The God Arguement

[moot]

Shuckins, take it easy.  People are by nature attracted to what is good for them.  Destruction is not something anyone would consciously strive for unless they were misled.
Education is what got men out of the caves, and that's still true today.  You don't need religion to make the right decisions in life, but it is quite a good crutch in a lot of ways.  

Once the concept of final judgement and accountability is rejected, man can find arguments to justify almost any type of conduct.

That's a dark side of the moon argument.  He could do just that, and the most likely conduct to be chosen is the one that's most good for him.. it's that simple.

[Furball]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Christianity is what, about 1,000 years now.
Judaism is at least twice that old dating back to at least the time of the great Pharos

Just curious how old a religeon has to be before it is considered "ancient"?

That is not what i was trying to say...

The point i was trying to make, is that religion will have a hard time keeping up with human development, as it has done in the past.  

I believe that in the future, the worlds current religions will go the same way as those which are no longer practiced, and just be for the history books.

I'm not a big fan... are there religious people in Star Trek and Star Wars?

[Furball]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Furball, I agree that Seagoon brings a lot of class to this type of discussion.  He makes his points lucidly, with fervor, and never seems to lose his cool....unlike those on either side who preach a mantra and utilize the "I'm here to convert the illiterate and unwashed masses" argument.

If you're interested in a clear and concise presentation of what are, perhaps, the most pertinent cosmological theories about the creation of the universe, check out these sites:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/3.12.98/Guth_coverage.html



http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html

Thanks shuckins, i will check these out later.

[Ghosth]

Shuckins, if you believe your bible, you can blame that directly on Adam & Eve.

Only mankind has eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

All the other animals are "innocents" they lack the capability to consider those things. As to why so many people do bad things they shouldn't, well maybe, just maybe they are reverting back to animals.

Furball, Star Wars "IS" my religion.  Well a part of it anyway.

Believe in the force!
What do you think a "Jedi" is?  A  warrior monk? A future age Knight Templar?

As for religion on the grand scale, it is my belief that.

A If enough people believe strongly enough in "something" whatever that might be. That will eventually call or will that "being" into existence.  Perhaps not as a person, ie I don't expect to see superman buzzing NY,NY. But on a spiritual/god level.

B Given enough time (2k years) Mankind can screw up ANYTHING. Including a religion.  My point, all of the "kosher" food & diet rules, regulations stemmed from a single admonition. "Thou shalt not seeth (boil) a Kid in its own mothers milk".  Some 2000 years later that has been argued over, interpreted, played with, adjusted and tweaked to become the vast mass of rules known as Kosher.

C If you can imagine something, a concept, a force, a Magick if you will.
If you can completely grasp all of it, and all of its implications. If you can see yourself bring this into existence by sheer force of willpower. And if you can "Believe" that you can do this now, that you DID just do this. (Shades of starwars, there is no try, there is do or do not)

Then you can do Magick, you can make things happen for which there is no explanation. Call it mysticism,  call it force of character or will, call it belief. Call it what you will.

[lazs2]

why would anyone care to prove it one way or the other?

lazs

[Gunthr]

phookat -

whatever belief is central to atheism - that which without, you would not be an atheist, that is your central doctrine.

i didn't say i would kill an islamist because of his belief.   i respect his right to believe anything he wants.  yours too.  an Islamist can believe whatever he wants as long as he doesn't try to hurt me.  i wouldn't kill him for his beliefs, i would kill him only because he is attacking me.  i hope this makes it clearer for you.

your post sounds as if you are defending atheism, as if i'm attacking it.  I'm not.

[Hap]

Originally posted by lazs2
why would anyone care to prove it one way or the other?

lazs

Now there's a good question!

[Chairboy]

A quick weigh-in, my problem with religion is when it affects my kids or my freedoms.  I don't want my kids taught Creationism as fact or even likely in the schools, or given textbooks that go to lengths to downplay the likelihood of evolution.  The US's standing is dropping internationally in science and education because of feel good PC stuff like this.

Also, when a law is passed with religion as the motivating factor behind it, we suffer.  Prohibition was a morality law, and violated some of the basic ideals of freedom in our country.  Same with other morality issues like prohibition of gay marriage, etc.  If "Because god said so" is at the base of a law and it can't stand on its own, then it's a problem.

[Gunthr]

the only problem i have with the atheist belief system is exactly the same, Chair.  i don't want atheism taught in schools, or used as the basis for any laws.  

but using atheism or theism as a basis moral judgements? i don't have any problem at all with people doing that.  i don't see it as a problem.  i think i'll leave each to his own.  i believe each and every person is free to, and has every right to base their moral judgements on  whatever they please.  i don't see it as a problem at all - even though my beliefs may be different.

[Chairboy]

Moral judgements: Fine, go for it.  Extending those to law, though, let's make sure there's a non theocratic base.

Before you flip out, consider this: In some religions, it's considered immoral for women to expose their face in public.  If you endorse christianity as a base for laws in the US (where all religions are supposed to be welcome), then you risk being labeled a hypocrite for objecting to a law based on another religion that you disagree with.

A request, you mention that you don't want atheism used as a basis for any laws.  Could you provide some real-world examples so I know what you're talking about?

[phookat]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Phoocat, exactly WHAT parts of the animal kingdom exhibit morality?  No behavior that can be explained by meer instinct is sufficient to stand as an example.

Here's an example from a recent experiment: "a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html
Anyway, as I said, whether animals exhibit what we call moral behavior or not, has no bearing on whether God exists.  I don't see why you are having such a hissy fit over this matter.

Originally posted by Shuckins
In response, I stated that no code of conduct or morality, such as those that humans impose upon themselves, or believe that God gave to them, could not work for the amoral world of nature.

It could if God wanted it to.  He's all-powerful, isn't he?  Trying to apply logic within the context of a faith-based idea is futile.  You're going to run into an inconsistency somewhere.

Originally posted by Shuckins
In addition, I also stated that mankind is the only species capable of understand morality and developing a concept of sin and a sense of wrong-doing.  That makes us unique.

This sense of morality is very likely evolutionary in origin, as I posted above.

Originally posted by Shuckins
I firmly believe that the rejection of belief in a higher moral authority will lead mankind down a slippery slope toward destruction.

93% of the National Academy of Sciences say they are atheist.  Are they slaughtering each other and robbing banks?  According to the UN Human Development of 2005, the healthiest societies (as evidenced by a variety of societal indicators) are the ones that are most heavily atheist.  Now don't get me wrong: that does *not* mean atheism necessarily leads to happiness.  But what it *does* mean is that religious belief does not necessarily lead to a better society, and that atheism does not necessarily lead to chaos.  In other words, you are wrong.

Originally posted by Shuckins
And bye the way, all religions are NOT created equal.

OK then, simple question.  Do you think we get our morality from the Bible?

[phookat]

Originally posted by Gunthr
the only problem i have with the atheist belief system is exactly the same, Chair.

This is a cheap way of attempting to make a moral equivalence between faith and atheism.  An equivalence which does not exist.  Once again, atheism is the falsifiable position that there exists no evidence for God.  An atheists mind can be changed if evidence is shown.  This is why atheism is not a doctrine or dogma.  You can keep bleating "atheist belief system", but it won't get you anywhere.

Originally posted by Gunthr
i don't want atheism taught in schools, or used as the basis for any laws.

Give me an example of an atheist law, or how atheism is taught in schools.  And keep in mind what atheism is, as I stated above.  Teaching physics in physics class without saying a prayer at the beginning does not make it an "atheist physics class."  

Originally posted by Gunthr
i didn't say i would kill an islamist because of his belief.   i respect his right to believe anything he wants.  yours too.  an Islamist can believe whatever he wants as long as he doesn't try to hurt me.  i wouldn't kill him for his beliefs, i would kill him only because he is attacking me.  i hope this makes it clearer for you.

No, I'm afraid I still see this as simply saying one thing and doing another.  Beliefs don't exist in isolation.

[Gunthr]

Chairboy -

Moral judgements: Fine, go for it. Extending those to law, though, let's make sure there's a non theocratic base.

 

i agree.  if you read my posts, you will see that i fervently support the separation of what is termed "church and state".  i also believe in the separation of atheist beliefs from affairs of the state.  no laws should be based on either theism or atheism.

your comment "before you flip out" was uneccessary.


as i said before (it should be clear to you by now)  i do not endorse Christianity as a basis for our laws.  Moral judgements in my view, are quite different. People can believe whatever they want and base their moral judgements on whatever they wish.  unless we want to create "thought police".

request, you mention that you don't want atheism used as a basis for any laws. Could you provide some real-world examples so I know what you're talking about? - Chair

sure.  any laws based on the atheist doctrine that would restrict or impede the right of people to freely believe in any concept of God.  i think the communist soviet union may be perpetrators of this kind thing.

[AWMac]

Been blessed with a Theology and Computer Science Degree from Univ of Maryland.  

You have no idea what is out there or what is coming.

Got GOD?



Mac

[Gunthr]

phookat,

This is a cheap way of attempting to make a moral equivalence between faith and atheism. An equivalence which does not exist. Once again, atheism is the falsifiable position that there exists no evidence for God. An atheists mind can be changed if evidence is shown. This is why atheism is not a doctrine or dogma. You can keep bleating "atheist belief system", but it won't get you anywhere. - phookat

atheists believe that there is no God from what I've read on the internet.  

respectfully, you sound more like an agnostic to me.

for example; I[/U] also take the position that there is no evidence for the existance of God.  But I'm a long way from being an atheist.

as for the rest of your post, there is no where to go from here.  we just disagree.