writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
The more the merrier.
Are you saying Pascal's Wager is a good argument?
If so, it fails because there are so many gods to choose from. Why not believe in Allah, because if you don't you may end up in his hell? Why not believe in Osiris incase you end up in duat? Why not believe in the Norse gods incase you end up in helheim?
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
where did you get that definition from?
From my brain. From human nature.
I do not see it in your examples from nature, sorry.
Not even these?
"
A bird on its own is at more risk from predators, and so they fly in flocks. There is safety in numbers. As a family of meercats leave the burrow to find food, one will remain to look after the babies. During the winter in Antarctica, penguins will huddle together for warmth. If a penguin tries to steal the child of another, due to their own offspring dying, other penguins will not allow it to happen. When bats go out to hunt, they may not all catch a meal. So back at their home, those who have caught prey will donate their blood to those without. The favour can be returned if they ever return without catching anything. If a wolf kills a family member, the others will drive it away as punishment."
Yet you were quite able to pick out these fundamental principles from the bible, the five you mentioned.
I agreed with them before I read them. Plenty of people haven't read the Bible, and they still know what's good or not.
I maintain that your definition of 'good' is from the bible, though you have rejected the source.
In that case, you have rejected the Book of the Dead as your moral guide.
But...you do not have my experience. The simplest explanation I have for what happened to me (occam's razor) is that God intervened.
Without knowing what happened, I cannot comment on this.
You've judged my explanation of "underlying principles" as cherry picking. Explain why you believe that
I believe this because you have rejected other principles found in the Bible which are less favourable.
First of all, Jesus helped. He told us what they are. Myself, I've included "Do no harm" and "Reverence life". Like you, I've chosen those underlying principles based on my background, culture, and direct experience.
Are you saying that if the New Testament had not been written, you would be stoning people? You needed to see Jesus speak against that before you realized it was bad? If someone reads the Bible from start to finish, I hope they reach Matthew pretty quickly, otherwise who knows what they will do!
Jesus also said 'until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will be any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished'.
'If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?'
So he can be seen to be upholding the Mosaic law there.
Some more choice words from Jesus:
'Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law And a man's foes will be they of his own household'.
'Let the dead bury their dead'.
'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch...and men cast them into the fire, and they are burned'.
I stand by my cherry picking statement.
Yes. But not just me personally. Society has moved on.
Precisely. Society has changed. The Bible has not.
So you are right back where you started. You have not provided any credible source for your instinctual concept of "good".
I wasn't using the animals as our source for what is good. I'm saying that whatever makes us act good can be found in animals, who do not even read books.
There could be many influences on a person that would determine if he would follow up on an impulse to murder. Only one might be for moral reasons. Another might be fear of consequences, or social taboo.
I suppose a survey would have to be taken in which the question went something like:
Why do you choose not to kill?
A. I find it morally wrong.
B. I want to avoid punishment, otherwise I would.
But until this survey is carried out, people will have to decide for themselves which seems more likely.
In the absence of social influences, is a child born with a fundamental set of morals?
Speaking from experience, I was taught that homosexuals were bad and that women were worth less than men. I was also taught that most people on earth deserved death. These aren't views I shared, so my personal sense of morality won out despite outside influence.
The observed behavior of the chimpanzees may or may not have a justifiable reason. As human beings, we try and put some rationale behind it, but we are only speculating.
There is no speculating that the one mother-daughter murdering 'team' stopped killing once they had children of their own. If it was just behaviour with no justification, why did it stop? Some factor must have had an influence on them.
Here's another page on that issue:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11844-stressed-female-chimps-kill-rivals-young--.html
It would be great if people really did have that global view. I maintain that most of humanity does not.
Fair enough, but I see people giving money to those in need in far off lands, trying to do something about the atrocities in far off lands and accepting people from poorer countries to work alongside them in the more developed countries. I see people from all over the world working together to find cures. I see people around the world sharing what they have, or exchanging what they have for what they need. I see the concern for those in So Cal right now with the fires there, just as I saw the concern for those in New Orleans when the flood happened and the concern for those who were caught up in the Asian tsunami.
I maintain that it does, and I say that based on good reason.
If God is all and in all, there would have been His teachings in all societies literatures and peoples before the bible was written. All I am trying to say is that your concept of 'good' comes from the Judeo-Christian ethic, whether you recognize it or not..
Then why can't you say it comes from Egyptian teachings originally?
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
jgnat (or NW!):
I work from the knowledge that God exists, based on my own, first-hand experience. Everything flowed from that.
Like the man believing in the invisible troll in my example works from the 'knowledge' it exists, and attributes things to the invisible troll when there are other explanations available.
Weasel words. Respond more completely, and I'll continue to dignify this discussion.
It's the simplest explanation for what you've done.
I say there are underlying principles that guide us on what we apply and what we discard. Living by underlying principles is not cherry picking.
What made you decide what these underlying principles were?
I've given two examples and two religions who do just that.
In the first 1800 years of Christianity, slavery was an accepted practice. They had the same book you have, so are you saying you are more enlightened than all the priests and clergymen who studied it in great detail over hundreds of years?
But I thought your argument is that goodness can be learned from the examples provided in nature. Are you saying that deceit, injustice, cruelty, and cannibalism are "good"?
I wasn't saying 'good' can be learned from the animals, just that they do good things too. Like us, they can also do bad things. But they are usually punished for it in some way by the other animals.
But, people are not hard wired for 'good'.
I think for the most part we are. If you surveyed a thousand people at random, the number of murderers in this group for example, would be in the minority.
That's cute, you idealist you. How about those chimpanzees, eh? Where did they learn to murder?
Animals know what murder is. They kill other animals for food, if they're not being hunted themselves. But most of us only murder when we feel it is justified.
Going back to the part I pasted in the first post, I mentioned that as well as acting in a way that causes the least suffering to those around us, we also need to take into account what will help us survive. For example, if someone is attacking and trying to kill our family, killing the attacker is justified if it is the only way to stop them.
Amongst the chimpanzees, families can fight other families over territory. For them it becomes justified because if there isn't enough food to share between two familes, some may die. From the essay you linked to, there are some theories as to why young chimpanzees are killed. If the offspring comes from 'inferior' parents, they may feel the need to kill it off so that the alpha parents' children are put first. If they come from stronger parents, it stands to reason that they would have the better chance of survival.
Humans have no need to do this as we are part of a global community, and we see other humans as part of our 'family' now.
Another example of cannibalism amongst animals would be when spiders eat each other. After mating, sometimes the female will eat the male. One is sacrificed for the good of the many (their children).
The mother, after laying her eggs, allows herself to be eaten by her offspring. She sacrifices herself for her children, as human parents have been known to do in other ways.
You haven't defined 'good' yet.
Acting in a way that causes the least suffering, while keeping in mind our need to survive as a species.
Most of the examples you've given are from Judeo-Christian thought.
Out of all the laws in the Bible, I find I can only agree with a few of them. Namely- do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not commit adultery. The 'golden rule' is a good one too. That's five.
Let's not forget that there was a moral code written down at least 300 years before the Bible was written too (see my last post). We knew what was right and wrong before Judeo-Christian teachings.
Murderers and tyrants survive, dominate, and conquer. To be at the "top" all that is required is superior breeding and staying power .
We do not need to have a battle to be at the top. We can survive without it. In most cases, we try to put murderers behind bars and remove tyrants from power. If they want to act in that manner, they have to either hide or be protected in some way in order to continue that lifestyle.
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
I've recently started researching the Egyptian book of the dead, so this is worth mentioning too.
There are good moral guidelines to be found in that, and they were written around 1800BC.
The Schofield Reference Bible estimates that the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and the provision of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai occurred in 1491 BCE., some three centuries later. Thus, many religious liberals, historians, and secularists have concluded that the Hebrew Scripture's Ten Commandments were based on this earlier document, rather than vice-versa.
A comparison of the Book of the Dead text with the version of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20:2-17 is striking. Both consist of a series of negative statements.
Comparing another translation of the Book with the King James Version of Exodus:
 | Book of the Dead: "I have done away sin for thee and not acted fraudulently or deceitfully. I have not belittled God. I have not inflicted pain or caused another to weep. I have not murdered or given such an order. I have not used false balances or scales. I have not purloined (held back) the offerings to the gods. I have not stolen. I have not uttered lies or curses." |
| Exodus 20:7-16: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain....Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery...Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor..." |
For more information and more moral laws from the Book of the Dead, check here- http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cl.htm
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
I say all of mankind has it wrong.... a bit. God is all that is good, and none of us has the complete picture.
You cannot possibly know any of that. I understand it's what you believe, but why believe something you just can't know? Why not just say 'I don't know'?
(Who's SB?)
Regarding your standard answer to "what is good" picking at the bible is not going to do it for me. The overriding principle that all bible rules are based is; Love God with all you have and love others as yourself. You will also find in Jewish thought that concept of overriding principles. One of theirs is, "reverence for life". This overriding principle governed their actions on what rule is to be taken precedent over another. If, for instance, only "unclean" food is available, eat. It is a greater disrespect to life to end it. This is where the Witnesses are hopelessly tangled, trying to pretend that the bible is perfectly consistent; killing adulterers, or letting a child die from lack of blood is somehow a "loving act". There are overriding principles that can be applied to various "rules" in the bible, and allow us to discard some over others.
Cherry picking.
I maintain that some of your examples of animal "morality" is anthropomorphism. There are also plenty of examples in the animal kingdom of deceit, injustice, cruelty, cannibalism…
As there are amongst humans.
Even though it is true that we are totally dependent of our civilization for our ease (food, shelter, clothing), most people are unaware of it.
If we evolved with it, I can't see why we would have to be aware of it. It's just us. It's how we're 'hard wired'.
we don’t kill because there is an imposed morality from the larger society
I can't see myself killing if I'd been born on an island with 50 people and we had no idea about religion. Even if there were no rules written down. It's more an unspoken rule. We all know it's wrong.
That morality, like it or not, derives from Judeo-Christian thought.
Explain cultures without that influence who are morally good.
Explain how we survived thousands of years before the Judeo-Christian religion came along if we were all killing each other, which you have to admit we were doing if morality comes from that religion.
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
jgnat:
But that doesn't make your interpretation any more right, does it?
I think it depends on what's more plausible. If I trip over, I could claim I fell over an invisible troll but I don't think anyone would believe me. Why? No proof for the invisible troll. Another explanation would be more satisfactory. God and the invisible troll are on equal footing, there's just as much reason to believe in either of them.
You are going to have to dig deeper than that. Where does the concept of a higher good come from? I would suggest, from your worldview, that it is a compilation, an accretion of generations of cultural imprinting. In other words, from Christianity.
I've heard this argument a gazillion and one times and there's a response to it in the first post in this thread in my message to BurnTheShips. I won't paste it again here, so just check there.
Don't assume. I say one God exists, and that many versions are out there to describe Him. All describe in part, but none the whole.
All are contradictory. Does God have multiple personality disorder?
Why? I want the reasons, in detail. They are important.
Why should we know what's real or not? I suppose it's because how we view the world affects how we act.
If I received a cheque in the post for a million pounds (or dollars), my belief would give me comfort, it would take away any stress I have about bills, it may give me the strength to phone up my boss and tell him where to stick it. That belief would change my life in so many good ways. But what if I found out the cheque was a fake, part of a TV show stunt for example? Well then I would have to live with the consequences of my actions. I would have lived a lie. I may have got other peoples hopes up. How about if my family got together every Sunday to talk about what we'd do with the money when it came? What if they quit their jobs, stopped trying to get the loan they were after, bought lots of expensive things with the money they had already?
It may be all well and good to have the comfort, but it comes with baggage. We saw a similar thing with the JWs in 1975. They believed something that wasn't real, and unfortunately it had side effects which were bad.
That's just one angle. There's a few others too.
In context, we were talking about the extinction of the native religions. SB maintained that reality led to their decline. I maintained that a majority religion killed it off. SB, you are going to have to provide proof to back up your assertion here.
I think in context I said that reality led to the decline of older gods, and then you gave the example of the Indian Americans beliefs. I then agreed with you that the majority came into it too. People are free to worship those gods now, but for the most part we choose not to. Not because we're not allowed, but because we don't see them as realistic now. Not every god dismissed has been dismissed under pressure. Sometimes they just die out over time because they are seen as superstitious.
I do maintain that following a traditional ritualistic killing of an animal that honors it, results in saner killing. I also maintain that the absence of that respect led to the extinction of the passenger pigeon and the near-extinction of the buffalo.
And in that way religious beliefs helped. They just aren't needed. I don't want animals to suffer, but I don't need to believe in unrealistic things to think that way.
SB, what gave you the concept of "good"?
(SW) Just check the first post to BurnTheShips.
Now, I would like to know what specific danger there is in belief.
It depends on the religion, so these won't all apply to one:
Prevents independent thought.
Children are indoctrinated.
Fear of hell/ armageddon.
Fear of life without an invisible friend.
People may pray instead of getting or giving real help.
Keeps people ignorant of the facts of life.
Creates a lack of concern for humanity's problems (if it's believed Jesus will be back any day now to help us out)
Holds back science.
Killing 'witches' (which continues to this day in some places)
Suicide bombing.
Planes flown into buildings.
Killing apostates.
Wars.
Catholics in Africa telling people condom use is immoral- not helping with the AIDS epidemic.
Opposing euthanasia.
Discrimination of homosexuals.
Killing homosexuals.
Women not treated as man's equal.
Guilt. Masturbation becomes a sin, people are made to feel they're not worthy and deserve death and that only religion can 'save' them.
People may give up on their dreams in this life hoping for a better afterlife.
writetoknow:
A quote I heard. I'm not sure of the author/speaker:
"Those who don't want their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
You have the right to tell people all about your religion. Atheists also have the right to give their side. By saying we can't, you are making yourself out to be a hypocrite. Nobody hates you, but there are those who do hate what you believe, with good reason. You are not being forced to stop reading the Bible or go to church. These are words, and if you find them hateful you are under no obligation to read them. It may be seen as hate because you're not used to it, but it's just a taboo that's been broken. America seems to be on the verge of a theocracy and Islam (and all the dangers that brings) is spreading through Europe at an alarming rate. These religious groups may end up using nuclear weapons against each other (many in both groups believe that has to happen in order for their saviour to come back). If we don't speak up now, there may come a time where we'll be put to death or put in jail for not being religious. That may seem impossible now, but it's happened before, and if nobody says anything, what will stop it happening again? We can't take that chance.
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
Ehh, I give up with you. There's only so many times I can say 'here is the proof- look at it.'
As for my research - I do plenty. Most days in fact. It doesn't matter that I'm not religious. You don't need to be Egyptian to understand Egyptian beliefs.
My credentials? Show me the credentials that show why not believing in Thor is the right position to take and I'll show you my credentials.
Tell me what you made of the proof I gave, and I'll have a conversation with you. Right now, you're just wasting my time and I'll ignore you. Have the last word now if you like...
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
Much of what they say attempts to avoid evidence.
LOL
The fact of the matter is that there is a wealth of scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Where?
The atheists we have quoted are just like the religious fundamentalists in that they want only their view presented and no other options given.
A lie. Believe what you wish, but don't be so shocked if we ask for evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.
Some atheists are now proposing that parents who indoctrinate their children with belief in God need to be prosecuted for child abuse.
If you tell a child you'll stick their hand in a fire if they're naughty, that's mental abuse. If you tell a child they'll burn forever if they don't agree with your religion, that's fine? Oh. Okay.
We frequently hear the Salem Witch Trials held up as an example of the horrors of religion, but how many people died in those trails--thousands? In reality, fewer than 25.
That was ONE trial. There were thousands of trials.
The fact that atheism has done even worse things does not negate the problems of religion.
This one again? Yawn.
Many man-made systems call themselves Christian and contradict the teachings of Christ. The Crusades were in diametric opposition to the teachings of Christ. No one following the teachings of Jesus would bomb an abortion clinic, support the Ku Klux Klan, or support woman or child abuse.
Depends where you cherry pick from really.
If survival of the fittest is your mantra, why would you do anything to support and ensure the survival of the less fit?
There's more to evolution than that narrow view.
Some atheists have viewed abortion as the only answer to this question
Being atheist doesn't automatically make you pro-choice. It's a lack of belief in a god, that's it. Everything is open to discussion.
The big question is how many of our children will we have to lose to atheism and the consequences of rejecting faith in the meantime.
What consequences would this be? The Biblical hell doesn't exist.
What were the consequences of leaving behind belief in other disproven gods? Humanity progressed.
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
Atheism is a religion in the same way 'off' is a TV channel or bald is a hair colour.
writetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
If the Biblical heaven is real, will it be filled with idiots?
