Bible quotes

[IROC]

Originally posted by David McLaughlin
I meant no hostility, honest. People have always looked up to a higher power(s) to make sence of what they don't understand and to help them through this short life. IMHO, it takes a very strong person to go at life alone.

One thing that atheists have going for them (and I'm not trying to speak for anyone) is that they don't believe in any kind of afterlife, so they tend to make the most of the time they have on this planet....because that's all there is. Not so much a "strong" person - just a person that sees their time as finite for logical reasons.

Mike

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by David McLaughlin
I meant no hostility, honest. People have always looked up to a higher power(s) to make sence of what they don't understand and to help them through this short life. IMHO, it takes a very strong person to go at life alone. I thought I was a strong person once, not yet a year ago, I realized how weak I truely was and how much help I needed. One should never pretend to believe in something they don't. There is too much falsehood in this world as it is. For more than 30 years I disliked religion because of false people.

BTW, I just looked at that site :PeoplesNation.com. That's my kind of attitude! Thanks for the lead.

No problem,

I actually understand the knee jerk reaction to anything that questions religion. Because it's usually done with malice or venom, you get programmed to react in like kind.

[widebody911]

While we're on the subject of religious nut-cases...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/creation_museum

You also have to see his web site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

As a result of Adam’s sin, the terror of T. rex was unleashed on the world.

[David McLaughlin]

It's these nut cases that ruin things.

[Jims5543]

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[IROC]

Originally posted by Alfred1
And yes, I did use the assumption that all life started from one living organism because that's what I read that the theory of evolution states was the possible case.

The theory of evolution says *nothing* about the origins of life - it is merely a theory describes the mechanisms that lead to the diversity of the species we have observed.

Life started somehow. We don't know how. Evolution is what has lead to the diversity of life we see. The *process* of evolution is a fact. I don't think you'll find anyone who can rationally argue that evolution has not occured. The theory of evolution is simply the scientific theory that best describes the evolutionary process that has led to the diversity of life.

If you don't like the theory of evolution, simply find *one* instance where it is wrong and scientists will be forced to either throw it out or revise it (and you would be crowned king by the multitudes of people who oppose the theory for whatever reason). That's the self-correcting beauty of science. That's also what has always amazed me about "creationism" or "intelligent design". Neither are scientific theories in any way, shape or form, yet some people advocate teaching them in a "science" class? Ridiculous.

Mike

[djmcmath]

To get back on topic, I always enjoy Paul's counsel not to get involved in foolish arguments:

From 2 Tim 2:14-17 - "Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. ... Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene."

In contrast, Paul gives us an idea what we _should_ focus on and talk about in Galations 5:22-23 - "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. " Holy cow, imagine what your day-to-day life would be like if everyone around you could hold to these few ideals. Imagine if I could start that process, living my life by these ideals! Jeez, it'd be like heaven on earth! (tongue at least slightly in cheek.)

[Superman]

Originally posted by IROC
One thing that atheists have going for them (and I'm not trying to speak for anyone) is that they don't believe in any kind of afterlife, so they tend to make the most of the time they have on this planet....because that's all there is. Not so much a "strong" person - just a person that sees their time as finite for logical reasons.

Mike

I don't think this turns out to be true. If someone truly believed that there are no consequences for our decisions here, then what reason could there be to behave ethically? Only one, really, and that's the disdain of your fellow man. And what significance is that, anyway. If this life is all there is, then I'm not sure the disdain of your fellow many would be enough to control unethical behavior. It wouldn't. So, I have always thought that atheists have been a tad dishonest on this score. There is no real good explanation for their tendency to be ethical. Show me an ethical atheist, and I'll show you someone who does not REALLY believe there is no God.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Superman
I don't think this turns out to be true. If someone truly believed that there are no consequences for our decisions here, then what reason could there be to behave ethically?

Well, for sure, without being an atheist, I'm sure you don't understand that morality and ethics can exist (and flourish) outside the framework of religious belief.

It really has nothing to do with "fearing consequences" for decisions, but only a respect for your fellow man borne out of the desire to be a functioning member of society.

It doesn't take much googling to find that religious people aren't exactly the most moral or ethical people in the world (or maybe I should re-phrase to say that religiousity doesn't even come close to giving people a leg-up in the morality department).

Mike

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Superman
Show me an ethical atheist, and I'll show you someone who does not REALLY believe there is no God.

I call bull****.

So you're saying that theists patented ethics? If it weren't for the theists, we would be living in ethical anarchy?

How do you explain the vast history of unethical behavior by theists, not just generic unethical behavior, but that which was specifically done in the name of said god, ie crusades/holy wars.

Using your logic, pedophile priests are proof that god doesn't exist.

[mikester]

Originally posted by Alfred1
Assuming that all life on earth evolved from one single organism which sprang to life spontaneously on its own what is the probabilty that it was more suited to its environment and survived rather than died after one mutation? Better than half? 0.99? What are the odds that it survived after 100 mutations? Would any form of life have evolved on earth if there was no ozone layer to filter out UV rays or if there was no magnetic field around the earth to keep charged particles from the sun from getting through or what if the earth was a little nearer or farther away from the sun? You can't just look back and say it's amazing and then take it all for granted. That is its own "blind faith".

Of course your assuming the the "Start" of evolution happens on earth. It doesn't - starts with the beginning of the universe as a whole. The earth and all of those preconditions you mention are part of the evolutionary process and we have at least 8 other examples in this solar system alone that seem to show how those chances can evolve in a planet.

Evolution also comes with it's own disclaimer on the outset of study. It's a theory - not a fact. That should make swallowing it a little easier for someone of "reasonable character."

[djmcmath]

Well, yes, Thom, I think that is what Supe is saying (sort of). If the terms "right" and "wrong" are to have any meaning at all, there must be a standard -- some objective standard for what is "right" and what is "wrong." That standard has to be established by an entity outside of all those subject to the definition, else the standard isn't objective. That entity also has to abide perfectly by the standard. You see, if there is no external entity defining these terms, than we may as well say "pleasing" or "inconvenient." For example, if there is no objective standard, then having my car stolen isn't "wrong," but rather simply "inconvenient."

Not that theism is the root of all goodness -- certainly not so, as all of us can testify to. Theists do things which are wrong (or inconvenient, as your vocabulary dictates) just as often as atheists, and they often cite their (perceived) objective standards for doing them. More accurately, without at least a subconscious recognition that there is some objective standard of truth established by an objective entity, then much of reality loses it's meaning.

[Superman]

I knew my remarks were going to ruffle some feathers. But I see nothing substantive, beyond the emotional reaction.

I'm not going to suggest that anybody is perfect. All humans sin. Even if God exists. Or if he does not. Humans are selfish.

My point is rather simple. We engage in any particular behavior for only one reason....selfishness. That's why we eat, go to work, volunteer for charity. To make us feel good.

So, the negative consequences of unethical behavior are potentially just two: God's punishment, or man's punishment. If God's punishment were truly taken out of the formula, then we're just left with man's punishment. If an atheist had a chance to cheat someone and gain a six-week Tahitian vacation, why would he not cheat, and take the vacation? If all he's worried about is retribution from the cheated person, well, that's probably not going to happen.

And if an atheist tries to argue that there is something besides human retribution and God's retribution, well then you'll see an amused smirk grow on my face and I'll have a series of questions that will be difficult to answer.

Where does this tendency toward ethical behavior come from, if you can reject your fellow man as a source? This is a trap that I suggest atheists not step into.

[widebody911]

Sorry, ain't buying in. Not even gonna rent it.

You're claiming people don't do unethical stuff, because god created ethics and the means of enforcement, but then you turn right around and say it doesn't work all the time, as evidenced by people still doing unethical stuff. That's about the same as me claiming my 911 has a 3.6L perpetual motition engine, but it just doesn't feel like working right now. Is it too hard to imagine that the 'golden rule' can exist outside of the context of having some imaginary being watching over the whole thing?

[djmcmath]

Imaginary Being isn't really "watching over" in the sense that my boss "watches over" me. Imaginary Being simply defined the standard, then gave us the decision about whether or not to pay any attention to it. Subtle but important difference.

[widebody911]

Ok, how about Is it too hard to imagine that the 'golden rule' can exist outside of the context of having some imaginary being making the rules?

[Superman]

Originally posted by widebody911
Ok, how about Is it too hard to imagine that the 'golden rule' can exist outside of the context of having some imaginary being making the rules?

The answer I think, is "yes." That is since your question is a flip of the direct question. The direct question (the one with the "no") answer) is whether moral behavior has a sociological as opposed to theological explanation. Its a somewhat complex philosophical/sociological analysis, but it ends with the conclusion that certain elements of morality do not have their genesis in the "survival of the commons." That is, the notion that moral behavior is shaped over the millenia by social considerations fails in some instances. Many, in fact.

[widebody911]

Theistic origins of ethics aside, is it not possible to continue in an ethical fashion, while disregarding the imaginary being as a quaint historical relic? I think so. Think of it as "ethical training wheels."

[djmcmath]

Hmm ... I like that thought, Thom, except it seems that it falls into a circular problem of the source of the ethics. The difficulty is that the I.B. cannot simply be a figment of sociological imagination in order to fulfill the role as "source of truth." If the I.B. is simply a set of ethical training wheels created in the minds of the society, then it is no different than the society creating their own truth.

[IROC]

I think it is short-sighted to think that people that don't share your religious beliefs are somehow incapable of ethical or moral behavior. Is that essentially what is being said? If so, then I vehemently disagree. Ethics and morality existed long before religions existed.

How does one acount for a moral and ethical atheist? Why are prison populations curiously short on atheists? Why are divorce rates highest among born-again Christians? If religion is the basis of morality, why aren't religious adherents the pillars of society?

Mike