Bible quotes

[David McLaughlin]

1 Corinthians
9:24 Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the prize? So run to win.

[gavinlit]

As an aside on ethics, mathematical models do suggest that the most successful behaviour in an interactive society is to be 'friendly' or 'nice' to others. I know this is only a model but it does seem to suggest to me that any organism with reasonable intelligence (which we have an abundance of - maybe) would choose to act in a MOSTLY cooperative manner with other members of it's species. This leads to a greater chance of the species continuing in time. I tend to think that it's kind of hard wired into us. Think of how hard it is to act in an 'unfriendly' manner towards someone if they are smiling and extending their hand.
Of course once you throw in greed, jealousy, lust for stuff (goods, power, the fairer sex) it all gets a little messy but by and large I'd say our societies are fairly cooperative places and while plenty of religions support this line it may just still be possible without the support of the religious line or reference to a higher being.
Back to work now so leave you all to it. For what it's worth I'd call myself an atheist but still think there's a lot of good stuff in the bible. Went through the whole catholic education system and a lot of the values I believe in certainly align with those found in christian teachings. Parts of the bible could almost be titled 'a book on how to get along'. I guess I feel that all of the good stuff could still be there without an omnipotent power of some kind. Maybe one day something will happen that makes me think otherwise, but for the moment I truly believe that we're on our own and for the most part we're not doing too bad a job.

[Superman]

Originally posted by 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

I'm not suggesting that atheists cannot be unethical, at least not directly. I'm asking what would be the motivation for a true atheist to behave ethically. I see a number of responses that I reject. The one that probably holds some water is the "habit" of "convention" argument. That is, this (moral behavior) is typical behavior for humans that atheists see around them, and which they very likely learned at a very young age. So, 'habit' may be pointed to as a reason for why atheists' behaviors seem to fall within the boundaries of ethical behavior.

I'm going to have to consult my texts first if I am going to have to explain why morality cannot satisfactorily be explained by sociology and anthropology. Some folks think it's a sort of ingrained social morae behavior thingie that is mandated by the survival of the tribe. That's a satisfactory explanation, if you don't look into it very far. If you do, you find that this feeling we have of "right" and "wrong" cannot have sociology and tribal survival as its sole genesis. It has to come from somewhere else.

So that's what I'm saying. If we can agree that our sense of "right" and "wrong" cannot come from a sociological source, then can atheists give a satisfactory explanation of why they feel it, and why they behave morally?

No, I'm not saying atheists cannot be moral. I notice there are a good number of atheists, and that they do seem to behave morally for the most part. My question is "Why?" Atheists almost always think their personal level of intelligence is comparatively HIGH. To say the least. Well, that should certainly be high enough to agree that one could make WAY more money and have WAY more things and do WAY more travelling if ethics were entirely optional. The objective benefits of unethical behavior simply outweigh the objective benefits of ethical behavior, if you believe there are no consequences outside this life.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by David McLaughlin
1 Corinthians
9:24 Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the prize? So run to win.

Except when team orders dictate otherwise...

[Victor]

Originally posted by David McLaughlin
*SNIP* BTW, even Satan believes in God, so you're stronger than him too.

No. You see Satan does not exist either.

Nor do:

- Tinkerbelle, Peter Pan and Wendy
- Father Xmas
- Hobgoblins and the ENTIRE casts of characters from ALL Star Wars, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films
- The Tooth Fairy
- The Easter Bunny

Any other items you may believe in that are not listed above can generally be broadly categorised into the "things that go bump in the night" group. Largely this is comprised of harmless noises with the only difference being that they are not happening during daylight.

Really, this should be all the proof you will ever need however let me know if you are still confused on this somewhat vexing issue. I am having a hard time explaining this to my 7 year old. Maybe I need to wait a couple of more years?

[Moses]

Originally posted by Alfred1
You have to be really foolish to believe that all the infinite complexity and order of the earth and its enviornment are just the result of random chance.

Count me among the foolish.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Alfred1
You have to be really foolish to believe that all the infinite complexity and order of the earth and its enviornment are just the result of random chance.

Why?

[stuartj]

Originally posted by David McLaughlin
For those that say they don't believe in God... I only wish I were that strong. To be able to stand on your own in a work like this take a lot of faith. BTW, even Satan believes in God, so you're stronger than him too.

Well, if Satan believes in God, that sure settles it for me.

[Victor]

Stuart,

You ARE Satan.

[stuartj]

No, I'd be one of the guys who was slewn by the jaw bone of an ass. Plenty of that round here.

Sort of the Imperial Storm Troopers of the Old T.

[Victor]

Stop it with the modesty. I've heard you play banjo, fiddle and guitar.

Satan.

And to think for all this time people thought the Devil was Pagannini or Ozzy.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Alfred1
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. From what I've read in the past and from the discussions about it on TV that I've heard I think evolutionists do say that life on earth began with one or a few living organisms. You have to be really foolish to believe that all the infinite complexity and order of the earth and its enviornment are just the result of random chance. I even seem to remember watching some science show about physics and they stated something about some physics phenomenon that requires an observer for the phenomeon to even exist. Whatever, I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution and what's more this is what I believe is true for all human beings:

Just because an "evolutionist" says that life on Earth began as a few simple living organisms doesn't mean that the Theory of Evolution describes how those life forms came into being.

As for the foolishness/random chance stuff, I really implore you to learn more about this before casting stones.

Creationism requires more faith than evolution (by definition). :>)

Mike

[IROC]

Originally posted by Superman
So that's what I'm saying. If we can agree that our sense of "right" and "wrong" cannot come from a sociological source, then can atheists give a satisfactory explanation of why they feel it, and why they behave morally?

I think that a very good argument can be made that what is right and wrong can and does come from a sociological source. In fact, what is right and wrong varies among cultures and as time passes what is right and wrong changes - even when "religious" teachings stay the same, so I think a better argument is that religion *isn't* the moral basis for behavior these days.

From my own introspection, I would have to believe that moral and ethical behavior is simply ingrained in each person. I really don't think that fear of "going to hell" has any more bearing on whether a guy decides to cheat on his wife, for instance, than fear of the death penalty running through a guy's mind as he commits murder, etc.

I think it is interesting that people actually claim to "behave" out of fear of adverse consequences (judgment) when they die. That's like a child not pulling his sister's hair *only* because he knows his mom will get mad at him - not because pulling her hair isn't the right thing to do in the first place. In other words, the implication is that - without religion - religious people would have no idea what was right and wrong and how to behave themselves. Scary.

Mike

[Victor]

Amen Mike!

[Fishcop]

Religion causes wars...
Religion causes over population...

If there is a "Heaven", well you're enjoying it now - live for now.

If there is an all seeing benevolent God, then he'll forgive my mortal thoughts and opinion, and he'll forgive me at the Pearly Gates after having the last laugh.

[djmcmath]

Creationism requires more faith than evolution (by definition). :>)

By definition of _what_, exactly? You've used three terms that are all just a little bit vague, for at least some of us. Which definition explains the measure of faith required to believe something? And while we're at it, what's the unit for faith? Apostles? I mean, do you have a faith-o-meter, or something, with a little gauge in Apostles? So someone who was really faithful would have, like, 3.6 Apostles worth of faith, and someone with no faith at all would have like pico- or femto-Apostles?

Thanks for clarifying.

[IROC]

Originally posted by djmcmath
By definition of _what_, exactly? You've used three terms that are all just a little bit vague, for at least some of us. Which definition explains the measure of faith required to believe something? And while we're at it, what's the unit for faith? Apostles? I mean, do you have a faith-o-meter, or something, with a little gauge in Apostles? So someone who was really faithful would have, like, 3.6 Apostles worth of faith, and someone with no faith at all would have like pico- or femto-Apostles?

Thanks for clarifying.

Easy to clarify. Creationism is essentially a belief that god (pick one) "created" life as we know it basically in it's current form. In order to buy into this explanation, you have to believe in god, right? What is your belief in god based on? Faith. Creationism has no physical evidence to back it up, it doesn't propose any mechanisms to explain the world around us and why we see what we see. People complain that the Big Bang theory states that everything we see now came from nothing (straw man argument, but I digress), yet this is exactly what creationism proposes.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is based on physical evidence and not only accurately explains the past, but also what we see in the world around us and is used on a daily basis in the fields of genetics, etc. because it works so well.

So, take your pick - a theory that does not explain the mountains of physical evidence that we see or one that does? Which one requires more faith?

Mike

[Superman]

Mike is right. Evolution is the theory you're stuck with if you have not faith. But I think he's wrong if he's suggesting that faith and belief in the Creation negate Evolution. From my perspective, even Evolution requires Creation. And no, I don't believe the universe was created a few thousand years ago. I accept the datings suggested by archeologists, geologists and astronomers. And I believe in Creation. And I believe in natural selection. I can see why folks believe in natural selection. I cannot fathom not believing in Creation. Unless someone erroneously thought that in order to believe in Creation, they have to jettison their belief in natural selection, and accept the premise that God is engaging in a giant hoax by placing the moment of Creation a few thousand years ago and then leaving evidence to throw everyone off. That'd be silly.

[djmcmath]

Mike, that was a very serious response to an almost entirely tongue-in-cheek post. The discussion of which idea requires more of an abstract concept is a little silly, and I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to poke fun at the whole thing.

Sarchasm: n, the gap between the author of sarcastic wit and the reader who doesn't get it.

[IROC]

Supe - you're right (and I agree) that evolution does not negate the possibility that a god got the whole thing started. In fact, that is an important point that most people miss. The theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life (where a supernatural being might come in) only in the diversity of life after it started.

And Dan - my original comment was tongue in cheek. I incorrectly inferred that you didn't see my sarcasm... :>)

Mike