lol, awesome

I'm sure I had a penis last time I checked.

Are all factors in America and Scandinavia outside of religion exactly equal?

Did you know there's a good chance Americans have a higher concentration of spiritual genes possibly due to the high number of religiously persecuted groups that fled to America. Read Matthew Alper's book "The God Part of the Brain".

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Interesting article. Here's a quote:

"In survey after survey since the 1960s, between 30 and 40 percent or so of those asked say they have, at least once or twice, felt "very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself." Gallup polls in the 1990s found that 53 percent of American adults said they had had "a moment of sudden religious awakening or insight." Reports of mystical experience increase with education, income and age (people in their 40s and 50s are most likely to have them).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/79341/output/print

It makes perfect sense if you assume that "His moral system" was invented by humans.

You are right, there is no absolute objective morality. While you and I might agree that it is useful not to rob, rape, or kill, others might find those very same things to be valuable tools. And surprise surprise, some human beings do those things! Its as if they don't have rules from any god(s) written in their heart, guiding their actions, defining right and wrong in some universal way for them.

Last time I checked, AIF had a penis.

Can I play, too? Okay, okay, its my turn. Here goes: You know that the bible is full of a lot of crap, but you are just suppressing it so you can choose to pretend that the Christian god is real.

(I have just as much authority to tell you (based on nothing at all) what is true or what you believe, but you are suppressing, as you do I).

Not sure how to take that. Regardless, I've asked the question a few times, and it's clear there is little interest in discussing it, so I'll pass.

You look ridiculous when you demand that others support their assertions with empirical evidence, let alone rigorously designed studies.

This is somewhat off-topic: Have you read it? Here's a quote from the book's website (http://godpart.com/html/the_premise.html):

"Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. "

This is a clearly 'materialistic' perspective; it argues that god can be reduced to evolved peculiarities of our neurology. I bring this up because you have previously cited the work of certain scientists as supporting your religious beliefs, even though such a conclusion, after examination of their studies, does not always seem to logically follow.

For example, you have brought up Hamer's discovery of the "god gene" as genetic evidence for your belief in God. However, a closer inspection of Hamer's work reveals that the gene he discovered merely controls the vesicular transport of monoamines in the brain, having a minor effect on behaviour.

This discovery, to me at least, doesn't support the existence of God at all. In fact, I would say it does the opposite. It shows that religiosity can be explained by neurobiology rather than divine forces. Do you disagree? Why?

She disagrees because the gene in question is referred to as 'the god gene'. I'm not even kidding - I'm pretty sure that's exactly why.

Oops lol

I find it ironic that in order to condemn God you must assume at least part of His moral system. Otherwise, you have no objective basis from which to judge. Every man believes in absolute right and wrong because it is written within him, as God said that He did on purpose so that we would know Him instinctively, being made in His image. Yet we suppress this so that we can choose to do what we want, and we pick and choose what part of His moral code we will take for ourselves, and we usually condemn Him with the other part . But in our condemning we prove God true and ourselves a liar, because we need His authority, His foundation, in order to claim moral absolutes in the first place.

M

Sure. The foundation for the moral code that is within us (for instance, and to give an example we all would agree upon with no contentions, Hitler's actions were wrong) is set forth in the collection of writings called the Bible. In this collection of writings, the foundation is said to be based on God's character. Love, justice, mercy and truth for example, exist because God exists, and we believe them intuitively, or more appropriately ontologically, because we have been created in God's image and therefore our inner man, our internal being, agrees with the character of God, having that same character ourselves.

In the world of Dawkins' Neo-Darwinism, there is no particular worldview within that realm that can account for a universal moral law. If we are accidental in origin, always evolving (changing), and just part of a cosmic cause-effect relationship, free will has no place and there is no foundation from which one person can say to Hitler not to throw Mom in an oven that Hitler needs to respect. If one man feels like killing another man, by what authority can someone say this is wrong? It may not be loving, it may not be kind, it may not be considerate...but who says those virtues are ones we should strive for? Who even says those virtues exist? Maybe they are just corrupted brain activity and better thinking is such that promotes domination and abuse and destruction? Maybe for this murderer, it is best for his survival, and life to any particular person is about survival of the fittest. Maybe this person does not want to survive; maybe he feels like killing until he's killed. If that's the life he wants to live, who is to condemn him? If we don't claim a higher authority than ourselves, each man can do whatever is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). Further, if there is no God who has expressed a moral law and to whom we are accountable, there is no basis from which a person should even feel it is right to condemn another person.

People in Dawkins' place have tried to answer in one of a few ways. Some say morality has evolved just like everything else. But if it is evolving, by nature it is changing, and if it is changing, maybe in 1 million years, Hitler's actions are seen as wisest. So by this reasoning, we still don't have an absolute morality, we only have a morality which seems best at the time. Many atheists enjoy this position because of its benefits. The big problem is that within us God has placed a conscience (Romans 2), and we all know that in a billion years, in a trillion years, what Hitler did was evil, and that's just all there is to it.

Other Neo-Darwinist atheists will contend that morality is never absolute, but is determined by popularity. Whatever most people believe at the time is what is right or wrong. For instance, in America, it used to be very bad to have sex outside of marriage, but now, living with someone before marriage and having a child is all but completely acceptable. It used to be considered wrong and out of place for a woman to work and her husband stay at home, but now in America this is okay. Homosexuality is another big example from our country. So morality is not absolute in nature; it is contingent, it is subjective, ever-changing, and conventional. But the problem with this is similar to the last--if basically all of Germany supported Hitler, or the vast, vast majority, was he righteous? I actually heard someone say no based on how Germany is subject to the greater European group of countries, not just Germany . But it illustrates that we know that a group of people can be totally wrong about something. If the whole world except one person supported Hitler, we all know that one person is right. Someone will contend that this could never happen because most of the world would never come to that place, because they would know it is wrong. Then you are agreeing that something is definitely wrong and people will see it--it is outside their opinions and not a convention at all, but a moral law which is transcendent.

Lastly, an atheist may take the view that moral law exists within us by nature, and it is just there. How it got there and at what time aside, it is just there. I would agree with this, but we need to probe deeper to find its origin. And that is where this theory breaks down, because there is no scenario in the world of Darwinism where it could have occurred. If it evolved, it is still evolving and not a law at all, if it was always there, we didn't evolve because relatives of chimps didn't worry about self-sacrifice and justice.

If one actually reads the Scriptures instead of maintaining a caricature of it in one's mind, using the straw man argument to self-justify, one will find that therein exists a perfect moral law that agrees with our souls. We see that self-glorification is not glory, that sacrificial love is supreme, that there needs to be justice--the evil punished, and those who do right rewarded. We need a higher authority otherwise everything is a crap shoot and there is disorder and ruin. In the Scriptures we see our own sin as we read it, and we see that we owe a debt to our Creator that we can never make up, and this is why God Himself came to earth and took on flesh, to live as an example and to sacrifice Himself to justify us so that we could be in His perfect presence.

M

I never said it was VALID ground. It is however necessary ground.

If someone despises the earth and the brown soil and claims it does not exist because they hate it and because they only believe in evidence which is pink in color, in order to argue against its existence or use they must still in some way be supported by that which they deny, although they are blind to the connection.

If God's law from the Bible is not true, and does not exist, by what authority do you condemn it? Who are you, and where did you become righteous such that others should listen to you? How do you know better than anyone else? How are you not in some sense random in your beliefs, as far as their being right? In other words, where do you get "Right" and "Wrong"? You need a foundation...and the only tenable foundation is the one you're trying to deny .

m

There were written moral systems before the Bible, and they weren't written by anyone who followed Yahweh. Your argument becomes utterly meaningless if you can't establish the god of the Bible as the source of morality, since that puts you in the exact same position as those you argue against. This is ignoring the fact that you are incorrect about Chimpanzees and sacrificing for family/in-group members.

+1

In a billion years, plants will still carry out photosynthesis to produce food. Does this mean they aren't evolving? Just because some things are exceedingly unlikely to change does not make them fixed law.

AirshipOhio:

If "His moral system" was invented by humans, I would ask where absolute morality comes from, but then you said that there is no such thing.

So if you say: "...there is no absolute objective morality.", I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

Do you realize that your statement is a moral absolute? It is by definition a statement of absolute nature concerning morality, hence a moral absolute.

Again, you need the foundation of what you deny in order to deny it. If there is nothing concerning morality that is certain or absolute, you cannot even make the statement. You are just stating your meager opinion which has no necessary connection with truth, and it by definition can't be true as it is self-contradictory.

With the other comment you made, you again miss this point. You think you can turn the argument around and say that I believe the Bible even though a bunch of stuff is wrong so that I can believe what I want. But it is the Bible that offers a foundation from which to start-a foundation of the desire to seek truth as a good thing. From your worldview, how do you believe you have an inner desire for truth? How do you know this is a good thing? How do you know good exists? If nothing is absolute, nothing you are doing is heading towards any sort of profitable direction since profitability does not necessarily exist, either.

The truth is, I personally don't really care what the truth turns out to be. But I do know that I desire truth strongly, to know it. It matters to me. I don't have a dream of what I need life to be, but I hate being in the dark. I like to know. I think we all share the same nature, but some of us don't like what the light reveals more than others.

M

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5733638.ece

Do you run a three-card monte stand?

You are talking about the time period when something is written, not when events occurred. The Bible claims to start with the creation of the universe and with the first man. If true, then any and all other moral codes derive from the God of Scripture. So your first statement serves no purpose unless you already assume your position, which is that the Bible is not God's word and is not true. Of course if my position is correct, there will be divergent views of morality, and whether the writing of them predates the 2nd millennium B.C. or not, they would have had to have gone astray from the foundation of God's morality.

That said, I obviously agree with you that my argument is meaningless if the God of the Bible is not the true God.

However, it does not put me in the same place as those against whom I argue, because many of them don't know of or claim ANY foundation for their moral beliefs. That problem is simply not addressed.

I would make the argument to you that there is no worldview other than Christian Theism wherein a person can have a cogent account of all that exists, but especially, for our purposes, the existence moral absolutes.

The Bible is the only writing in existence which thoroughly accounts for all that exists, and especially with regard to moral law, explaining it in a way in which we understand and realize its truth. There is no other writing that can even be compared. No other writing explains who God is, His character, how that relates to us, in such a detailed, comprehensive and all-encompassing manner.

The Bible explains where our inner sense of morality comes from-the fact that God created us in His image, and ultimately from His character which has these traits. The Bible explains why we feel what we do, why we care about what we do, why we act how we do. It explains these things in such richness and exhaustive ways that I have no question that it is certainly true without a doubt.

If you believe in moral absolutes but simply claim them without the God of the Bible, I would ask you where you think they originate. If you don't believe in moral absolutes, I've addressed that, too, because the statement, "There are no moral absolutes" is a moral absolute and therefore self-contradictory.


Lastly, and this is a small point, but about chimps being self-sacrificial, I would love to hear an example of a non-human consciously choosing such a feat. I don't mean whether a chimp does things which we might view as a sacrifice. I mean if a chimp would be capable of a moral dilemma. Another point along this line is that I think it is agreed that chimps can't be evil. If a chimp attacks a pregnant woman, we don't think he is a bad chimp or evil or a disgrace. We just think he's a chimp. If a chimp eats human babies (which they do sometimes), we don't think the chimp is evil. A chimp has no way of learning anything moral. It can only learn what behaviors will result in certain effects. Human beings have a conscience, a moral understanding and conviction within us. God has placed it there as part of our nature, and this (not intelligence) is the chief difference between us and the animals.

M

Well, I disagree with a lot of your assumptions here. For instance with time's effect on things. It is your theory which needs extremely long periods of time to maintain any appearance of credibility. When I was in high school in the late 90's, it was millions of years. By the time I was in college, all the talk was billions of years. When a theory about change over time is wrong, one will need more and more time to justify it. However no matter how many gazillions of years you give Darwinism, you will still never see life arising from non-life, intelligence coming from non-intelligence, or kind producing another kind of life. These basic and necessary assumptions of the theory are believed completely on faith alone, apart from empiricism.

In short, yes, the fact that plants are what they are means they will not change ontologically. They will exhibit minor changes over time, but will never become something else ontologically.

Now, more to the point, it seems you believe that morality can change over time. I would ask if you know if any moral beliefs which CANNOT change over time-any period of time. For instance, is there any possibility that the whole of Hitler's actions can be 'okay', ever? Can taking innocent and harmless people, deceiving them, and putting them in an oven for them to die horrific deaths EVER, in any world or any number of gazillions of years, be justified? Because if so, I would say the time is now. Hitler was hugely Darwinistic. He was seeking to advance the human race by ridding the planet of "useless eaters", the sick and feeble, the unhealthy, the lower end of the gene pool. He figured this was a small sacrifice if we accomplished a super race without disease and sickness. If his actions were one small step towards human beings living forever, it was a good step in his eyes. I don't know of any better time for that to be justified than now.

I think most people's consiences will tell them that it is still wrong, what he did. That it was not his place, that he was evil and hateful, selfish and arrogant. All his actions were terrible and horrific, and no matter how many years you want to assume, this man's actions could never be justified.

Within us is a moral understanding which is not conventional or subjective; it is transcendent and absolute, abstract and universal. It applies to all people everywhere for all time. And there is only one explanation as to how that has come about.

M

[ ] The bible acknowledges other planets
[ ] The bible acknowledges other stars
[ ] The bible acknowledges other galaxies
[ ] The bible acknowledges infectious disease
[ ] The bible acknowledges parasites
[ ] The bible acknowledges black holes
[ ] The bible acknowledges supernovas
[ ] The bible acknowledges gamma ray bursts
[ ] The bible acknowledges ice ages
[ ] The bible acknowledges the age of the earth
[ ] The bible acknowledges the age of the universe
[ ] The bible acknowledges a significant portion of known science
[ ] The bible acknowledges DNA
[ ] The bible acknowledges electricity
[ ] The bible acknowledges the periodic table
[ ] The bible acknowledges evolution
[ ] The bible acknowledges the cure to cancer
[x] The bible acknowledges gay people
[x] The bible acknowledges slavery
[x] The bible acknowledges stoning people to death for gathering sticks
[x] The bible acknowledges talking snakes

Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Can we get some new missionaries to 2p2? Some non-delusional ones?

Every being seeks to survive (natural selection - beings who don't become extinct). This is also true of man. And as a result, man believes that he has a right to live. As a consequence, he believes that every man has a right to live. Therefore, everyone sees the Holocaust as a crime. Natural moral. No God required.

And this:
is horrible. It is unforgivable.
Do you really think that Hitler believed these things? He wanted to take over the world, and it helps to create a "we are better than them" paradigm for that. He didn't believe any of his writings, as we know from secret minutes. He just hated the Jews and the Russians, so he assigned them the role of the monsters who are in contrast to the pure "Aryan heroes".

For the Bible to be true, it does not need to be a science textbook talking about, for instance, gamma ray bursts. So I'm unsure of the point of your post, but in keeping with the fun of 2.2, I'll play back (but only once):

[ ] Your post shows you've read the Bible.
[x] You like straw man arguments.

The Bible acknowledges other stars and galaxies, infectious diseases and parasites, DNA, elements of evolution (small changes within species over time), the cure to cancer, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, the foundation of the significant portion of known science including elements on the periodic table, homosexuality, slavery, and of course much more. (Google is your friend-for specific references, that's where I'd go, so you can also do it yourself if you really care to see.)

Darwinism:

[ ] Has any idea of how life originated.
[ ] Is clearly defined and delineated.
[ ] Knows what a species is.
[ ] Has empirical evidence for its central tenet of life arising from non-life.
[ ] Has empirical evidence for its central tenet of non-intelligence producing intelligence.
[ ] Has empirical evidence for its central tenet of kind producing another kind of life.
[ ] Has a philosophically tenable position concerning the laws of morality.
[ ] Has a philosophically tenable position concerning the laws of nature.
[ ] Has a philosophically tenable position concerning the laws of logic.
[ ] Allows dissension and criticism in the ranks.
[ ] Other countries are as sure about Darwinian Evolutionary theory as the U.S. (cf. China researchers; Polish geneticists).
[x] Is based on fantasy-just read Origin of Species.
[x] Is believed by faith, most often by argumentum ad populum.
[x] Is dogmatically proclaimed as fact (cf. Dawkins).
[x] Molecular biology is in a crisis due to the new studies on the incredible complexity of the cell which many feel would have prevented Darwin's own theory from ever arising if he had known what we do now.
[x] Now popularly believes perhaps aliens seeded our planet to create us (cf. Dawkins).
[x] Allows proponents to avoid accountability to God.
[x] Gives a pseudo-basis for mocking God.
[x] Allows people to live life however they want without feeling guilty constantly.
[x] Makes us feel better about hating God.

I wonder why it is that whenever I run into people who are making fun of God, they are making fun of a caricature of Him? Why the straw man? If they cared about truth, why would they not have actually studied the Bible in depth AND sought to understand the p.o.v. from those who believe it before attacking it? It is just ignorant not to do so, but why so anxious? Perhaps it is not about truth, but about self-justification?

Why have I never met anyone who has ever said they really love the God of the Bible but can't believe in Him because they just don't see it as possibly true? Why is it always those who hate what they know of God who reject Him? Apparently it's not a matter of truth, but a matter of preference--as Dawkins said in a video interview, aliens may have seeded our planet (therefore we are created, and he said there is evidence for this in nature), but it could not be the God of the Bible. Why? Because Dawkins doesn't like the God of the Bible. Hmmm.

Why are there scientists and doctors and very intellectual men who believe in God, and then many in this thread who have not studied much at all who feel so confident in rejecting Him?

Why have I never met anyone who really hates the God of the Bible who says, "Darn it, too bad it's true...I must worship and love Him."

People always find a way to believe what they want. Our reasons for rejecting or accepting God are metaphysical, and they must be defended for metaphysical reasons.

M

You claimed the bible "thoroughly accounts for all that exists." I plainly showed that wasn't true. That was the point of the post.

... wow. So you pretty much do run a three-card monte stand.