Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Brian Shanahan

Masteroid wrote: »

Perhaps, as a logician, you can explain the logic behind creating free-willed being and then giving them a set of instructions to live by.

Why not dispense with free-will and the book of instructions and create a being that operates according to God's will?

Or the logic behind an omnipotent being giving up his omnipotence in order to give lesser beings free will, and thus futzing up his own creation.

Brian Shanahan

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They don't mock or deride anything, they hold our tradition and are dedicated to the Lord.

So raping children and covering up those crimes is dedicating yourself to Jesus now?

I truly have heard it all.

philologos

Lantus: wishful thinking. Unless you fundamentally change the human condition these problems will just manifest themselves in other forms. Humans are inherently selfish and are inherently inclined towards wrong doing.

Indeed there's only one person who will and can restore us as human beings and this creation.

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

Humans are inherently selfish and ate inherently inclined towards wrong doing.

That hasn't been my experience at all and I'm sorry that your experience has led you to that conclusion.

Hopefully, in time, perhaps with broader experiences or reading, you'll develop a more positive opinion of humanity.

Good luck with your journey!

philologos

Sacksian wrote: »

That hasn't been my experience at all and I'm sorry that your experience has led you to that conclusion.

Hopefully, in time, perhaps with broader experiences or reading, you'll develop a more positive opinion of humanity.

Good luck with your journey!

How condescending!

Tell me if you look around you, if you pick up the newspaper, if you have any form of interaction with other people, are you telling me that wrongdoing isn't commonplace?

I'm sure even on the basis of today's news I could show you a litany of cases of human wrongdoing.

Am I wrong? Or are you going to say that a bit more reading will make me wish reality away?

Man was created in the Lord's image. Yet we fell and as a result there are clear consequences of this around us. The great news is that there us a Saviour, Jesus who will one day restore all things.

Secular humanism is absolutely absurd wishful thinking that doesn't grapple with truth.

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

Tell me if you look around you, if you pick up the newspaper, if you have any form of interaction with other people, are you telling me that wrongdoing isn't commonplace?

I'm sure even on the basis of today's news I could show you a litany of cases of human wrongdoing.

Am I wrong? Or are you going to say that a bit more reading will make me wish reality away?

If I look around me, "wrongdoing" is the exception.

That is an incontrovertible fact.

If I tried to explicitly look for "wrongdoing", I'm sure I could find some but I'd find a hell of a lot more mundane behaviour.

And that's even if I allow for the fact that your view of "wrongdoing" is likely to be much broader than mine (which depends entirely on the context in which it is used).

What's included in your concept of "wrongdoing"?

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

Secular humanism is absolutely absurd wishful thinking that doesn't grapple with truth.

Secular humanism does not hinge on the assumption that man is ultimately "good" or just, or that kindness will ultimately win over selfishness. Instead, it is merely the practise of doing our best to be compassionate individuals, and to nurture those facets of our humanity that permit respect and peace, in spite of the angry, selfish, ruthless facets.

To be fair, we actually think Christianity is the position that does not grapple with the truth. The one thing you cannot accuse atheists of is wishful thinking. Most of us would subscribe to the part of Marxism that posits materialism and resource as the primary motivation behind atrocities. Thus, we see men who claim to do God's work cause great destruction and misery, just as we see men who curse God's name cause great destruction and misery.

Lantus

philologos wrote: »

Lantus: wishful thinking. Unless you fundamentally change the human condition these problems will just manifest themselves in other forms. Humans are inherently selfish and are inherently inclined towards wrong doing.

Indeed there's only one person who will and can restore us as human beings and this creation.

I used to think this but its not correct when we consider many different types of people from different cultures. People respond to the environment they live in.

There are groups of people living on islands that life peaceful lives in total co-operation. They work together to gather food, build huts and all the tools they need obtained from the environment around them. They dont have a word for work. As they have no money they dont steal or cheat or feel a need to take anything from anyone else. If they gather too many fish they just give them away to others without a second thought. This wouldn't be considered generous, just normal behaviour.

The women dont wear clothes but the men dont point and grin and eye them up and down. The concept of a 'bum' man or a leg man would be a foreign concept.

So the idea that men are sexual deviants and lie and cheat and do wrong is just an outdated idea.

What is apparent is that we live in a society where we use a monetary system to create scarcity and huge gaps between rich and poor, we bring our children up and instil in them the importance of being good workers and entreprenurial which in the business world means doing business better and often at the expense of your fellow man. How can anyone in business be 'good' when they are working to gain preferencial advantage over their competitors to make profit?

We have been training men to idolise young women through media and tv and magazines and allowing women to reflect back that behaviour using money and power as reason to alter our perceptions. It doesn't make us bad but what it does mean is that those values become normal to us just as throwing christians to the lions was normal for the romans and all the families that would go to watch (IF the kids had been good of course and were allowed to go and watch!)


There is no such thing as a bad person or an evil person or a stupid or selfish person. People are products of society and their environment. When we learn to socially engineer better living environments then most of the problems we have today and the drachonian laws we uphold to try to 'force' behaviour would simply not exist.

philologos

Sacksian wrote: »

If I look around me, "wrongdoing" is the exception.

If it is the exception, why has every single person done wrong in their lives? That's not just an exception, if it affects every single person it is an epidemic. It affects all of us, and has affected all of us.

If anything to quote you

That is an incontrovertible fact.

Sacksian wrote: »

If I tried to explicitly look for "wrongdoing", I'm sure I could find some but I'd find a hell of a lot more mundane behaviour.

See above. Unless you're saying that you've never done anything wrong (in which case you'd be a liar, but let's roll with it) sin has affected every single mortal human being irrespective of how "good" or how "moral" they might feel. Every single person has fallen short.

Indeed, that's why the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and as a result we are all guilty before Him. Thankfully, God in His loving mercy sent Jesus to stand in our place, take the full punishment so that we could be forgiven.

Refusing to acknowledge that there is something wrong with the human condition is a fundamental denial of reality and is wishful thinking.

Sacksian wrote: »

And that's even if I allow for the fact that your view of "wrongdoing" is likely to be much broader than mine (which depends entirely on the context in which it is used).

What's included in your concept of "wrongdoing"?

People know inherently what is good and what is evil even if they attempt to cop out with this "relative morality" stuff.

If I wrong you, I wrong you.

If I was fieldshooting humans on a Sunday, you'd rebuke me, and presumably have me arrested, because it is manifestly obvious that that is wrong.

You don't spend ages contemplating and humming about saying "well what if in his moral code that fieldshooting humans is OK, why are we imposing our values on him".

No sane person does that. When they are wronged they appeal inherently for justice to be done.

The problem is that if God did justice to us all, we'd all stand guilty because we've all done wrong, but instead in His kindness God visits His justice upon Jesus so that we can be forgiven.

What a wonderful truth.

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

If it is the exception, why has every single person done wrong in their lives? That's not just an exception, if it affects every single person it is an epidemic. It affects all of us, and has affected all of us.

Ok, your position is that, if somebody does something wrong in their lives, it defines them. I would hope that's a minority view for christians.

I think someone can do “wrong” (by whatever standard) and it doesn’t have to define them. So, they can do "wrong" and they can regret it, confess it, but, for most cases of "wrongdoing", otherwise move on.

Do you know anyone who isn't a wrongdoer? Have you ever?

Personally, I couldn't agree to a set of beliefs which condemned everyone as wrongdoers without exception and without the possibility of rehabilitation during their lifetime.

That seems inherently flawed.

philologos wrote: »

Refusing to acknowledge that there is something wrong with the human condition is a fundamental denial of reality and is wishful thinking.

Is it possible to understand the human condition through reading the Bible alone? Is the Bible sufficient to understand the human condition? That seems like wishful thinking to me.

I would argue that refusing to acknowledge that our understanding of the human condition broadens through experience and learning is a fundamental denial of reality.

philologos wrote: »

People know inherently what is good and what is evil even if they attempt to cop out with this "relative morality" stuff.

If I wrong you, I wrong you.

If we took representative samples of the Irish general population and the US population and asked them whether they thought American foreign policy was inherently good or evil. Or whether Israel had wronged the people of Palestine? What would each say?

Would there be unanimity? Between populations? Within populations?

Differing results would suggest that people don't agree as to what is inherently good or evil.

philologos wrote: »

When they are wronged they appeal inherently for justice to be done.

Depends on what you mean by "justice" - if someone steps ahead of me in a queue, I perceive they have "wronged" me according to the social conventions of queueing. So, I might ask for them to respect the queue but I might not. They may not have even seen me standing there, the queue might have started in two different places, etc.

If we disagree about what is good and what is evil (see above), then an appeal to justice might be a little confused too.

philologos wrote: »

The problem is that if God did justice to us all, we'd all stand guilty because we've all done wrong, but instead in His kindness God visits His justice upon Jesus so that we can be forgiven.

If you think we'll all stand guilty whatever you do, then I don't see any motivation for people to subscribe to your beliefs. Or is the justice relative to the scale of wrongdoing? How is that figured out? Is blasphemy worse than petty theft?

Anyway, hope you find the answers you're looking for.

tommy2bad

Lantus;
There is no such thing as a bad person or an evil person or a stupid or selfish person. People are products of society and their environment. When we learn to socially engineer better living environments then most of the problems we have today and the drachonian laws we uphold to try to 'force' behaviour would simply not exist.

I agree with this and so do most Christians, fear and desire cause most of the troubles in the world.
Basic message of Christ was love one another.

Lantus

tommy2bad wrote: »

I agree with this and so do most Christians, fear and desire cause most of the troubles in the world.
Basic message of Christ was love one another.

It would also seem to me that people need to care for one another and the environment. While that particular christian message as provided above is quite sound the bible stops short in providing any tangible plans to achieve it.

Our conventional thinking and the constraints of learning in our society including many and most parts of all religous texts, psychology books and established social structures dont really help us in moving forward towards a better way of living and thinking. In other words history doesn't offer much help with the future.

As Einstein stated, "we cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them."

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

I agree with this and so do most Christians, fear and desire cause most of the troubles in the world.
Basic message of Christ was love one another.

You missed the point some what.

There is no single sentence answer for what causes the troubles in the world (not even religion ), and thus no single sentence answer (particularly not just love more)

What causes the troubles in the world, from individuals who get drunk and shoot their family, to wars like in Syria, are complex and often very difficult to fully understand.

But humans hate complex and difficult to fully understand. Which is where religion comes in, because it provides a very easy non-answer that attempts to explain everything without requiring that anyone who subscribes to it has to go through the mental difficulty of attempting to process all the complex parallel factors that effect behavior.

We already know that humans turn to religious type answers in times of confusion and stress, when the complexities of the world appear mentally over whelming, particularly in times when a tragedy has happened.

How many times has a Christian or other religious person proclaimed, often genuinely, that Christianity explains better than any modern alternative, why people commit damaging and harmful actions, particularly have a terrible event such as a school shooting. Of course the answer is never a genuine explanation because the idea is nonsense. Christianity doesn't explain anything in regard to these things. You will find nothing in Christianity that actually gives insight into the mental state of someone committing such actions, be they a soldier from Iraq who is suffering from psychosis brought on from alcoholism and PTSD, or a psychopathic serial killer who has lost all emotional attachment to other people and is driven purely by an aggressive impulse to harm.

Christianity doesn't address the actual realities of these things beyond the ridiculously unspecific notion that we have a "sinful nature", and occasionally chalking it up to demonic possession.

Which is not unsurprising, the people who wrote the Bible had no idea about any of these concepts either.

tommy2bad

Zombrex;
How many times has a Christian or other religious person proclaimed, often genuinely, that Christianity explains better than any modern alternative, why people commit damaging and harmful actions, particularly have a terrible event such as a school shooting. Of course the answer is never a genuine explanation because the idea is nonsense. Christianity doesn't explain anything in regard to these things. You will find nothing in Christianity that actually gives insight into the mental state of someone committing such actions, be they a soldier from Iraq who is suffering from psychosis brought on from alcoholism and PTSD, or a psychopathic serial killer who has lost all emotional attachment to other people and is driven purely by an aggressive impulse to harm.

Hey when it comes to finding reasons for what seems unexplainable christians hold no monoplly.
Your right God dosn't provide a set of instructions on how to achive world peace and the end to hunger...no wait! He dose!
Blame Charlton Heston for any misunderstandings since then :P

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hey when it comes to finding reasons for what seems unexplainable christians hold no monoplly.

I think you have that the wrong way, it should be

Hey when it comes to finding non-reasons for what seems explainable Christians hold no monopoly



And of course you are right, all religions do this. Evil only exists in the world because Pandora opened her jar, after all, which gives about as much insight into something like the Columbine shootings as the Christian version does.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

And of course you are right, all religions do this. Evil only exists in the world because Pandora opened her jar, after all, which gives about as much insight into something like the Columbine shootings as the Christian version does.

You are offering a false dichotomy - which I'll paraphrase as "psychology or religion". Christianity offers a different order of explanation and a different avenue of investigation. Very broadly speaking, it might be reduced to exploring the origin and nature of evil. And this is why a Christian might agree with you when it comes to any number of factors that might be included in an explanation as to why some guy went on a murderous rampage (dodgy brain chemistry, childhood traumas etc.) and still not see this as a complete answer. I gather that the same could be said for other religions.

But I suppose if somebody doesn't believe in evil then anything a particular religion might say about its origins, its overthrow or whatever else would seem fairly useless.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are offering a false dichotomy - which I'll paraphrase as "psychology or religion". Christianity offers a different order of explanation and a different avenue of investigation.

What do you mean a different "order" of explanation?

For example, if we found out that a deranged gun man had feelings of aggression, persecution and lack of empathy, due to chemical depression, which we identified was due to a chemical imbalance in his brain, which was due to a genetic mutation caused when he was conceived based on the normal process of genetic mutation, would you still insert "but all of that happens because of sinful nature" at the end?

It seems nothing more than a glorified God of the gaps argument, constantly pushing out the "investigation" of evil to the point where you aren't actually explaining anything, and thus cannot be contradicted.

If you have to have an "explanation" that involves God some how, and you are totally happy that that explanation doesn't have to actual explain anything (what specifically does sin do? Physically?), then you can insert that explanation anywhere.

But then you can do that with anything. Think of any explanation for anything (why does a chair burn when you throw it in a fire) and simply once you have the actual explanation, insert your supposed explanation after it (it burns because the chair is made of wood and wood acts as a fuel for the chemical reaction producing the fire .... cause George Bush)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I suppose if somebody doesn't believe in evil then anything a particular religion might say about its origins, its overthrow or whatever else would seem fairly useless.

This is some what beside the point, since the issue is whether this explains anything or not, and if an explanation cannot explain something it is not an explanation no matter what you believe prior ("cause George Bush" is not an explanation, even if I believe George Bush, or fire, are real).

But since you brought it up...

You will have to define evil in a manner that is more than simply human opinion on actions, in order for that to make sense. But then how can you do that without an explanation for that in the first place? We end up back at circular reasoning.

Or to put it another way, how do you know that without an explanation for evil that exist beyond human opinion, that evil isn't simply a concept that humans made up.

Saying it is just what you believe, as if at the start we all had to randomly pick something to believe in, is a cop out.

lmaopml

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are offering a false dichotomy - which I'll paraphrase as "psychology or religion". Christianity offers a different order of explanation and a different avenue of investigation. Very broadly speaking, it might be reduced to exploring the origin and nature of evil. And this is why a Christian might agree with you when it comes to any number of factors that might be included in an explanation as to why some guy went on a murderous rampage (dodgy brain chemistry, childhood traumas etc.) and still not see this as a complete answer. I gather that the same could be said for other religions.

But I suppose if somebody doesn't believe in evil then anything a particular religion might say about its origins, its overthrow or whatever else would seem fairly useless.

Without God there's no love - no 'good' or 'evil', right or wrong - there is only what is 'preferred', and a thanks be to me I prefer to be ethical at the moment and I trust this society to stay that way.....


When Hitler took over in Nazi Germany, the people where so burdened by lack of basic food and housing that the promise of 'change' for the better, plus the idea that they saw young children being taught about songs dedicated to Hitler a mere man as their Father etc. seduced them into thinking that the slaughter of the old or disabled people who were apparently going missing from hospitals were really 'mercies' to them, and besides they were draining funds - Killing in the name of mercy - at first!! It changed then when the mask slipped to 'Might means Right' and not merely 'we're providing mercy to them'...

Christianity sees that and is not afraid to say that it is evil - that evil does exist in people. I'm quite sure so did the people who were killed and being exterminated think that a huge moral law had been crossed on their person - it had been rubbed out in the minds and hearts of the offenders, but the old weak and disabled were too feeble to fight. They just vanished feet first out of the places that were initially meant to be there to 'care' for them....

I think evil and sin exists, and it's slippery and deceptive and sinks in by grade.

I believe in God, because I've known love, goodness, kindness and mercy and even seen a kind of 'Holiness' in some people.

I'm a Christian because Jesus Christ to me is what real love is all about - but I think it's difficult for people to look at the Cross or more specifically as a Catholic at the Crucifix and see what real love is.

Of course God is Love, and all goodness stems from him who hung on a cross to prove that love is more than a fiction, it's the strongest force because in it is life, and it's Holy - and that evil too is more than a fiction -

Unless one has experienced some kind of evil, and sometimes even witnessed or felt suffering, or thought it through a little, I think the Cross can mystify people if they believe there is no 'sin' in the first place. That everything is 'ok', there is really nothing wrong with the world and there is no 'actual' lack of goodness that can come about.

Brian Shanahan

lmaopml wrote: »

Without God there's no love - no 'good' or 'evil', right or wrong - there is only what is 'preferred', and a thanks be to me I prefer to be ethical at the moment and I trust this society to stay that way.....


When Hitler took over in Nazi Germany, the people where so burdened by lack of basic food and housing that the promise of 'change' for the better, plus the idea that they saw young children being taught about songs dedicated to Hitler a mere man as their Father etc. seduced them into thinking that the slaughter of the old or disabled people who were apparently going missing from hospitals were really 'mercies' to them, and besides they were draining funds - Killing in the name of mercy - at first!! It changed then when the mask slipped to 'Might means Right' and not merely 'we're providing mercy to them'...

Christianity sees that and is not afraid to say that it is evil - that evil does exist in people. I'm quite sure so did the people who were killed and being exterminated think that a huge moral law had been crossed on their person - it had been rubbed out in the minds and hearts of the offenders, but the old weak and disabled were too feeble to fight. They just vanished feet first out of the places that were initially meant to be there to 'care' for them....

I think evil and sin exists, and it's slippery and deceptive and sinks in by grade.

I believe in God, because I've known love, goodness, kindness and mercy and even seen a kind of 'Holiness' in some people.

I'm a Christian because Jesus Christ to me is what real love is all about - but I think it's difficult for people to look at the Cross or more specifically as a Catholic at the Crucifix and see what real love is.

Of course God is Love, and all goodness stems from him who hung on a cross to prove that love is more than a fiction, it's the strongest force because in it is life, and it's Holy - and that evil too is more than a fiction -

Unless one has experienced some kind of evil, and sometimes even witnessed or felt suffering, or thought it through a little, I think the Cross can mystify people if they believe there is no 'sin' in the first place. That everything is 'ok', there is really nothing wrong with the world and there is no 'actual' lack of goodness that can come about.

Of course your whole argument falls apart when it is pointed out that up until the very end Hitler was a faithful christian (he was no more anti-semitic than, for example, Martin Luther) who remained in full communion with the catholic church.

Of course you're ignoring the fact that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are social constructs, created by humanity due to their utility in keeping the species alive, good because such behaviour is advantageous to encourage, and evil so that we know what to discourage and punish. In fact, often what is pointed out be religion as "good" is actually a social evil, in that it causes a disadvantage to species survival (e.g. accepting the word of the religion's high priest as the truth without question). Or the fact that love is wholly a human emotion, and god is not needed for it to exist.

Lantus

lmaopml wrote: »

Without God there's no love - no 'good' or 'evil', right or wrong - there is only what is 'preferred', and a thanks be to me I prefer to be ethical at the moment and I trust this society to stay that way.....


When Hitler took over in Nazi Germany, the people where so burdened by lack of basic food and housing that the promise of 'change' for the better, plus the idea that they saw young children being taught about songs dedicated to Hitler a mere man as their Father etc. seduced them into thinking that the slaughter of the old or disabled people who were apparently going missing from hospitals were really 'mercies' to them, and besides they were draining funds - Killing in the name of mercy - at first!! It changed then when the mask slipped to 'Might means Right' and not merely 'we're providing mercy to them'...

Christianity sees that and is not afraid to say that it is evil - that evil does exist in people. I'm quite sure so did the people who were killed and being exterminated think that a huge moral law had been crossed on their person - it had been rubbed out in the minds and hearts of the offenders, but the old weak and disabled were too feeble to fight. They just vanished feet first out of the places that were initially meant to be there to 'care' for them....

I think evil and sin exists, and it's slippery and deceptive and sinks in by grade.

I believe in God, because I've known love, goodness, kindness and mercy and even seen a kind of 'Holiness' in some people.

I'm a Christian because Jesus Christ to me is what real love is all about - but I think it's difficult for people to look at the Cross or more specifically as a Catholic at the Crucifix and see what real love is.

Of course God is Love, and all goodness stems from him who hung on a cross to prove that love is more than a fiction, it's the strongest force because in it is life, and it's Holy - and that evil too is more than a fiction -

Unless one has experienced some kind of evil, and sometimes even witnessed or felt suffering, or thought it through a little, I think the Cross can mystify people if they believe there is no 'sin' in the first place. That everything is 'ok', there is really nothing wrong with the world and there is no 'actual' lack of goodness that can come about.

The cause of the German people moving towards the societal changes that promoted them to raise their right hands and take up arms against other countries was scarcity. They had no food or homes as you say and there was a way for them to get it which any person, myself included would do if my family was hungry and homeless.

Its why mexicans cross the border to get into america. they want a better life.

Are they evil? No. So the solution is to address the root cause of these problems. Lets use our technology and 'so called' intelligence to engineer a society where we dont have hunger or greed. Lets just give people what they need. People steal because they are brought up in a society where we use scarcity as a method of control, in cultures where there is an abundance people dont steal, they wouldn't even have a word for it. So there is no natural condition that makes people do these things inside us like an angry demon. Its a condition of our environment. Change the environment and we change the responses we get from people. Remove the causes for the abhorent behaviour and it simply goes away.

Another example. Racism is often linked to other causes. No one is born a racist. When the Irish first went to America in the 1800s and 1900s they suffered discrimination and racism from the americans of the time. Why? Because they took away theire jobs. There was a reason to hate them because they were being disadvantaged in the work place. There were not enough jobs and the irish were willing to work for less which really annoyed the americans. Today we make similar comments about eastern europeans who do the same to us. Are we evil? No, we are just responding to our environment.

If we lived in a society where we didn't need to compete for work or goods or services then many of the problems endemic to our lives would simply not exist.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

What do you mean a different "order" of explanation?

For example, if we found out that a deranged gun man had feelings of aggression, persecution and lack of empathy, due to chemical depression, which we identified was due to a chemical imbalance in his brain, which was due to a genetic mutation caused when he was conceived based on the normal process of genetic mutation, would you still insert "but all of that happens because of sinful nature" at the end?

By "order of explanation" I mean a different category. This might just be an odd turn of phrase on my part.

If you are asking me if I believe in sin then the answer is yes.

Zombrex wrote: »

It seems nothing more than a glorified God of the gaps argument, constantly pushing out the "investigation" of evil to the point where you aren't actually explaining anything, and thus cannot be contradicted.

I'm not sure why you put the word investigation in quotation marks. It shouldn't be a contentious word. Religions have always sought to offer an answer to the problems of good and evil and some do a better job thna others. For example, the whole point of theodicy is to investigate the problem of evil/ suffering and to try come up with an explanation for it. Plenty of people challenge and contradict the conclusions reached in theodicies and rightly so. Some are terrible.

Given that you don't believe in evil - at least in an absolute sense - I suggest that this is the word you in future place between scare quotes.

But since you brought it up...

You will have to define evil in a manner that is more than simply human opinion on actions, in order for that to make sense. But then how can you do that without an explanation for that in the first place? We end up back at circular reasoning.

Or to put it another way, how do you know that without an explanation for evil that exist beyond human opinion, that evil isn't simply a concept that humans made up.

Saying it is just what you believe, as if at the start we all had to randomly pick something to believe in, is a cop out.

OK, so we are back to the charge of circular reasoning. First miracles, now morality. Like logic I take the existence of objective morality to be axiomatic. But I'll admit that I might be wrong and that objective morality is a figment of my imagination - just like the belief in God, inalienable rights and the inherent value of human life.

We both know that I wont be able to convince you of the truth of my position. And in a sense I can see where you come from. On atheism there there is no transcendence and therefore no source for objective morality. I agree then that good and evil are simply concepts that humans made up. But the truth of this isn't obvious to me. And I don't feel under any obligation to argue against the notion that the gunman who went into Sandy Hook and started killing simply made up a different morality and killed and died by it.

lmaopml

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course your whole argument falls apart when it is pointed out that up until the very end Hitler was a faithful christian (he was no more anti-semitic than, for example, Martin Luther) who remained in full communion with the catholic church.

How does that destroy my arguement? ..and by the way I wasn't arguing, merely commenting on Fanny's post which I thought was a good one.
I'm not ignoring that Hitler claimed to be Catholic - and by the way he wasn't faithful. I am not denying either that there are, and always have been both good or bad Catholics - we're 'people'. The Church is only a body of people at any stage in history, you do know there are really really lots of us, if you look for one that is not a very good representative, you won't have to go too far?

Of course you're ignoring the fact that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are social constructs, created by humanity due to their utility in keeping the species alive, good because such behaviour is advantageous to encourage, and evil so that we know what to discourage and punish. In fact, often what is pointed out be religion as "good" is actually a social evil, in that it causes a disadvantage to species survival (e.g. accepting the word of the religion's high priest as the truth without question). Or the fact that love is wholly a human emotion, and god is not needed for it to exist.

Well, isn't that what I was saying, that an Atheist, and especially if you take your philosophy of life from evolution, 'survival of the fittest' etc. can never really believe that such thing as good or evil exist, and love is a mere fabrication of chemicals in our brains, so too is beauty. We're chemical robots with no soul or spirit. That's what I said. Nothing is good, nothing is actually evil, it's only relatively good or evil or relatively preferred behaviour by nature - within any society.

I reject that philosophy because I'm a Christian and believe that evil can and does exist in people, and so too can love, because I've observed it, and I 'think' therefore I am..lol......and if you 'think' you're a robot, who are you robot to tell me anything at all about these things, and why should I believe you? huh? :P

Seriously though, I was only commenting on Fanny's post. I've seen this particular debate so many times and it just goes in circles.

lmaopml

Lantus wrote: »

The cause of the German people moving towards the societal changes that promoted them to raise their right hands and take up arms against other countries was scarcity. They had no food or homes as you say and there was a way for them to get it which any person, myself included would do if my family was hungry and homeless.

Its why mexicans cross the border to get into america. they want a better life.

Are they evil? No. So the solution is to address the root cause of these problems. Lets use our technology and 'so called' intelligence to engineer a society where we dont have hunger or greed. Lets just give people what they need. steal because they are brought up in a society where we use scarcity as a methodPeople of control, in cultures where there is an abundance people dont steal, they wouldn't even have a word for it. So there is no natural condition that makes people do these things inside us like an angry demon. Its a condition of our environment. Change the environment and we change the responses we get from people. Remove the causes for the abhorent behaviour and it simply goes away.

Another example. Racism is often linked to other causes. No one is born a racist. When the Irish first went to America in the 1800s and 1900s they suffered discrimination and racism from the americans of the time. Why? Because they took away theire jobs. There was a reason to hate them because they were being disadvantaged in the work place. There were not enough jobs and the irish were willing to work for less which really annoyed the americans. Today we make similar comments about eastern europeans who do the same to us. Are we evil? No, we are just responding to our environment.

If we lived in a society where we didn't need to compete for work or goods or services then many of the problems endemic to our lives would simply not exist.

Btw, I'm not saying that all German people are evil, no more than all Irish people or American people or African people etc.

Also, I don't think it's as simplistic as people steal when they are poor and not when they are rich. In my opinion ( and in this country more and more ) it seems like the opposite is true.

If only engineering evil out of the world was as easy as just engineering a country where people get what they 'need' and everything is fine. That's a kind of socialism is it not? Who get's to say what they 'need'?

Gah, I'm not getting into this though.....again.....I'm off to bed - I've lot's of work to do tomorrow to keep the government happy and ticking over.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

For example, if we found out that a deranged gun man had feelings of aggression, persecution and lack of empathy, due to chemical depression, which we identified was due to a chemical imbalance in his brain, which was due to a genetic mutation caused when he was conceived based on the normal process of genetic mutation, would you still insert "but all of that happens because of sinful nature" at the end?

It happens because of a conscious expression of free will at the end, and yes it is sinful in the sense of a purposeful evil act against nature. Deliberate killing of another human being is not natural, unless in self defense.

Just to modify your statement a litle in terms of what we currently know on the subject of psychopaths/sociopaths. First of all it has nothing to do with a genetic mutation at conception, it is now commonly believed (as commonly as anything is believed when it comes to the human mind) that about 1% of the population have a predisposition towards psychopathic behavior, a personality disorder. It is no different in that respect to a predisposition to alcoholism or certain mental illnesses, it is an inherited trait, who knows how long that genetic nugget has been around. That's a hell of a lot of people, but luckily most of them (due to a loving nurturing upbringing), go on to lead reasonably normal productive lives or put their psychopathic personality to work in careers like running corporations rather than killing people.

The development of sociopathic behavior during childhood is due to environment, which turns the predisposition into a reality. Environment has a far bigger role to play than predisposition. A psychopathic child who is ostracised, punished, bullied, etc. is in grave danger of becoming a sociopath consumed by narcissism and completely lacking in morality. They become consumed with hatred and before moving on to human victims generally target animals for sadistic torture/killing. These are very dangerous, and yes, evil people when they get to this stage, and this stage can be quite young.

However, there is a final element which is free will. It can be argued that every senior figure on Wall Street is a sociopath who preys on the weakness of others to gain wealth and power. While that may be somewhat true, it does not mean you have to become Bernie Maddoff. As for the Sandy Hook perpetrator and people like him, the guns did not walk out of the gun cabinet, the car did not drive itself to the school, and the guns did not fire themselves. Regardless of the state of his mind, at the end it was a conscious decision to walk into a classroom of 5 year olds and empty a magazine into their heads... and yes, he did have a choice. He chose to be selfish and go out in a blaze of narcissistic glory, because although he had made the decision to end his own life, he choose to also destroy the current and future happiness of all those children and their families.

The only thing we can do as a society to confront and contain such evil is to do everything possible to identify the 1% and make every effort to give them a loving nurturing upbringing. Failing that and as a last resort they need to be institionalized, which sadly most are today.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Regardless of the state of his mind, at the end it was a conscious decision to walk into a classroom of 5 year olds and empty a magazine into their heads... and yes, he did have a choice. He chose to be selfish and go out in a blaze of narcissistic glory, because although he had made the decision to end his own life, he choose to also destroy the current and future happiness of all those children and their families.

That is largely irrelevant though, isn't it. Saying he knew what he was doing only applies if you are comparing him to ordinary not suicidal not murderous people.

It is not simply a character flaw to murder someone, dismissing it as him just being selfish is rather missing the point.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

By "order of explanation" I mean a different category. This might just be an odd turn of phrase on my part.

If you are asking me if I believe in sin then the answer is yes.

No, I'm asking you what does saying there is evil, and giving the Christianity explanation for this (Adam & Eve etc), actually explain. You said it was a higher order explanation. Ok, what on this higher order does it explain.

Can you take the Christian explanation for evil, take a random person and then determine if he is or isn't evil? Can you take a criminal who carried out an act and say how "evil" made him do what he did?

Can you explain what evil actually explains other than simply evil (evil exists in the world because evil come into the world and then there was evil)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure why you put the word investigation in quotation marks. It shouldn't be a contentious word.

It certainly is when the investigation doesn't actually investigate or explain anything other than the proposition that it originally supposed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so we are back to the charge of circular reasoning. First miracles, now morality. Like logic I take the existence of objective morality to be axiomatic. But I'll admit that I might be wrong and that objective morality is a figment of my imagination - just like the belief in God, inalienable rights and the inherent value of human life.

Have you ever wondered why, given that we see no evidence for moral decisions or opinions anywhere else apart from in human behavior, to you take objective morality to be axiomatic?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We both know that I wont be able to convince you of the truth of my position.

Well certainly not if it is an axiom that you simply arbitrarily picked

But again this is some what going off the point. The claim is that religions explain human nature through concepts such as evil.

I'm asking what do they actually explain. Not even if that explanation correct, but is it an explanation at all.

I mean you can take one current theory of psychology, and one discredited theory of psychology, and they both attempt to explain something even though one is wrong.

But there is nothing in Christianity that actually explains anything. It just says there is evil and people do it (how? why? when? where?) and that is because something happened in Eden (what? how? when? where?)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree then that good and evil are simply concepts that humans made up. But the truth of this isn't obvious to me. And I don't feel under any obligation to argue against the notion that the gunman who went into Sandy Hook and started killing simply made up a different morality and killed and died by it.

Ok ... but again how does Christianity explain Sandy Hook?

Eve ate an apple, sin "entered the world", and the Sandy Hook killer shoot people?

Can you walk me through what (correct or not) actually you think happened? What does sin entered the world actually mean? What does as sinful nature actually mean (does it effect the brain, or the self control cortex, or perhaps vision)

And if you are happy with all the naturalistic explanations from chemical imbalance to genetic hereditory etc, can you explain what part religion actually explains if all this non-religious stuff explains all of it anyway?

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

A world in which all humans had no choice but to act according to God's will would be the same as having a world inhabited by robots.

Our God-given free will is what makes us Human and not robots or animals.

We are free to do great good ... or great evil ... to love ... or to hate.

... and, as the song says, that's just the way it is.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made ... and our free will has significant 'downsides' ... but it also has very significant 'upsides' ... and I, for one wouldn't have it any other way.

... and God seems to agree with me !!!

Okay. Now I have you and Tommy together:

What is the difference between 'All humanity acting as God wills' and 'A bunch of robots acting as God wills'?

Masteroid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Do you have any source, scriptural or otherwise, for any of this? If Paul was commissioned to destroy the church, then it must be concluded that he did a pretty lousy job of it.

Do you think that Saul bringing Christians to Jerusalem to be punished was carried out without Jewish authority?

Go on, try to kill someone without the support of your peers and see where that gets you in regard of the law

Do you honestly think that Saul was allowed to capture Christians without the blessing of the San Hedrin?

This is not a rhetorical question.

Masteroid

tommy2bad wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Riiiiight, Not quit the logic the rest of us use but knock your self out!

Au contraire Tommy, this is just logic.

Let me simplify this for you. Do yo think that God wants us all to be the same as each other?

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

Bingo.

So, how does that lead to,

"I don't know. There must be a God."?

Do you see what I mean?

If everyone was 'faithful' then there would be no questions.

It would be as if we were in a world dominated by robots.

Use logic and have a look.