Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 142 (16539)
09-04-2002 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tokyojim
09-03-2002 9:33 AM


Tokyojim, thanks for your reply. I'll need to take some small time to work through a reply - I'm not ignoring you. As you said, I have something of a life to lead. I do promise to get to your points shortly (just maybe not today...) Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tokyojim, posted 09-03-2002 9:33 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 142 (16554)
09-04-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mammuthus
09-03-2002 12:19 PM


Mammuthus wrote:
I consider your religion weak if your so called right or wrong are based on punishment and reward from a mythical being.
*******************************************************
Tokyojim replies:
Mammuthus, many people think that Christianity is for people who are weak who cannot handle life for themselves. They view dependence on God as a crutch. I call it honesty. I know I am not perfect. When I think about standing in front of a holy GOd who can see everything about me, I know that I need a Savior. I need to be forgiven of many sins. Call it weakness if you will, but I'm not a fool to think that I am good enough to get to heaven. I think it takes strength to be willing to own up to your weaknesses rather than to pretend that nothing is wrong. Anyway, I know that I cannot cleanse my own heart. And, I believe that if I do not accept God's forgiveness, I will have to pay for my sins myself for all of eternity. I prefer to receive God's forgiveness. But in order to receive God's forgiveness, I must honestly admit my sin, repent of it, and ask for His forgiveness. He then promises to cleanse me. For an alcoholice to begin to get better, the first step is to honestly face the problem. I believe that is what I am doing. If admitting sin and imperfection to see how to solve the problem is weakness, then I qualify as a weakling in your sight and again I am unashamed of it.
My so called right and wrong are not based on punishment and reward from a mythical being. Obviously I do not believe that God is a mythical being. Although, if He is, I certainly understand why you think my faith is foolish. I would agree with you. However, I am living a fulfilled life so in the end it wouldn't matter, would it? Why not live a fulfilled life during my short life here on this planet? Is there anything wrong with that? If I must be deceived, I prefer that sort of deception to a deception that results in eternal harm to me. So I don't care if I am deceived. Although if I were to come to believe that I am deceived, I would give up some of my religious practices because they would be meaningless.
I guess I haven't explained where my morality comes from clearly enough. It is not based on fear of retribution and the promise of some reward. Mammuthus, I'm sure you can understand that in order to be able to talk about right and wrong, there must be an absolute standard by which to judge a particular action, otherwise the terms become meaningless. You claim there is no such standard so if you are true to your world view, -right and wrong- are words which you can not honestly use.
Right and wrong, as I understand the Bible, are determined by nothing other than the character of God. God is perfect and His character is the determining factor in human morality since we have been created in His image. For example, because God is love, unloving acts are sin. The Bible says -God is love. Therefore, love one another.- And -Love one another as I have loved you.- It is all based on who God is and what He does. Or, because God is the Creator and giver of life, life has value and it is wrong to take another persons life. This would be extended to include the life of elderly people and the unborn as well. The principle is that life has value and this principle comes from the character of God, who you call a mythical being. The character of God becomes the standard from which we derive principles that we apply to our lives to determine right and wrong. And the Bible delineates many of these principles and applies them to our lives in a concrete way. However, when it comes to current day problems that did not exist in Biblical times, we take principles from the Bible and apply them to the issue.
********************************************************
Mammuthus says:
I rather know that my actions and decisions are based on my own character and choice.
*******************************************************
Jim Replies:
Sounds like Hitler. I'm glad you are not like Hitler because we'd all be in trouble then. But if you take that kind of a stand, you cannot say that Hitler and other despots were wrong! And I say that that if everyone lived like that, this society would be a shambles. Everyone will have different standards and make different choices and that is their right. Is that OK with you? - even if another person's choices infringe on your freedom?
SO let's say that everyone has the freedom to decide on morality based on his own character and choices. If that would work, we shouldn't even have to have laws in society because we would all make good choices.
Plus, even if we all made moral choices like you do, no one would ever faithfully follow their own standards anyway. Case in point - Have you ever gone against your own moral principles? I don't even have to ask to know the answer. That way of living leads to moral chaos, lawlessness, and disorder in society.
Mammuthus, what happens when someone else's view of morality goes against your view? How about at school? Your kid chooses not to cheat, but his neighbor chooses to cheat. After all, it is just a matter of choice. Or let's take the issue of human rights for example. What if your government doesn't think that human rights are important? But you do. Who is right? How do you determine whose values get taught in school? How do you decide whose values get enforced in society? Does majority rule? Or does power rule? Or do the intellectually elite get together and decide? The point is you cannot come up with any set of rules that everyone will agree to. Sure we have a set of laws that the government has instituted, but is that all there is to morality? Besides, do you think we are morally bound to follow those laws? I think we are as long as they do not go against the law of God. But I would imagine in your worldview that you cannot say that. You might think it best to follow them, or that you will follow them as long as it benefits you, but in the end, it is only your personal opinion. Who is to say that your opinion is better than the next guys? In the end, no one can tell anyone what to do unless you have some kind of authority or power in society - like government, teacher in a school, parent over a kid, policeman, etc.
************************************************************
Mammuthus says:
I don't believe in an absolute standard and I DON'T believe that anything goes either.
************************************************************
Tokyojim relpies:
Then let me point out that you do believe in some kind of a standard even though you may not be able to explain it or clarify it. Otherwise, truly anything goes. Explain to me the logic of your statement. You must have some kind of rule or law that you measure your deeds by because you say there are some restrictions on our actions. What are they? What are your absolute standards for morality? Spell them out for me.
For instance:
1) case by case, as you feel led
2) anything is OK as long as I don't hurt someone else
3) anything is OK as long as it is for the good of society
4) etc. What is your standard that you use to say that not everything is permissable?
Oh, I see in a later post you mentioned that you define evil as that which does harm. Now let me see, I guess you would go along with maybe number 2 in the above statements? or maybe a combo of #2 & #3.
Have you ever caused someone harm? If so, you have done wrong, right? Would that mean that divorce is right or wrong? Let's see, how about pre-marital sex and adultery? Hmm. How about lying? Let's think a bit further. What about getting drunk? - think about harm to society, families, innocent people, etc. What about watching porn? harm to wife, bad example to kids, encouragement of porn industry, etc. Cheating in school? (ruins the bell curve for honest students) etc. I'm not accusing you of any of these here, just trying to see what you mean by harm. Does divorce cause harm? Can you tell me what you think about these particular behviors? Right or wrong? Or is it depends on how I'm feeling at the time?
I once had a guy come to our church who told me a similar thing about his life ethic. But he freely admitted that he was a terrible father and he laughed about it. He was causing his kids harm and was totally unconcerned about it. His ethic didn't stop him from causing others harm. I'm sure his wife wasn't very pleased with him either.
Now let me ask you another question. If causing harm is your absolute standard for morality, what happens if you do not live by it? What does it matter in the long run? Why is it important that you follow your own code of ethics? There is no god who will punish you. Just have to ignore your conscience and everything is OK, right? Why not divorce your wife or cheat on her, leave your family, if the urge arises? Evidently you do have a conscience and you do have a God-given sense of right and wrong even though it may be distorted. No one can honestly believe that -Anything goes.- At least you were honest about that. But then again, why is it necessary to be honest in your worldview? I'm not calling you dishonest.
**************************************************************
Mammuthus says:
I say: A lot of assumptions on your part there. Are you then claiming I am a co-signer? I think I have only met about 10 other atheists before and we don't hold meetings
You make a lot assumptions without any basis.
**************************************************************
Tokyojim replies:
Sorry. No I'm not implying that you are even aware of it, but I was saying that there are some who view it like a religion. And although there are no official meetings that you may attend, still it is a worldview that dictates how you live. There are parts of your worldview that you place your faith in and live by - such as - There is no god.- -There is no judgment after death.- -Mankind is totally free.- -There is no ultimate morality.- etc. Those are some of the tenets of your faith. Unproven ideas that you have chosen to believe in. That is what I mean by a religion. Everyone has faith in something even if it is in the non-existence of god.
***************************************************
Tokyojim continues:
Hinduism evil? In some ways, any worldview that leads people away from true God is evil, but rather than evil, I just believe it is wrong. I'm sure we are agreed on that point.
Mammethus says:
No I don't agree that Hindu's are evil because of their worldview...maybe they are right and you are wrong and evil.
*********************************************************
Tokyojim replies:
I meant that you probably agree with me that the Hindu worldview is wrong. If you believe the Hindu worldview is right, (quite an illogical worldview, by the way) I assume you would become Hindu.
I'm not saying that Hindu's themselves are evil, but that their worldview is not right. They like every other human being including me are sinners in God's sight, and if you want to describe a sinner as evil, then we all qualify for that description. The amazing thing is that in spite of our sin and rebellion against God, He still loves us and offers us salvation.
******************************************************
Mammethus says:
I never saw any reason to believe what I heard in church (catholic by the way before I stopped going when I was 9). Some reasons off the top of my head though the list is not exhaustive
1) The arrogance of other people telling me what their version of god wants is no plus...and perhaps it is your desire to paint me as anti-christian but I have specifically stated fundamentalism. Are you protestant? Catholic? Unitarian? Branch Davidian? which one is right or are they all wrong .)
********************************************************8
Tokyojim replies:
I understand what you are saying here. When we resort to our own personal version of God and stray from what the Bible says, then we get into big problems. My standard is the Bible. I have found no better explanation for things than what it offers.
I think it is very interesting that you are only anti-fundamentalist. Why is that? I assume you will talk about arrogance or something like that. But let me say that your views would certainly have to qualify as arrogant as well. But isn't truth narrow after all? Are you claiming to be right? Don't you believe that your worldview is right and that others are wrong? Stand up for your convictions! Say what you believe.
By the way, I belong to an independent evangelical church. Evangelical means in this context that we believe in the importance of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and take worl missions seriously. In other words, we try to actually live out our faith. There are a lot of peripherals that different church groups disagree on, but those are not so important. Many Christian groups are in agreement when it comes to the essentials of the faith. Although I do believe there are many people who claim to be Christians who don't really know God. They are Christian by name only and don't live out their faith. They don't take the commands of God seriously and still try to be -Christian-. This is hypocritical. I am not perfect either of course and there are times when I am a hypocrite too, but I know that is wrong and God is still in the process of deveolping me into the kind of person He wants me to be.
***********************************************************
Mammethus says:
I have seen this type of arrogance coupled with prejudice, lack of any kind of insight into other views, and boatloads of assumptions stated by fundamentalists such as you over and over.
********************************************************
Mammethus, you use the term fundamentalist is quite a derogatory way as if there is ultimate truth or something. Don't tell me you believe that there is right and wrong when it comes to worldviews? By the way, how do you define a fundamentalist?
I never thought of myself as prejudiced. I believe we are all sinners. That we all have fundamental human God-given rights, that we are all created equal and have equal value and worth in God's sight - so we should treat each other in that manner. I don't believe the white man is more valuable than a black man or vice versa or that Americans are more valuable or better than Koreans. etc. I don't see the prejudice.
If you mean that I am prejudice because I think my beliefs are correct, then aren't you as well? Don't you, doesn't everyone think their own views are correct? Isn't that why we believe them in the first place? I'm a bit confused here. Perhaps you believe that any view is permissable. You believe that that statement is true. All other views are wrong. So because I don't agree with that statement, you call me arrogant. But I think you are arrogant for believeing that that statement is true. How do you know? It is only your personal belief, your personal faith? How do we differ here?
Good night,
Tokyojim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2002 12:19 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Mammuthus, posted 09-04-2002 11:47 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 142 (16555)
09-04-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tokyojim
09-03-2002 9:33 AM


Tokyojim: Hopefully, no one's already covered this. Anyway:
quote:
Let me start by asking you what your worldview is? Yes, I do stand by a Biblical worldview because I think it makes the best sense and is the best explanation of the way things are.
I would say my worldview should be fairly obvious from my post. However, my particular philosophy has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for yours or dogmai’s claims (or those of anyone else, for that matter). I’ll be quite happy to evaluate whatever evidence you’d care to provide in support of whatever assertion you’d care to make.
quote:
In calling man supreme, it is true in the Christian worldview that the earth and the animal kingdom were created for God’s glory first of all, but God also created it for man. So in Christianity, man is supreme — fundamentally different and of more value than the animals. Only humans were created in God’s image and only humans have a spirit that lives on after death. This is what the Bible teaches. So yes, I do believe that we are special! Is. 45:18 says that God did not create the earth to be empty, but He formed it to be inhabited. He created it specifically for us humans to live on. It is interesting that of all the heavenly bodies we see, only the earth is so well prepared for support of life. Some believe that is just luck of course. Yes, we humans are special. No other creature that God created was created in God’s image. Man was the last thing God created — the climax of his creation. Jesus became man to pay for the sins of mankind. He did not become an angel or an animal(animals cannot sin anyway). So yes, we have different points of view on the identity of mankind. You state 'This is patently untrue.' I'm sorry but you are exercising faith when you make a dogmatic statement like that. That is your particular belief and you are entitled to hold that belief, but you have no proof for that outside of the fact that it fits your worldview.
I have several problems with this outlook.
In the first place, it is inconsistent with the basic fact that all life on earth is interrelated. For example, every living thing on this planet shares a specific biochemistry. If initial conditions had been different, life would either not exist or would be recognizably different. Along the same lines, all the processes that have shaped the various forms of life also apply to humans. We process energy in similar ways, we replicate, we are effected by the same abiotic environmental factors. Ultimately, at the macro level, anything that upsets the balance too far will also directly effect our existence. This mitigates against the idea that humans are separately created.
Secondly, you have embarked on the extreme logical fallacy of using your conclusion as your initial premise. To make any argument about God or the bible valid or compelling, you must:
- Start by showing that God does indeed exist. If you can provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, I will be more willing to listen to various explanations about that deity and its interest in humans to the exclusion of all other organisms.
- Once you have established the existence of the said deity, you can then provide your reasons for thinking that this deity is the Christian god. After all, the existence of a supernatural deity does not imply that the said deity is the Judeo-Christian one. Some evidence supporting your deity over others, such as Allah, Vishnu, and Zeus, would be beneficial to your argument at this point.
- Once you do this, you can then show that God wrote the Bible. You should include information that will explain how logical impossibilities like the Noachian Flood, are possible. You should include the evidence needed to show that God intended the Bible to be taken literally, rather than a loose code of conduct. (With many thanks to my friend Nick/IAPW for the above).
If you can do this, then I would be willing to consider any evidence you can offer that, indeed, humans are somehow special by divine fiat.
If not, then you must proceed through a different epistemology. You must provide empirical evidence that man is somehow separate from animals. The use of abstractions such as mind, consciousness, or intelligence do not constitute evidence, nor does your say-so. On the contrary, the burden is on you to show with evidence that these vague, ill-defined concepts provide a quantifiable taxic barrier separating us directly from, say, the other primates. That intelligence DOES NOT exist in other animals, for example, as the default hypothesis is that animals — especially primates — DO share the same intrinsic biology/physiology, and differ only in degree. I look forward to hearing your argument.
quote:
This is one great thing about Christianity. We humans are special. God loves us and created us in His image. Therefore, we not only have value in His eyes, but we have intrinsic value as a person because we are His special creation. I believe this is an important truth that has been lost in today’s society with the acceptance of evolution.
See above.
quote:
Which has more value — a rock you pick up on the ground or one that has been carved into a useful tool? Usually it is the one that has been carved into a useful tool.
Value in the context in which you use it is an entirely subjective, human concept. You are also conflating utility and value. I certainly concur that, from a human perspective, a tool is substantially more useful — and hence has value for what I can accomplish with it — than an uncarved rock. However, a good case could be made that the value or usefulness of the rock, when considered for its utility in sitio may in fact be higher than any use to which I could put it. Putting aside its secondary utility as shelter, etc, for myriads of arthropods and other organisms providing the lowest foundation of an ecosystem’s energy web, simply by it being a rock in a particular place gives the rock value for a longer-term natural purpose. Lichens, for example, thrive on bare rock. The lichen has a distinct value to an ecosystem, because it breaks down rock into soil, which can then be used by plants, which can in turn be used by herbivores, which in turn are used by secondary consumers — including humans — through the fundamental processes of biological succession. If I remove that rock for my own purposes, I have subtracted value from the rest of the ecosystem. There really isn’t any such thing as a free lunch — every action by every living thing on the planet, conscious as we define it or not, has consequences. Ignore this fact, and your value system can become a dangerous, destructive force, since humans ARE unique in one sense — we have the capability to make global, and possibly irreversible, changes in our environment. Anyway, your argument from value is baseless as it rests exclusively on a human perception of utility.
quote:
I’m sorry, but I beg to differ on that kind of thinking. I believe we all actually have value and deserve to be treated with respect.
No need for apology. You might be interested that I, too, believe humans (in general) have value and deserve to be treated with respect. After all, I am one (last time I checked). It is in my interest, based on the behavioral concept of reciprocal altruism, to treat others fairly, because the consequences are generally negative to do otherwise. In short, it is more beneficial to me individually to not be a cheater, or overwhelmingly selfish, etc. We’ve evolved to recognize this intrinsically — it’s a fundamental part of group behavior, and humans are gregarious animals.
quote:
The reason I believe this is true is that we are all special creations of God who created us in His own image and who loves us with an everlasting love. If my neighbor was created by God and is loved by God, if Jesus died for the sins of my neighbor as well as the sins of my enemy, I better also love, accept, and forgive them. I had better also respect them and treat them with dignity. When I don’t, I am sinning against their Creator. This is the only solid basis for human rights in my opinion and it is also why, in my opinion, that we find human rights being upheld best in countries that have a background in Christianity or others that have been influenced by those countries.
You have no historical leg to stand on here. I’m generally not one to belabor the oppression committed in the name of religion, but just a few examples that need your explanation in this context:
- Church domination of the West from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the resurgence of secular authority under the Carolignians. The era known, for good cause, as the Dark Ages. Human rights were where?
- The barbarities committed in the name of Christianity during the crusades; not just against the Moslem infidels in the Levant, but also against supposedly Christian nations in the region now known as Central Europe, as well as the Crusader perfidy in the sacking of Constantinople and the oppression of Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) Christianity.
- The brutality and mass slaughter in the name of Christianity that took place between Christian nations during the 100 Years War and the 30 Years War (pick one).
- The complete extirpation of two highly advanced (albeit technologically backward) civilizations (the Inca and Aztec) in the name of Christian expansionism.
- The forced resettlement and, in some cases, virtual annihilation of numerous Native American tribes by a Christian nation (your term) between 1650 and 1890 or so.
- The murder/virtual enslavement/oppression (with the gun, where necessary) of millions of Africans and North Africans during the period ~1850-1914 (the Scramble) by a group of Christian West European nations (cf. the history of SW Africa, German and British East Africa, French West Africa, etc, not to mention Egypt). I won’t bother to bring up American actual slavery (which, of course, ended in 1865, although relegation of Black Americans to second class status hasn’t — even today — been completely eliminated).
- The on-going mutual murder between two Christian sects in Ireland — who self-identify by their religion, btw.
Anyway, your Christianity has an unenviable human rights record. The only reason Western societies — mostly containing Christians, but with sizeable majorities of other religions — have any freedom at all is because they are fundamentally, by law, SECULAR societies who’ve finally rejected religious control over their populations
quote:
Quetzal, why do YOU believe that we should treat others with love and respect? Why do YOU believe that we need to protect the rights of the oppressed and the weak? What is the basis for your opinion? Whatever it is, in the end, it is just your opinion I'm sure.
As I noted in my previous post, there are positive cultural, biological, and behavioral affects that make altruism a strong normative behavior. It makes sense for the wellbeing of the organism, and by extension the society, for people (and it’s seen in more primitive, less abstract, form in our close cousins) to behave themselves. It is in our selfish interest. For more information on the evolution of altruism and how evolution provided humans with morality (or at least the basis — it is, in essence, a cultural trait), see The Evolution of Ethics from the National Academy Press OnLine.
quote:
Do you agree that if God doesn’t exist that there can be no ultimate right and wrong, just human opinion? And if you happen to live in a country where the power holding elite do not hold to your opinion about human rights, you’re in big trouble. That is why power becomes so important in the evolutionary view. It follows then that, who has the power is much more important than what is good and bad or right and wrong in people’s opinions, right?
Nope, I don’t agree. Or at least I don’t agree with the way you stated the question. I don’t think there exists anything like ultimate right and wrong. These are semantically loaded terms that are purely culturally dependent. Now, if you had asked do I believe there are normative behaviors shared among most human populations — well, the jury is still out, but my gut feeling is yes, there are. However, how these behaviors are expressed is culturally dependent to a large extent. Which, of course, is why it is so difficult to identify them in the first place. Worse yet, culture can quite easily warp or distort these normative behaviors.
quote:
You are fortunate to live in the US, but if you lived in Communist China, or behind the iron curtain a few years ago, you would have tasted firsthand the dangers of atheism. In their minds, since there is no god to whom they are accountable to, they are free to live however they want to. They believe are free to treat people however they want to if it will help them accomplish their goals. No one can stop them and when they die, there is no judgment to worry about. They are absolutely FREE! It is that kind of view that is scary to me.
I currently live and work in a former Soviet republic. I am also quite aware of the history of both the region and of communism itself. You are mostly correct — I’ve lived and worked all over the world, and have no desire to settle permanently in any country I’ve ever been in except the US — precisely because it is the one I’ve found most free — ‘till recently. However, you are incorrect that the oppression practiced by the communists in the past or currently had anything whatsoever to do with atheism as a philosophy. Stalin, especially, crushed the Church primarily because he saw it as a threat (rightly, IMO) to his secular power — not because he was an atheist - he wasn't, anymore than it's justified calling Hitler a Christian (both may have self-identified as such, but neither meet even the most liberal definitions of either term). The Church conflicted with the bizarre form of absolute dictatorship he wanted. Stalin eliminated ANY threat to his power, whether secular or religious. This is a strawman on your part. Atheism does not equate to communism. Any more than the fact Nazi Germany was a nation primarily of Christians means that Nazism = Christianity. ALL tyrants think they are free to live however they want. Only the long history of brutal central authority (from at least Peter the Great) allowed such tyranny to exist in Russia for as long as it did. By the time the West took notice around mid-century, a hundred generations of oppression in one form or another had pretty much weeded out ANYONE who could see that the whole system was rotten and unrepairable — and hence precluded any effective counter — or for that matter revolt.
quote:
MY REPLY TO YOUR REPLY:
Then why don’t we all follow those ingrained behaviors?! Perhaps it is because we have come to the point where we realize that it doesn’t matter if we follow them or not. We are not responsible to anyone after we die so if we can get away with it, we’re home free.

I already responded to this: the expression of normative behaviors is subject to cultural modification. Other than that, who do you mean, all? All Westerners (mostly they do — the one’s that don’t are considered criminal or insane)? All humans (again, cultural modification of behavior is probably paramount in humans)? All Christians (good question, if the bible etc is the infallible word of God)? Maybe you might explain all the rape, murder, and genocide in the Old Testament? You might also try reconciling the concept of a benevolent God and intrinsic human rights with the existence of hell and eternal suffering.
quote:
So at least you do see some value in religion, but I take issue with you here. If religion is not true, it is a cruel and repressive instrument made up by men and there is no reason whatsoever that anyone should believe in it or follow it.
Yep. That’s my take on it. I maintain, as above, that religion (or rather the capacity for belief) did have a survival benefit at one point in our evolutionary and cultural development. However, the modern religious meme complex is something we can live without — it serves no useful adaptive purpose any longer.
quote:
I mean, why not go out and enjoy yourself and have free sex(as long as you take precautions?) I can give you a lot of reasons why not to, but that is beside the point. Why tell the truth when it hurts you? Why not cheat here and there on your income taxes? Why not spread lies and true dirt about your co-worker in order for you to get ahead and have others look down on them? If religion isn’t true, it is of no other value than to give ideas for morality. But even then, they are only man made ideas that have no real authority. No real reason to follow them — except the moral expedience idea.
A fair selection of people do just that. One of our VP’s, for instance (a devout, church-going Christian, btw) is trying mightily to stab me in the back because he perceives me as a threat to his job — which, oddly enough, I have absolutely no interest in. It is human nature to try and get ahead — sometimes even at the expense of others. However, in the main, most humans given the opportunity will be fairly decent to each other — at least to members of the same group. Group identification is one of the most fundamental mammalian abilities. It’s especially notable among primates or other social species. Unfortunately, there will always be folks who try and take advantage of the system (the cheaters). Sometimes they even get away with it, which allows them to pass on their successful cheater traits to the next generation (or laterally, by communication). Congratulations - it's human nature. Christianity, or any other religion except the really tightly controlled cults, doesn't seem to be able to do much about either.
quote:
I believe that the morality presented in the Bible is expedient to follow not because our ancestors over the years got together and came up with ideas that work, but rather because they are God-given rules of absolute morality. Because they are God-given, naturally they are also expedient. The expedience of following God’s laws lends further evidence to them being God-given.
See above — you’re using your conclusion as a starting premise again.
quote:
Plus, I have never seen a copy of these rules of social interaction that our ancestors decided on. Please show me where I can find a copy. If it is just some kind of vague obsure thing, how are we to know what it is? Perhaps you would be willing to research this and compile a list of all the moral laws that belong in this moral code our ancestors discovered. However, I bet if I asked someone else to do it, they would come up with a totally different list. So in the end there is no concrete list after all is there? So we're back where we started.
This is just silly. The earliest written morality plays IIRC are the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Vedas. I was talking about a cultural affect — a meme complex evolved to constrain social behavior in a social species — not specifically a written document. In fact, I’d go so far as to state that our ancestors didn’t decide anything — they evolved into them. You’re confusing modes of transmission/communication with cultural/behavioral evolution. Although linked, obviously, they are not anywhere near the same. Besides, isn’t that what the bible is supposed to be?
quote:
Quetzal, come on. Religion exists in this theoretical role only in the mind of scientists and sociologists who try explain how it came to be.
Of course, I never implied otherwise. The metaphor is one way of understanding how meme complexes — like religion — propagate and evolve. It’s just one way of looking at them and attempting to understand them. I also think the mind parasite thing is a bit extreme. Significant meme complexes don’t really act like parasites. More like diseases — and that goes for just about any successful meme.
quote:
But talk to Jesus or to Mohammed and you can bet that was not their intention.
I thought they were both dead. Might be a tad difficult carrying on that conversation.
quote:
That is a nice little idea that might fit your worldview, but it is not fair for you to make that kind of evaluation of Christianity at least when the Bible itself says something totally different. Jesus did intend for His teachings to be spread across the earth. In fact, He clearly commands His followers to go into all the world and preach the gospel — (What is the gospel? the teaching that all men are sinners and stand condemned before God. They need to repent and seek His forgiveness and trust in or believe in the Savior, Jesus, who died for them and was resurrected in victory over death.)
Once again, without the evidence I requested above, you’re back to arguing your conclusion as a premise.
quote:
I guess I would qualify as a fundamentalist Christian since I believe the Bible.
Actually, what do you mean by a 'fundamental Christian'? Is someone who takes the Bible seriously a fundamental Christian?

Yeah, basically. Biblical inerrancy would seem to be one criteria.
quote:
I certainly do not believe that Fundamental Christianity is a parasitic organism. I myself am a missionary in Japan and have seen many lives changed and people set free from their sin. I have seen people find a new joy and a new purpose for living. I have seen people find a new peace in the midst of their circumstances and a new attitude toward life that better enables them to live.
Good for you. I never said it wasn’t an incredibly successful meme — at least at replicating itself. Heck, it’s been around/evolving for 2500 years or more, and its roots go even further back. It has so far successfully fought off a whole slew of other religions and secular threats. Doesn’t mean that it is necessarily right any more than (biologically speaking) a parasite or disease organism is right.
quote:
Fundamentalist Christianity is only restrictive to those who are not willing to bow the knee to God because they feel like their freedoms are restricted. For the most part — of course there are exceptions - those who do bow their knee to God, find Him to be their joy and satisfaction, even if following Him does involve denying self at times. God is not some big meanie in the sky who tries to control our lives so that we can't have any fun. On the contrary, all His laws are given to protect us from harm and to provide good things for us. He gives us His laws simply because He loves us. Not to tellus what is right and wrong, not to tell us the best way to live and leave us to figure it out for ourselves would be unloving. In the end, it is quite simple. We can choose to obey or to disobey, but we must take responsibility for our choices.
And this is different from slavery how? I agree we have to take responsibility for our choices. However, I'd say that Christianity thrives on pushing responsibility - and ultimate punishment - off to a non-existent future.
quote:
Quetzal, you have made a lot of assumptions in the above paragraphs, all of which stem from your worldview. You stated them as if they were facts, when in reality they are just tenets of your faith. Research into the evolution of sociality and reciprocal altruism is all based on an atheistic worldview - religion evolving over time and the hows and the whys. There can be other reasons for people’s behavior besides expedient morality, but in an evolutionary world view, there is no room for the idea that perhaps God really did reveal His moral truth to mankind. You can just as easily interpret the same facts you research in socialty to harmonize with the Bible. The difference between you and I is simply that we have different starting positions. My bias is that I believe the Bible is true and look at the facts to see how they fit in with that worldview. Your bias is that you start with an evolutionary worldview and interpret all the facts within that framework. We’re both biased and now the trick is to see whether the facts fit better with the Biblical worldview or the evolutionary worldview. Of course you could add other worldviews into the equation as well.
Actually, the only assumption I’ve made is that human behavior — because we are a living organism — can be reduced to the same quantifiable, and replicatable analyses as any other organism. You, on the other hand, are arguing that I should accept the authority of a book whose validity cannot be questioned or revised. Hmm, I think I’ll stick with the methodological naturalism.
I'll be interested to see the "facts" you've got to support your worldview.
quote:
Let me tell you how I interpret the facts of human sociality. First of all, I believe that mankind is basically sinful - not origianlly created that way, but sinful since Adam & Eve's sin written about in Genesis 3. Why? The Bible teaches this and it fits the facts. You don’t need to teach a kid how to sin. Lying comes naturally. Hitting and fighting come naturally. Does a thankful heart come naturally? Not in my kids at least. Does an honest heart come naturally? Not in my kids at least. Does a polite attitude come naturally? Not in my kids at least — in spite of the fact that we try and provide a good example, albeit imperfect of course, to them. We humans have a natural inclination to be self-centered, to go our own way even if it is not right. Again, I’m not saying we always choose what is wrong. I agree that maany of us choose the moral thing because it is the expedient thing to do. That is very different than choosing it because it is right and therein lies the problem. When it is expedient to choose the wrong thing, we are then free to do it and we often do.
So humans have a natural inclination to sin and need to be trained how to live properly, how to do what is right. But education alone, although helpful, won’t do it. You can know what is right and still not want to do what is right. You might not even be able to do what is right. The Bible calls us slaves to sin. I’m not asking you to believe this, just explaining my worldview.

Actually, with the exception of the bible bits and the whole issue of sin, I don’t disagree with you. Children have to be taught social skills based on the cultural norms of the society in which they live. Otherwise, they CAN end up sociopaths or criminals as adults. Individuals are inherently selfish. It is only through learning (whether laterally or horizontally) that we are able to trump our basic biological natures and function as productive and reasonably well-adjusted members of our particular societies.
quote:
Well, I’ve written too much already and will stop here. Sorry, I only got through your first two paragraphs of your reply to me. I doubt neither you or I can keep this kind of posting every day. I'm sure you have a life too. So please be patient with me if I don't post every day.
Not at all. I would ask that you please respond to the remainder of my first post before tackling this one, however. Some of the things you posted here were addressed in that, or at least introduced.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 09-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tokyojim, posted 09-03-2002 9:33 AM Tokyojim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 9:14 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 70 by Tokyojim, posted 09-07-2002 2:58 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 49 of 142 (16562)
09-04-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tokyojim
09-04-2002 10:25 AM


Let us see the wonderful things Tokyojim has to say about people who disagree with him shall we:
"Mammuthus, many people think that Christianity is for people who are weak who cannot handle life for themselves. They view dependence on God as a crutch. I call it honesty. "
Aha..so I am dishonest?
"I think it takes strength to be willing to own up to your weaknesses rather than to pretend that nothing is wrong."
Hmmm...so I don't own up to my own weaknesses and am not introspective?
"You claim there is no such standard so if you are true to your world view, -right and wrong- are words which you can not honestly use."
Ah...again I am dishonest?
"Sounds like Hitler. "
Nice choice of comparison. A thinly veiled attempt to give your position any credibility by implying my worldview connects me to a mass murderer....I could use the arguement against you as well Jim...Hitler was a catholic...the SS and nazi troups were largely catholics and protestants...should I therefore conclude that all christians are mass murderers? You do realize this is what you are trying to imply about me? From your previous post regarding the benefits of dictatorship when you "know you are right" I would say the comparison fits your worldview better than mine.
"SO let's say that everyone has the freedom to decide on morality based on his own character and choices. If that would work, we shouldn't even have to have laws in society because we would all make good choices."
Um..what planet are you on? Everyone does make their choices based on their own character and beliefs...Christians shoot up abortion clinics sometimes based on their beliefs...secular laws punish them for doing that. I really don't get your point.
"Then let me point out that you do believe in some kind of a standard even though you may not be able to explain it or clarify it. "
And again, assumption that you understand my worldview......
"Evidently you do have a conscience and you do have a God-given sense of right and wrong even though it may be distorted. No one can honestly believe that -Anything goes.- At least you were honest about that. "
Again...I am dishonest...and no I do not have a god given anything. I, just like you, am a primate, a member of a species that evolved a group structure conducive to altruism. Animals don't have a god either and appear to not be obsessing about it to much yet they don't seem to mass murder themselves very often...come to think of it...the only species that commits mass murder is the one that has religion...go figure..
"But then again, why is it necessary to be honest in your worldview? I'm not calling you dishonest.
Unless English is not your first language you have called me dishonest multiple times in your post...and compared me to Hitler to boot...you are on a roll.
"There are parts of your worldview that you place your faith in and live by - such as - There is no god.- -There is no judgment after death.- -Mankind is totally free.- -There is no ultimate morality.- etc. Those are some of the tenets of your faith. Unproven ideas that you have chosen to believe in. That is what I mean by a religion. Everyone has faith in something even if it is in the non-existence of god."
Oh isnt it just so charming and cute and cuddly when someone tells you what you believe
"I meant that you probably agree with me that the Hindu worldview is wrong. If you believe the Hindu worldview is right, (quite an illogical worldview, by the way) I assume you would become Hindu.
I'm not saying that Hindu's themselves are evil, but that their worldview is not right. "
And you are a bigot...I am sure the world Hindus will promptly dismiss your view if any ever read this lovely conversation we are having.
"I understand what you are saying here. When we resort to our own personal version of God and stray from what the Bible says, then we get into big problems. My standard is the Bible. I have found no better explanation for things than what it offers."
And arrogant...why is your version of christianity or religion in general more correct than anyone elses? Maybe I have found a better explanation.
"I think it is very interesting that you are only anti-fundamentalist. Why is that? I assume you will talk about arrogance or something like that. But let me say that your views would certainly have to qualify as arrogant as well. But isn't truth narrow after all? Are you claiming to be right? Don't you believe that your worldview is right and that others are wrong? Stand up for your convictions! Say what you believe."
And obtuse...ok I believe you are totally way off base in your worldview..that is what I believe. Second, I am anti fundamentalist specifically because that worldview tries to forcefully impose itself on others. I am not trying to "convert" you to atheism..I could not care less if you worship a hand puppet named Binky...but as you stated as an evangalist you feel it is your duty to interfere in the lives of others by forcing your misguided worldview on them and that is what I object to...why not live in your worldview and leave others to theirs? If you think your god is so great why the heck does he need YOU to bother everyone else...why doesnt him/her/it do its own dirty work? I think fundies are to arrogant and scared to live in a multicultural pluralistic society so they attempt to force everyone to live in a monolithic world...which of course does not work and causes a huge amount of grief and death.
"There are a lot of peripherals that different church groups disagree on, but those are not so important."
More arrogance...maybe they think the differences are important..maybe those "peripherals" are huge contradictions.
"Many Christian groups are in agreement when it comes to the essentials of the faith. Although I do believe there are many people who claim to be Christians who don't really know God. They are Christian by name only and don't live out their faith. They don't take the commands of God seriously and still try to be -Christian-. This is hypocritical. "
Wow...good thing you came along to set ALL christians straight! I begin to think you believe you are the god of your religion...You might want to consider that they feel exactly the same way about you.
"I never thought of myself as prejudiced."
I am not particularly surprised by this
"Americans are more valuable or better than Koreans. etc. I don't see the prejudice. "
Hmmm from your last post you don't seem to be very fond of the Chinese...but since you consider anyone who does not think exactly as you do evil then I guess you don't really have much respect for humanity in general...not racist but certainly misanthropic.
"If you mean that I am prejudice because I think my beliefs are correct, then aren't you as well? "
No I think you are prejudiced and arrogant because you believe you have the right to impose your beliefs on others as an evangelical christian...and yes, I see fundamentalist-(insert religion) as a negative...I'm not singling christians out. And I believe you have every right to hold your beliefs and opinions...but not to force others to subscibe to them.
"Perhaps you believe that any view is permissable."
Now your cooking Jim! Exactly, you think what you want to and I will think what I want to!
"How do you know? It is only your personal belief, your personal faith? How do we differ here?"
Oh yeah!..score another one for Jim...exactly, since we don't know then it would be silly to force each other to agree to one worldview!
How can you see this and still be an evangelical?
Although this has been fun jim I rather not continue this conversation. I find it rather pointless. I say you go right ahead believing what you want. You seem to feel nobody should be allowed to hold different views from you and can not be left in peace. You resort to calling me dishonest and trying to associate my view as somehow connected to Hitler. Since you will never convince me your worldview is correct and I doubt I will sway you I find it pointless to continue..I rather talk about evolution.
Cheers,
Mammuthus
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
Mammuthus wrote:
I consider your religion weak if your so called right or wrong are based on punishment and reward from a mythical being.
*******************************************************
Tokyojim replies:
Mammuthus, many people think that Christianity is for people who are weak who cannot handle life for themselves. They view dependence on God as a crutch. I call it honesty. I know I am not perfect. When I think about standing in front of a holy GOd who can see everything about me, I know that I need a Savior. I need to be forgiven of many sins. Call it weakness if you will, but I'm not a fool to think that I am good enough to get to heaven. I think it takes strength to be willing to own up to your weaknesses rather than to pretend that nothing is wrong. Anyway, I know that I cannot cleanse my own heart. And, I believe that if I do not accept God's forgiveness, I will have to pay for my sins myself for all of eternity. I prefer to receive God's forgiveness. But in order to receive God's forgiveness, I must honestly admit my sin, repent of it, and ask for His forgiveness. He then promises to cleanse me. For an alcoholice to begin to get better, the first step is to honestly face the problem. I believe that is what I am doing. If admitting sin and imperfection to see how to solve the problem is weakness, then I qualify as a weakling in your sight and again I am unashamed of it.
My so called right and wrong are not based on punishment and reward from a mythical being. Obviously I do not believe that God is a mythical being. Although, if He is, I certainly understand why you think my faith is foolish. I would agree with you. However, I am living a fulfilled life so in the end it wouldn't matter, would it? Why not live a fulfilled life during my short life here on this planet? Is there anything wrong with that? If I must be deceived, I prefer that sort of deception to a deception that results in eternal harm to me. So I don't care if I am deceived. Although if I were to come to believe that I am deceived, I would give up some of my religious practices because they would be meaningless.
I guess I haven't explained where my morality comes from clearly enough. It is not based on fear of retribution and the promise of some reward. Mammuthus, I'm sure you can understand that in order to be able to talk about right and wrong, there must be an absolute standard by which to judge a particular action, otherwise the terms become meaningless. You claim there is no such standard so if you are true to your world view, -right and wrong- are words which you can not honestly use.
Right and wrong, as I understand the Bible, are determined by nothing other than the character of God. God is perfect and His character is the determining factor in human morality since we have been created in His image. For example, because God is love, unloving acts are sin. The Bible says -God is love. Therefore, love one another.- And -Love one another as I have loved you.- It is all based on who God is and what He does. Or, because God is the Creator and giver of life, life has value and it is wrong to take another persons life. This would be extended to include the life of elderly people and the unborn as well. The principle is that life has value and this principle comes from the character of God, who you call a mythical being. The character of God becomes the standard from which we derive principles that we apply to our lives to determine right and wrong. And the Bible delineates many of these principles and applies them to our lives in a concrete way. However, when it comes to current day problems that did not exist in Biblical times, we take principles from the Bible and apply them to the issue.
********************************************************
Mammuthus says:
I rather know that my actions and decisions are based on my own character and choice.
*******************************************************
Jim Replies:
Sounds like Hitler. I'm glad you are not like Hitler because we'd all be in trouble then. But if you take that kind of a stand, you cannot say that Hitler and other despots were wrong! And I say that that if everyone lived like that, this society would be a shambles. Everyone will have different standards and make different choices and that is their right. Is that OK with you? - even if another person's choices infringe on your freedom?
SO let's say that everyone has the freedom to decide on morality based on his own character and choices. If that would work, we shouldn't even have to have laws in society because we would all make good choices.
Plus, even if we all made moral choices like you do, no one would ever faithfully follow their own standards anyway. Case in point - Have you ever gone against your own moral principles? I don't even have to ask to know the answer. That way of living leads to moral chaos, lawlessness, and disorder in society.
Mammuthus, what happens when someone else's view of morality goes against your view? How about at school? Your kid chooses not to cheat, but his neighbor chooses to cheat. After all, it is just a matter of choice. Or let's take the issue of human rights for example. What if your government doesn't think that human rights are important? But you do. Who is right? How do you determine whose values get taught in school? How do you decide whose values get enforced in society? Does majority rule? Or does power rule? Or do the intellectually elite get together and decide? The point is you cannot come up with any set of rules that everyone will agree to. Sure we have a set of laws that the government has instituted, but is that all there is to morality? Besides, do you think we are morally bound to follow those laws? I think we are as long as they do not go against the law of God. But I would imagine in your worldview that you cannot say that. You might think it best to follow them, or that you will follow them as long as it benefits you, but in the end, it is only your personal opinion. Who is to say that your opinion is better than the next guys? In the end, no one can tell anyone what to do unless you have some kind of authority or power in society - like government, teacher in a school, parent over a kid, policeman, etc.
************************************************************
Mammuthus says:
I don't believe in an absolute standard and I DON'T believe that anything goes either.
************************************************************
Tokyojim relpies:
Then let me point out that you do believe in some kind of a standard even though you may not be able to explain it or clarify it. Otherwise, truly anything goes. Explain to me the logic of your statement. You must have some kind of rule or law that you measure your deeds by because you say there are some restrictions on our actions. What are they? What are your absolute standards for morality? Spell them out for me.
For instance:
1) case by case, as you feel led
2) anything is OK as long as I don't hurt someone else
3) anything is OK as long as it is for the good of society
4) etc. What is your standard that you use to say that not everything is permissable?
Oh, I see in a later post you mentioned that you define evil as that which does harm. Now let me see, I guess you would go along with maybe number 2 in the above statements? or maybe a combo of #2 & #3.
Have you ever caused someone harm? If so, you have done wrong, right? Would that mean that divorce is right or wrong? Let's see, how about pre-marital sex and adultery? Hmm. How about lying? Let's think a bit further. What about getting drunk? - think about harm to society, families, innocent people, etc. What about watching porn? harm to wife, bad example to kids, encouragement of porn industry, etc. Cheating in school? (ruins the bell curve for honest students) etc. I'm not accusing you of any of these here, just trying to see what you mean by harm. Does divorce cause harm? Can you tell me what you think about these particular behviors? Right or wrong? Or is it depends on how I'm feeling at the time?
I once had a guy come to our church who told me a similar thing about his life ethic. But he freely admitted that he was a terrible father and he laughed about it. He was causing his kids harm and was totally unconcerned about it. His ethic didn't stop him from causing others harm. I'm sure his wife wasn't very pleased with him either.
Now let me ask you another question. If causing harm is your absolute standard for morality, what happens if you do not live by it? What does it matter in the long run? Why is it important that you follow your own code of ethics? There is no god who will punish you. Just have to ignore your conscience and everything is OK, right? Why not divorce your wife or cheat on her, leave your family, if the urge arises? Evidently you do have a conscience and you do have a God-given sense of right and wrong even though it may be distorted. No one can honestly believe that -Anything goes.- At least you were honest about that. But then again, why is it necessary to be honest in your worldview? I'm not calling you dishonest.
**************************************************************
Mammuthus says:
I say: A lot of assumptions on your part there. Are you then claiming I am a co-signer? I think I have only met about 10 other atheists before and we don't hold meetings
You make a lot assumptions without any basis.
**************************************************************
Tokyojim replies:
Sorry. No I'm not implying that you are even aware of it, but I was saying that there are some who view it like a religion. And although there are no official meetings that you may attend, still it is a worldview that dictates how you live. There are parts of your worldview that you place your faith in and live by - such as - There is no god.- -There is no judgment after death.- -Mankind is totally free.- -There is no ultimate morality.- etc. Those are some of the tenets of your faith. Unproven ideas that you have chosen to believe in. That is what I mean by a religion. Everyone has faith in something even if it is in the non-existence of god.
***************************************************
Tokyojim continues:
Hinduism evil? In some ways, any worldview that leads people away from true God is evil, but rather than evil, I just believe it is wrong. I'm sure we are agreed on that point.
Mammethus says:
No I don't agree that Hindu's are evil because of their worldview...maybe they are right and you are wrong and evil.
*********************************************************
Tokyojim replies:
I meant that you probably agree with me that the Hindu worldview is wrong. If you believe the Hindu worldview is right, (quite an illogical worldview, by the way) I assume you would become Hindu.
I'm not saying that Hindu's themselves are evil, but that their worldview is not right. They like every other human being including me are sinners in God's sight, and if you want to describe a sinner as evil, then we all qualify for that description. The amazing thing is that in spite of our sin and rebellion against God, He still loves us and offers us salvation.
******************************************************
Mammethus says:
I never saw any reason to believe what I heard in church (catholic by the way before I stopped going when I was 9). Some reasons off the top of my head though the list is not exhaustive
1) The arrogance of other people telling me what their version of god wants is no plus...and perhaps it is your desire to paint me as anti-christian but I have specifically stated fundamentalism. Are you protestant? Catholic? Unitarian? Branch Davidian? which one is right or are they all wrong .)
********************************************************8
Tokyojim replies:
I understand what you are saying here. When we resort to our own personal version of God and stray from what the Bible says, then we get into big problems. My standard is the Bible. I have found no better explanation for things than what it offers.
I think it is very interesting that you are only anti-fundamentalist. Why is that? I assume you will talk about arrogance or something like that. But let me say that your views would certainly have to qualify as arrogant as well. But isn't truth narrow after all? Are you claiming to be right? Don't you believe that your worldview is right and that others are wrong? Stand up for your convictions! Say what you believe.
By the way, I belong to an independent evangelical church. Evangelical means in this context that we believe in the importance of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and take worl missions seriously. In other words, we try to actually live out our faith. There are a lot of peripherals that different church groups disagree on, but those are not so important. Many Christian groups are in agreement when it comes to the essentials of the faith. Although I do believe there are many people who claim to be Christians who don't really know God. They are Christian by name only and don't live out their faith. They don't take the commands of God seriously and still try to be -Christian-. This is hypocritical. I am not perfect either of course and there are times when I am a hypocrite too, but I know that is wrong and God is still in the process of deveolping me into the kind of person He wants me to be.
***********************************************************
Mammethus says:
I have seen this type of arrogance coupled with prejudice, lack of any kind of insight into other views, and boatloads of assumptions stated by fundamentalists such as you over and over.
********************************************************
Mammethus, you use the term fundamentalist is quite a derogatory way as if there is ultimate truth or something. Don't tell me you believe that there is right and wrong when it comes to worldviews? By the way, how do you define a fundamentalist?
I never thought of myself as prejudiced. I believe we are all sinners. That we all have fundamental human God-given rights, that we are all created equal and have equal value and worth in God's sight - so we should treat each other in that manner. I don't believe the white man is more valuable than a black man or vice versa or that Americans are more valuable or better than Koreans. etc. I don't see the prejudice.
If you mean that I am prejudice because I think my beliefs are correct, then aren't you as well? Don't you, doesn't everyone think their own views are correct? Isn't that why we believe them in the first place? I'm a bit confused here. Perhaps you believe that any view is permissable. You believe that that statement is true. All other views are wrong. So because I don't agree with that statement, you call me arrogant. But I think you are arrogant for believeing that that statement is true. How do you know? It is only your personal belief, your personal faith? How do we differ here?
Good night,
Tokyojim


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tokyojim, posted 09-04-2002 10:25 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 142 (16626)
09-05-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
09-04-2002 10:55 AM


Quetzal,
Thanks so much for your reply. I haven't had time to look at it closely yet, but I did notice one section where you say that Stalin was not an atheist. Perhaps you have information that I don't have. I looked into it briefly and found this article on him at the following website. It is a Christian website, but they list their references. Why don't you take a look at it and see what you think. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Basically I thought that communism and socialism itself entail an atheistic worldview. Perhaps you can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
Regards,
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 10:55 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 9:58 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 54 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 11:03 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 142 (16627)
09-05-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 9:14 AM


Just a quick note: I never said Stalin wasn't an atheist (if I gave that impression, I apologize). I merely pointed out that communism/socialism doesn't equate to atheism. Any more than the fact that Hitler was a self-proclaimed Christian equates national socialism (nazism) with Christianity. Both atheism (in Stalin's case) and Christianity (in Hitler's) are utterly irrelevant to the butchery and mass-murder both of them practiced and endorsed.
Before jumping on my last post, please respond to the remainder of my first post. I don't want to lose track of where we are... Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 9:14 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 142 (16630)
09-05-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Quetzal
09-02-2002 9:18 AM


Quetzal,
You asked me to go back and work on the rest of your original message first so I'll pick up where I left off.
[TJ's quote]There are no moral laws to stop you from treating people like animals or even killing them to advance your cause and control.[/quote]
Q's reply: There may not be "moral laws" (whatever those are), but "morality" - religious or philosophical - never stopped humans from doing whatever they wanted anyway. If religion were to go away completely tomorrow, I don't think anyone would notice. Secular law is what regulates modern human behavior and interaction. Even total fundamentalist theocracies like Iran under Khomeini relied on secular law and secular power, rather than moral suasion, to control those elements seeking to "buck the system". What's scary about theocracies isn't their reliance on secular power - all forms of government do the same - but their use of secular power to impose their particular religous trappings and beliefs on the populations under their control. There are innumerable examples from human history where a dominant religion used secular power for control. There are also innumerable examples where secular authorities cloaked themselves in the trappings of religion to do the same thing. As far as "killing each other like animals", there has been just as much unjustifiable slaughter in the name of religion as there has (some would argue more) in the name of any other ideology.
**********************************************8
TJ’s reply to Q’s reply:
I want to qualify that first statement of yours. I would never say that morality NEVER stopped humans from what the Bible calls sinning, or doing their own thing as you said to NEVER CONSISTENTLY stopped them from doing their own thing. There are times in my life when I was tempted to do what the Bible says is wrong and I resisted specifically because my conscience and the Bible told me it is a sin. Countless other Christians and even atheists have resisted because of conscience or what their religion tells them at times. But no one has ever consistently lived up to their own moral standards. That is why we stand as condemned sinners in God's sight.
So if religion died out completely tomorrow, I think you would be surprised at the influence that that would have on the world. Secular law regulates modern behavior, but it doesn't regulate everything God calls sin. For instance, adultery, pre-marital sex, abortion, lying, talking dirty, disrespect for people, etc. etc. may not be against the law, but these things are all sin in God’s eyes. Just an aside, not doing what you know to be right is also a sin Ea sin of omission rather than commission according to the Bible.
I agree with you on theocracies. Power corrupts and the Church had power in the past and grave sins resulted. No one is immune to sin. So I’m not petitioning for any nation to be a theocracy.
Using power to impose Islam on others seems to be OK since it is commonly done, but Christianity is different. It may have been done in the past, but no one can force anyone to truly believe in God and convert. Even if a person repeats all the right words and gets baptized, it means nothing in God’s sight if it is not a genuine confession of faith from the heart. So I agree with you there too.
I agree that non-religious people have cloaked themselves in religious clothing and abused people and the power they received.
However, I will disagree with you on your last statement. You said: - As far as "killing each other like animals", there has been just as much unjustifiable slaughter in the name of religion as there has (some would argue more) in the name of any other ideology.- I won’t speak for Islam, but the numbers of murders committee by Christians - Crusades, Inquisition(30,000 killed), etc. literally pales in comparison with that committed by especially communist states. I understand that the Church to them was an enemy because believers looked to a higher authority than the State and that idea couldn't be tolerated. So the State proclaimed there is no god. It taught an atheistic worldview to it's subjects and that gave them full reign. There was no higher power to whom they had to give an account and so their consciences were freed up to treat people like animals.
To prove my point, we only need to consider the slaughters of atheists/communists of this century alone. Let me just name a few of the communist leaders involved: Stalin is said to have killed 40 million people! Hitler killed 9 -10 million. Mao Tse Tung, a dedicated atheist and communist killed more than 70 million people! Plus there is really no way to count all the number of people who were killed in other Communist revolutions and wars. Khmer ROuge in Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungar, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Philippines, etc.
Quetzal, the numbers don't even begin to compare! This kind of action is easily bred from an atheistic worldview, whereas it is an aberration in a Christian worldview. This idea about religion causing as much damage as other idealogies is nothing but a myth that people who are critical of religion seem to like to perpetrate. I am in no way justifying the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestants in the Counter Reformation, but here is my point. When an atheist goes bad, as I said earlier, it all fits within his worldview because there is no absolute standard of morality set by God. That means that really there is no true right and wrong. How do you define right and wrong if there is not a standard to appeal to? So, in reality, it seems to me that atheists have to admit that anything goes. No Supreme Being to worry about. No judgment after death to worry about. We’re FREE! Kind of leads to life being a bit meaningless, but that’s another issue.
**************************************
quote:
How unfair life would be. If you have a tough life, you might as well just end it. There is no hope for justice against your oppressors. You are just stuck - a pawn of the oppressor.
Unfair? Life is unfair - or rather completely unfeeling - not some highly-subjective version of "fair" (which means what, in the context in which you used it?). After all, you're born, you struggle through life, and then you die. What's fair about that? Actually, if you look at it rationally, the impetus for suicide should theoretically be higher under a religious worldview - after all, if you're guaranteed a wonderful eternity in whatever passes for heaven in your particular sect, why struggle? - let's get to the good part sooner. Naturally, this tendancy is why nearly every religion proscribes suicide. You can't replicate the meme if everybody's dead. There have certainly been enough cults (now mostly defunct for obvious reasons) who did just that (from Heaven's Gate to Jonestown).
*********************************
TOKYOJIM’s reply:
I'm glad you don't talk about justice and fairness. At least you are consistent with your worldview. In an ateistic worldview, as you said, there is nothing fair at all about life.
About religion spurring on suicide, I doubt the statistics would support that kind of a statement, but I can't back up that opinion. But in Christianity anyway, suicide is a sin, so although some may succomb to that thought, it is not prevalent. Actually, knowing God makes life more worthwhile and meaningful even in the midst of suffering.
Sure you can bring up quacko cults like Heaven’s Gate and Jonestown, but they are not Christian.
I’ll tell you why God says suicide is wrong. He is the Giver of Life. He and He alone has that authority. We are to respect all life in that sense and to take someone else’s life or your own life is to usurp His authority. You say it is to allow the religion to propagate itself. And you are right too. That is very clearly one reason why God disallows suicide. He has chosen to work through His people to spread the gospel and it is a privilege to be a part of that.
***********************************************
As to the bit about oppressors, I'd have to say that I have never heard of a religion overthrowing an oppressor. Historically, the only solution to oppression is for a bunch of fallible humans to get fed up with it, get together and either seek to get rid of the oppressor (rebellion) or overthrow the whole system (revolution). This is very much a secular change, accomplished through secular means. Praying to a deity doesn't seem particularly effective in the real world.
TJ responds:
I understand what you are saying here. But we forget that we need God’s help to accomplish anything. Even non-christians need His help. He provides the sunshine, rain, food, air, and water. The Bible tells us that He sustains and maintains his creation. He is the one who created it all with order. Scientific laws of nature exist because God Himself maintains order in nature. A miracle occurs when He supercedes or intervenes in these natural laws that He sustains on a daily basis.(imo of course) I agree though that revolutions are more of a broad secular thing, but that doesn’t mean that God is not involved in the outcome behind the scenes.
Well, that's all for tonight.
Regards, TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2002 9:18 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 10:53 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 55 by John, posted 09-05-2002 11:12 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 58 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 12:27 PM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 53 of 142 (16633)
09-05-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 10:19 AM


I see you are still perpetuating this lie...I thought in your worldview to lie is to sin? Obviously lack of knowledge and truth distortion are not.
Tokyojim says:
However, I will disagree with you on your last statement. You said: - As far as "killing each other like animals", there has been just as much unjustifiable slaughter in the name of religion as there has (some would argue more) in the name of any other ideology.- I won’t speak for Islam, but the numbers of murders committee by Christians - Crusades, Inquisition(30,000 killed), etc. literally pales in comparison with that committed by especially communist states. I understand that the Church to them was an enemy because believers looked to a higher authority than the State and that idea couldn't be tolerated. So the State proclaimed there is no god. It taught an atheistic worldview to it's subjects and that gave them full reign. There was no higher power to whom they had to give an account and so their consciences were freed up to treat people like animals.
To prove my point, we only need to consider the slaughters of atheists/communists of this century alone. Let me just name a few of the communist leaders involved: Stalin is said to have killed 40 million people! Hitler killed 9 -10 million. Mao Tse Tung, a dedicated atheist and communist killed more than 70 million people! Plus there is really no way to count all the number of people who were killed in other Communist revolutions and wars. Khmer ROuge in Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungar, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Philippines, etc.
I say:
Quetzal eloquently stated why the religious backgrounds of Hitler (who was a catholic i.e. christian whether you like it or not), Stalin or Mao are irrelevant. Let's take Nazi Germany as an example (especially since you connected me to Hitler earlier in a post so I guess the example fits). What do you think the religion of the Germans who supported Hilter was? Most were Catholic or Protestant as they are today. If you declare yourself to be christian in applying for a visa in Germany you have to pay a tax to the church...you know what the origin of this tax was? It was the Third Reich's payoff to the Vatican to aid in and/or ignore the slaughtering of Europes jews.
The nice little innocent church managed to squeek that tax through the reconstruction of the German Republic. Point being, Hitler's, Stalin's, etc. atrocities were not caused by an atheist worldview as you would like to believe as it gives you some false sense of superiority...religion in no way prevents the killing of others because of fear of some mythical higher morality/god/Binky the hand Puppet. Plenty of christian SS officers gassed millions of innocent jews without fear their biblical principles being compromised.
Just because you seem to have no morals outside of what a book of myths tells you in no way places you in a position to judge anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 10:19 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 54 of 142 (16634)
09-05-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 9:14 AM


Ohh, heck!!. You're right, I did say Stalin wasn't an atheist. That wasn't what I meant (teach me to not to use my own version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in an argument.) I was trying to draw your attention to the erroneous correlation between Stalin-Atheist by contrasting it with the equally invalid correlation Hitler-Christian. I'm sure you won't disagree that simply because Hitler self-identified as a Christian doesn't mean that all Christians are genocidal maniacs. By the same token, just because Stalin self-identified as an atheist (meaning he was adamantly opposed to religion because of the threat it posed), doesn't mean atheists are stalinists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 9:14 AM Tokyojim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 11:16 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 60 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 7:46 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 142 (16635)
09-05-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 10:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
Using power to impose Islam on others seems to be OK since it is commonly done, but Christianity is different.
Did I read this right?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 10:19 AM Tokyojim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 11:19 AM John has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 56 of 142 (16636)
09-05-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Quetzal
09-05-2002 11:03 AM


I am pretty sure he will disagree as it appears from his posts that one part of the foundation of his worldview is that atheist = mass murderer without obstruction and christian (his own brand of course..not the others..those "wrong" christians)= mass murderer constrained by the bible. I think the logic of your statement will not penetrate his zealotry...but I could be wrong ...guess I am agnostic after all
cheers,
Mammuthus
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Ohh, heck!!. You're right, I did say Stalin wasn't an atheist. That wasn't what I meant (teach me to not to use my own version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in an argument.) I was trying to draw your attention to the erroneous correlation between Stalin-Atheist by contrasting it with the equally invalid correlation Hitler-Christian. I'm sure you won't disagree that simply because Hitler self-identified as a Christian doesn't mean that all Christians are genocidal maniacs. By the same token, just because Stalin self-identified as an atheist (meaning he was adamantly opposed to religion because of the threat it posed), doesn't mean atheists are stalinists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 11:03 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 12:30 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 57 of 142 (16637)
09-05-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by John
09-05-2002 11:12 AM


Hi John,
Yes, I think you read it right.Here is another one from him:
"Fundamentalist Christianity is only restrictive to those who are not willing to bow the knee to God because they feel like their freedoms are restricted. For the most part — of course there are exceptions - those who do bow their knee to God, find Him to be their joy and satisfaction, even if following Him does involve denying self at times."
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
Using power to impose Islam on others seems to be OK since it is commonly done, but Christianity is different.
Did I read this right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John, posted 09-05-2002 11:12 AM John has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 142 (16643)
09-05-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tokyojim
09-05-2002 10:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tokyojim:
Quetzal,
You asked me to go back and work on the rest of your original message first so I'll pick up where I left off.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Hopefully you’ll get to the rest of it when you get the chance, but I’m very interested to hear your discussion on the topics of US as a Christian nation and the non-religious reasons for not contravening social constraints.
quote:
TJ: I want to qualify that first statement of yours. I would never say that morality NEVER stopped humans from what the Bible calls sinning, or doing their own thing as you said to NEVER CONSISTENTLY stopped them from doing their own thing.
I’ll accept that change as stipulated. It neither detracts from nor substantively changes the argument. In fact, it probably clarifies my point, as there are undoubtedly examples that can be raised where biblical belief DID prevent wrongdoing of some type. Just as there are examples of humanist principles doing the same. Just not consistently.
(I really don’t mean to single Christianity out, but since you seem to prefer arguing from that viewpoint, I’ll stay with that for clarity. My objections apply equally to all religions/religious belief systems.) An interesting question to examine would be: given that Christianity has had several thousand years to inculcate morality among its followers, and for most of those years was THE dominant paradigm, why hasn’t Christianity been more successful in insuring its adherents don’t do the wrong thing? Even given the free will supposedly granted to humanity by the Christian God, the moral suasion and consistent teaching of the various churches and religious leaders should logically have had more positive effect, especially given the amount of time and occasionally total control they’ve had to play with.
quote:
There are times in my life when I was tempted to do what the Bible says is wrong and I resisted specifically because my conscience and the Bible told me it is a sin. Countless other Christians and even atheists have resisted because of conscience or what their religion tells them at times. But no one has ever consistently lived up to their own moral standards. That is why we stand as condemned sinners in God's sight.
And I could argue as well that there have been numerous times in my life where I’ve thought about doing dirty to someone, or doing something that violates the principles I personally adhere to — all of which are secular — but didn’t because of those principles. What makes you think YOUR particular rule-set is any more valid or appropriate than anyone else’s if they both achieve the same results? Especially since neither one can be said to be applied universally. The validity and effectiveness of either rule-set would seem to be uneffected by the existence or non-existence of a deity.
quote:
So if religion died out completely tomorrow, I think you would be surprised at the influence that that would have on the world.
Not really. I would venture to guess that the formerly religious people who felt they were only constrained by the threat of punishment by God would be the ones out of control, if anyone. Those of us who operate quite rationally under a secular rule-set probably wouldn’t change our behavior at all. However, I didn’t really make a clear point with that statement. What I meant was a thought experiment about the net effect of the non-existence of religion; that humans, if religious constraints had never existed, would still exhibit the same behavioral constraints. I guess the quip fell flat.
quote:
Secular law regulates modern behavior, but it doesn't regulate everything God calls sin. For instance, adultery, pre-marital sex, abortion, lying, talking dirty, disrespect for people, etc. etc. may not be against the law, but these things are all sin in God’s eyes. Just an aside, not doing what you know to be right is also a sin Ea sin of omission rather than commission according to the Bible.
However, simply calling something a sin doesn’t necessarily prove that it is a negative or deleterious behavior. With the possible exceptions of adultery, lying, disrespect — which can have negative social consequences that have nothing to do with laws — or the possible negative social consequences of extreme versions of the others you mentioned, I really don’t see what is bad about them. Perhaps you can elucidate on why these particular behaviors (which are essentially neutral from a societal standpoint) are considered bad or sins?
quote:
I agree with you on theocracies. Power corrupts and the Church had power in the past and grave sins resulted. No one is immune to sin. So I’m not petitioning for any nation to be a theocracy.
Good to hear that. I wish all Christians in the US felt this way.
quote:
Using power to impose Islam on others seems to be OK since it is commonly done, but Christianity is different. It may have been done in the past, but no one can force anyone to truly believe in God and convert.
I think it’s quite possible that the only thing precluding a Christian theocracy or theocratically dominated government is the existence of strong countervailing secular authorities in most of the countries where such a thing might happen today. They have done it in the past. No reason to think they wouldn’t try to do it again in the future if they could get away with it.
quote:
However, I will disagree with you on your last statement. You said: - As far as "killing each other like animals", there has been just as much unjustifiable slaughter in the name of religion as there has (some would argue more) in the name of any other ideology.- I won’t speak for Islam, but the numbers of murders committee by Christians - Crusades, Inquisition(30,000 killed), etc. literally pales in comparison with that committed by especially communist states. I understand that the Church to them was an enemy because believers looked to a higher authority than the State and that idea couldn't be tolerated. So the State proclaimed there is no god. It taught an atheistic worldview to it's subjects and that gave them full reign. There was no higher power to whom they had to give an account and so their consciences were freed up to treat people like animals.
To prove my point, we only need to consider the slaughters of atheists/communists of this century alone. Let me just name a few of the communist leaders involved: Stalin is said to have killed 40 million people! Hitler killed 9 -10 million. Mao Tse Tung, a dedicated atheist and communist killed more than 70 million people! Plus there is really no way to count all the number of people who were killed in other Communist revolutions and wars. Khmer ROuge in Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungar, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Philippines, etc.

Man, here we go with the attempt to equate communism or other authoritarianism with atheism. NONE, NOT ONE, of the leadership of the countries you mentioned did any of their atrocities in the name of atheism. It was ALL power — and most of it was under the banner of communism, socialism, Maoism, etc. These are ideologies based on POWER and SOCIAL CONTROL, not atheism. Yes, they were secular, but they had all the same trappings as most religions with the exception of appeal to the supernatural! Don’t you get the difference yet? Besides, Hitler was a Christian, if you want to drag him into the mix.
On the numbers — would you care to provide a source for the Christian data you cited? I think you have gotten substantially less than is accurate. There were more than 30,000 people slaughtered in Constantinople alone by the crusaders, not even counting the swath of destruction they cut through the Balkans. Check your history.
quote:
Quetzal, the numbers don't even begin to compare! This kind of action is easily bred from an atheistic worldview, whereas it is an aberration in a Christian worldview. This idea about religion causing as much damage as other idealogies is nothing but a myth that people who are critical of religion seem to like to perpetrate. I am in no way justifying the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestants in the Counter Reformation, but here is my point. When an atheist goes bad, as I said earlier, it all fits within his worldview because there is no absolute standard of morality set by God. That means that really there is no true right and wrong. How do you define right and wrong if there is not a standard to appeal to? So, in reality, it seems to me that atheists have to admit that anything goes. No Supreme Being to worry about. No judgment after death to worry about. We’re FREE! Kind of leads to life being a bit meaningless, but that’s another issue.
I’m afraid you’re sadly in error concerning both atheism and human behavior. I have explained the basis for both altruism and group behavior in the latter portions of my first post, and also in the second. I will wait until you have absorbed that before continuing in this vein.
quote:
TOKYOJIM’s reply:
I'm glad you don't talk about justice and fairness. At least you are consistent with your worldview. In an ateistic worldview, as you said, there is nothing fair at all about life.
About religion spurring on suicide, I doubt the statistics would support that kind of a statement, but I can't back up that opinion. But in Christianity anyway, suicide is a sin, so although some may succomb to that thought, it is not prevalent. Actually, knowing God makes life more worthwhile and meaningful even in the midst of suffering.
Sure you can bring up quacko cults like Heaven’s Gate and Jonestown, but they are not Christian.
I’ll tell you why God says suicide is wrong. He is the Giver of Life. He and He alone has that authority. We are to respect all life in that sense and to take someone else’s life or your own life is to usurp His authority. You say it is to allow the religion to propagate itself. And you are right too. That is very clearly one reason why God disallows suicide. He has chosen to work through His people to spread the gospel and it is a privilege to be a part of that.

Please re-read my post. You have completely missed the point of that section, and inadvertently misstated my position and misunderstood the points I raised.
quote:
I understand what you are saying here. But we forget that we need God’s help to accomplish anything. Even non-christians need His help. He provides the sunshine, rain, food, air, and water. The Bible tells us that He sustains and maintains his creation. He is the one who created it all with order. Scientific laws of nature exist because God Himself maintains order in nature. A miracle occurs when He supercedes or intervenes in these natural laws that He sustains on a daily basis.(imo of course) I agree though that revolutions are more of a broad secular thing, but that doesn’t mean that God is not involved in the outcome behind the scenes.
Oddly, I can’t remember a single time in my life where I needed recourse to a deity to explain anything. All those natural events you listed are perfectly understandable with reference to natural laws and processes. If, as you say, God intervenes miraculously in natural laws, there should be evidence of such intervention that is readily apparent (else, how can you claim it?). Please provide such evidence. Please provide any positive, empirical evidence that God — or any other deity — actively intervenes on a regular basis in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 10:19 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 59 of 142 (16644)
09-05-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Mammuthus
09-05-2002 11:16 AM


No doubt, my friend. I'm trying to get past all this fluff so we can get to the heart of the argument. I want to challenge him on the psychological/physiological basis of belief, memetic evolution, and the evolution of altruism. But I can't seem to get him past the philosophical chaff - which I'm not really qualified to argue in the first place.
Sigh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 11:16 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tokyojim, posted 09-05-2002 8:11 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 63 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 4:11 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 142 (16698)
09-05-2002 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Quetzal
09-05-2002 11:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Ohh, heck!!. You're right, I did say Stalin wasn't an atheist. That wasn't what I meant (teach me to not to use my own version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in an argument.) I was trying to draw your attention to the erroneous correlation between Stalin-Atheist by contrasting it with the equally invalid correlation Hitler-Christian. I'm sure you won't disagree that simply because Hitler self-identified as a Christian doesn't mean that all Christians are genocidal maniacs. By the same token, just because Stalin self-identified as an atheist (meaning he was adamantly opposed to religion because of the threat it posed), doesn't mean atheists are stalinists.
TOKYOJIM REPLIES:
Quetzal, of course I agree with you 100% on both points. I never stated such. You mentioned people masquerading in religious cloaks and anyone who genuinely thinks that Hitler was a Christian has some grave misunderstandings or perhaps they are wilfull misunderstandings. I agree to about what you say about Stalin, but I still say both were at heart atheists. And I think that because they feel there is no god they need to answer to and no absolute standard of morality, they are more likely to end up perpetrating atrocities than others. You can't say dogmatically that acting like that is wrong or immoral since there is no absolute standard to appeal to. You can say you don't think it is good or that you don't like that, etc. but appealing to a standard that doesn't exist seems contradictory. Just my opinion.
In an earlier post you refer to normative behavioral principles for a particular culture. Of course determing what these are is difficult and they are ever changing so what is (let's say) permissable according to these principles may be different from generation to generation. But breaking these principles is a big deal? Why? What does it matter if a person breaks the principles? THe more one breaks them, the more the chance to get the current generation to endorse your version of these principles. Let's take the example of the sexual revolution. Over the past 50 years or so there has been quite a change in what is viewed as "permissable" hasn't there? But someone who slept around 50 years ago wasn't really doing anything wrong. It was just that his behavior wasn't generally accepted by society. So how do you tell someone that adultery is wrong? Oops. I mean not a good thing? Based on what standard. Your opinion or societies opinion that is continually changing. So those normative principles, although they may exist, hold very little weight in the end. If you make some of these principles into law, then they certainly have weight. But again, there are a lot of things outside of law that I believe from my worldview to be clearly wrong.
Regards, TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 11:03 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 4:07 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024