5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

Sam Vimes · 07-08-2009 07:39PM

bnt wrote: »

The "golden rule" did not come from Christianity at all. There's something like that in the Talmud (via Hillel), and the Analects of Confucius (c. 500BC) contains this:

I'm not sure if you're correcting me or agreeing with me so I'll just point out that I know that :P
I posted how the same rule is all over religion and philosophy and Jesus is just one more person to have said it

bnt wrote: »

I prefer this "negative" formulation - "do not do unto others" - to the Christian "positive" version - "do unto others" - since it discourages evangelism or any other kind of interference in the lives of others. Or, as George Bernard Shaw put it:

Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.

Ah but one of the things I wouldn't want is for someone else to inflict their tastes on me so I shouldn't inflict my tastes on them. The rule covers that eventuality :pac:

Turtwig · 17-08-2009 02:08AM

Excellent Response to this video.

Unless of course you have a grudge against lego.

CerebralCortex · 17-08-2009 09:54AM

Brilliant!

Dr. Baltar · 18-08-2009 03:12AM

Fantastic videos! Well answered questions.

philologos · 18-08-2009 10:39AM

bnt wrote: »

The "golden rule" did not come from Christianity at all. There's something like that in the Talmud (via Hillel), and the Analects of Confucius (c. 500BC) contains this:

The Babylonian Talmud post dates Jesus by about 200 years.

However the quote is also in the Torah, 550 years before Christ in the book of Leviticus:

Leviticus 19:17-18 wrote:

You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.

I don't claim that Jesus was the first to teach it. Infact, Jesus wasn't the first to teach a lot of what He spoke. A lot was Jewish teaching. I've been surprised at how true this was reading back over the Jewish Scriptures.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 11:37AM

Jakkass wrote: »

The Babylonian Talmud post dates Jesus by about 200 years.

However the quote is also in the Torah, 550 years before Christ in the book of Leviticus:

I don't claim that Jesus was the first to teach it. Infact, Jesus wasn't the first to teach a lot of what He spoke. A lot was Jewish teaching. I've been surprised at how true this was reading back over the Jewish Scriptures.

Not only was it in Jewish scriptures, it's present in, for example Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology.

It's common sense. It doesn't require divine inspiration

Flamed Diving · 18-08-2009 11:38AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not only was it in Jewish scriptures, it's present in, for example Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology.

It's common sense. It doesn't require divine inspiration

Yeah, but, uhh, God put the thoughts in their head.

Or something...

Galvasean · 18-08-2009 01:05PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Excellent Response to this video.
Unless of course you have a grudge against lego.

Good responses, but why of all things, is he a ninja?

philologos · 18-08-2009 01:13PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not only was it in Jewish scriptures, it's present in, for example Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology.

It's common sense. It doesn't require divine inspiration

Interesting, what's the difference between Brahmanism and Hinduism?

Continuing on. Yes you are correct, I believe this rule comes into the category of basic morality that most of us are able to discern from every day experience.

As you well know this isn't the only ethic that I like about either Judaism or Christianity. I feel that I can more effectively assess my actions and my morals by consulting the Biblical text, as I can see if I am doing what I should be doing on a daily basis. Of course I find the moral commands in the Bible to have "cognitive value" if I am to borrow the language of Jurgen Habermas again.

You know as well as I do, that people can be justified in their own sight. People think they do right when a lot of the times when they do not.

Anyhow, you know I disagree with you. I feel there is value in Jewish and Christian tradition for how one should act. I feel when I explore these teachings they encourage me to be a better person.

Flamed Diving · 18-08-2009 01:15PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, what's the difference between Brahmanism and Hinduism?

Continuing on. Yes you are correct, I believe this rule comes into the category of basic morality that most of us are able to discern from every day experience.

As you well know this isn't the only ethic that I like about either Judaism or Christianity. I feel that I can more effectively assess my actions and my morals by consulting the Biblical text, as I can see if I am doing what I should be doing on a daily basis. Of course I find the moral commands in the Bible to have "cognitive value" if I am to borrow the language of Jurgen Habermas again.

You know as well as I do, that people can be justified in their own sight. People think they do right when a lot of the times when they do not.

Anyhow, you know I disagree with you. I feel there is value in Jewish and Christian tradition for how one should act. I feel when I explore these teachings they encourage me to be a better person.

Is there any ethic you don't like from Christianity?

In addition, do you really need to consult a book to check if you are doing the right things or not? Forgive me, but that seems a bit... feeble. As if the Bible is a crutch or something.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 01:30PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, what's the difference between Brahmanism and Hinduism?

Continuing on. Yes you are correct, I believe this rule comes into the category of basic morality that most of us are able to discern from every day experience.

As you well know this isn't the only ethic that I like about either Judaism or Christianity. I feel that I can more effectively assess my actions and my morals by consulting the Biblical text, as I can see if I am doing what I should be doing on a daily basis. Of course I find the moral commands in the Bible to have "cognitive value" if I am to borrow the language of Jurgen Habermas again.

You know as well as I do, that people can be justified in their own sight. People think they do right when a lot of the times when they do not.

Anyhow, you know I disagree with you. I feel there is value in Jewish and Christian tradition for how one should act. I feel when I explore these teachings they encourage me to be a better person.

Can you give me some examples of some moral rules in the bible that can't be determined through correct interpretation of the golden rule?

philologos · 18-08-2009 01:46PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there any ethic you don't like from Christianity?

In addition, do you really need to consult a book to check if you are doing the right things or not? Forgive me, but that seems a bit... feeble. As if the Bible is a crutch or something.

I think the morality that is given to us from Christianity is universally binding. So, I think that it is the best that we can possibly look for.

If it feels feeble, it probably is because you feel that humans are not as fallible as I view them to be. I view myself as being fallible, hence why I look to another standard to discern what is right from what is wrong. I can't do this all on my own. Although faith in humanity is good, too much faith in humanity can be damaging.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you give me some examples of some moral rules in the bible that can't be determined through correct interpretation of the golden rule?

I personally believe that all of the guidance can be summed down to this and the commandment "Love the LORD your God with all your heart with all your strength and with all your might". Even more so, I think all of the commandments in the Bible can be summed up to the 10 commandments. However, I think that humans can often lose track of what they should be doing. I often lose track, that's why I feel that the Bible offers me a means to look back over what I have done, reflect on the good and the bad, and decide what I should do in the future to be a better influence on others and myself than I already am. This is the purpose of the social gospel, and the social ethic of the Jewish and Christian tradition.

Flamed Diving · 18-08-2009 01:55PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the morality that is given to us from Christianity is universally binding. So, I think that it is the best that we can possibly look for.

If it feels feeble, it probably is because you feel that humans are not as fallible as I view them to be. I view myself as being fallible, hence why I look to another standard to discern what is right from what is wrong. I can't do this all on my own. Although faith in humanity is good, too much faith in humanity can be damaging.

Believe me, my faith in humanity could not be lower...

I dunno, I just make my own mind up about things, thats all. I tend to not piss people off, so it must work!

Maybe I should start a religion...

Zamboni · 18-08-2009 01:58PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Maybe I should start a religion...

http://www.apath.org/creating_religion.html

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 01:58PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally believe that all of the guidance can be summed down to this and the commandment "Love the LORD your God with all your heart with all your strength and with all your might". Even more so, I think all of the commandments in the Bible can be summed up to the 10 commandments. However, I think that humans can often lose track of what they should be doing. I often lose track, that's why I feel that the Bible offers me a means to look back over what I have done, reflect on the good and the bad, and decide what I should do in the future to be a better influence on others and myself than I already am. This is the purpose of the social gospel, and the social ethic of the Jewish and Christian tradition.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

Have nothing to do with morality

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Are covered by the golden rule. Anything else?

philologos · 18-08-2009 02:04PM

Sam, I've already said that the Golden Rule covers them. However, I would say the Golden Rule offers general guidance, whereas moral ethics of Judaism and Christianity would offer the meat to those bones.

In a general way the Ten Commandments also sum up what is moral and immoral, yet they are like the Golden Rule, the bones. Hence why more specific moral guidelines are given in Proverbs, in the rest of the Jewish law, in the prophets, and in the New Testament.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 02:07PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, I've already said that the Golden Rule covers them. However, I would say the Golden Rule offers general guidance, whereas moral ethics of Judaism and Christianity would offer the meat to those bones.

In a general way the Ten Commandments also sum up what is moral and immoral, yet they are like the Golden Rule, the bones. Hence why more specific moral guidelines are given in Proverbs, in the rest of the Jewish law, in the prophets, and in the New Testament.

So you're saying that using the golden rule as a basis it is possible to give a comprehensive list of all the things that are acceptable and unacceptable? I wholeheartedly agree and that's exactly what I think happened all those years ago...........So where does God come in exactly?

We still do that nowadays but now we call it "the law" and "social acceptability". We don't feel the need to say "do it because God says so" but we're still following the only rule that is necessary for morality

philologos · 18-08-2009 02:13PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're saying that using the golden rule as a basis it is possible to give a comprehensive list of all the things that are acceptable and unacceptable? I wholeheartedly agree and that's exactly what I think happened all those years ago...........So where does God come in exactly?

The Golden Rule is a basic step towards moral thought. Elaboration is still required.

As for God, where does God come in? I would hold the same view that the Archbishop of Canterbury did on the C4 documentary on Sunday. People can be led to moral conclusions because of the conscience that God has given them. People can either choose to develop said conscience or one can ignore it altogether. God has ultimately given us this ability. Whether or not we want to explore this possibility is entirely up to us.

I've already told you that the Bible gives credence to this view. It is possible to do what is right without an elaborate knowledge of theology:

Romans 2:13-14 wrote:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.

I would argue that it is a lot more difficult however. I seek the moral guidance of the Bible, because I feel that it helps me come to moral conclusions and it serves as a check and balance. People often don't see what they do wrong until it is pointed out to them.

gaynorvader · 18-08-2009 02:16PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I would argue that it is a lot more difficult however. I seek the moral guidance of the Bible, because I feel that it helps me come to moral conclusions and it serves as a check and balance. People often don't see what they do wrong until it is pointed out to them.

I would argue that the Bible, and all holy books are too often misquoted or misinterpreted and give too much power to individuals whom are not elected into their office by any means.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 02:32PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The Golden Rule is a basic step towards moral thought. Elaboration is still required.

As for God, where does God come in? I would hold the same view that the Archbishop of Canterbury did on the C4 documentary on Sunday. People can be led to moral conclusions because of the conscience that God has given them. People can either choose to develop said conscience or one can ignore it altogether. God has ultimately given us this ability. Whether or not we want to explore this possibility is entirely up to us.

I've already told you that the Bible gives credence to this view. It is possible to do what is right without an elaborate knowledge of theology:

I would argue that it is a lot more difficult however. I seek the moral guidance of the Bible, because I feel that it helps me come to moral conclusions and it serves as a check and balance. People often don't see what they do wrong until it is pointed out to them.

You just told me that the morality in the bible can be derived from the golden rule. Elaboration may be required but elaboration can be achieved through societal consensus because we already have the rule to base it on. I'm sure you will agree with this because you believe we have been given a conscience by God. We know that human beings are capable of this because it's how laws are written and how "social acceptability" is determined. We look to our parents, our peers, our society and the law for "checks and balances"

Since the conscience is built into us, the requirement for religion is negated, it's just one more place that these rules have been written down. We can and do independently write pretty much the same rules down again and again because we have this inbuilt conscience*.

And since the nature of the conscience can be completely explained through evolution, the requirement for a God is negated. you can believe all you want that a conscience requires a God but the theory of evolution begs to differ.

*Something I don't think you will agree with but which is most likely true is that's what I and other atheists think happened all those years ago, that people wrote down the rules that their conscience told them were right but were afraid people wouldn't follow them so they said "do it because God says so". It seems they didn't realise people have this in-built conscience and would for the most part follow the rules without this argument from authority

philologos · 18-08-2009 02:33PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

I would argue that the Bible, and all holy books are too often misquoted or misinterpreted and give too much power to individuals whom are not elected into their office by any means.

This is why I feel that congregations should make themselves aware of what their pastor discusses at church so that members of the congregation can hold their pastor accountable. Again this notion is also in the Bible:

James 3:1 wrote:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters,[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

As for individuals not being elected into their office. I don't know about the Catholic Church, but in the Anglican church all bishops are elected by the General Synod into their positions including the Archbishop of Canterbury.

gaynorvader · 18-08-2009 02:40PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why I feel that congregations should make themselves aware of what their pastor discusses at church so that members of the congregation can hold their pastor accountable. Again this notion is also in the Bible:

Indeed, but in many religions (including some branches of Christianity) it is not encouraged. If you felt your pastor was misinterpreting the bible in church, would you tell him? (Obviously not disrupting the service, but afterwards)

Jakkass wrote: »

As for individuals not being elected into their office. I don't know about the Catholic Church, but in the Anglican church all bishops are elected by the General Synod into their positions including the Archbishop of Canterbury.

What about priests? A priest has a large amount of power over his/her congregation. Most use this responsibly to help their community, but I don't think they are kept tabs on rigidly enough as they are assumed to be morally upstanding. (I'm not sure how it works in the Anglican church in this regard, but would be interested to find out.)

philologos · 18-08-2009 02:43PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You just told me that the morality in the bible can be derived from the golden rule. Elaboration may be required but elaboration can be achieved through societal consensus because we already have the rule to base it on. I'm sure you will agree with this because you believe we have been given a conscience by God. We know that human beings are capable of this because it's how laws are written and how "social acceptability" is determined. We look to our parents, our peers, our society and the law for "checks and balances"

It can be achieved, it is just very difficult to do so without meat to the bones.

As for societal consensus, I could never use this as my bearing of morality. Going with the crowd is a dangerous tactic for forming moral norms. This is the reason why Christians are urged to be in the world, but not of the world. I.E to be distinct instead of following the crowd. Collusion can also result in the perversion of justice.

Exodus 23:2 wrote:

You shall not follow a majority in wrongdoing; when you bear witness in a lawsuit, you shall not side with the majority so as to pervert justice;

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Since the conscience is built into us, the requirement for religion is negated, it's just one more place that these rules have been written down. We can and do independently write pretty much the same rules down again and again because we have this inbuilt conscience*.

I disagree with this. Although we all have consciences, people can form them in differing ways. This doesn't mean that we will have the same morals. It is possible to reach God's standard using ones conscience without any body of divine revelation, but it is incredibly difficult. It does not mean that every single person is reaching God's standard. Not even all people of faith can do this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And since the nature of the conscience can be completely explained through evolution, the requirement for a God is negated. you can believe all you want that a conscience requires a God but the theory of evolution begs to differ.

I reject an evolutionary viewpoint in explaining morality. It might be possible to explain it this way, but it is also possible to explain it in more effective ways. Even if you did say it was from an evolutionary viewpoint, you know full well that many Christians regard it possible for evolution to be a part of a divine creation. Leaving us back at square one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

*Something I don't think you will agree with but which is most likely true is that's what I and other atheists think happened all those years ago, that people wrote down the rules that their conscience told them were right but were afraid people wouldn't follow them so they said "do it because God says so". It seems they didn't realise people have this in-built conscience and would for the most part follow the rules without this argument from authority

Who says it is most likely true? Indeed, I won't be conceding this. I think it is more likely that there is a universal moral system that was laid down at the beginning of the universe. A standard for how best to live in this world of ours, and a standard that we should strive for. Hence why I disagree with you.

The inbuilt conscience that we have, can be configured in many different ways. It is possible that your conscience could lead you to God's standard without having known divine revelation but it is incredibly unlikely.

philologos · 18-08-2009 02:49PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

Indeed, but in many religions (including some branches of Christianity) it is not encouraged. If you felt your pastor was misinterpreting the bible in church, would you tell him? (Obviously not disrupting the service, but afterwards)

I think that we need to encourage it.

If my pastor was misinterpreting the Bible in church, I would ask him about his interpretation and I would put forward my view and discuss it. Of course I would arrange to do this one to one.

gaynorvader wrote: »

What about priests? A priest has a large amount of power over his/her congregation. Most use this responsibly to help their community, but I don't think they are kept tabs on rigidly enough as they are assumed to be morally upstanding. (I'm not sure how it works in the Anglican church in this regard, but would be interested to find out.)

In Anglicanism we are a loose worldwide federation of autonomous churches. This means that national churches make their own decisions about how things are to be done more or less. This is why there is so much diversity in the church currently in various issues.

The Church of Ireland is a province of the Anglican Communion, one of many provinces. The Lambeth Conference which takes place every 10 years is an international discussion point for the Anglican Church.

The National Synod is a discussion point for what the Church of Ireland should do, new bishops are appointed by vote, resolutions are made on things the church needs to do, and the statistics concerning finances and the various ministries the church is involved in are discussed and published.

The Archbishop of Canterbury the overseer of the Anglican Communion is appointed at the Church of England General Synod.

The Diocesan Synod is a discussion point for what the diocese should do. For example the Dublin and Glendalough Diocesan Synod. At these meetings pastors are appointed to new parishes, and other topical issues such as ministry projects are discussed.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2009 02:51PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It can be achieved, it is just very difficult to do so without meat to the bones.

As for societal consensus, I could never use this as my bearing of morality. Going with the crowd is a dangerous tactic for forming moral norms. This is the reason why Christians are urged to be in the world, but not of the world. I.E to be distinct instead of following the crowd. Collusion can also result in the perversion of justice.

Here's a scary thought for you. What if I'm right? What if the bible was written by people who were following their conscience but who were not guided by God? Wouldn't that mean that you were clinging to what was acceptable 2000 years ago as if it was perfect when in fact it was just primitive?

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with this. Although we all have consciences, people can form them in differing ways. This doesn't mean that we will have the same morals. It is possible to reach God's standard using ones conscience without any body of divine revelation, but it is incredibly difficult. It does not mean that every single person is reaching God's standard. Not even all people of faith can do this.

It is difficult to do on your own. That's why you get feedback from people you trust as to whether what you're doing is right or not.

Jakkass wrote: »

The inbuilt conscience that we have, can be configured in many different ways. It is possible that your conscience could lead you to God's standard without having known divine revelation but it is incredibly unlikely.

That doesn't sound particularly divine to me. In fact it's exactly what you'd expect if it was evolved

Jakkass wrote: »

I reject an evolutionary viewpoint in explaining morality. It might be possible to explain it this way, but it is also possible to explain it in more effective ways. Even if you did say it was from an evolutionary viewpoint, you know full well that many Christians regard it possible for evolution to be a part of a divine creation. Leaving us back at square one.

If you look over in the christianity forum you'll see where I explain that "theistic evolution" is nothing more than intelligent design which itself is creationism in a lab coat. you can reject the evolutionary viewpoint in explaining morality but it leaves you in exactly the same position, exactly the same position, as if you rejected the gravitational viewpoint in explaining things that fall. You are rejecting science because it doesn't fit with your beliefs

gaynorvader · 18-08-2009 02:55PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that we need to encourage it.

If my pastor was misinterpreting the Bible in church, I would ask him about his interpretation and I would put forward my view and discuss it. Of course I would arrange to do this one to one.

In Anglicanism we are a loose worldwide federation of autonomous churches. This means that national churches make their own decisions about how things are to be done more or less. This is why there is so much diversity in the church currently in various issues.

The Church of Ireland is a province of the Anglican Communion, one of many provinces. The Lambeth Conference which takes place every 10 years is an international discussion point for the Anglican Church.

The National Synod is a discussion point for what the Church of Ireland should do, new bishops are appointed by vote, resolutions are made on things the church needs to do, and the statistics concerning finances and the various ministries the church is involved in are discussed and published.

The Archbishop of Canterbury the overseer of the Anglican Communion is appointed at the Church of England General Synod.

The Diocesan Synod is a discussion point for what the diocese should do. For example the Dublin and Glendalough Diocesan Synod. At these meetings pastors are appointed to new parishes, and other topical issues such as ministry projects are discussed.

Thank you, I'm always happy to expand my knowledge. It's clear to me that you don't believe your religion to be infallible (although I might have misinterpreted your post), but you do believe in it, which is something I'd rather not dissuade you from, even if I could.

I was wondering though. What are your thoughts on the OP's video? I thought his final point in particular was extremely arrogant as he tried to draw a similarity between "God's work" and man's.

gaynorvader · 18-08-2009 02:59PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you look over in the christianity forum you'll see where I explain that "theistic evolution" is nothing more than intelligent design which itself is creationism in a lab coat. you can reject the evolutionary viewpoint in explaining morality but it leaves you in exactly the same position, exactly the same position, as if you rejected the gravitational viewpoint in explaining things that fall. You are rejecting science because it doesn't fit with your beliefs

I've been enjoying your posts Vimes, but I think you might be misunderstanding Jakkass here (or maybe I'm misunderstanding), I think he's denying that morals come from biological evolution in favour of cultural and social evolution, which, it could be argued, have been shaped or at least influeced by religion.

philologos · 18-08-2009 03:02PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's a scary thought for you. What if I'm right? What if the bible was written by people who were following their conscience but who were not guided by God? Wouldn't that mean that you were clinging to what was acceptable 2000 years ago as if it was perfect when in fact it was just primitive?

Having considered it. I think Christian ethics are applicable to the modern day even if they are 2,000 years old for the most part. Age doesn't particularly have much impact for me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is difficult to do on your own. That's why you get feedback from people you trust as to whether what you're doing is right or not.

Who is to say that their subjective understanding is correct? I think it is more reliable to pursue an objective standard rather than a subjective one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That doesn't sound particularly divine to me. In fact it's exactly what you'd expect if it was evolved

It sounds like the product of free will to me. People can choose to accept God's plan for their lives, and divine morality, or people can choose to go an alternative route.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you look over in the christianity forum you'll see where I explain that "theistic evolution" is nothing more than intelligent design which itself is creationism in a lab coat. you can reject the evolutionary viewpoint in explaining morality but it leaves you in exactly the same position, exactly the same position, as if you rejected the gravitational viewpoint in explaining things that fall. You are rejecting science because it doesn't fit with your beliefs

Not particularly. This view of Creation is perfectly compatible with science, hence why you have had many Christians who have contributed much to the field of biology in the last few years and many Christians who are behind the scenes learning about biology and science while regarding it the product of a higher creation. It doesn't impact their work negatively in any shape or form.

I'm not rejecting any form of science. I'm rejecting your understanding of science. Utter nonsense.

You also act as if science should be regarded above every other academic field. I think again that this is ridiculous. There are different fields of study for different subjects. Most ethicists happen to be philosophy graduates. Science has a limited scope, I find. I don't think the theory of evolution has any impact on my morality, it does impact to an extent how I view origins, but apart from that not particularly. It serves a purpose other than to deal with morality. Your invocation of evolution is just that an invocation. It's a theory on biology, not a moral philosophy.

So yes, I reject your understanding outright, but I am open to the theory of evolution in a biological context.

philologos · 18-08-2009 03:10PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

Thank you, I'm always happy to expand my knowledge. It's clear to me that you don't believe your religion to be infallible (although I might have misinterpreted your post), but you do believe in it, which is something I'd rather not dissuade you from, even if I could.

I don't believe that people are infallible when making religious statements, they should be always held up to scrutiny. Scrutiny in a positive and a Christian manner rather than scrutiny in an attempt to knock someone down though. I don't believe that my church is infallible, it has it's issues. It is a place where I worship. My church is a church which welcomes people who have made mistakes, people who have sinned. We all sinned and are sinners, so it is impossible to expect that we should have a perfect church.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I was wondering though. What are your thoughts on the OP's video? I thought his final point in particular was extremely arrogant as he tried to draw a similarity between "God's work" and man's.

I've watched a lot of this guys (philos71) videos before, and I don't think he is arrogant in so much as trying to pose interesting questions for discussion of which there is a lot on youtube. I think he's an intelligent guy from what I've seen of him.

Tom10 · 18-08-2009 03:10PM

To quote Stephen Fry, "Religion - Sh*t it"

Sums it all up nicely I feel

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

Comments