Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We are the gods..
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 142 (16390)
09-02-2002 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dogmai
05-08-2002 7:25 PM


Dogmai,
Interesting post. My suggestion is for you to read Job 38:1 - 41:34. If there is no God, you are right. We humans are supreme. If that were true, I'd really be worried. Power becomes the name of the game. There would be no real right and wrong. If you are in control, you can do whatever you want. There are no moral laws to stop you from treating people like animals or even killing them to advance your cause and control. 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. Imagine what would happen if you removed the influence of Christianity from this world. First of all, America might not even exist and if it did, it wouldn't be the Land of the Free. A lot of the freedoms you enjoy today came about because there were people who believed in a Supreme Being who made all mankind equal and therefore everyone has equal rights. Where else in the world do you find this kind of a view apart from the influence of Christianity?
You speak with great authority as if you know what you are saying is true, but it is simply your own made up religion. You would rather believe that you are a god and live however you want to than submit to a Holy Creator to whom you are accountable. But imagine if your next door neighbor started to do the same thing and you were on the receiving end of some injustice. You would be quick to cry "That's not fair. That's wrong. You shouldn't do that! That's not right." But with your worldview, you have no right to appeal to some moral law because none outside of what man has set up exists. And even then, man's laws only apply if you are caught. If you are not caught, murder is not wrong. It certainly is not a sin because there is no God to sin against.
I can't agree with your views because you cannot live by them. Sorry, probably too much to think about all at once.
Regards, Tokyojim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dogmai, posted 05-08-2002 7:25 PM dogmai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2002 9:18 AM Tokyojim has replied
 Message 36 by Mammuthus, posted 09-02-2002 9:42 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 142 (16394)
09-02-2002 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
08-19-2002 8:34 PM


John, Excuse me for budding in to your conversation here, but two quick things. First the verses you are looking for that speak of God as "the One who was, who is, and who is to come" are Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; and 11:17. There may be other passages as well.
You mentioned talking with Halcyon. What thread is that?
Tokyojim
------------------
"Only one life, 'twill soon be past. Only what's done for Christ will last."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 08-19-2002 8:34 PM John has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 142 (16481)
09-03-2002 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Quetzal
09-02-2002 9:18 AM


Quetzal,
Thanks for your reply to my post. I’ll try to respond a little to what you wrote to explain my self better. No doubt you will still disagree, but that’s OK. My feelings are not hurt. I don't know how to post like you did. I liked your format. So my reply might be hard to figure out. If so, I apologize.
Also, l am writing from Japan and my computer also types Japanese so it seems this computer is reading my aposterisk as a Japanese character. So interspersed in my comments you will see various Japanese characters. Just interpret it as an asterisk plus a letter. Sorry for the confusion. Not sure how to fix that problem.
My original post:
Dogmai,
Interesting post. My suggestion is for you to read Job 38:1 - 41:34. If there is no God, you are right. We humans are supreme.
Quetzal's reply:
I'm not sure I agree with the use of the semantically-loaded term "supreme" with regards to man's place in the world. Certainly we as a species have been the most effective in all the history of life on Earth at modifying and manipulating the environment to suit our own ends. If that equates to "supreme", then I suppose it's fairly accurate. On the other hand, both dogmai's extreme anthropocentrism and your christian worldview somehow (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to be setting humans outside of the context of their environment - like we were somehow special or occupied some special place in the great scheme of things. This is patently untrue. We are unequivocally the biological products of the peculiar conditions on this planet. Just like every other species of animal - no more, no less.
*********************************************
My reply to Quetzal's reply:
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.
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.
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. 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. If we are not created by God, our lives really have little meaning if any. If we evolved, like you said, 'We are unequivocally the biological products of the peculiar conditions on this planet. Just like every other species of animal - no more, no less.' This is really a very degrading view of humans. It frees us to treat each other as the mammals(animals) that we are. Who says we are entitled to certain human rights? What makes China’s treatment of it’s people any less humane than the way the US treats people? It is just 'different strokes for different folks'right? Neither can be right or wrong in your worldview. Just different.
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. 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.
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.
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?
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.
*********************************************************************
MY ORIGINAL POST:
If that were true, I'd really be worried. Power becomes the name of the game. There would be no real right and wrong. If you are in control, you can do whatever you want.
**************************************************************
QUETZAL'S SECOND REPLY:
This is simply incorrect. It denies everything we have learned about animal behavior, and flies in the face of all of the current research into the evolution of sociality, reciprocal altruism, etc. You are attempting to play the old "all morality flows from God" card. Humans are "moral" because it is expedient to be so (expediency in this context means the achievement of material benefits together with the avoidance of unpleasantness in interaction with others). We have evolved over the last 10-15 million years to be pretty adept social animals. We have a lot of behaviors ingrained in us that allow us to function as a member of a group.
*****************************************************************
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.
***************************************************************
QUETZAL's SECOND REPLY CONTINUED:
With the vastly increased complexity of social interactions beyond the family/troop level, coupled with a fairly well-developed ability to communicate, we were able to codify some rules for interaction that permitted a certain stability in - and theoretically brought achievement of benefit to - a wider group. Religion is one way these rules are handed down the generations and laterally transmitted to others in the extended tribe. But it's only ONE of many transmission paths.
*************************************************
MY REPLY TO QUETZAL'S SECOND REPLY cont.:
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. 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.
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.
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.
***************************************************************
QUETZAL'S SECOND POST CONTINUED:
Worse, it(religion) seems to have recently evolved to be less a simple rules-set for social interaction, and more akin to a parasitic organism whose sole purpose is to propagate itself. Many modern religions - and resurgent fundamentalist christianity is definitely in this category - today appear to be more interested in extending and maintaining control than in providing 'moral guidance'.
***************************************************************
MY REPLY TO QUETZAL'S SECOND REPLY cont:
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. But talk to Jesus or to Mohammed and you can bet that was not their intention. 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.)
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?
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.
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.
Recently I met an unmarried girl who was mad at God because she said He let her get pregnant. She thinks the government should support her since her boyfriend left her. It was her choice to sin and there is responsibility that comes with our choices. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help her raise her kid, but I am saying that she cannot claim to deserve that kind of help. It was her immoral choice that put her in that position to begin with. Often times, we blame God for the consequences of our own sin. We are blinded by our sin and our sense of judgment is distorted as a result. Everything is always someone else’s fault. We’re quick to lay the blame on others.
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Tokyojim
PS I apologize to everyone for such a long post!

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 40 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2002 10:02 AM Tokyojim has replied
 Message 46 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 4:15 AM Tokyojim has not replied
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 09-04-2002 10:55 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 142 (16483)
09-03-2002 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mammuthus
09-02-2002 9:42 AM


Mammuthus wrote:
So, if you did not believe in your particular religious view you would try to kill and get away with it and act in a sociopathic manner and if oppressed you would not resist? And all that prevents you from commiting all sorts of mayhem is fear of retribution from some mythical higher being or fear of punishment from said mythical being? Your religion does not sound particularly appealing the way you have framed it...it actually sounds rather feeble.
*********************************************************
MY REPLY:
No, sorry, you are misunderstanding me. I admit that I could have made it clearer so I apologize for that. Here is what I mean. An atheist does good things too. Not many atheists will end up become mini Hitlers and Stalins or even criminals. The point is though, that if they do choose that kind of life, they are still acting in accordance with their worldview. We can't criticize them except to say it is illegal and we don't like what they are doing. That kind of life and attitude is the logical outworking of their worldview if lived out to the extreme. Even Darwin was afraid of a slippery slide into violence if his evolutionary theory were translated into a philosophy of life. It is not morally wrong or sinful to do what Hitler and Stalin did because in the evolutionary worldview, there can be no such thing as ultimate morality. Why? There is no Lawgiver.
The following is a quote from Hitler that is found on a wall of either Auschwitz or Birkenau Nazi death camp.
"I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality.....We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence--imperious, relentless and cruel." Hitler
Don't forget that his views were developed and nurtured in the mind of the most educated nation at that time in history and brought forth on the soil that had also given birth to the Enlightenment. However, we should not be surprised because man was beginning to live without God and the further we get from God, the more likely we are to see something like that happen. Seeing it go to that extreme is very unusual though.
Is fear of retribution the reason I choose not to live such a life? Yes and No. I do have a healthy fear of breaking Godfs laws, just as I hope you have a healthy fear of breaking the laws of the State. I personally think this kind of a fear, or shall we say a respect for the law, is a good thing.
But more than that, I believe that God loves me and made the supreme sacrifice of the life of His Son, Jesus on the cross. He has showered His grace upon me though I am not deserving and I love Him. I am thankful to Him and I want to live for Him and to please Him. In doing so, He tells me to love others, follow the 10 commandments, and most of all to love Him. My motivation for living my life the way I do is to bring glory to God, to show my love for Him, and to do something of eternal value with my life. Ifm sorry if that sounds feeble to you, but I am not ashamed of it and I wouldnft trade my life for the life of someone who does not know God, no matter how much money they have etc.
I think everyone refrains from wrong at times because of fear of retribution. That is the whole purpose of human instituted laws. If you want proof for that, just think what would happen if we took away all laws and let people do whatever they wanted to.
Don't expect you to agree, just wanted to clarify my view.
My thoughts for the day
Tokyojim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mammuthus, posted 09-02-2002 9:42 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 142 (16487)
09-03-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by gene90
09-02-2002 1:19 PM


Gene90, glad you think that Christianity is a good thing, but I certainly disagree with your reasons. If Christianity is not true, it is not good. It is a lie. However, from your point of view, I can see how it would be a good thing. The more people who live by the morality of the Bible, the easier it becomes for unbelievers to live in society. However, you, being more intellectually enlightened than these foolish believers, know that the Bible really isnft true. So if it isn't true, you also know that there is really no harm in breaking a few laws here and there. You enjoy the benefits you receive from living in the same world as the foolish believers, while at the same time, you feel free to your life your own way. It is a way to have your cake and eat it too. In this sense, atheists benefit from the existence of Christians in this world, even if they donft like what they believe. These poor misguided Christians have to follow this archaic moral code in the Bible while they themselves are free to live however they want. And because others do follow the garchaic moral code of the Bible or at least try to follow it) society is generally more orderly and civil, a better place to live in. I'm sure some will object to that statement. I'm not claiming that Christians never do anything wrong or haven't made serious mistakes of judgment in the past. But when they do, it is just that. A mistake that doesn't fit with their worldview. However, when atheists do such things, it is in total harmony with their worldview. That is a big difference.
************************************************************
GENE90's REPLY continued:
But to claim that without religion we would be rioting in the streets is to do a disservice to the good qualities innate in most of humanity. I think most people don't need to be taught the most basic principles of right and wrong, I think it is born into them.
*************************************************************
MY REPLY:
Ifm sorry. Ifm not claiming that. What I said was misleading. As I stated in the above post, what I am saying is that when atheists do choose to act that way, they are acting in a way that is harmonious with their beliefs, or within the boundaries of their worldview. For atheists, there is no ultimate right and wrong or absolute standard for morality so no one can tell them that what they are doing is wrong. We can say it is illegal or that we donft like it or that we donft think it is good, but you cannot make a moral judgment on the act itself since there is no ultimate code of morality to which to appeal. Many atheists make this mistake and in doing so actually provide evidence for the existence of God.
But the fact that everyone tries to appeal to a code of morality is strong evidence to me that one does indeed exist. This is a problem for the evolutionary worldview.
I agree with you that most people do not need to be taught the most basic principles of right and wrong. You are right. It is born into them. And the Bible tells us that God put it there. We also have a God-given conscience which can be dulled with continual sinning. The problem then is not so much not knowing what is right and wrong, rather the problem is doing it.
How many people do you know who have faithfully followed even their own particular code of morality throughout their lives? No one, right?! How about you? Have you always been faithful to your particular code of morality? I can answer that for you because I find the answer in the Bible. No one has and that is the problem. Even though we know what is right, we don't always do it, do we? But so what?! If there is no judgment after death, so what?
This lends support to the Biblical teaching that we humans are not born innately good. Sure, we all have the capacity for good, but the Bible says we are not. Rather, we born with an innate tendancy to sin or with a sin nature as the Bible puts it. So what we need is the power to change, the power to do what is right even when our bodies and minds tell us to do otherwise.
You can teach kids until you are blue in the face, but if you can't change their heart, the core of the problem, you can't do much to actually change them.
Teaching kids is great and necessary, but why should your opinion hold any more value than their opinion? Even if the majority of people agree with you, ultimately, from an eternal perspective, what does it matter if they agree with your views of morality or not? This is a free world isn't it? We can believe whatever we want to right? But in a totally free world where there is no God, we have to admit that in the end, it doesn't matter whether we live a good or a bad life, as long as we are willing to deal with the consequences of our actions in this life. This truth kind of makes our actions, even our lives meaningless doesn't it? And yet I would venture to say that you don't live like that. I'm sure you live your life as if it has real meaning in spite of what your worldview tells you.
Please understand. I'm not trying to make you angry, just to consider that perhaps there are some inconsistencies in your worldview. Just trying to provide some food for thought.
Regards,
Tokyojim
Regards,
Tokyojim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by gene90, posted 09-02-2002 1:19 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 09-03-2002 10:37 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 142 (16490)
09-03-2002 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Mammuthus
09-03-2002 10:02 AM


Thanks Mammuthus for your reply. First let me say, I'm not trying to rile your feathers. If you find my views offensive, I'm sorry, but I am not at all ashamed of what I believe.
YOU WROTE:
So in effect you are at heart a completely immoral person who is only constrained from running amok in society because of 1) fear of reprisal from your god 2) anticipation of a reward from said god in a hypothetical afterlife as I asked before? I am an atheist and find your worldview to be far more "immoral" than my own if this is the case.
*****************************************
MY REPLY:
Yes, Mammuthus, I am an immoral person at heart, but God is in the process of changing me. Let me change that. He has changed me. He has forgiven me and given me a new heart and I am grateful. II Corinthians 5:17 And yes, I do anticipate a reward from God in the future because He promises rewards for all who are in heaven. The reward is not heaven itself because that is a gift from God to all His children. But the rewards are given for good works done with proper motives in our hearts. I mentioned that a higher motivation is love for God and expressing my gratefulness to Him for all He has done for me. I'm sorry if that is offensive to you, but I'm more concerned what God thinks.
Question for you: Do you believe in an absolute standard for morality or is it anything goes? Every man does what is right in his own eyes? How do you determine what is right and wrong or perhaps I should ask if you even believe in right and wrong. But I guess that is covered in the first question.
**********************************************************
MAMMUTHES continues:
As to your "sermon" on those refusing to "bend their knees" to your God...many a dictator has used this type of logic to slaughter anyone who opposes them.
*******************************
You may be right here, but that doesn't mean that it isn't valid if there is a Creator like the Bible teaches. God demands obedience from us because He deserves to be obeyed. He loves us and knows that obedience is the most fulfilling life. He wants to protect us from trouble which we will experience when we decide to go our own way. He wants to protect us from emptiness in our hearts when we reject Him. He wants us to experience an abundant life. Jesus said "I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly."
********************************
MAMMUTHUS continues:
You also seem to consider atheism an origanized religion which illustrates just how little you understand about other worldviews...I guess you would, by the logic of your post, consider all Hindus to be evil as well.
************************************************************
Sorry. Of course it is not an organized religion, but don't fool yourself that it isn't a religion. I'm sure you have read the Humanist Manifesto and seen how many of it's signers view their ideas as religious. I can find some quotes for you if you want.
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.
As to the advantage of living in the US versus China...it has nothing to do with your religion...it has to do with the freedom to not be forced to practice your religion as you have the freedom not to share my worldview. I consider all humans to be sinful at heart because that is what the Bible says and as you look around, it is hard to disagree with that. Why does evil abound so much in this world?
By the way, when you use the word evil in the above question, how do you define evil and good as an atheist?
**************************************************************
MAMMUTHUS continues:
You also avoid any mention of the countless atrocities committed in the name of various religions including christianity.
You are right that Christians have made big mistakes in the past. I freely admit that. No one is perfect and they will make mistakes again in the future. I am ashamed at some of the terrible things that have been done in the name of Jesus. However, not to belittle those atrocities or excuse them in any way, but the atrocities committed by Christians pale in comparison to those committed by atheists. (That is not a personal attack against you, just a statement of fact.) And the big difference between the two is that a Christian is violating his worldview when he commits sins like that, but an atheist is not. It is not inconsistent with an atheistic worldview to do such things since there is no standard of morality.
**********************************************
MAMMUTHUS continues:
Your post to Quetzal has very little to do with religion or a "loving god" and everything to do with power and control and the wish for both.
**************************************************************
MY REPLY:
My comments with regards to power were made upon the assumption that the evolutionary atheistic worldview is correct. If it is, then power and control becomes very important doesn't it?
Mammuthus, perhaps this is a personal question, but what was it that so turned you off to Christianity in the past? There must have been some deep hurts that you experienced in the past or something that greatly influenced you against Christianity to warrant your disdain. If that is too personal, I'm sorry. Just ignore it.
Regards,
Tokyojim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2002 10:02 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2002 12:19 PM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 142 (16491)
09-03-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by gene90
09-03-2002 10:37 AM


GENE90,
I sincerely apologize. You are right I did make some assumptions because it seemed that you were supporting MAMMUTHUS is his post. However, I stand by my post that religion is not good if it is not true. It was that that I was mainly speaking to and I got carried away. Sorry if I chased you off.
Tokyojim
PS If you can get over my insult, may I ask you what your worldview is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 09-03-2002 10:37 AM gene90 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 142 (16706)
09-05-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Quetzal
09-05-2002 12:30 PM


Quetzal,
What is memetic evolution? Guess I could look it up, huh.
I'll do that.
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 09-05-2002 12:30 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Quetzal, posted 09-07-2002 3:57 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 142 (16780)
09-06-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mammuthus
09-06-2002 4:07 AM


OK Mammuthus, what is your definition of a Christian? I think we are using these terms in two different ways if you think Hitler was a Christian. Enlighten me on what a Christian is.
TJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 4:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 09-06-2002 12:44 PM Tokyojim has replied
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:23 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 142 (16786)
09-06-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mammuthus
09-03-2002 12:19 PM


Mammuthus said:
You also seem to consider atheism an origanized religion which illustrates just how little you understand about other worldviews...I guess you would, by the logic of your post, consider all Hindus to be evil as well.
************************************************************
Tokyojim responds:
Sorry. Of course it is not an organized religion, but don't fool yourself that it isn't a religion. I'm sure you have read the Humanist Manifesto and seen how many of it's signers view their ideas as religious. I can find some quotes for you if you want.
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.
Did I claim that you are a co-signer? Forgive me for making any assumptions. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were aware of and had read the Humanist Manifesto. If you have read it, you prefer to make me look stupid by accusing me of making assumptions. If you haven't read it, then I guess you were too embarrassed to admit it. You always keep things so vague in your messages that one never knows. Have you or haven't you read it? Regardless, it doesn't matter. Here is what the leading atheists are saying about atheism:
You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this, but believe me they are organized and they have an agenda. Read the Humanist Magazine if you donft believe me. Herefs one quote from there:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
Herefs another one from the now deceased Madelyn Murray OfHair: "The atheist realizes that there must not only be an acceptance of his right to hold his opinion, but that ultimately his is the job to turn his culture from religion, to eliminate those irrational ideas which have held the human race in intellectual slavery."
"The atheist must abandon his defensive positions, take up the cudgels and go forward, rather than into the retreat of apathy."
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of the American Atheists Organization. Quotes from her speech at their annual convention in Sacramento, California, on April 10, 1993 (from C-SPAN)
So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me.
Regards, TJ

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 79 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 5:36 AM Tokyojim has replied

  
Tokyojim
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 142 (16790)
09-06-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mammuthus
09-03-2002 12:19 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Then I consider your religion weak if your so called right or wrong are based on punishment and reward from a mythical being. I rather know that my actions and decisions are based on my own character and choice.
*************************
TJ's reply
I'm not surprised at what you said. Of course I agree with you if indeed God is a mythical being, but that is where we will just have agree to disagree. And my standards of right and wrong do not come from what you said. Yes, I do have a healthy fear of God meaning a deep respect for His authority and commands, just as I hope you have a healthy fear and respect for the police, civil authority, and the laws of the land. No difference there. I don't follow your ridicule.
Yes, I do believe that God will reward me for works done with pure motives in heaven, but that is not the only reason I do them. I also do them out of love for Him and to show my thanks for all He has done for me. I do them because I think they are right.
Now, here is the point I want to bring out. You say your decisions are based on your character and personal choice. So is it OK for everyone to make behavioral decisions based on those same standards which will certainly vary from one individual to the next. Is that what you are saying is the best way for moral order to be preserved in society. I'm not assuming, just asking.
Tokyojim asks:
Question for you: Do you believe in an absolute standard for morality or is it anything goes?
M replies:
Nope, I don't believe in an absolute standard and I DON'T believe that anything goes either.
**************************
TJ replies:
OK so you don't believe in an absolute standard, but for you personally that doesn't mean that anything goes. However, if someone else does believe that anything goes, that would be OK? If you answer no to that question, then you are appealing to an ultimate standard of morality which you just said doesn't exist. Or at least to a standard which you think is better than the others.
***********************************
Tokyojim asks:
By the way, when you use the word evil in the above question, how do you define evil and good as an atheist?
I reply: That which does harm....oh and religious fundamentalism
**************************************************************
TJ REPLIES:
Aha. So here is the standard which you are appealing to. Anything that does harm is wrong. Evil. Is that just physical harm or does that include emotional harm? Are you saying here that this standard applies to everyone in the world or is that just your personal view?
Mammuthus, I'm curious. Please answer me on this. Don't just make some sarcastic mark and avoid my question! Would you say that any of the following actions cause harm to others? Divorce, abortion, marital spats, pre-marital sex or adultery, alcoholism, lying, disrespect for people, making fun of others, refusing to forgive others, using abusive speech, swearing, watching porn movies(ask your wife if that would cause her harm if you were to watch them if you want to know the answer to that? OK, I know, I'm assuming you are a male and that you are married. Forgive me.) How do you apply your standard to your every day life?
And finally, what does it matter in the end if you were married, found someone you liked better, ditched your wife and family, and went after personal happiness? So you caused harm to a few peopel? So what? There is nobody who will hold you accountable for that trespass of your personal behavior code. What is your motivation to follow it?
I'm curious to see how your personal behavior code applies to your every day life.
Regards, TJ
No more time tonight.

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 69 by joz, posted 09-06-2002 2:58 PM Tokyojim has replied
 Message 80 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 6:03 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024