I would think by now you would realize that "dogma" has no effect in this forum.

Right, you oppose rather than focus on solutions. It’s all power games. Opposition, victimization, blame, conflict, violence. Oh and rationalization, can’t forget that one.

So your notion of "reasonable grounds" is that the quantum field exists just because it exists? Sure, that very well could be the case but I'd hardly call that a sufficient reason for believing so. I mean I get that starting with something it's pretty much impossible to reduce it to nothing and concluding there must be something sublime as a substratum of the physical universe. But that line of reasoning is basically a given. What people want to know is 'why' there must be something, not merely that there must be.

It looks like we actually agree on something. I agree with everything in your quote above. I could not have expressed that thought any better myself.

Since we agree on the above, maybe now we can make progress in our discussion.

Just look at the universe, anything is possible, so yes I can believe in some controling power.

A lot of people don't realize that the Bible talks about technology. In fact, the first computer dates back to Adam and Eve. It was an Apple with limited memory, just one byte. And then everything crashed.
Just lightening up the thread a bit

Something like this is was the view of famous philosopher of religion John Hick:

and

It is true that all religions have commonality to some extent or otherwise they couldn't be categorized as a religion. Philosophies, too. My own little way of looking at it:

All religions believe in a aligning oneself to a higher power in the universe.

All philosophies believe that there are fundamental theoretical sound bases for particular branches of knowledge .

JMO

Why must there be something? Because "nothing" is a contradiction in terms and is impossible. From there isn't it pretty easy to get to something, pretty non-mysterious? What is the substrate of the "something." Quantum field ... which is PROVEN to exist. Contrast that with "Well, thousands of years ago they were writing about this creator who was for stoning children, slaughtering civilizations, against certain kinds of clothes, women ... and they just made it up out of whole cloth like all the other gods. Take your pick.

Well if that's the case, my bad. I did not know that the quantum field exists out of metaphysical (or logical?) necessity.

That was unremittingly awful (in my opinion).

Really sad, because Hick was an outstanding philosopher before he apparently had half his brain removed so he could write the above drivel.

But, thanks for sharing.

So the dude who cut the head off the teacher in France is a-okay, right? His god told him to do it. So it's right, moral, unquestionable, holy and the stone cold good. Right?

Step back from your religion and look at what it means in the real world. At least consider doing that, instead of reflexively defending whatever brand of fundamentalism has ensnared you. You are better than your religion if thinking is allowed.

According to the Biblical worldview, cutting off the head of your teacher is not okay. On the other hand, if one believes in a "from the goo to the zoo to you" evolutionary scheme, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the guy did to his teacher.

According to a Biblical worldview, what the dude did was evil. On the other hand, if the "from the goo to the zoo to you" evolutionary scheme is true, then what the dude did to his teacher is of no consequence.

Thinking is not only allowed according to the Bible, it is strongly encouraged. On the other hand, if the "from the goo to the zoo to you" evolutionary scheme is true, then thinking is neither good, bad, or indifferent.

There you go with there's no such thing as right or wrong until my imaginary god tells me ... which is the only kind of idea on this earth that makes what he did "right." According to the Biblical view, whatever god tells you to do is right, which in the Christian religion, includes a lot of killing just like this guy did.

So to defend your religion, you say killing is of "no consequence." A human being is deprived of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, his loved ones are traumatized including children ... and this of no consequence unless there is a god, who happens to be the all-time killer, saying it is wrong. How can a zealot be a patriot when the Constitution goes in the garbage can in their thinking?

You aren't mistaken, you aren't confused ... you are lying, which is often just another word for apologetics. You can't look at these issues seriously without understanding that there is another standard of right and wrong other than supernaturally declared, and that would be, omg, natural/based on life on this earth/not ceding it to superstition.

According to the Biblical worldview, killing people is generally evil, but there are rare occasions where it is permissible. On the other hand, in a "from the goo, to the zoo, to you" worldview, all killing, for any reason is permissible.

In the Biblical worldview, killing always has serious consequences. In a "from the goo to zoo to you" worldview, not so much.

So what? In the scheme of things, who cares what one bag of chemicals does to another bag of chemicals? "Better living through chemistry."

That is correct.

In a "from the goo to zoo to you" worldview, the Constitution is just ink blots on a piece of paper; The Constitution has no more (or less) value than the garbage can. As a Bible believer, I see value in the Constitution. (For the record, I also see value in garbage cans.)

In the Biblical worldview, lying is morally wrong. In a "from the goo to the zoo to you" worldview, lying is morally equivalent to telling the truth.

In the Biblical worldview, being superstitious is not a good thing. In a "from the goo to the zoo to you" worldview, being superstitious is neither good, bad or indifferent. Who cares if a bag of chemicals wants to be superstitious? "Better living through chemistry."

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, BABY!!!!!!!!

I do? So does that other bag of chemicals?

Uh, no, the US Constitution is the foundational legal document of the US, laying out the basic principles of law and government for our country.

Nope. Lying is morally wrong in my naturalistic worldview and telling the truth is not.
I do? I think superstition leads to worse lives for me and others.

Some bags of chemicals couldn't care less about other bags of chemicals. Some bags of chemicals love other bags of chemicals. It's ultimately "might makes right" in the chemical world.


As would the US Constitution if the KKK took control of the Congress and called for a Constitutional Convention and then proceeded to make slavery legal. "Might makes right."

I'm glad that lying is morally wrong in your naturalistic worldview. However, an equally valid take with someone else with a naturalistic worldview is that lying is not morally wrong.

If we're just bags of chemicals, and being superstitious gives me a better life, I'll go for it. Why should I care what you think? One man's meat is another man's poison." (Or something like that.)

I remember reading somewhere that when you die, your brain gives off an immense amount of dopamine whilst your brain is still active for the last 30 seconds or so. During that time, it can feel like a dream that lasts forever. It's kind of difficult to comprehend but maybe you don't really 'die' in terms of memories that feel eternal.

No, the fact that someone wins doesn't mean that they are doing what is right. You are assuming as a requirement for morality that if an action is morally right for a person that it is also in that person's considered best interest, but that is a false assumption. Thus, while evil might prevail in a godless world - that is, the stakes are very real for naturalists - evil winning wouldn't make it less evil.

Yes, that is correct. What's your point? If you have evil leaders, they make evil laws. Do you think that means they aren't actually laws? That's like saying that because a game is boring that it doesn't actually have rules.

It's not equally valid. Those other people are wrong about the morality of lying. Lying harms other people, this fact isn't dependent on your worldview. It's true that some people don't care that their actions harm other people, but that is because they don't care about morality.

I mean, live your life how you want. However, just because you desire to live a particular way doesn't mean that doing so will lead to a good life. If you want an answer to how to live a good life, a life of happiness and meaning, then you have to understand the elements that typically constitute a good life. And unlike your seeming view, I'm not a blank slate relativist here. Humans have commonalities in how our minds works, how our social groupings work, and what kinds of lives lead to more or less happiness. So, no, actually arsenic is poisonous to all humans, and nearly all humans can eat chicken safely.

EDIT: As for why you should care what I think, in a crude way, because in the US I can go to my local store, buy a gun, and shoot you if I decide I want you to care. More relevantly, because it is human nature to care what those around you think.

You're really 100% koolaid when it comes to what the world is if it's not all about my particular god. You can't even value humanism, nobility, character, courage, or agency or even life. This sacrificing of mind to religion/myth/superstition is one of the great ignorances and immoralities in the world. Why is killing so important to the religion when it is all about the afterlife anyway? It is actually the non-religious to whom this life is everything to whom life and death is infinitely more significant. Did you overlook that little fact while fawning over the doctrine/dogma of the obviously fableistic, apocryphal STORY??

Says who?

Who determines what is evil and what isn't evil?

The rules of a game are arbitrary. So are moral "rules" if there is no God.


Says who?

So?

Well said.


If there is no God, relativism is all you've got.

Quite true. And it is true, because we are all made in the image of God.

I care deeply about what you and others believe. That's why my main purpose in life is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Side note: I think that you and Well_Named are the most consistently well thought-out posters I've encountered on 2+2 that I've learned a lot from. "Iron sharpens iron."

Old joke: Your karma ran over my dogma.

Do you think reality is determined by what people say? I don't. Someone saying x makes them right doesn't mean that x makes them right.

Reality? No one determines that being raped is painful and unwanted, but it is. No God is required to make that the case. If you are asking why the world is such that rape is painful and unwanted rather than the opposite - I don't know. I also don't know why the gravitational constant is G rather than G+1, but that doesn't mean gravity isn't real.

The rules of a game are not arbitrary as you should know posting here on a poker forum. Different rules lead to better or worse games. Rules that lead to a boring game are bad rules and should be changed. Pretending though that they aren't actually rules just because they are bad rules is silly.

As for the arbitrariness of morality, positing a god does not solve this problem, as demonstrated by the Euthyphro Dilemma. Part of why so many people are attracted to god-based morality is because they don't want to be faced with the responsibility that comes from knowing that our moral systems are largely human-created and so could be wrong. If you just trust in God to set up a correct moral system, knowing how to live a good life is much easier, all you have to do is follow the rules. But that doesn't make the basis of morality any less arbitrary, it only (supposedly) increases certainty.

Says me? What are we, three years old?

It is immoral to harm other people without good cause.

Trying to respond to my post by breaking it up into fragments smaller than my sentences has led to you missing my overall argument as a whole.

False, as I've proven here. You keep asserting this, but it is clearly wrong.

Nope, it is because we all members of the same species, with a similar evolutionary history and pressures. Also, arguably because of the nature of the mind, which transcends humanity.

So why are you asking me, given that you already care what we believe, why you should care?

You clearly think there are implications to atheism that I don't, so you should present an actual argument to this effect instead of just asking questions or making assertions.