Archive for Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Moral base
January 17, 2007
Advertisement
To the editor:
Like far too many theists, Robert Smith, in a recent letter to the editor argues that morality must come from God or else all morality is subjective. However, he fails to see the subjectivity of his own position.
If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good. Is the ancient slaughter of men, women and children in the Old Testament to be considered moral and good just because it was willed by God?
Some, like Richard Smith, might think so, but most of us can agree that it is a disgusting and vile thing for God to command. We have a moral compass of our own, separate from God. This morality comes from empathy we all share toward our fellow humans, especially those close to us. We know what causes discomfort and suffering, and we wish to prevent the same suffering to befall those we care about.
As an alternative to God-driven morality, we can use our own reason to observe and determine which acts will cause suffering, and which will relieve suffering. No, we may not be designed by God, but does that make the interactions we have between us any less meaningful? The harm we can choose to inflict on each other any less painful? I think not. We have the same hopes, fears and dreams.
I think that this should be the basis for our morality. Not the subjective whims of some angry, invisible deity.
Kyle Batson,
Lawrence
17 January 2007
at 6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Very nice letter Kyle…
17 January 2007
at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
Ask most believers whether something like, say, murder…
1. Is morally wrong because god says so.
or
2. Is condemned by god because it is morally wrong.
…and they'll pick No. 2. Which proves that the morality of murder exists independently of god.
(Of course, once you've pointed that out, they'll switch their answer to the ridiculous option No. 1.)
17 January 2007
at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good. ”
I don't know of “heinous” acts “performed” by God.
“Is the ancient slaughter of men, women and children in the Old Testament to be considered moral and good just because it was willed by God?”
Willed? I don't know that any slaughter was ever “willed” by God. God says not to kill each other. Kyle says God did say, kill each other. One needs to sort that out first.
17 January 2007
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
Blah, blah, blah. God is bad and men are good. Same anti-God message but I'm sure Kyle will be applauded all day.
17 January 2007
at 8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
Didn't God have a hand in Soddom and Gomorah?
Which means he can't be too happy about how things are today, unless God is progressive like the rest of us?
17 January 2007
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“Didn't God have a hand in Soddom and Gomorah?”
Or was it that God didn't have a hand in it?
Understand the difference?
17 January 2007
at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Good grief.
SO, who elected God? Who is able to pass judgement upon Him?
Before you can speak about morality and absolute authority, you need to have a little better grasp on the term 'Almighty'.
Just a thought.
17 January 2007
at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” God says not to kill each other. Kyle says God did say, kill each other. One needs to sort that out first.”
Well, it certainly isn't sorted out in the Bible very clearly.
17 January 2007
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good.”
What is the basis for calling something “heinous” in the atheistic view?
“it is a disgusting and vile thing for God to command”
So Mr. Batson thinks his standard of morailty is higher than God's.
“our own reason to observe and determine which acts will cause suffering, and which will relieve suffering”
So his basis for determining what is moral is whether or not it causes suffering? What is the basis for using this as the basis? Why is it wrong to cause suffering? Actually, within a purely naturalistic evolutionary view, death and suffering via natural selection are what drives the development of species.
“I think that this should be the basis for our morality. Not the subjective whims of some angry, invisible deity.”
So we must accept the subjective whims of every individual instead? One thing not even considered in this letter is the justice of God. An un-just God would not require payment for sin (injustices against Him). We don't like judges who are un-just (and let criminals go on a whim or because of a bribe), so why would we want a God who is un-just? But if God is just, He has every right to punish sin and so there was nothing un-just about His destroying of Sodom & Gomorrah. The love and mercy of God is seen in Jesus in that He has provided a way for both justice to be satisfied and people to experience His love through Christ. God is both just AND the justifier (Romans 3:26)
17 January 2007
at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
If you had a garden which you wanted to bear fruit, yet it was full of weeds, you would pull up those weeds. Do you think that any of the plants has a comprehension of you as a gardener?
17 January 2007
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“But if God is just, He has every right to punish sin and so there was nothing un-just about His destroying of Sodom & Gomorrah.”
Maybe if God was a human judge. However, are God's ways, man's ways?
Was it that God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, or was it that He failed to protect them any more? Failed to protect as in being driven away from them. Even when He went to the last appeal, they fully resisted and shunned that appeal. They had their own basis of what was right and wrong and thought their ideas were as right as God's - therefore, they didn't want Him around and said they could handle their lives just fine without Him and would He please get out of their lives and quit judging them.
What more could He do? While Lot may not have been the best example, how many years did they have his influence and his brother's? Should God continue His presence where it's not wanted?
So He respected their wishes and left them to handle thieir lives themselves.
It appears that they were not so independent from Him as they had thought. There were forces around them they really needed His protection from.
17 January 2007
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
Gosh, I think the Book says God destroyed the cities. Also turned Lot's wife into salt for being curious.
17 January 2007
at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
GR— the Bible is nothing but a collection of parables written by people. Any morality derived from them is a morality devised by people— not God.
17 January 2007
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Well, if someone was in the position to protect something and didn't, isn't that the same as destroying it? Well, God is willing to take the blame for it, but that's different than actually personally doing it.
Actually, “she became a pillar of salt.” Quite different than saying God turned her into a pillar of salt.
Lot's wife was no longer protected as she longed for “the stores” or whatever. As the rest of the city was no longer protected for placing themselves outside of God, so was his wife for longing for what she was missing out on. Didn't angels have to drag them out? Didn't they say, “Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!” Therefore, she no longer had protection from chunks of salt, rocks, nor molten lava raining down on the area.
17 January 2007
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus: That's the best post of the day! It's too bad that trying to use intelligence and reason will get you “condemned” by someone in the the name of the almighty something.
17 January 2007
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
So, if the Bible is just a collection of parables, would you say it has no future predictive capabilities? Or do you say some things are true in it. If so, how do you determine which is which?
17 January 2007
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
It has some value as a historical record, and even more value as a record of the religious beliefs of the culture(s) who wrote it. It has absolutely no predictive value.
17 January 2007
at 1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
Genesis 19:22 - “'Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.' Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar.”
Genesis 19:24-25 - “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.”
17 January 2007
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
“Faith is a higher faculty than reason.”
17 January 2007
at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
Manhattie,
There is no ultimate justice or judge here. The bible does not give us our moral code. The bible is about obedience to a despot. That is all it is. You talk about justice and the ultimate judge but that is extremely misleading. Some finite being is going to be punished eternally for some finite act? There is no justice in that. How is that just? There is no reason in it either. Punishment by definition is a finite act. You can't have infinte punishment. You either obey or you are destroyed. There is no free will there. That isn't even a choice. You are using a secular moral code that has a system of punishment already set up with it and then you apply some kind od “god threats” on top of it. If you live in the United States and you follow this country's law, you are living your life according to a secular moral code. There is no need to bring God into this. I think it is a much stronger position morally speaking to be motivated internally in the absence of any fear-driven directives rather than have to rely on some external imaginary force that uses threats of destruction if you don't OBEY. Do you agree that ALL sins are equivalent? Our own justice system doesn't think so. Does a person have any value onto him or herself? Can a person be a moral agent? We live in a society where we do anticipate others will be moral, we do expect people to be responsible. We live in a society where you are not automatically assumed to be guilty and evil (concept of original sin). You are not born a sinner! Heck even the bible says that you cannot be saved by your works which would mean that it wouldn't matter if you were moral or not. The bible undermines morality.
17 January 2007
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
bozo,
I had in mind, Daniel and the image.
Manhattanite,
Isa 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
When one tries to make man's thoughts as God's thoughts, then we have a strange and fickle God. One who says, don't kill but I'll kill - like a dictator. Like I said before, if God was preventing fire and brimstone from raining down, and then He stopped preventing it, isn't that like He did rain it down? But, that's not the same as directly raining it down.
17 January 2007
at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“The bible is about obedience to a despot. That is all it is.”
The Bible is God's revelation to man of His own character and Being. That is the Christian belief. You can think that it is just about obedience to a despot, but that does not make it that nor does it make it what Christians believe.
“Some finite being is going to be punished eternally for some finite act? There is no justice in that.”
The punishment is to be in line with the extent of the offense. If a person steals a cheap watch from another, it would be unjust to require a million $ recompense. Justice would require something on the order of the cost of the watch plus perhaps a little extra for the inconveince. But sin is robbing God of what is His - doing something out of selfish motives rather than out of love for God. It is attempting to steal the glory of God, which is of infinite value. Therefore God is justified in requiring an eternal or infinitely lasting punishment.
“There is no free will there. That isn't even a choice.”
What is free will? Do you have the freedom to jump high enough that you will land on the moon?
“I think it is a much stronger position morally speaking to be motivated internally in the absence of any fear-driven directives..”
Where does this internal motivation come from? The fact that you have some sense of right and wrong demonstrates that God exists. Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? What does “wrong” mean?
17 January 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“than have to rely on some external imaginary force that uses threats of destruction if you don't OBEY.”
The point of the moral commands given in scripture is to show that we CAN'T obey them. We have no ability to do something motivated by love for God, which is what true obedience to God is. We can only change the externals, but have no ability to change the intents and motives of the heart. Only God through His Son can do this.
“Do you agree that ALL sins are equivalent? ”
Probably not in the sense you are intending the question. All sin is an attempt to rob God of His glory and so justice against all sin demands the punishment of hell. But some sin begets more sin than other sin. For example, while lust in the heart is against God and deserves hell as its punishment, it may not affect and stir up as much sin as somebody who actually commits adultery physically. Likewise, Jesus said that hating somebody in the heart is akin to murder. While this is true for the individual, for society as a whole and even others, it would be better to hate in the heart than to commit physical murder.
“Heck even the bible says that you cannot be saved by your works which would mean that it wouldn't matter if you were moral or not.”
Yes, the Bible teaches that we cannot be saved by our works because even all our righteous deeds are like a filthy rag. But this does not logically imply that there can be no punishment for sin as you are implying above. The moral law of God is to drive us to the point where we see we have no ability to keep a single command. It should cause us to cry out for deliverance from this “body of death” as the apostle Paul calls it. It should drive us humbly to the feet of Christ, who is the only one that can give us a righteousness not our own. True obedience in Christians, then, is found only through Christ who works obedience from the heart in them, which is love for God and not just an external form of obedience which is really no obedience at all.
17 January 2007
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“(I'm cool with people thinking anything they want ***so long as they don't try to make me agree***)”
which really just shows that you are not cool with people thinking anything they want. Basically, you are OK with people thinking anything so long as it doesn't go against what you think they shouldn't think.
17 January 2007
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
gr:
“Like I said before, if God was preventing fire and brimstone from raining down, and then He stopped preventing it, isn't that like He did rain it down? But, that's not the same as directly raining it down.”
I see what you are saying, but how do you get around the direct language used in Genesis 19? “fire from the LORD out of heaven”. How could it be FROM the Lord if it didn't really come from Him? Where else would it have come from? Also, why would it be sinful for God to punish sin? While our conceptions of justice may not be perfect because we are human, God is still just and in fact, perfectly just. That is why the death of His son was required. In Romans 3 it talks about Christ propitiating the sins of his people - that is, satisfying or suffering the wrath of God for those sins.
17 January 2007
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“Where does this internal motivation come from? The fact that you have some sense of right and wrong demonstrates that God exists. Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? What does “wrong” mean?”
Ah now we have to open that can of worms. Really manhattie how many times do we have to go down this road….
In order to make the contention that God exist because you are moral, you have to make the assumption that God does exist.
Did you get that?
Do you understand that it is an incoherent statement. You can't define God without using the word God in it which makes it an incoherent definition. You can't define God period. You have to invoke some supernatural magical mumble jumble and try to define it from a natural standpoint. God cannot be immanent and transcendent. Christianity relies on immanence. Judaism and Islam do not have this concept. You can't claim something that is beyond nature as having a nature. Well you can claim it but it doesn't mean that it is a coherent argument. When you say God exists, then you are claiming that such an existence has an identity, has certain attributes, has a certain character. All of those concepts have limits. Identity, attributes, characters are all limiting concepts. If you ascribe to something that is unlimited (meaning God here) then you are saying that it can't have limits. Thus it means it can't have an identity, it can't have attributes, it can't have character. So when you make the statement that the Unlimited or God exists, it is an incoherent statement and means abosolutely nothing.
17 January 2007
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“Are you high, or can you just not read? I want everyone to believe in whatever floats their boat - as long as they do not attempt to make me think as they do.”
What if what floats someone's boat is to attempt to make others think as they do? By telling them you are not okay with that approach, you are imposing your beliefs on them and requiring that they think as you do on the issue and so therefore violating your own principle.
I will say that one cannot FORCE a person to believe something against their will. Look at countries like North Korea and even China to some extent. Authorities there attempt to force Christains to recant their faith using torture and other means of coercion. But many still do not recant. They are more willing to endure suffering than to reject God. The will cannot be forced to change though some are more willing to reject their religion than to endure much pain.
Can you demonstrate anything that you have been FORCED to believe against your will?
17 January 2007
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
So how exactly did she “become” a pillar of salt if it wasn't done by god? Evolution?
Also the Book flat says God destroyed the cities. It doesn't say God let it happen, that some sort of magic fire rainstorm had been happening all along and God put his magic God umbrella up and protected the cities. Then God got mad because apparently not enough daddies were offering up their daughters for gang bangs to keep the mobs from wanting relations with the boy angels. So God folded up his magic God umbrella and went home. Is that what you're saying?
Or don't you believe in literal reading of the Book?
17 January 2007
at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“The Bible is God's revelation to man of His own character and Being.” — Manhattie
Do you see here. This is an illogical, inconsistent statement. How can something that is supernatural and unlimited have limiting concepts such as character and beingness.
If God is X then the only being he can be is X and she cannot be what X is not. Do you understand that. If you going to stand there say that God is unlimited then you are talking about a broken concept. You can't assign any thing else to God otherwise you are making an ontological error.
Manhattie, you cannot explain how the existence of God actually works. You can only assert. You fail to recognize your presuppositions that the morality argument ultimately relies upon. It does so in that it presents god to be the foundation for morality and yet must employ the exact opposite view of logic in order to confirm this concept.
On the other hand, secular moralists do not need God as a presupposition because it is unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant. This position is much more consistent and stronger than yours.
17 January 2007
at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Ask most believers whether something like, say, murder…
1. Is morally wrong because god says so.
or
2. Is condemned by god because it is morally wrong.
…and they'll pick No. 2. Which proves that the morality of murder exists independently of god.
(Of course, once you've pointed that out, they'll switch their answer to the ridiculous option No. 1.) Souki
–––––––––––––––––––––-
Yet both answers are wrong from the theistic position. The reason that murder is wrong is because murder is against God Himself and not because of a standard that is independent of God. Now ask the atheist why murder is wrong and he has no real answer at all. In fact, he can come up with no real reason that is consistent within his worldview of why murder is wrong.
17 January 2007
at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I can see why your previous posts were so long. If they're short enough that someone might take the time to read them, their nonsense jumps right out of the computer screen.
17 January 2007
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“So I have to allow others to attempt to influence my thinking so that I don't infringe on their beliefs???”
In order to be logically consistent with your statement above, yes.
“You are basically giving credence to every repressive religious movement in the world.”
No, I'm not the one making the statement that we should not attempt to make people think a certain way. I'm just trying to point out your inconsistency in applying what you apparently believe to be a moral standard. If you really believe that we should not tell people what to think, then that would include people who think you should think as they think. By your own standard, you should not tell them not to think that. That's not my standard, it's yours.
17 January 2007
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
In order to make the contention that God exist because you are moral, you have to make the assumption that God does exist. kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––-
Or perhaps you have it backwards. To make the contention that there is morality you have to presuppose the existence of God.
=====================================
Do you understand that it is an incoherent statement. You can't define God without using the word God in it which makes it an incoherent definition. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––—
What you have just written is virtually incoherent if that is what you mean. God is an English word that refers to several Hebrew words one of which is translated “LORD.” That word means “the I AM” or the self-existent One. There are many other approaches to this, but neither of us have the time.
=======================================
You can't define God period. kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
In that case, you just defined God. He is the One that cannot be defined.
=======================================
You have to invoke some supernatural magical mumble jumble and try to define it from a natural standpoint.
kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––-
Which is just humanistic and naturalistic mumble jumble trying to escape the supernatural standpoint.
=======================================
God cannot be immanent and transcendent. Christianity relies on immanence. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
How do you know that He cannot be immanent and transcendent? By logic? Could there be the laws of logic apart from a rationaly universe? How can there be a rational universe apart from a rational Creator? Christianity does rely on immanence but not on an absolute transcendance.
=======================================
17 January 2007
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
When you say God exists, then you are claiming that such an existence has an identity, has certain attributes, has a certain character. All of those concepts have limits. kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––––
That is not necessarily true at all. Just because God is holy does not mean that His holiness has limits. Your thoughts of God are far too human.
=====================================
Identity, attributes, characters are all limiting concepts. If you ascribe to something that is unlimited (meaning God here) then you are saying that it can't have limits.
Kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––––
Why do you think those are limiting concepts? God is infinite in all aspects of His being and that means that His attributes are all infinite as well. The fact that we can know something about His attributes does not mean that we know all about His attributes.
======================================
Thus it means it can't have an identity, it can't have attributes, it can't have character. So when you make the statement that the Unlimited or God exists, it is an incoherent statement and means abosolutely nothing. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
As stated, what you have said is indeed incoherent. But that does not mean that you have correctly identified God or anything about Him. Eternal life is to know God.
17 January 2007
at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
So if murder is against God (i.e. it is a right that only God has), then you must be inherently against the death penalty? scenebooster
––––––––––––––––––––––
But God has given the command for murderers to be put to death. Murder and killing are not precisely the same thing. Murder is to kill someone for personal and selfish reasons. The death penalty is putting someone to death for the common good.
17 January 2007
at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manhattanite (Anonymous) says…
“So if murder is against God (i.e. it is a right that only God has), then you must be inherently against the death penalty?”
If murder is the unlawful or unjust premeditated killing of a human being, then you must show that the death penalty is unlawful or unjust. Obviously it's premeditated.
17 January 2007
at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“The Bible is God's revelation to man of His own character and Being.” — Manhattie
Do you see here. This is an illogical, inconsistent statement. How can something that is supernatural and unlimited have limiting concepts such as character and beingness. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
If one has infinite and unlimited character and beingness then there is no problem. Simple.
======================================
If God is X then the only being he can be is X and she cannot be what X is not. Kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––––-
God has revealed Himself as a He and you have no right to refer to Him as a she.
====================================
Do you understand that. If you going to stand there say that God is unlimited then you are talking about a broken concept. You can't assign any thing else to God otherwise you are making an ontological error. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––-
Your own position is a broken concept. If God is One and is infinite in all His being, then we are not assigning anything else to Him but His own infinity.
====================================
Manhattie, you cannot explain how the existence of God actually works. You can only assert. You fail to recognize your presuppositions that the morality argument ultimately relies upon. It does so in that it presents god to be the foundation for morality and yet must employ the exact opposite view of logic in order to confirm this concept. kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––-
Of course no one can explain precisely how God works and neither can anyone explain precisely how evolution works either. God is infinite and cannot be explained totally because of that. So far you have not presented any position that even allows for morality.
=======================================
17 January 2007
at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
On the other hand, secular moralists do not need God as a presupposition because it is unnecessary and ultimately irrelevant. This position is much more consistent and stronger than yours. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––—
The term “secular moralists” is a contradiction in terms because they have no way of showing that any morality is truly possible within their worldview. In fact, it is utterly absurd. If you want to have any basis for morality at all, then you must be a theist. God is a necessary Being and you can explain virtually nothing without Him. In fact, you cannot even explain why you hate the concept of God so much without God. You cannot explain morality and logic apart from God. You cannot explain langage and meaning apart from God. So here you are on this forum using language, attempted logic, and somewhat rational thinking that you have from God and are trying to explain away God and even your own being. Sounds like you are an enemy of God.
17 January 2007
at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“Now ask the atheist why murder is wrong and he has no real answer at all. In fact, he can come up with no real reason that is consistent within his worldview of why murder is wrong.” —Smith
Oh come now Smith. That is bunch of crap. “real answer”? What answer would be truely “real”? If an atheist has a worldview, then how can he or she be inconsistent in this worldview? His or her worldview is not based on some external standard but rather his own internal motivations. Religious beliefs as a basis for morality cannot be sustained. Atheists are far more likely to be moral than any christians are because their morality IS based in reality. Real morality is possible when the sanctions for morality are also tangible and real. Atheism shifts the basis of morality from faith in god to obligations of social living. Moral conduct is a social necessity. As we are all humans, belonging to the same species, we should live equal. Any attempt to transgress the obligation should be checked and punished here and now by fellow-humans. The immorality of one injures the happiness of others involved in a social association. Therefore the checks on immorality are also social needs. There is no postponement of the punishment to the imaginary fires of hell or to fanciful faith in divine retribution. Quite the contrary Smith, the atheist has the most “real answer” of anyone.
17 January 2007
at 4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“But God has given the command for murderers to be put to death. Murder and killing are not precisely the same thing. Murder is to kill someone for personal and selfish reasons. The death penalty is putting someone to death for the common good.” scenebooster quoting smith
––––––––––––––––––––
I love it. Christian semantics. I thought God said “thou shalt not kill”, and a few things about forgiveness…
scenebooster
–––––––––––––––––––––––
You thought it, but that doesn't make it so. The real idea is that of murder which is killing for personal and selfish reasons. One can forgive a person for a personal wrong and still desire that the crime be punished.
=====================================
BTW, by design, civilians are killed in war. 34,000+ civilians have been killed in Iraq in a war that our president (who was elected by God, according to him) mandated. So where does that fall in your continuum of killing? scenebooster
–––––––––––––––––––
It certainly is not murder for personal reasons. Do you think that it was murder when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Do you think that is was murder when Hussein killed his millions?
17 January 2007
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“God is infinite and cannot be explained totally because of that. ”
Any supposition about God is a statement of faith. You cannot “prove” anything about God. Nothing. Scenebooster
–––––––––––––––––––––––
IF you mean a blind faith, then that is untrue. If by faith you have the biblical concept of it where a person beholds the spiritual beauty and glory of God and believes, then that is perhaps true. However, you cannot prove anything without God. Nothing. Not only can you have no standard or basis for morality apart from God, you can absolutely have no knowledge unless there is a God.
17 January 2007
at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
If God is infinite, he truly is every atom of matter in the known and unknown parts of the universe, (heck, HE IS the universe), then he IS by definition the people that commit murder, and such sins, thereby contradicting his own word, which makes him a liar. If God is not these “sinners”, then he is not infinite, nor all-knowing. In which case if he isn't infinte, what sort of “god” is he? A “partial-god”? And if he isn't everywhere all the time, how could he set up laws for all-time not knowing all the possible situations his “constituents” may be in. Another question, Why does god make people that he knows will never come to understand him, (AKA become christian), so that he can then send them to hell? He seems rather malicious to me, and not a “god” that anyone should exult…
17 January 2007
at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
manhattanite:
“I see what you are saying, but how do you get around the direct language used in Genesis 19? “fire from the LORD out of heaven”. How could it be FROM the Lord if it didn't really come from Him? Where else would it have come from? ”
Here's a good exercise in understanding that what a human believes is direct language may not be so direct - let the Bible interpret the Bible rather than the dictionary interpret it.
1 Chr 10:13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,
1 Chr 10:14 and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.
King James says God “slew him”.
As some would say, God killed Saul just because he was “curious” about witches.
For God to pick out an individual and slay them, that must have been some dramatic, spectacular, and supernatural event, don't you think? As an exercise towards understanding this concept, how did God kill him?
“Also, why would it be sinful for God to punish sin? While our conceptions of justice may not be perfect because we are human, God is still just and in fact, perfectly just. That is why the death of His son was required. In Romans 3 it talks about Christ propitiating the sins of his people - that is, satisfying or suffering the wrath of God for those sins.”
As far as your comments about punishment and “eternal” punishment, I think would be best to hold off on until you agree that God's ways are not man's ways which also includes terminology. “Punishment” usually means to man to cause to change one's ways. How did “punishment” of Sodom and Gomorra help change their way.
Did God come to save people or to slay them? John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Speaking of God's son, here you have one city that believes their “choices” are as good as anyone else's choices and everyone should have their own form of morality based on their own opinions. Then, as some say, God didn't like that, so he struck them dead with fireballs. Then, another city denies, tortures, and kills His own Son sent to save them. What does He do - Mat 23:38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.
Isn't that kind of strange partialities of “punishment”?
Or, did he “leave” both cities?
17 January 2007
at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“Sounds like you are an enemy of God.” — Smith
Smith,
I am truly sorry that you feel like I am attacking you or that you think I am an enemy of “god”. I merely pursuing this conversation to become more enlightened and to seek a better understanding of different belief systems. I am curious about how or why a person believes they way they do. It is not my intention to alienate you from your own belief system. If you cannot bear it any longer I will quit of course.
“no way of showing that any morality is truly possible within their worldview” — Smith
Sure they do Smith. The evidence is here and now. They don't have to look at some imaginary force or place to see it. They can see the results of their worldview in front of them. We live in a society where we anticipate fellow-human beings will be moral. We expect others to be responsible humans. We have varying tangible real punishments for varying different crimes or offenses. All of this is secular Smith. There is no God driving this system. Did God write the constitution of US? Did God write all of our laws as a society? Does God tax us to make sure we provide basic services as a government? Do you really think that most people out there follow YOUR standard of what God says to do? I don't think so. Sorry you still cannot escape your own inconsistency. You must rely on faith to belief what you belief.
In the meantime, as a fellow human being, I do care about what happens to you and I hope you are happy in your life.
17 January 2007
at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
“Now ask the atheist why murder is wrong and he has no real answer at all. In fact, he can come up with no real reason that is consistent within his worldview of why murder is wrong.” —Smith
Oh come now Smith. That is bunch of crap.
–––––––––––––––––––––––
Well, if I made that comment to you it would actually be a compliment in terms of what I really think. However, I am not trying to slam you, bt provoke you to think. You see, I believe that you are a human being made in the image of God and so you can think. You are presently in the I don't want to believe in God mode and so your thinking is less than that of bovine waste material in the sight of a holy God. However, on to the argument.
======================================
“real answer”? What answer would be truely “real”? If an atheist has a worldview, then how can he or she be inconsistent in this worldview? kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
If there are parts in the worldview that contradict each other. Like, for example, morality and athiesm. Next, atheism and knowledge.
=======================================
His or her worldview is not based on some external standard but rather his own internal motivations.
kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––—
But are those motivations good or bad? How will you determine the basis for those motivations being good or bad? You are really in quite a bad spot here.
=====================================
Religious beliefs as a basis for morality cannot be sustained. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
Really? An that from a person with a worldview that cannot present a basis for morality at all? I am not sure that you are in a position to tell me that I don't have a basis for morality when you don't have a position that support the concept at all.
=====================================
Atheists are far more likely to be moral than any christians are because their morality IS based in reality.
kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––-
Oh please, until you can provide a real definition of morality that can be supported within your worldview you should really not make statements like this. Until you can give a basis for morality within your worldview you should tell me that you are more likely to be moral.
====================================
17 January 2007
at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
Real morality is possible when the sanctions for morality are also tangible and real. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
I can assure you that God's sanctions are tangible and real. You are presently under his judgment and it is certainly obvious and real, though it is also His judgment on you that you are blinded to this reality. When people suppress the truth about Him and honor men and other things rather than Himself, that is His judgement. He gives people over to hardened hearts so that professing themselves to be wise they become fools. Hell is also very real.
======================================
Atheism shifts the basis of morality from faith in god to obligations of social living. Moral conduct is a social necessity. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––—
And you have no moral basis for doing that. Why should anyone (with your worldview) have any sense of obligation to society and obey its standards? In this sense it would be society pushing its morality on you and it could be very unjust as it has been in the past. Society cannot be a judge of what is just as it is just a collection of self-centered people who may agree. Society is simply the majority view of something.
====================================
As we are all humans, belonging to the same species, we should live equal. kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––
Why should we? What moral basis can you come up with for that? No you are making moral proclamations toward others as to what they should do. Why is it that you now assert that your species is superior to that of others? A good atheist would not be so prejudiced against other species.
––––––––––––––––––––––
Any attempt to transgress the obligation should be checked and punished here and now by fellow-humans.
kodiac
––––––––––––––––––––––—
Who put this obligation on people? There you go with that word should again. You are trying to push your morality on others and yet you have no basis for doing so.
=====================================
17 January 2007
at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smith (Anonymous) says…
The immorality of one injures the happiness of others involved in a social association. Therefore the checks on immorality are also social needs. kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––-
So now you know what society needs. Remember that your worldview does not allow you to have meaning in life. So what does society need to accomplish no meaning? Who are you to determine what is happiness and why one person should be punished for seeking happiness at the expense of others. You are surely trying to push your morality on others here.
========================================
There is no postponement of the punishment to the imaginary fires of hell or to fanciful faith in divine retribution. Quite the contrary Smith, the atheist has the most “real answer” of anyone. kodiac
–––––––––––––––––––––—
You call that a real answer? You have provided no basis for your fanciful beliefs and you have not provided any oughtness to your position. It sounds to me like you have a fanciful blind faith in trying to explain God away. Your answer of social reasons for morality is simply relative to the majority within a society and an attempt to push your beliefs on others. Why even bother trying to be moral from your position? Why not just be honest and admit that you have no moral basis. Without God, you don't have one despite your struggles to attempt it. In fact, your struggles to come up with a version of morality demonstrates that you are made in God's image.
17 January 2007
at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…
OK.
1. If by “thou shalt not kill,” “God” meant “thou shalt not murder,” then why isn't the commandment “thou shalt not murder?” Or is that what the modern churches teach to their sheeple so they will support the death penalty? Come on. I'm calling bullsh!t on that one.
2. Come on folks, of course god is a “he.” If god was a “she,” then the Bible wouldn't be (a la smith) consistent with its own worldview!
17 January 2007
at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Uniqueconformity (Anonymous) says…
I do not wish to start any more arguements only to offer my perspective. I am not a Bible scholar, it is taxing to name the books in order. I believe in God's Creation of the world. I sometimes am upset with how things are and wonder why God allows it. But as a parent I have a new insight on things I did not understand before. With my daughter I tell her things in words she understands. I do not believe God lays out everything because we would not be able to take it. My favorite example is 'what color was the universe before there was color?' I believe the Bible states that it was dark, but what color is dark if there was no black. There was no matter, no light, no time, only the Father.
For me the bottom line is God is the creator and I am the creation, it is his world and I am a steward. I am supposed to take care of it as a neighbor's house who is away, not make it my own home. It is really unsettling for me to come to terms with. I was not raised in a church and valued independence. It feels wrong to me to accept dependence, but perhaps it is right to depend. Perhaps is is a clever disception of Satan to breed in us a spirit of independence.
Demand proof and you will receive it, but it may come too late, for the proof is not on earth.
God gave us faith, hope and love; above logic, above reason, and above intellect. All this is from the perspective and bias of a believer. Please do not take this as an assault on your belief.
17 January 2007
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“You are presently in the I don't want to believe in God mode and so your thinking is less than that of bovine waste material in the sight of a holy God.”
Ah how intelligent of you to refer to my thinking as sh*t. Such a superior comeback by someone who professes to be a morally upstanding christian who follows the Great One. Do you really think that your own personal God would approve of your attacks on me? I find your discourse to be quite illuminating of who you really are Smith….
“If there are parts in the worldview that contradict each other. Like, for example, morality and athiesm. Next, atheism and knowledge.” —Smith
Ah I see your point. You said ……..er nothing? Hmmm guess you will have to elaborate on this statement since my own thinking is sh*t.
“But are those motivations good or bad? How will you determine the basis for those motivations being good or bad? You are really in quite a bad spot here. ” — Smith
Ah but you are making an assumption that atheists have to subscribe to a specific system of morality. I do not think they have to do that. A human being is capable of empathy. That can form the basis for a moral system. Everyone has empathy ( I guess except for psychopaths)which can be used to make a coherent system. Many animal species also demonstrate the same biological traits which does create a social system withing their species. Such a trait can be evolutionary advantageous.
“I can assure you that God's sanctions are tangible and real.” — Smith
Really Smith. How do you know? You have no way knowing this. No way at all. Do you know what the words tangible and real mean?????????
By defintion, you can't refer to a supernatural concept as being tangible and real. This is completely incoherent and illogical.
17 January 2007
at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“Why should we? What moral basis can you come up with for that? No you are making moral proclamations toward others as to what they should do.” —Smith
Ah no, atheists don't tell others what they have to do morally. I mean we all participate in this life as part of a society. I guess if you don't like the laws of this society, you could move to a different country or different society. I can't speak for any atheists Richard but hey you can believe what you want to believe. But do understand that if you live here, you are subject to secular laws and secular forms of justice just like anyone else that lives here. If enough people disagree with some law, then the laws can be changed. I know it is not perfect system but again if you choose to live here, you do agree to live by that code.
“Why is it that you now assert that your species is superior to that of others? A good atheist would not be so prejudiced against other species.” — Smith
Sorry my thinking went to sh*t again. I have no idea why you think I said our species was “superior”. I am completely baffled why you even said this?
“Who put this obligation on people? There you go with that word should again. You are trying to push your morality on others and yet you have no basis for doing so.” — Smith
Who? We did of course Smith. We all sat down and agreed to a secular moral code. Noone is pushing their morality Smith. The question is whether or not others agree with certain morals or not. If you agree to abide by a certain code of morals, noone is pushing anything here. Morals are not absolute here. We do make choices.
17 January 2007
at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“Why not just be honest and admit that you have no moral basis. Without God, you don't have one despite your struggles to attempt it. In fact, your struggles to come up with a version of morality demonstrates that you are made in God's image.” — Smith
Most of your statements about morality Smith are simply assertions. You can assert just about anything you want to but in the end all refer to statements based on faith. I am glad that you feel strongly about your belief system and you have faith in it. I hope you continue to have faith in your beliefs and are enlightened by your pursuit of them. I do find your statement of atheists not having meaning in their lives to be misleading. I think you were talking about an objective meaning or purpose (meaning external) as opposed to their own personal meaning or purpose. As for myself, I am quite content to live my life without an objective meaning or purpose. I find meaning in my relationships with others and my interaction with the natural world. Yes you might say that all that I am doing in life is for naught and that I don't have any ought to strive for but I disagree with this pessimism completely. Pessimism is only merited if we assume that life must be given meaning from outside our lives. But if I live without the assumption of God then without God, there is no position “outside our lives” to hand down meaning in the first place. I can choose to rebel not against a non-existent God, but instead against our fate to die. As Albert Camus says in the Myth of Sisyphus, I simply picture myself happy.
17 January 2007
at 6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“If one has infinite and unlimited character and beingness then there is no problem. ” — Smith
No problem? So please explain to me how something can be infinite or unlimited and have character and beingness. I mean from a definitional standpoint Smith, something that has a being or has character is limiting. It makes no ontological sense whatsoever to say what you are saying.
“Of course no one can explain precisely how God works and neither can anyone explain precisely how evolution works either. God is infinite and cannot be explained totally because of that.” — Smith
Ah so you are saying you can expain something about God just not totally? No one can explain how God works precisely. Ah I see so this is a statement of logic then huh. So we can know God but not really know God. We can know what God means but not know what he or she really means…. yep that makes alot of sense and very logical…….yeah
Oh and I am somewhat surprised that you are comparing God to evolution. Very very surprised! I am sure that would be really appealing to God since he or she was mentioned in the same breath as a human constructed theory based on the natural real world.
17 January 2007
at 10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lefthanded (Anonymous) says…
Kodiac, are you a closet Christian?
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini (Kodiac): Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
17 January 2007
at 10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
Inigo Montoya (Left-handed):You are wonderful.
Man in Black: Thank you; I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in Black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): Because I know something you don't know.
Man in Black: And what is that?
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): I… am not left-handed.
Man in Black: You are amazing.
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): I ought to be, after 20 years.
Man in Black: Oh, there's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo Montoya(Left-handed): Tell me.
Man in Black: I'm not left-handed either.
18 January 2007
at 3:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kodiac (Anonymous) says…
“God has revealed Himself as a He and you have no right to refer to Him as a she. ” — Smith
Can't sleep so I thought I would mull more over our friend Mr Smith. This statement really puzzles me. I can remember you objecting to this particular use of the masculine/feminine pronouns to refer to God from previous commentaries. I guess I do it because from a christian perspective, Go