm.

Its impossible to do clinical trials in laboratory conditions on humans.

The closest I think you can get is the debate on pregnancy termination how people can argue about the number of days/ weeks with the ease of Aristotle the Greek philosopher or the Romans.

CDfm

Atomichorror - you seem strangely reluctant to go down the deicide road even on a thread.

Could it be you are superstitious:D

Could there be some doubt?

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

But where does this come into killing people or a race of people or slaughter women and children-surely that cant be justified ?

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

Such a command was only given is the case of the Israelite nation entering and possessing the land. That administration ended with the coming of the Messiah.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience.
Yes but that is exactly the point.

If it is possible for you to judge God's morality based on an external standard ("ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience") and conclude that God is good, it is equally possible for someone else to do the same thing and conclude that God isn't good.

My "ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience" tells me that the genocide in the Bible has no justification, certainly not the one put forward in the Bible itself. I conclude that God if he exists is an immoral being.

The difference is that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. Being convinced by a witness is not good enough - the witness must be speaking the truth. You have believed the lie.

You inform me that I cannot do that because I am only a lowly human and incapable of judging God to my lowly moral standards. God works on a completely different higher set of standards and it is ridiculous for use to judge him based on my standards.

Then you turn around that you judge him based on your own standards, and surprisingly enough have judged him to be true and good.

No, I have not judged Him based on my own standards. I have accepted His standards because I recognise them as good and true. How do I do so? Because He has both given an internal assurance and I've seen how true Christianity works in real life.

But if someone else looks at God and concludes that he is bad and unjust and evil and unfair, you throw your hands up and proclaim that this person has no ability to judge God based on any human level standard.

Trying to have it both ways simply doesn't work. If you are able to judge God I'm able to judge God, we are all able to judge God. The idea that we are only able to judge God if we reach the conclusion that God is wonderful is nonsense.

So can you guys PLEASE stop using that arguement that we lack insight, knowledge or ethical ability to judge God when ever someone on this forum says "You know what, I think that was an immoral thing God did there" Because if we lack it, you lack it also.

You equate your information with ours - a big mistake. Yours is given by a sinful heart informed by Satan, mine by a new heart informed by God.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

Such a command was only given is the case of the Israelite nation entering and possessing the land. That administration ended with the coming of the Messiah.

I dont see it in the same way- the Gospels tell that it is wrong and back to Matthew in Romans " Vengence is mine" is very clear. AS is love your neighbour , enemies and the second coming and all that.

You would have a difficult time justifying any slaughter of women and children- seperate to casualties of a war- in that context is not allowed and I dont see how it can be envisaged.

Man does not have the authority to slaughter indiscriminately in that way -no matter what went on before the new testament.,

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difference is that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's.

Groan ... so I guess any hope for a serious discussion about this has just left the building.

I would be very interested to learn how you have determined, not using your own judgment of course, that I am being deceived by a voice other than God's, and you are not.

Imagine for a sec that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. How would you determine this was or was not true.

If you are relying on what your "heart" tells you, and you accept that there are supernatural being that exist and can influence your "heart" in various ways, then by what standard do you determine who or what is actually influencing your heart and leading you to conclude the things you do.

Imagine for a sec that what you think is God isn't actually God, say for example sake one of the Hindu gods is the real God, and what you think is God is actually just a mischiefious demon of some sort.

Given that you are using your "heart" to determine what is or is not correct, how would you determine that this isn't the case.

Or, using a non-religious example, how would you determine that what you are feeling isn't in fact some evolutionary miss firing, a feeling of security and love when certain religious icons trigger a primordial evolutionary instinct to feel protection from a father figure?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being convinced by a witness is not good enough - the witness must be speaking the truth

Wonderful. And you know the witness is speaking the truth how exactly?

By him telling you "in your heart" that he is? Well, what if he is lying. Then surely he will still tell you in your heart that he is telling the truth. And if you have already asserted that the only thing you can use to assess if he is telling the truth or not is the feeling in your heart, well then that is useless because either way, if he is true or a lie, you will have the same feeling in your heart.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I have not judged Him based on my own standards. I have accepted His standards because I recognise them as good and true.

That is judging him based on your own standards. If you do not assess based on your own standards you would not be able to recognize him either way. Recognition is a form of assessment, a form of judgment. You recognize God's standards as good because they match your already held standard of what is good.

So if you can do that then anyone else can as well, and they can recognize God as evil based on their own standards of good and evil, as I would.

Ah you say, but our standards are placed in our hearts by God.

Well then recognition becomes impossible, because no matter what God is he will place the same standards in your heart. If he is good he will do that, and he will do that if he is bad.

The lier never says they are lying, and even if they do you can't believe them because they are a lier.

We can either assess God based on our own standards that have nothing to do with God, or we cannot assess God at all either way. The idea that we can independently assess God based on the standards he gives us is nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You equate your information with ours - a big mistake. Yours is given by a sinful heart informed by Satan, mine by a new heart informed by God.

Or it could be the other way around. By your own logic you can't determine that, because you are assessing based on what is in your "heart", and if Satan gave you that heart to deceive you you would have no idea.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difference is that you are being deceived by a voice other than God's. Being convinced by a witness is not good enough - the witness must be speaking the truth. You have believed the lie.
You equate your information with ours - a big mistake. Yours is given by a sinful heart informed by Satan, mine by a new heart informed by God.

You've often talked about the atheist conspiracy that seeks to force secularism and evolution upon everyone, but the only motive you can offer (coz let's face it, atheism isn't much fun) is that we are all simply defying God, either intentionally or unintentionally. I've asked you this before, but exactly how do you tell the difference between people who have been deceived by Satan versus those who are actually acting independently but doing so in a manner that you have failed to understand? It just sorta seems like you can (and do) apply this "deceived" (or wilfully defiant of God) excuse to any and all behaviours that you disagree with.

CDfm

Atomichorror & Wicknight- I dont really understand your God objections.

Is it just there is no God.

Or is there - there was something that started the universe etc kicked of evolution and then went on his own merry way.

Or is it - there might be but even if there is its an uninvolved God and this is all there is.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Atomichorror & Wicknight- I dont really understand your God objections.

Are you asking in general (why do I not believe in the Christian God?), or in relation to the discussion with Wolfsbane? (why are you arguing with Wolfsbane?)

Because in this thread my objection is with Wolfsbane more than God

CDfm wrote: »

Is it just there is no God.

Or is there - there was something that started the universe etc kicked of evolution and then went on his own merry way.

Or is it - there might be but even if there is its an uninvolved God and this is all there is.

Humans do not know if there is a god or not. Any claims to the contrary are human creations from the imagination. In fact the concept of "god" is a human creation, modeled on humans and applied to nature, to fill an instinctive need to assign agency to various aspects of the universe. It is highly unlike that there is anything in the universe that matches our concept of a god, and if there is it is purely a coicidence.

In a more specific sense I object to the manner and methods in which religion manipulates people into following particular dogma under the pretext that it comes from an almighty authority that cannot be questioned or determined to be wrong.

That is my "God objection" :pac:

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you asking in general (why do I not believe in the Christian God?), or in relation to the discussion with Wolfsbane? (why are you arguing with Wolfsbane?)

Im asking in general what you believe to understand your arguments.

I didnt realise I was arguing with Wolfbane - but there are a few key principles at an ethical and philosophical level that are fundamental to Christianity. On the genocide issue and I wasnt on that thread I thought it was right to give my 2 cents up front.

Many of the concepts and phrases cross over into mainstream philosophy and popular culture.

Its quite handy for an atheist to understand these too because when you come accross an argument on ethical issues you can understand the logic.There is nothing wrong with anyone atheist or anyone asking if an argument is consistant or if a particular position is just hypothetical.

For example, nothing I have seen posted here could justify what happened in Rwanda no matter what anyone says it is fairly clear cut without going from a moral to an ethical argument. At,another level, Christians cannot justify David Koresh- its just not there.

Christianity is not all goody goody - you still have to live but as a philosophy its up there.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

This kind of thing is one of my main concerns. Do you believe god has told George Bush to go to war? Do you believe God has told Osama Bin Laden to go to war against "the West"?

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

This kind of thing is one of my main concerns. Do you believe god has told George Bush to go to war? Do you believe God has told Osama Bin Laden to go to war against "the West"?

I will butt in if I can. At least its not hypothetical.

Me I dont believe God told Bin Laden to attack the West. If he feels he has authority from the Koran thats another issue. But I lived in the middle east and muslims I know were shocked at 9/11 and at a general level most mainstream muslims would be against indiscriminate civilian attacks.

At a different level though when the Pope gave a lecture based on the exchanges between a Muslim Sultan in the 14th Century or so and one of his predesassors he was criticised widely for being anti Islam- not for the accuracy of his quotes. This would be quite relevant to the question you are asking.At a faith debate where does Islam stand vs the west?

On George Bush - yes the situation with reference to Afghanistan and the Taleban is justifiable. "Render unto Caesar" etc.9/11 was an act of aggression similar to Pearl Harbour. Iraq Im not so sure- but you could say that Islamic countries generically are ambivalent to the actions of muslim militants. Take the Afghan opium trade via Iran.

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

and muslims I know were shocked at 9/11 and at a general level most mainstream muslims would be against indiscriminate civilian attacks.

I don't doubt that for one moment.

CDfm wrote: »

At a different level though when the Pope gave a lecture based on the exchanges between a Muslim Sultan in the 14th Century or so and one of his predesassors he was criticised widely for being anti Islam- not for the accuracy of his quotes. This would be quite relevant to the question you are asking.

That's a definite case of "pot-kettle-black". Arnaud Amaury would be worth looking up for his carry on with the Cathars about 100 years previous to that. BTW I'm not usually in the habit of dragging up anybody's history in order to make a point!

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/arnaudamaury.html

CDfm wrote: »

On George Bush - yes the situation with refernce to Afghanistan and the Taleban is justifiable. "Render unto Caesar" etc. Iraq Im not so sure- but you could say that Islamic countries generically are ambivalent to the actions of muslim militants. Take the Afghan opium trade via Iran.

According to Ahmed Rashid's book; The US in 1987 were pumping 65,000 tonnes of arms into Afghanistan each year as the Taliban were begining their struggle for power. If some of Mujahideen were surrendering to them without even a fight I'd wonder which side the most of these arms were ending up. Bin Laden at this stage was organizing training camps for Afghan refugees.

Ambivalence would hardly be suprising considering the US' policies in their dealing of the situation all across the reigion. As for the Afghan opium trade, there's not much else will make the kind of money so you can hardly blame farmers for continuing to grow opium.

If I was a religious man I wouldn't be happy if any of the above was carried out even remotely in the name of my god.