PDN wrote: » I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it. Do you want nature to be a designer or not?
PDN wrote: » If nature is a designer then you've invented a deity.
PDN wrote: » If there is no designer then empathy has evolved by accident.
doctoremma wrote: » And natural selection. Let's not forget that.
Jakkass wrote: » Just to think more as to the topic. I'd say that seeking God and following Him, makes me more human than I would be otherwise.
Jakkass wrote: » Precisely because as I strive to follow Him, I better suit my teleological purpose.
PDN wrote: » To be honest I see that as accident.
PDN wrote: » Anyway, we seem to have gone well off-topic in discussing the semantics of the word 'accident'.
doctoremma wrote: » Please tell me. How's the view from that massive pedestal you've climbed onto? How do us lesser amoral humans look from up there?
doctoremma wrote: » Is your purpose to follow god? Or do you follow god to find your purpose? Or have you just said: My purpose is to follow god to find my purpose. Does that even make sense?
PDN wrote: » But it's not about your life. It's about the life of others. We human beings tend to be very egocentric. We value our family, friends, wants, desires and fears as being very important - but frequently fail to accord the same valuation to others. This egocentrism can be taken to its extreme when we devalue others to the extent that they are viewed as no more valuable than animals. Regimes that practice torture, for example, routinely encourage their enforcers to see their victims as less than human. The idea that human life is a gift from God, not just a biological accident, may not cause you to view your life any differently. But it can encourage you to view someone else's life differently.
doctoremma wrote: » You see natural selection as an "accident"? You perceive it to be "arbitrary" or "random"?
Sam Vimes wrote: » History teaches us that believing in God doesn’t do a whole lot of good for people’s view of others’ lives either.
PDN wrote: » To be honest I see that as accident. For example, if a vase falls off a shelf and smashes, it is not random - because gravity is operating. But it is still an accident in that no-one intentionally caused it (design). Anyway, we seem to have gone well off-topic in discussing the semantics of the word 'accident'.
Sam Vimes wrote: » But anyway, back to my point: As long as someone has a desire for himself and his loved ones to live it is logically impossible to hold a view that there is nothing wrong with killing but it is possible to believe that the rule about not killing should not apply to certain out-groups (such as gentiles in the OT) Therefore there is right and wrong without god, people know what's wrong because they wouldn't want it to happen to themselves and their loved ones but the difference is that it becomes more difficult to argue that this sense of right and wrong should be applied universally. The exercise is not in convincing a person that something is wrong, it's in convincing him that this other group is sufficiently "like him" that he should apply the same rules to them as he does to his own group Discuss
Fanny Cradock wrote: » This thread has grown by a fair few pages... I'm not getting you Sam? Why is it logically impossible to hold a view that there is nothing wrong with killing if you have desires oneself and for loved ones? It is apparent to me that everyday people do nasty things to other people that they wouldn't want to have done to themselves. This is what the Nazis did. If they were wrong by what criterion are they adjudged to have been wrong? Furthermore, what do you mean by "right" and "wrong"?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » What if society X is convinced that society Y is sufficiently "unlike" them so as not to apply the same rules? Who then determines what is right and wrong?
Sam Vimes wrote: » No you're not getting me. The point is that even the nazis viewed killing as wrong....when it was applied to themselves, their loved ones and fellow nazis. The argument put forward by theists is that there is no right and wrong without god but there is.
Sam Vimes wrote: » What's right is the way human beings like to see the people they care about treated and what's wrong is the things they wouldn't want to happen to the people they care about, the only difference is that this sense of right and wrong isn't necessarily applied universally.
Sam Vimes wrote: » You ask by what criteria the Nazis are adjudged to be wrong: they were wrong because they were doing things to others that they would not like to have been done to their own loved ones.
Sam Vimes wrote: » You might be able to argue that there is no compelling reason for there to be a universally applicable right and wrong without god but there most certainly is right and wrong within social groups
Sam Vimes wrote: » That is a risk that we take every day, we have seen it happen an millions upon millions upon millions of times throughout history. It's one of the things that most strongly suggests that our sense of morality is the in-group centred one suggested by evolution rather than the objective and universally applicable one that is supposed to have been written on our hearts by god.
Sam Vimes wrote: » But again, the point I am making here is that there is right and wrong without god. You can argue that it's not perfect because it's not always applied universally but it's still there and you cannot legitimately say that without god rape is no worse than going to the shops for some milk
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Firstly, I don't believe that is the argument put forward by the corporate body of theists - some theists maybe, but not all and not me.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » As for the Nazis not killing their own - bully for them. However, it still doesn't address the question of whether they were wrong to do what they did to their enemies - those whom they attempted to convince themselves weren't fully human. They might have shared your view hypothetically, but the reality was that they never practised it in reality.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » This is the crux of my not understanding your position. I just can't figure the finer points out of why it should be so. *When did this almost moral imperative come into play? Was it after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their goons had finished killing tens of millions? Or are these guys simply the unfortunate exception to the rule? *Are lions bad for killing antelope? Surely if the lion (or its "selfish genes") acts entirely out of its own interest then we do too. *Is Tesco wrong for killing off the competition? Again, the company is acting on behalf of its own interests, those of its shareholders, its staff and they would probably claim the wider community. *If in 100 years there isn't enough water to supply everyone on the earth (including the wealthy nations) is it right to forcibly take water sources from weaker nations (thereby helping your nation and its people)? Or should you stand by and do nothing while they suffer and die? (Sorry for all the questions)
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I won't disagree with the overall thesis. But I now have to point out that you are perilously close to describing an overarching morality - a law if you will. Heaven forbid! Because if it's not a law, then the Nazis were presumably not wrong in doing what they did. (This despite however distasteful we find their actions.)
Fanny Cradock wrote: » As for God writing something on our hearts, I do think this is what happened and that's why I think that you aren't as far away from admitting the existence of objective rights and wrongs (albeit without a creator (for now...).
Fanny Cradock wrote: » However, what I am trying to point out is that whatever your opinion on what people should and shouldn't do it isn't fixed under your system. - it's just a rule of thumb. And one that potentially carries no more negative consequences for breaking it than it guarantees positive consequences for sticking by it. You might say that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't have done to you. But what if a person rejects your humanity and says they aren't convinced by your argument? To what do you appeal to say that this view is wrong?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » You might say that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't have done to you. But what if a person rejects your humanity and says they aren't convinced by your argument? To what do you appeal to say that this view is wrong?
PDN wrote: » Really? So it wouldn't be a big deal to you to suffer the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being sustained for a few hours? A pain worse than childbirth, worse than a kick in the gonads, worse than having your skin pulled off in tiny strips with hooks?
- As far as the Pirahã have related to researchers, their culture is concerned solely with matters that fall within direct personal experience, and thus there is no history beyond living memory. - The culture has the simplest known kinship system, not tracking relations any more distant than biological siblings. - There appears to be no social hierarchy; the Pirahã have no leaders. Their social system can thus be labeled as primitive communism. - Curiously, although not unprecedentedly[2], the language has no cardinal or ordinal numbers. Some researchers, such as Prof. Peter Gordon of Columbia University, claim that the Piraha are incapable of learning numeracy. His colleague, Prof. Daniel L. Everett, on the other hand, argues that the Pirahã are cognitively capable of counting; they simply choose not to do so. - They barter with external traders but have resisted most external influences (such as encouragement to farm) retaining a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
monosharp wrote: » Of course it would be a big deal but equally of course I could stand it, especially given I had no choice whether to stand it or not. You claim Jesus suffered the most excruciating pain imaginable to a human being yet we have had this discussion before and it was very clearly pointed out to you that Crucifixion is by no means the worst physical suffering human beings can or have endured.
So I'm going to assume your going to bring up the 'spiritual' pain card. OK. Lets assume that Jesus suffered 10 million billion times more then a normal human being is capable of suffering. So what ?
Lets assume that Jesus suffered 10 million billion times more then a normal human being is capable of suffering. So what ?
Torture has been perfected over human history and you know why its an ineffective means of getting information ? You know why pain (physical) is itself ineffective ?
Mind over matter.
Of course we had this discussion before and you claimed Jesus underwent 'spiritual pain' which is of course something non-Christians cannot experience, or was it non-religious people ?
I find this equally unimpressive for the same reasons as physical and psychological pain. Of course you claim I don't know what spiritual pain is and I cannot experience it so you are making an argument for your case which by your own definition is impossible for me to argue against. Very handy when things get difficult. Claim the other side can't possibly understand your argument so by default your are right.
PDN wrote: » I stated Christian beliefs before, yes. And you seemed to get upset that you couldn't understand it which made it unfair that you couldn't argue against it.
PDN wrote: » Not true. The reason why torture is unreliable as a means of extracting information, as most studies demonstrate, is nothing to do with mind over matter. It is because the victim of torture will tell the torturer whatever they think they want to hear in order to make the pain stop.
Let's get this clear. It's nothing to do with anything being 'handy'. I've stated what the Christian belief is. You are the one trying to create an argument, and then somehow trying to make out that it's unfair that you can't understand the issues enough to make a decent argument.
Sam Vimes wrote: » We know it's the christian belief, the point being made here is that the christian belief itself is 'handy'. It goes back to a point someone made a few weeks ago about faith being a conversation stopper. To someone on the outside looking in this belief that Jesus pain was multiplied seems to be nothing more than an ad hoc hypothesis thought up by someone years ago who wanted to believe that Jesus made the greatest sacrifice
You have nothing to suggest that Jesus pain was multiplied, you just believe it, the sacrifice was the greatest because you have defined it as such,
you're right because you have been defined to be and there's nothing anyone can say in response except "I disagree". I think you can see why people would find that frustrating
monosharp wrote: » Of course your right but I was referring to the equally valid point that certain people have shown under extreme forms of torture/pain that they are capable of resisting/ignoring it, i.e > mind over matter.
Heres what I don't get. Whenever you or anyone else here talks about Jesus, whenever I hear any evangelist trying to convert someone, whenever I hear someone preaching about Christianity then they use terms and ideas which they know people will understand. "Jesus suffered on the cross and he died for our sins." Thats the line thats thrown around. Clearly when it suits Christians, they are trying to make people think Jesus suffered and died.
Your trying to convey an idea to people using concepts (suffering and dying) they are supposed to understand and yet when people question those same ideas using the same concepts you yourself have conveyed you turn around and tell them they can't understand them.
Do you understand my frustration ?
Well if thats the case then what possible meaning does that phrase have anymore ? You might as well say 'Jesus had a lovely cup of tea and a slice of toast last tuesday' because by your own words, I am incapable of understanding these ideas in which case they completely loose all meaning.
You are putting your ideas and your religion on a pedestal that cannot be touched, you are placing your beliefs behind an impregnable wall and yet you claim you want to discuss them ? That doesn't make any sense and is one of the main reasons I have turned away from religion. Once you consider your argument or your beliefs untouchable then thats something to be very afraid of indeed.
It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, Christians here do not want a debate, they don't want to discuss other views, they just want to high 5 each other in agreement over the status quo and never question it.
PDN wrote: » . Christians, who understand the concept of spiritual suffering, should be allowed to discuss that in this forum without you butting in to say, "But I can't understand this - therefore you shouldn't discuss it because that frustrates me!"
liamw wrote: » Perhaps you could explain the concept of spiritual suffering and how it differs to normal suffering for those of us who don't understand it?
PDN wrote: » a) They can argue that they don't believe in the concept of spiritual suffering. That is their perogative. Therefore they don't see Christ's sacrifice on the cross as being impressive - but equally they have no grounds for complaining about the unfairness of hell. b) They can complain about how unfair hell is - for inflicting spiritual suffering on people for all eternity. But then they have to allow for the possibility that Jesus suffered similarly on the Cross.
PDN wrote: » It does not follow that pain does not exist, or that such endurance has any relevance at all to the suffering of Christ on the Cross.
Because Jesus did suffer and die.
death [deth] –noun 1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.
People understand the concepts of suffering and dying. But that does not mean that all discussion of suffering and dying must be confined to your limited understanding on those concepts.
For example, is it unfair of me to discuss the pain of a child dying with anyone who has never been a parent? Such a person has no idea of the extent of pain a parent feels when a child dies, but the parent is still allowed to try to express that in terms that the other person can understand.
No, because I cannot understand someone being so arrogant as to assume that everything discussed on this board should be suited to their own limited understanding.
Christians, who understand the concept of spiritual suffering, should be allowed to discuss that in this forum without you butting in to say, "But I can't understand this - therefore you shouldn't discuss it because that frustrates me!"
Now you're just being silly. Your inability to understand stuff does not prevent the rest of us discussing our beliefs.
monosharp wrote: » 1. Where did 'not exist' come from ? 2. Why wouldn't it have any relevance ? You have told me that I 'can't' understand his suffering and according to Christians he didn't really die at all. Death is permanent so what happened to Jesus wasn't death. We need a new word with the definition of 'temporary cessation of all the vital functions of an organism' You are the one who first told me that Jesus suffered and died, then when I question the suffering and the dying based on scientific understanding of the concepts you then told me that I can't understand them which brings us right back to my first point. What possible meaning does the sentence "Jesus suffered and died for our sins" mean to people like me, who according to you, cannot understand what the words mean. I understand suffering, I understand the physical, biological and physiological factors involved with the concept and thats why I don't find the statement 'Jesus suffered' very impressive. Your talking about degrees of pain, degrees of suffering. Your not talking about something which is inherently different. I've asked you to explain it to me and you came back with "you just can't understand it unless your part of our club" which is not an argument, its an excuse. I said no such thing. So when you go to try and convert someone and you tell them that "Jesus suffered and died for them" what concepts are you trying to put forward ? Because you have just repeatedly said that non-Christians are incapable of understanding these concepts.
