The God Arguement

[phookat]

Originally posted by Gunthr
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.

That is not an atheist "doctrine".  Do you think that, because I am an atheist, I think all religions should be made illegal?  You would be wrong to say that.  This alone proves that what you think of as atheist "doctrine" is totally unfounded.

Here's an example of an atheist law: "There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore March is National Chalk Appreciation Month".  I challenge you to find such a law in the US.

Originally posted by Gunthr
respectfully, you sound more like an agnostic to me.

Nope.  Agnostic means you think you can't have any knowledge at all regarding god.  You can't say anything about evidence or no evidence.  Agnostic means "lack of knowledge".

[phookat]

Originally posted by AWMac
You have no idea what is out there or what is coming.

You're right.  The Koran says you'll go to hell if you believe in Jesus.  You never know...they might be right.

Originally posted by AWMac
Got GOD?

Got dictator?

[phookat]

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

I don't know much about Star Trek, but I don't think there's a whole lot of religion there.

But for Star Wars, you have to remember that was a long time ago in a galaxy far away.  So yeah, they had religion.  You know, the Force and Jedis, etc.

[Gunthr]

Here's an example of an atheist law: "There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore March is National Chalk Appreciation Month". I challenge you to find such a law in the US. - phookat

here is another example of an athiest law(by your definition): "There is no evidence for the existance of God, therefore March is National Muslim Re-education month.  this is an example of what i would object to.  therefore, i'm against atheism as a basis for any laws, and for it being taught in schools.  separation of church and state.


phookat, you define atheism as having the position that there is no evidence that God exists.  you said that you could change if evidence subsequently becomes available.  this logically means that you accept the possibility that evidence that God exists may be out there somewhere - and that God may, in fact exist.  its just that, as of this moment, you do not know.  if so, your position is no different than an agnostic.

why do you feel the need to somehow show me that my particular belief is wrong?  i think that this is the single largest problem facing the athiest believers today; for far too many athiests, atheism is just a hobby.  you can identify them by the way they constantly challenge those who believe in some concept of God.    me, i'm the live and let live type of person.  you believe what you want to, it is your right.

[Shuckins]

Phoo, you're still missing my point about nature, or deliberately misconstruing what I meant.  

I believe God works within the established laws of physics, cosmology, and natural law.  Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and predation can, logically, only work according to natural law.  Anything else would lead to disaster.  Thus, it isn't worthwhile to blame God for the way natural law works.  Human concepts of cruelty, of right and wrong, don't fit the world of nature.  To attempt to make them fit would be like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Besides, as I state previously, these remarks are not directed at anything you have posted, but are in response to a query from another bulletin-board member.  

Hissy fit.  If I ever have one you'll know it.  

Our laws, or more specifically our morality, have had a long developmental history, and comes from many sources.  The first written code of law, Hammurabi's Code, predates the Ten Commandments.  Hammurabi was the high priest of the city-state of Babylon.  His religious beliefs undoubtedly influenced his thinking when the code was being drawn up.  The Ten Commandments bears some similarities to it, and was also undoubtedly influenced by the moral beliefs of Zoroastrianism.

Almost every law code written since ancient times has drawn upon religious writings for inspiration.  While the influence of religion has not always been positive, it is gross exaggeration for anyone to state that it had nothing to do with the development of modern ideas of equality and the rule of law.

While Islam comes in for a fair amount of bashing on these boards, Muhammad instituted some very progressive reforms during his lifetime, particularly in the area of women's rights.  Could he have instituted such reforms without "the force of God" backing him up?  I seriously doubt it.  Have his followers always followed his more moderate teachings?  Of course not, but that shouldn't negate any of the positive influences his teachings have had upon the Middle East and the world.  

During the Middle Ages, Islamic nations produced the world's greatest scientists and mathematicians, for muslims scholars believed it was the will of Allah that man increase his knowledge, so that he might more fully understand the greatness and wisdom of his creator.  That fervor for learning spread to Europe after the Crusades, and brought about the revival of knowledge and art known as the Renaissance.  The Protestant Reformation directly resulted from the spread of literacy and learning across Europe, and eventually led, by long tortuous steps, to the concept of Freedom of Religion, or for some modern revisionists, Freedom from Religion.

So, I suppose you're right in that the human propensity for morality may be evolutionary in nature, for it has certainly evolved throughout the 7000 year history of human civilization.

Certainly, millions have been killed in the name of faith, but there is nothing that the evil of man cannot pervert;  and let us not lose sight of the fact that the greatest mass murderers in history have been who forsook religion totally, and plunged the world into madness.


So, now, on to another matter.  Sources state that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.  wow.  What a surprise.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't membership in the Academy voluntary?  Would I also be right in assuming that birds of a feather tend to flock together?  Exactly what does that statistic prove?  That people tend to join clubs of people that already share their beliefs?  How many scientists do not belong to the Academy?  Of  that number, how many are Christian or Muslim or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus?

By the way, it isn't entirely accurate to state that atheists do not have a belief system and are not organized.  They believe that all religion is bad and attempt to save mankind from that evil.  To that end, they proselytize the unwashed masses, trying to win converts to their view, and strive to relegate religion to irrelevance.  


You are proselytizing, aren't you?

[ink]

Originally posted by phookat
I believe you are correct that it doesn't state this explicitly in the Bible.  There are some passages that indicate "the foundations of the earth" and "the earth doesn't move", and "the sun stayed in one place in the sky for an hour", things of that nature, which show that the writers of the Bible (and most everyone else before Galileo) thought the Earth was the stationary center of the universe.  I think the reason it wasn't explicitly stated is that it was too obvious.  Of course the Sun goes around the Earth, that doesn't need to be revealed to you.  On the contrary I think the lack of a description of the Helio-centric solar system in the Bible is very telling.

for your information in the bible {old testament}

 its stated that GOD resides above the circle of the earth,

when the words "foundation of the earth" are stated.
 its referring to when GOD created the earth the beginning of the earth or even before the earth was created.

 i have read many different religions bibles'

christen bibles

they are all the same, very minor differences

the bible is the only TRUTH in this world

and science proves GOD is real

one more thing:   6 days he created, on the 7th he rested
that is by no means 6, 24 hour days.
"...to GOD a day is a thousand years  and a thousand years is as a day..."

 {i say he figuratively}
peace

[AWMac]

Apparently Phoo  *short for Poop* has never....

Dated in High School:  Oh Lord, get me to 3rd base.

Had a Prom Date: Ohhh Lordy, I'm almost there.

Had Finals in College: Holy Jesus get me through this.

Got Married: Jesus Christ what did I do?

Got Divorced: Christ now what?

Gotten Drunk: GOD I'll never drink again.

Woke up with a Beast in a Hotel Room:  Holy crap.... GOD if I can just slip outta this room.

Pulled over by the Cops: I swear Jesus if you pull me outta this crap....

The list goes on.... add on if you will.



Mac

[phookat]

Originally posted by Shuckins
So, now, on to another matter.  Sources state that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.  wow.  What a surprise.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't membership in the Academy voluntary?  Would I also be right in assuming that birds of a feather tend to flock together?  Exactly what does that statistic prove?  That people tend to join clubs of people that already share their beliefs?  How many scientists do not belong to the Academy?  Of  that number, how many are Christian or Muslim or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus?

You completely missed the point.  First of all, people don't join the NAS because they are atheists.  Secondly, what this shows is that atheism does not lead to moral depravity.  And finally, you are still wrong about lack of belief leading to the gutter.  There are countries that have a high level of atheism but also have healthy societies.  Therefore atheism does not necessarily lead to disaster, and faith does not necessarily lead to a healthy society.  It's optional, and we don't need it to be good.

Originally posted by Shuckins
By the way, it isn't entirely accurate to state that atheists do not have a belief system and are not organized.  They believe that all religion is bad and attempt to save mankind from that evil.

Incorrect.  You can be an atheist and think there is no evidence for God, but still think that religion is a good idea for "keeping the unwashed masses in line", even if it is false.

And in that whole long post where you describe the sources and inspiration of various legal systems, you still didn't address my question: Do we get our morality from the Bible?  In my view, all the religious texts are manmade, and whenever some law "gets inspiration" from a religion, it is just getting inspiration from a manmade source.  Nothing wrong with that.  Since it is manmade, we can pick and choose the parts we want, and everything is open to discussion and criticism.

So maybe I should step back and ask you this.  Are you a Christian?  Do you believe the Christian God exists and is perfect?  Do you believe the Bible is His perfect word?

[phookat]

Originally posted by AWMac
The list goes on.... add on if you will.

I just use Satan for all of that. Hail!

[AWMac]

Satan will do you Wonders.... go for it!.



Mac

[phookat]

Originally posted by ink
i have read many different religions bibles'

christen bibles

they are all the same, very minor differences

Yeah, just minor things, like in one of them believing in Jesus gets you to heaven, and in the other believing in Jesus sends you to Hell.  No big differences though.

Originally posted by ink
the bible is the only TRUTH in this world

Yes, absolutely, see right there in the Bible, it says "the Bible is true".  Praise Jesus!

Originally posted by ink
and science proves GOD is real

You're not a writer for "The Onion", are you?

Originally posted by ink
one more thing:   6 days he created, on the 7th he rested
that is by no means 6, 24 hour days.
"...to GOD a day is a thousand years  and a thousand years is as a day..."

A common copout.  Actually, there are several Hebrew words for "day", and the one they used in this passage of Genesis was the one that very specifically meant "a single day, a night and day cycle".  So when they said "day" they didn't mean "time in general", they really meant "day".  I'm not a Hebrew expert myself, but I have had some discussions with others.  It's an interesting textual argument, anyway.

More likely what happened was that the people who wrote this myth didn't know very much about the origins or structure of the universe, and they knew everyone else was as ignorant as they were on the subject.  So they could come up with whatever they wanted, and they knew it would be believed.  Of course they tried for something epic and awe-inspiring.  What science has been able to find out about actual reality is, IMO, far more awe-inspiring than all those creation myths.

[phookat]

Originally posted by AWMac
Satan will do you Wonders.... go for it!

Plus she's a pretty hot babe, according to that movie I saw.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Nature is an amoral system.  There isn't a single animal on the face of the earth that has the intellect to make differentiations between "right" and "wrong."

Except for one....man.  

Some atheists attempt to graft humanity's morality system onto the actions of nature's denizens as a means of debunking belief in God.  Yet, if all of nature possessed man's aversion to killing there would be disastrous, runaway procreation by the animal kingdom, followed by mass starvation.

THAT is why one has never heard of a Biblical code of conduct for the animal kingdom.  The system couldn't work any other way.  

Mankind is different....we know full well what murder is....so the rules are different for us, as they should be.  Therefore, we are held accountable for our actions...by governmental authorities if one is an atheist, and also by God, if one is a deist.

A religious man believes that, while mankind might have developed within this natural system, he was meant to rise above it.  

Regards, Shuckins

Huh?

Amoral animals kill "lesser" beings for food. Doh - so do most moral and pious  men.

Amoral animals kill their own kind protecting territory or in protecting dominance. Doh - so would most moral and pious men (at least those posting here).

Animals kill indiscriminately to protect themselves from immediate  mortal threat. Doh - so would most moral and pious men (t least those posting here).

Differences:

Amoral animals kill what they need to survive and do not waste. Only man kills other animals as a sport for pleasure.

Very few territorial disputes or dominance trials result in killing in the animal kingdom, and most are a result of the intruder not backing down, not of extreme aggression on the part of the "defender". It's rare that an animal will pro-actively kill to stave off a future threat. That's Man's domain.

Who's to say that base thoughts equivalent to: "I really don't want to hurt or kill you, but I cannot become subservient to you or be cast out of my territory because doing so would almost surely mean my own death,"  aren't running through an alpha wolf's brain when he's challenged by a junior?

How are these moral "decisions" different from what man demonstrates?

Aren't man's moral decisions just at a more complex level, in keeping with our more complex brain.

Or maybe....

Man is a much lesser moral being than any other natural creature. As we seem to need a divine book and the promise of a greater purpose (more accurately the threat of eternal damnation) to keep us on the correct moral path.

Perhaps an atheist who is leading a good and moral life can be trusted far more than a deeply religious person who is being moral only out of fear or from the suggestion of a book or like-minded followers.

Just like I can trust my dog to be true and loyal to the end much more than I can trust most of the people in my life - and particularly some of the deeply religious people who only answer to God.

Isn't it more likely that man is moral by nature, as an evolutionary bi-product of protecting the species, and that we have projected that morality through the creation of religion, than morality is ours alone as a gift given by God?

I tell you it's some funny joke God is playing, that man, alone in the universe as a moral being, fails so miserably so often while all around the natural world sets an example.

[Shuckins]

Few would debate the morality of killing for food or protection.  As to killing for pleasure, every predator enjoys the kill.  

Is that wrong?  Hardly.  I personally believe the inclination to hunt is instinctive.  Fossil evidence indicates that our ancestors have been doing it for millioins of years.  Man is an omnivore, like the bear.  

The male bear will kill and devour the offspring of another male bear in order to breed the mother.  Is that cruel?  Only to some ditzy-minded, sensitive modern urbanite who thinks human morality has some sort of relevance when judging the natural world.

If you are not a vegetarian, then you probably have enjoyed a well-cooked ribeye at some point.  Undoubtedly, you did not kill it yourself.  Nevertheless, someone else killed it on your behalf so that you could "enjoy" your steak.  In effect, you had a living, breathing animal killed for your own pleasure.

Oh, it is a myth to state that predators kill only for food and do not waste.  Wolves are notorious for killing more than they need.  What is that, if not killing for the sheer joy of killing.  Perhaps they need the practice.  So spare me the platitudes about the purity of the natural system and animals existing in a "state of grace."  That is strictly a human judgement.

As to your statement that only man kills preemptively to protect himself, I can only say balderdash.  Wolves will kill a coyote on sight, provided they can catch it.  Need I remind you of the constant, never-ending warfare that lions and hyenas wage?  Hyenas are a constant danger to lion cubs.  There is definitely much safer prey to stalk than a lion cub surrounded by a pride of irate females.  So why do they do it?  Preemptive strike perhaps, to reduce the number of lions?  Who knows for certain.

Suffice it to say that the modern idea that the natural world is somehow "purer" than that of man is sheer fantasy.  It is neither cruel nor unjust.  It is what it is....urban notions notwithstanding.

[Seagoon]

Hi All,

Sorry to be jumping in so, late. I was away all last week in Memphis and then I've been catching up and organizing a conference for most of this week. Forgive me if I respond to some points in prior posts.

Originally posted by Chairboy
The problem, of course, is that it dismisses the theory of infinite regression of cause.  Just because you assume that every cause must have an effect doesn't mean that, when dealing with the question of the beginning of the universe, that every effect must have a cause.  We're still learning new things every day, it seems a bit early to dismiss everything because, mathematically, a bumblebee cannot possibly fly.

Philosophy is composed of questions that cannot be answered, and religion is answers that cannot be questioned.

Chair respectfully, while it makes for a nifty catchphrase the AH OC disproves your second point. Around here and indeed throughout Europe and most of America, Christianity is treated with a hermeneutic of suspicion - everything that it declares is considered suspect. I myself grew up automatically doubting the veracity of everything taught in the bible. Interestingly enough, the bible itself states that the natural man will be absolutely disinclined to believe what it teaches.

In any event, the high priests of our society who teach unquestionable doctrines these days are not ministers but scientists. Just as an example of this phonomenon, the minister at your local mainline church may be permitted to disbelieve any and every doctrine taught in the bible, a teacher of theology in a divinity school may actively teach that the bible is a book of myths and fables, that Christianity is a historical oddity, and that there is no God (many do) but a scientist who publically doubts doctrines like evolution or even global warming is likely to be branded a heretic and a fool and loose his place in the academy.

As to your first point regarding contingency, the laws of the universe that we can identify such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics forbid an infinite regression (additionally, there are good philosophical arguments that show an infinite regression is theoretically impossible).

As I stated in another thread, there are really only three possibilities to explain the existence of the Universe:

"1) It Was Spontaneously Generated - Nothing Generated Everything. This violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

2) It is Eternal - This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the amount of energy in a closed system is constant and that energy and that energy while not lost is becoming less and less usable, entropy as I quoted earlier means that "the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. The universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy."

Had the Universe always been here entropy would have been completed - you'd already have maximum disorder and minimum energy.

3) It Was Created - this violates neither of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but it does obviously upset a great number of people who don't like the implications. I can sympathize having been there myself."

Regardless Chair, there is far more evidence for the existence of God than there is that my great, great, grandfather existed. No one alive has ever met my great, great grandfather or knows his name, he has left behind no record, or evidence that he lived, and all efforts to trace him have proven fruitless. As far as the available evidence is concerned my great grandfather might well be the product of spontaneous generation, and yet I can almost guarantee that despite a total lack of evidence, no one on the board doubts his existence. By comparison, there is ample evidence for the existence of the Triune God; many alive today know Him quite well and know His name, He has revealed Himself to us both through nature and an entirely sufficient written record and those who genuinely seek Him, find Him - and yet doubts about the existence of God are legion. As such, evidence alone will never be the key to believing or disbelieving in God, as I mentioned in the beginning, we are not naturally inclined to believe in the God of the bible and only He can change that state of affairs. Thank heavens that He does or I'd still be an non-believer myself.

- SEAGOON