|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
That's an odd interpretation of my behavior. And wrong, but it's the oddity that I'm now going to think about. I am not trying to annoy you, I'm just trying to debate with you. If I ever really want to annoy you, then believe me you'll notice. Well, I don't mean to trash you either. The thing is, if you are interested in hitting at the crux of the matter, like Hyroglyphyx pointed out, you would never said this:
DA writes: quote: No, of course not. You seem to be trying to put up a false dichotomy: either I believe in the God that you believe in, or I have no morality whatsoever. That is not actually how it works. Sure, have your own morality standard........only, your attempts to live up to any standard are going to fail. Whether you like it or not. We are running in circles. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But you still haven't followed me.
Yes, I see the need for an absolute moral standard. But that doesn't mean that I think that one exists. I just wish that one did and that someone could tell me what it is. And so you ask me what is my "idea of a absolute moral standard". Well, darned if I know. I'd just like there to be one. But apparently there isn't. You might as well ask me what color I think unicorns are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The thing is, if you are interesting in hitting at the crux of the matter, like Hyro pointed out, you would never said this: Well, I think that that is hitting at the crux of the matter. If you have any questions about this concept, I'll be happy to answer them.
Sure, have your own morality standard........only, your attempts to live up to any standard are going to fail. Whether you like it or not. This is true enough. It is also true of Christians. Indeed, Christians are obliged by their religion to belive that this is true of them. So what's your point? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Like Apothecus said, if atheists' main focus is NOT morality and theists' is, then who is ahead of the morality game Stile? Apparently, the atheists. I don't have to waste a moment of my time thinking: "Hey, that woman's cute, I should rape her ... oh, wait, but that's immoral"; or "Hey, I'm short of money, so I should mug that little old lady ... oh, wait, but that's immoral". The people who have to think about morality a lot are the people who are led into temptation a lot. I hardly ever have to think about morality except in abstract discussions of it on Internet forums. So I can spend my time thinking about stuff that is way more interesting. Why should I have to think about morality? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless. Then this debate is useless. How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass.
Do you want to have a discussion or not, DA? I do, but not if I first have to agree as a premise that "the scientific method is useless". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member
|
Like Apothecus said, if atheists' main focus is NOT morality and theists' is, then who is ahead of the morality game Stile? If I may jump in here, I believe you are confusing the issue. Atheism addresses a claim about the existence of a thing, a theism. This thing might be the origin of your morality, but an atheist not accepting the existence of this being does not imply they lack an origin of morality. For example, I could say that I get my driving directions from an invisible unicorn that whispers instructions in my ear. If you choose not to believe me it does not mean that you lack any method of getting directions while driving. It also does not mean that your lack of believe in my unicorn addresses driving directions in any way; it simply addresses the claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member
|
quote: What then is your idea of a absolute moral standard? I am VERY eager to hear your answer. How exactly do you equate a need for something with the existence of something? I see the need for a cure for all disease, but it does not mean one exists. I see the need for a convenient and endless source of energy, but it does not mean it exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
How exactly do you equate a need for something with the existence of something? I see the need for a cure for all disease, but it does not mean one exists. I see the need for a convenient and endless source of energy, but it does not mean it exists. Phage, I understand English. This isn't an echo chamber. Dr A is quite successful at putting his points across. I got his point. Right now a lot of people are getting to give their input, and the burden is on me to give fair attention to all points put forth and be open to all valid, relevant lines of discussion within the boundaries of the main post. There are quite a few threads hanging around that need to be tied right now, and I don't need duplicates that only increase the noise in the room. I get his point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dr Adequate writes:
I also did a double take when I saw that in Pauline's post. However, on a reread, I think he only intended "the scientific method is useless for studying the supernatural."
I do, but not if I first have to agree as a premise that "the scientific method is useless".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2441 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined:
|
Apo writes: So, the atheists get to grade the world's papers? ...the non-religious maintain a balance between foci (morals vs. "everything else") that is simply superior to the "balance" exhibited by the religious.
You misunderstand me. I didn't say that the morals of atheists or agnostics are superior to theists' morality. IMO, since morals are human constructs, it wouldn't matter, as far as absolute morality and behavior is concerned, whether you were religious or not. What I'm referring to is the balance maintained between time spent struggling to be a moral individual vs. time spent with "everything else". It is my opinion that many theists (especially fundies) are SO wrapped up in achieving what they define as morality via worldly works (though of course, that's not the way to heaven ) in order to avoid eternal damnation, that they miss out on a lot of what life has to offer otherwise (aka science, the arts, culture, etc...). The non-religious, on the other hand, seem to have a better grip on enjoying this world, as it is the only one we'll ever experience (most rational atheists or agnostics are not so terrified of death nor disgusted with life to be gulled into thinking that the epitome of life is immortality, yet they do seem to recognize what a terrified existence their religious counterparts seem to live). You, as a theist, can argue, argue, and argue some more that if a person has not found Jesus in some form or another, that there is just no reason to behave morally. And yet, and yet, even though the percentage of atheists in this country is approaching 15-20%, the percentage of atheists serving time in prison these days is 0.2%! Striking, wouldn't you say? So the non-religious continue to live (relative to the religious, anyway) an exceedingly moral and low-crime lifestyle, while at the same time enjoying "everything else" unburdened by what a religious person may claim is required to attain "biblical morality." Note that this is contrary to all the arguments of the religious who are so incredulous that this could ever happen at all without belief in some sort of magical djinn. The results speak for themselves, is all I'm saying.
Do you believe that everything written in the Bible is, also, advocated by God? Ah, but Dr. Sing, we've been down this road before, you and I. And I think your question's a bit of a red herring, but I'll answer all the same. I believe that many theists believe everything in the bible is "God-inspired" and thus, can only be but advocated by God, no? I won't derail this thread by going into whether it's possible for God to "change his mind" about, of all things, morality (and thus can there ever be such a thing as an absolute biblical moral code?), because, again, that book's been written (and written off, as it were) in other threads.
But there is problem: No one follows the code perfectly. Solution: ---Space for Apothecus to give answer--- No, you're correct in saying that no one could follow a standard perfectly. My point was only that a significant part of understanding moral vs immoral behavior is the motive behind such behavior. I'd restate that a fear of Hades is a silly reason to behave morally, as opposed to behaving morally for, among other reasons, the betterment of our society as a whole. So, I really don't have an solution per se, if a solution is even required...
Apo writes: To me, the religious are being good because they have to, not because they want to. Doc, dogma isn't a good thing sometimes. I sighed when I read this. I'm sorry that an opinion based on personal, objective observation of religious fundamentalists frustrates you. But I'd hesitate to call it dogma.
So, Christians are forgiven of the sins they commit SO LONG AS said sins are unintentional. Apparently someone forgot to notify Christianity of this fact! How did you come by this knowledge, and why aren't you spreading the word??? Every church I've ever attended (from liberal to fundy to Catholic) has claimed, in not so many words, that your sins were paid for by the blood of Christ. Now, they go on to say that, yes, murder, rape, etc are Very Bad Sins, but that there are generally no sins which are unforgivable. Most of your incarcerated brethren, "born again" since donning the orange coveralls, would be shocked and dismayed, mystified and mortified to hear of this caveat in their conversion. So, really, Dr. Sing? According to you, only the sins you intended are unforgivable? What then, would be some examples of forgivable sins, and why, if they were unintentional, would they be considered sins? Thanks, and have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
DA writes: Then this debate is useless. How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass. Okay. If this debate is useless, then this debate is........over. I'm not going to post anything more. If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion. I'm not angry or ticked off. My problem is, if you guys aren't willing to let go of it right now... the debate, most probably, is gonna end at "me: so, ____ is why we need to believe God. You: But where is the physical evidence for God, why should I even believe in a God I don't even see????" I'm not for this. -DS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Dr. Sing writes: Okay. If this debate is useless, then this debate is........over. I'm not going to post anything more. If you were expecting to convert people to your own unique interpretation of what constitutes the divine, guess what, you are alone in your relationship to God. This forum is for those who question, not those who follow without question. As for the viability of which side is more moral or ethical, let history be the judge.
If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion. Are you explicitly stating that your purpose in this forum was to convert rather than to learn? As if you have already declared yourself perfect in the eyes of God and require no further progress. What a small god you worship.
I'm not angry or ticked off. My problem is, if you guys aren't willing to let go of it right now... the debate, most probably, is gonna end at "me: so, ____ is why we need to believe God. You: But where is the physical evidence for God, why should I even believe in a God I don't even see????" I'm not for this. Did you really expect to convert any old timers here to your version of reality without having the deep knowledge and understanding of both scripture and science that so many have? This forum is not for kids, please 'know thyself' first. Go ahead and run away from knowledge and self-examination, eventually you will regret your selfish egotism in the face of God. The only emotional response I have for you is one of sadness, for that of a soul who insists upon being lost over false pride. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Apparently, the atheists. I don't have to waste a moment of my time thinking: "Hey, that woman's cute, I should rape her ... oh, wait, but that's immoral"; or "Hey, I'm short of money, so I should mug that little old lady ... oh, wait, but that's immoral". The people who have to think about morality a lot are the people who are led into temptation a lot. I hardly ever have to think about morality except in abstract discussions of it on Internet forums. So I can spend my time thinking about stuff that is way more interesting. Why should I have to think about morality? Wow. Just.....wow. I.........am a bit nonplussed right now. Um, okay, Dr Adequate. Lets talk a walk down the road we've just come, shall we? I think I need this. In responding to my main post, you first objection was that: There is no better way than the scientific method to study anything and that this is the most reliable way. Here are your words:
quote: Next, your second objection is: A realization of moral imperfection does not necessitate the existence of its remedy, instead it makes us wish for there to exist such a remedy. Here are your words:
quote: When I ask you to step out of your arena, into mine and ask you to allow for the possibility of supernatural existence, here is your response"
quote: You simply dismiss me. But a few sentences later, you say this
quote: I'm confused! Utterly. 1. You do not want to conceive of God, just like you are not interested in conceiving of pink unicorns... 2. You want me to use the scientific method 3. You challenge me to propose a better method because you think I'm just blowing smoke here and have nothing to offer. Yet, you want to have discussion with me....about God. Before I even breathe or blink, you offer a nother objection:
quote: And as if all that you say needs to be said twice or thrice you reiterate a previous objection:
quote: Ahh, I was looking for these. Fancy fallacy names. In classic atheist style...
quote: You're telling me that its okay to reject my God's moral code and instead have imperfect men follow a imperfect, self-made moral code. Wait!!! But didn't you agree with me that you "see the need" for a "absolute moral code"?? Your words...
quote: AND, ignoring my points on what the Christian religion offers, you are left with a circle to run around in:
quote: Well, maybe if you didn't open a fire hose at me, you would actually hear what I was saying. --- But...
quote: You do want to have a discussion. I am supposed to play the game under your rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Dr. Sing writes: Okay. If this debate is useless, then this debate is........over. I'm not going to post anything more. If you were expecting to convert people to your own unique interpretation of what constitutes the divine, guess what, you are alone in your relationship to God. This forum is for those who question, not those who follow without question. As for the viability of which side is more moral or ethical, let history be the judge.
If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion. Are you explicitly stating that your purpose in this forum was to convert rather than to learn? As if you have already declared yourself perfect in the eyes of God and require no further progress. What a small god you worship.
I'm not angry or ticked off. My problem is, if you guys aren't willing to let go of it right now... the debate, most probably, is gonna end at "me: so, ____ is why we need to believe God. You: But where is the physical evidence for God, why should I even believe in a God I don't even see????" I'm not for this. Did you really expect to convert any old timers here to your version of reality without having the deep knowledge and understanding of both scripture and science that so many have? This forum is not for kids, please 'know thyself' first. Go ahead and run away from knowledge and self-examination, eventually you will regret your selfish egotism in the face of God. The only emotional response I have for you is one of sadness, for that of a soul who insists upon being lost over false pride. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
If you were expecting to convert people to your own unique interpretation of what constitutes the divine, guess what, you are alone in your relationship to God. This forum is for those who question, not those who follow without question. As for the viability of which side is more moral or ethical, let history be the judge. Are you explicitly stating that your purpose in this forum was to convert rather than to learn? As if you have already declared yourself perfect in the eyes of God and require no further progress. What a small god you worship. Did you really expect to convert any old timers here to your version of reality without having the deep knowledge and understanding of both scripture and science that so many have? Are you out of your mind? In what way have I attempted to proselytize you here? Is my asking for a common ground to have a debate not valid?
This forum is not for kids, please 'know thyself' first. Go ahead and run away from knowledge and self-examination, eventually you will regret your selfish egotism in the face of God. The only emotional response I have for you is one of sadness, for that of a soul who insists upon being lost over false pride. Have I said ONE THING that is intrinsically, authentically derived from MY mind? The 8 points I gave you are not mine. They're from my faith. There are so many things that atheists and theists don't agree on when it comes to faith. And in a faith debate, when I ask for momentary allowance of just ONE point of disagreement in order to have a discussion, this is the response I get? How utterly frustrating!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024