21-04-2004, 02:30
That sword and baby situation may be extreme but, the reason I use it is because the line between right and wrong is very clear.
Yes, but what about the day to day situations? Morality isn't just practiced on extreme cases and extreme cases are not a good judge of one's overall morality.
I think that day-to-day situations should be judged by the same conscience used in any situation. Maybe its just my thinking but I tend to think that morality is perhaps best judged in extreme situations, unless of course an action is taken in the spur of the moment. The extremer the situation, the easier it is to recognize right from wrong. In day-to-day situations one tends to forget about what is right and wrong, for the day supposedly isn't long enough to be concerned with morals, and we get too caught up in our work to stop, and ask oneself is this right or is this wrong?
Whereas it would be more difficult to the average person to draw the line between right and wrong in a less extreme situation.
Yes, but that's where morality happens, in the grey areas. Does a life time of keeping incorrect change and stealing candy bars overrule one truly heroic act?
No. If one finds morals should be valued that person in order not to lead a completely contradictory lifestyle must exercise morality, in areas white, grey, and black. If not, hello moral relativist.
A coward giving up his or her life on a whim, seems insane to me. If a person did that I would like to talk to him and question him as to why he too this course of action. If a person who is a moral relativist felt wrong about having me murder another human I would like to know why?
Well, it doesn't have to make sense to you, it's their choice based on whatever principles they hold dear. There are any number of reasons a moral relativist might feel wrong watching you kill a child. Anything from percieving you as a threat to self or genetic line to feeling you're insane and potentially dangerous. The source for unease doesn't have to be divine in origin, it can be firmly rooted in self-interest and have a same effect.
It does have to make sense to themselves though, that is my question. I thiink your first reason seems rather unreasonable. I mean there are 6 billion other folks out there. And why would I be a threat to this person? The ony way to feel threatened would be if he or she thought his or her life was in danger. If that is the case why then stop me, just run like the dickens away from me. I don't see how murdering another person would cause a moral relativist to be uneasey due to self-interest, at least thats not what I heard. Self-interest would say in that situation, "RUN!"
Before I forget this is that guy's website in case you haven't found it yet: www.rzim.org
Thanks. I've looked over it a bit and it's interesting. I need to get more into it before I develop an opinion.
You ask why I am fearful of the moral relativist and atheist. The reason is, and based on you post it appears you will disagree with me, I find that the ultimate goal of the atheists I am hearing from will produce a generation of men and women without shame for their actions and no sense of guilt. Atheists that do not share their brethren's hope are either in the minority or aren't speaking out against such hopes. It was Aldous Huxley who said, "I want this world not to have meaning, because a meaningless world frees me to my own erotic, and my own political pursuits." He is joined by many. When there is no meaning to life, and the secularized society takes hold it will take away the legitimate sense of shame in our heart's. What does this mean though? It will allow for the 'anything goes' mindset. This is why Turner writes that last paragraph.
If religion exists these things still may happen, obviously, we see that every day. But religion doesn't exist in the offender's heart, unless of course it has been mangled by power-hungry church leaders. (Did I mention I was Catholic :lol: )
Heh, I was wondering what theisim you belonged to. I was guessing Catholic, but wasn't sure. :D
I think you're judging atheists by a somewhat nihilistic subset. Quite the contrary to your experience, most true atheists I've met attribute considerably more meaning to this life as they believe it is all there is and that arbitration of right and wrong comes from the human spirit and must therefore be zelously guarded and fiercely protected. Huxley, your quoted example. falls more into this category, regardless of his statement. His ecology essays gave rise to the modern environmental movement and his lifelong pacificism, with no religious base, barred him from ever becoming an United States citizen (something he desperately wanted to be) because he would not claim it to be religiously inspired.
This seems to be, at least to me, the action of a moral man: the denial of a desire in order to claim faithfulness to ones presumed beliefs.
I am uncertain why you feel athiesim somehow implies less meaning attributed to life. Differently meaning, surely, but not in any way less or counterproductive.
Furthermore, why does a secular society remove appropriate guilt and/or shame? Whereas a religious sense of shame or guilt may not be appropriate for all in a society (as religious mores differ), a society that constructs it's own agreed upon social mores then can legitimately expect members of that society who transgress against that moral construct to feel justified shame and guilt for breaking the morals they agreed upon?
Would the arbitration of right and wrong though be evolutionary. I don't remember a soul when briefly studying evolution. As for the nihilistic subset, your probably right. According to the atheist that posted a bit above you and I quote,"lives are meaningless" That is one whopper of a reason I feel atheism equals less meaning. You say the denial of a desire for ones presumed beliefs sounds moral. Sounds like Lent to me :lol:
Secularism removes guilt because it removes the public awareness of religion, especially a religion that not only shows you what is right and wrong, but also tells you how to achieve righteousness, sounds like Christianity. With no visible leadership that defends right and wrong, the line between right and wrong becomes blurred. With no sense of what is right and what is wrong the sense of guilt is lost. Has this happened yet? No. Has secularization run its full course? No.
My basis for the quote you asked about for my basis for the quote is that if not all, or perhaps not even most atheists believe in what it was I was talking about I ask why are they not outraged about the atheists speaking out for something they reject.
For the same reason more theists aren't outraged when alternative theisims are repressed or misrepresented. That's a human thing, not an athiest thing. Churches are quick to defend themselves but frighteningly slow to defend each other. For example, why was there not a greater outcry from the religious community over the legal prosecution of the Unitarian ministers in New York for performing gay weddings? Under Unitarian church doctrine, gay marriage is acceptable. Yet, when faced with a clear violation of church and state, many churches chose to remain silent because they didn't agree with the specific principle.
I can only assume you didn't hear the outcry, that or it wasn't reported. The conservatives of the Episcopalian church and just about every other Christian chruch went bananas when a gay bishop was installed. Pope John Paul II was crushed when he learned of the scandal in the Catholic Church in America, in fact everybody except enemies of the church were crushed. When Jim Baker was jailed Billy Graham of all people visited him. I still manage to find some sympathy for Baker. I don't quite understand your point in the last sentence.
Laslty I am not sure you are reading the 'poem' right. Either that or I am not reading your post right. Anyway: If an atheist believes in a continued existence after death who sustains this existenceand where did they come up with that idea?
Continued existance after death is not singularly religious in inspiration. Some atheists believe in an energistic existance that continues seperate from the corporeal body, a "soul" of sorts. Some athiests believe in reincarnation, not with a religious drive, but simply a vast pool of potential 'life' from which we all come and to which we all return. There's no religious heirarchy and no greater purpose, just an cycle of endless return. And, true, some athiests simply believe that after death, that's all she wrote. The point is, there does not have to be a concept of divinity in order to have a concept of eternal, uninterrupted continuance. This is an assumption that it's tempting to make, but is ultimately unfounded. Additionally, even should someone be able to prove a continued existance after death, this in no way proves the existance of a directive force in the Universe, i.e. "God". The ideas do not depend on each other, unless the person involved makes that linkage. Which is perfectly fine, but you must remember it's a personal linkage and therefore can not be generally applied to everyone.
Those above beliefs have hardly any support in the scientific community, the refuge of the atheist. Lets look at the Big Bang theory for just a moment. It basically says there was an explosin that came from an infinitely dense ball of matter. Oh really where exactly did that matter come from. That I think points to a trancendent being. Of course not knowing a great deal about the Big Bang I may be missreading what it states.
I would think and I know your going to call this an assumption
Hehe, yep, probably. :D
but most atheists do agree with many of Marxe's, Darwin's and Freud's ideas.
So do many theists. How one feels about evolutionary theory, economic theory or psychological theory does not necessarily have to impact how one feels about metaphysical theory. Personally, I am a Quaker that feels Evolution happens, Freud had some good observations but was just a little too fascinated by poo, and Marx is interesting, but not really applicable to human society as it currently stands. Life is, by necessity and definition, a smorgasboard of ideas and experiences. You miss something if you don't try them. Either you miss this great chance you've been given by some divity or you miss this great chance you've been given purely by chance. The point is, you can pick and chose and see what resonates to you. If it doesn't work, you can always pick again. Theisim and Marx, Darwin and Freud do not have to be mutually exclusive. Science and Religion can go hand and hand (and, in my opinion, should because they both feed different sides of the life), so long as they understand that one can not and should not "dominate" the other in their home court.
Just because some theists may believe in these theories doesn't mean atheists don't. Saying atheists believe in these theories is not a lie. Its like saying I like ice cream. That doesn't mean Joe doesn't. I must say though I am a bit suprised an theist would believe, "religion is the opium of the masses"-Marx This is a paraphrase but,'"It is best to be an agnostic"-Darwin and, well I don't know of a Freudian quote but how many theists do you know that believe all thoughts are based on sexuality. I see all the beliefs of these men as fads. New fads will replace them eventually.
Such ideas "free them [me] to their [my] own and erotic a political pursuits.
Why is this bad?
It is potentially dangerous. Eroticism or promiscuity is wrong thats whats bad about that.Wrongheaded political pursuits can be extremely dangerous, and coming from a person in love with meaninglessness that makes such pursuits even more dangerous.
Everything isn't o.k. if it doesn't include hurting anyone (by the way it said to the best of your definition hence there is no point of reference of what hurt is)
Why isn't it and who gets to make the call? I did see the "best of your definition" part and you're right, this arugement flaps in the wind because the author himself didn't define his terms.
First off it is meant to flap in the wind because the author is talking as an atheist. Who gets to make that call? I say God. Many obviously disagree.
I would certainly think as a Christian you would have to say you reject that idea.
I do, on a personal basis given the experiences and searching I have done myself. I can not in good concience, however, make this judgement for anyone else because I am aware of my own daily questioning and to assume that I am somehow more in tune with some UberMorality stream than some athiest or different theist would be to deny the central tennant of my own search: That it is mine. This is my relationship with God. It doesn't make me automatically more moral or less moral than someone who has reached a different conclusion. It can't because, if it does, then my conclusion becomes less valid.
Atheists do not have to disbelieve this, for if they do believe such a statement is true and Turner is right they will not have contradicted themselves. This means that Christians who were involved in the crusade (though disobeying their own beliefs on behalf of their beliefs) may not have believed something was alright as long as it didn't hurt anyone, for heaven's sake (pardon the pun) they were hurting someone.
Okay, I must admit, you lost me there. It sort of sounds like you're saying that, so long as they believed themselves to be right, they were right, even if we can see today that they were clearly wrong. This can't be the case, can it? Can you explain your reasoning here a little more because I got confused.
Quite frankly I lost myslef too. Clearly the effects of typing past ten.
I am sure lots of people do believe in sex before, during, and after marriage, atheists included. I don't see labeling this moral relativism is unfair, for moral relativism allows for such thinking.
I only labeled it so because Turner labeled it an atheistic trait and you relabeled it a moral relativistic trait. Personally, I see no problem with sex whenever. I do see a problem with promiscuity, but I'm less inclined to call people who have frequent sex with multiple partners morally bankrupt than pray that they are being safe and worry that they are trying to solve one problem by substituting in another.
Sex whenever eventually means AIDS. Not to mention though shalt not commit adultery.
No matter if a 'blow job' is sex or not, it is wrong, remember 1Corinthians 6: 12-20.
Yes, well, again, it's only wrong by first Corinthians if you assume the Bible is the ultimate source of law, which many don't and even I, as a Quaker, view with a healthy dose of skeptsicim.
This will come off as arrogant but oh well. I don't assume the Bible is the ultimate source of law, I know it is. *Hides for cover from incoming bombs*
I think Turner means when he says the therapy of sin, (and I could be wrong) the practicing, or perhaps indulgence of sin.
Yes, but many theists practice this as well, execept they indulge in a hypocracy on top of whatever sin they're committing. Back in the day, the Papacy even sold indulgences to let people off the hook for sins they may not have even committed yet but were planning on. How is that a moral stance if it can be circumvented by a piece of paper anyone could purchase if they had enough money?
Atheists do though, thats why Turner can say that atheists believe in the therapy of sin, and not meantion theists practicing the therapy of sin. Hey this isn't the theist's creed.
Much of this 'poems' statements are contradcitions of themselves the taboo line is one of them.
I agree with you. I would go even further to say that the contradictory nature of the poem is what makes it so obviously uninformed and, in a way, unChristian. It shows no true desire to speak to atheists, but instead makes a lot of assumptions about what the author thinks they believe based on his own biases. It's self congratulatory, smug and rather vile as, instead of seeking understanding, it gleefully wallows in ignorance.
Well I disagree. It is designed to be nonsensical because Turner clearly feels atheism is nonsensical. I don't pick up on the self-congratulatory nature of the poem. Vile, perhaps, but so are many of the ideas expressed by atheists. I think Turner gave up on understanding long before he wrote this.
For if an atheist thinks that forbiddens are forbidden, well why are they forbidding forbiddens.
Again, there are many secular reasons that have perfect legitimacy for forbidden things. Many atheists and theists show surprising agreement on general life principles, all that differs is the motivation behind them. However, since actions speak louder than words, regardless of the path taken, can we say the final destination is the same, yet one is better for the journey?
Yes, but I would be interested to hear seeing how I never have, (maybe you have) why an atheist sees something as forbidden.
Turner was being sincere when he said "evidence must be investigated" but not when he said "and you can prove anything with evidence."
No, you can prove the rational facts with evidence. Proof is reasoning hand in hand with evidence (doh, who knew high school debate principles would ever bite me in the butt at this point in my life).
Again it sounds nonsensical because he is writing as an atheist.
:lol:
Hey I said despite the horoscope part. Jesus was not a good man (relax I'll explain) He was either the Son of God or the greatest charlatan in world history. I think, and again I am speaking for my interpretation of the 'poem' seeing how many atheists believe that Jesus' good morals are basically bad, for they are resrticting and don't "free" a person to his or her "own erotic and political pursuits."
You're really hung up on that phrase. Actually, Jesus was a good man. That was the whole point of him. According to Judeo-Christian theory, God sent him to us as a man to show us how to live as men. To assume he was anything other than mortal is to reject one of the central tennants of Christianity (this is something that greatly bothered me in Gibson's "The Passion" and the justification for the excessive violence he used, that it was supposed to show that Jesus was more than human. But if he's more than human, then the Bible and all of Christianity is wrong.) Jesus was a man who we can aspire to or he was a Superman that we can not. One way, he serves as an example, the other, he is simply a mockery of our broken lives and why should we strive to emulate the unattainable?
This seems to me as a difference of opinion that will not be change by either of us. Yes Jesus came in the form of a man, he was the Son of God though. Being the Son of God is a whole lot more than being human. By the way I think the greatest justification of the violence is the shroud of Tourin. hether or not it was Jeus' burial cloth the person sure looks like he took a nasty beating) Also, a verse is coming to me something like he was marred beyond recognition.
I don't worship the Bible either, for G.K. Chesterton a fellow Catholic called many protestants 'bible-worshippers' But that is a whole other debate.
Based on your previous quoting of it at me, you seem to. I could be wrong, but that is my perception.
Just because I try to OBEY the principles of the Bible which I believe are divine revelation doesn't mean I WORSHIP the Bible.
The same except for creation, sin, heaven, hell, Gol, and salvation, thats meant to be read as quite a bit.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Could you please explain further?
Turner means to say religions are not as alike as many see them as.
If you do not believe in a hell I ask you where does the Devil reside, or do you not believe in Satan either?
Actually, the concept of the Devil and Satan crept into the bible and the church rather later. In current translations, Lucifer makes an appearance in Chapter 14 of Isaiah with the following: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" -- Isaiah 14:12. In the initial Hebrew text of this passage, Lucifer was a Babylonian King, not the most favored of angels. Christian scribes are assumed to have mistranslated this (either as intentional error or as simple mistake) and now poets and religious theologians have managed to link the Devil, Satan and Lucifer together. However, this only removes Lucifer from the mix.
Again, in Hebrew, Satan is not a name, but a title, more properly referred to as "The Satan" and is is given to an Angel of God who acts as the adversary or accuser. This title is mentioned only 4 times outside of the book of Job and only 18 times in total within the Old Testiment. Let's examine The Satan in the book of Job.
In the beginning, God gives The Satan power over Job's possesions, but no power over him. The Satan then acts as the main sower of doubt, trying to convince Job that he only loves God because it is beneficial. However, when he can not wring this statement out of him, God gives The Satan the power to torment Job himself. Still no statement is forthcoming.
It is interesting to note that, at no time, is The Satan acting without God's express permission or, indeed, against his will. Additionally, The Satan never directly opposed God, simply Job, and then only under God's will. This argues that The Satan is not a permanent fixture and that the powers granted to the position are only given by God and only in specific situations. Therefore, it seems a reasonable assumption that many of the evil and craven acts committed by man are not the result of interference by The Satan, but instead of our own devising.
During the intertestamental period (roughly 300 BCE to 100 CE), the role of Satan took on a whole new significance. Suddenly God became associated with upmost Good while Satan became linked to darkest evil. No longer merely an appointed henchman, Satan was now a fallen angel who, along with a cohort of other fallen angels, sought the destruction of mankind and God. The reasons for this may have something to do with the emergence of Zoroastrianism in Persia (modern day Iran) and the prophit Zoroaster who's mythos (dating anywhere between 550 BCE and 6,000 BCE) is strikingly similar to that of the Christ. He performed miracles, taught the supremacy of one god "Ahura Mazda" and is generally credited with founding the first monotheistic religion (although this is obviously a very hard thing to claim). Zoroaster also taught of Ahura Mazda's twin brother, Angra Manyu, who served as the source of evil and destruction. Zoroaster believed that these two Gods would fight eternally, until finally Angra Manyu was defeated and, at that time, there would be a resurrection of the dead and a Final Judgement with subsequent division of all humanity into the righteous (who go to Heaven) and the evil (who go to...well, guess where). Thus, it seems that this is the framework the authors of the New Testiment grafted their conceptualization of Satan onto. The shift can be seen in Jewish writing of that time, a slow progression of God turning into the ultimate good while Satan emerges as the ultimate evil and the two are locked at each other's throats.
Why have I gone over all this, you may be asking. Although it's fascinating in and of itself, it serves to illustrate how the Bible itself has been influenced by other schools of thought.
Do I believe in Satan? Well, which one? Do I believe that people's illnesses are caused by demons and devils and unclean spirits? Nope.
Again a difference of opinion, or maybe a difference in fact rather. I don't buy the 'added on later' argument. If that is the case a great many people have been misled. If this was so easy to see I would think more people would hold your opinion.
Also There are so many Bible verses referring to the Bible, I don't think they all were just added on. And f so why?
I am also confused by this. What was your intent?
Whoops I meant Bible verses referring to the Devil
the prospect of hell appears to be the least attractive part of Christianity.
Yes, but it seems to still get alot of attention, perhaps even moreso than the message of Christ himself.
Maybe, but hell would lose members of a church, and certainly not gain them.
As for whats normal is good. I know I don't use that argument, hardly I think you have made an uh-oh assumption :D . I just find it easy to read from Romans chapter one verse 21 and on.
Yes, the words of Paul, the first man to think the word of the Lord God is best spread at the point of a sword. Not really what you might call the most understanding of the apostles.
Paul who wrote a majority of the New Testament. paul who never saw Jesusn in the flesh. Paul who persecuted Christians so bad he had to change his name. Yes, Paul, a giant of the faith.
each man must fine the truth IF IT IS RIGHT FOR HIM." That again allows for moral relativism, for the truth is no longer absolute, it is subjective. The point is reality can't possibly adapt according to something that is subjective like inabsolute truth.
Reality is far more elastic than you might think. Particularly if you follow the Many Worlds coceptualization of quantum physics.
For a lot of people's sake reality sure had better be more elastic than I think. An interesting theory. Perhaps even possible. I think it goes to far though.
If an atheist does believe in an absolute truth I ask where does he or she think that truth comes from?
If it is absolute, then it must not have "come" from anywhere. It must have always been there by fiat. Otherwise, for it to have "come" from somewhere, there must be something greater than it, which, by definition, means it is not absolute.
Your absolutely wrong :lol: I do doubt you last sentence. I think your defintion of absolute differs from mine.
Atheists rejected creeds of morality,
No, they didn't. They rejected blind faith, sought out their own answers and arrived at different conclusions than we did, much as you and I have arrived at different conclusions given the same basic starting point. Yet, I certainly don't consider you to be a bad person and I hope you don't consider me to be one, even though we differ in our interpretations of faith.
I don't think I would consider a person bad or immoral based solely on beliefs, rather actions are the true measures of the heart. It seems we both agree on this.
Jesus rejected, well I wouldn't call it a creed or moral. Individual thought as it corelates to moral relativism, individual thought like, "There is no right or wrong I am free to do and think as I please and there will be no implications that I have to respond to." That is dangerous.
Yes, but it is not atheisim, is is psychosis. To reject cause and effect, at least that imposed upon us by living and profiting from society, is indeed dangerous. However, it can not be wholly accomplished. You can, for example, kill someone and say, "Well, I think I was justified so I will do whatever I want." There will be a consequence imposed upon you by society. Society, in an effort to protect itself and it's members, will remove you from it. You can deny this all you want, but will most likely be removed anyway. Atheists and moral relativists do not reject cause and effect or action and consequence, they simply say it does not have to exist within a religious context.
Are you saying atheism isn't psychosis :shock: If though secularization spreads moreso the total absence of guilt will not allow for society imposing law, or at least enforcing them.
Now that I have typed all that I find that much of what we have debated about is for the most part all semantics (for the most part). The important thing is believing in Christ and obeying his word, to obey the will of the Father.
Hmm, well, only if you're a Christian and only if they make sense. Faith can't exist in a vacuum from society and reality. It must be held accountable. Otherwise it is no longer faith, but it is fanaticisim and the whole world suffers from it.[/quote]
Well I am talking to a Christian. I agree that faith cannot exist totaly out of reality (grant it it must somewhat otherwise I wouldn't call it faith) I think faith can be felt by the heart and sustained by the mind.
Yes, but what about the day to day situations? Morality isn't just practiced on extreme cases and extreme cases are not a good judge of one's overall morality.
I think that day-to-day situations should be judged by the same conscience used in any situation. Maybe its just my thinking but I tend to think that morality is perhaps best judged in extreme situations, unless of course an action is taken in the spur of the moment. The extremer the situation, the easier it is to recognize right from wrong. In day-to-day situations one tends to forget about what is right and wrong, for the day supposedly isn't long enough to be concerned with morals, and we get too caught up in our work to stop, and ask oneself is this right or is this wrong?
Whereas it would be more difficult to the average person to draw the line between right and wrong in a less extreme situation.
Yes, but that's where morality happens, in the grey areas. Does a life time of keeping incorrect change and stealing candy bars overrule one truly heroic act?
No. If one finds morals should be valued that person in order not to lead a completely contradictory lifestyle must exercise morality, in areas white, grey, and black. If not, hello moral relativist.
A coward giving up his or her life on a whim, seems insane to me. If a person did that I would like to talk to him and question him as to why he too this course of action. If a person who is a moral relativist felt wrong about having me murder another human I would like to know why?
Well, it doesn't have to make sense to you, it's their choice based on whatever principles they hold dear. There are any number of reasons a moral relativist might feel wrong watching you kill a child. Anything from percieving you as a threat to self or genetic line to feeling you're insane and potentially dangerous. The source for unease doesn't have to be divine in origin, it can be firmly rooted in self-interest and have a same effect.
It does have to make sense to themselves though, that is my question. I thiink your first reason seems rather unreasonable. I mean there are 6 billion other folks out there. And why would I be a threat to this person? The ony way to feel threatened would be if he or she thought his or her life was in danger. If that is the case why then stop me, just run like the dickens away from me. I don't see how murdering another person would cause a moral relativist to be uneasey due to self-interest, at least thats not what I heard. Self-interest would say in that situation, "RUN!"
Before I forget this is that guy's website in case you haven't found it yet: www.rzim.org
Thanks. I've looked over it a bit and it's interesting. I need to get more into it before I develop an opinion.
You ask why I am fearful of the moral relativist and atheist. The reason is, and based on you post it appears you will disagree with me, I find that the ultimate goal of the atheists I am hearing from will produce a generation of men and women without shame for their actions and no sense of guilt. Atheists that do not share their brethren's hope are either in the minority or aren't speaking out against such hopes. It was Aldous Huxley who said, "I want this world not to have meaning, because a meaningless world frees me to my own erotic, and my own political pursuits." He is joined by many. When there is no meaning to life, and the secularized society takes hold it will take away the legitimate sense of shame in our heart's. What does this mean though? It will allow for the 'anything goes' mindset. This is why Turner writes that last paragraph.
If religion exists these things still may happen, obviously, we see that every day. But religion doesn't exist in the offender's heart, unless of course it has been mangled by power-hungry church leaders. (Did I mention I was Catholic :lol: )
Heh, I was wondering what theisim you belonged to. I was guessing Catholic, but wasn't sure. :D
I think you're judging atheists by a somewhat nihilistic subset. Quite the contrary to your experience, most true atheists I've met attribute considerably more meaning to this life as they believe it is all there is and that arbitration of right and wrong comes from the human spirit and must therefore be zelously guarded and fiercely protected. Huxley, your quoted example. falls more into this category, regardless of his statement. His ecology essays gave rise to the modern environmental movement and his lifelong pacificism, with no religious base, barred him from ever becoming an United States citizen (something he desperately wanted to be) because he would not claim it to be religiously inspired.
This seems to be, at least to me, the action of a moral man: the denial of a desire in order to claim faithfulness to ones presumed beliefs.
I am uncertain why you feel athiesim somehow implies less meaning attributed to life. Differently meaning, surely, but not in any way less or counterproductive.
Furthermore, why does a secular society remove appropriate guilt and/or shame? Whereas a religious sense of shame or guilt may not be appropriate for all in a society (as religious mores differ), a society that constructs it's own agreed upon social mores then can legitimately expect members of that society who transgress against that moral construct to feel justified shame and guilt for breaking the morals they agreed upon?
Would the arbitration of right and wrong though be evolutionary. I don't remember a soul when briefly studying evolution. As for the nihilistic subset, your probably right. According to the atheist that posted a bit above you and I quote,"lives are meaningless" That is one whopper of a reason I feel atheism equals less meaning. You say the denial of a desire for ones presumed beliefs sounds moral. Sounds like Lent to me :lol:
Secularism removes guilt because it removes the public awareness of religion, especially a religion that not only shows you what is right and wrong, but also tells you how to achieve righteousness, sounds like Christianity. With no visible leadership that defends right and wrong, the line between right and wrong becomes blurred. With no sense of what is right and what is wrong the sense of guilt is lost. Has this happened yet? No. Has secularization run its full course? No.
My basis for the quote you asked about for my basis for the quote is that if not all, or perhaps not even most atheists believe in what it was I was talking about I ask why are they not outraged about the atheists speaking out for something they reject.
For the same reason more theists aren't outraged when alternative theisims are repressed or misrepresented. That's a human thing, not an athiest thing. Churches are quick to defend themselves but frighteningly slow to defend each other. For example, why was there not a greater outcry from the religious community over the legal prosecution of the Unitarian ministers in New York for performing gay weddings? Under Unitarian church doctrine, gay marriage is acceptable. Yet, when faced with a clear violation of church and state, many churches chose to remain silent because they didn't agree with the specific principle.
I can only assume you didn't hear the outcry, that or it wasn't reported. The conservatives of the Episcopalian church and just about every other Christian chruch went bananas when a gay bishop was installed. Pope John Paul II was crushed when he learned of the scandal in the Catholic Church in America, in fact everybody except enemies of the church were crushed. When Jim Baker was jailed Billy Graham of all people visited him. I still manage to find some sympathy for Baker. I don't quite understand your point in the last sentence.
Laslty I am not sure you are reading the 'poem' right. Either that or I am not reading your post right. Anyway: If an atheist believes in a continued existence after death who sustains this existenceand where did they come up with that idea?
Continued existance after death is not singularly religious in inspiration. Some atheists believe in an energistic existance that continues seperate from the corporeal body, a "soul" of sorts. Some athiests believe in reincarnation, not with a religious drive, but simply a vast pool of potential 'life' from which we all come and to which we all return. There's no religious heirarchy and no greater purpose, just an cycle of endless return. And, true, some athiests simply believe that after death, that's all she wrote. The point is, there does not have to be a concept of divinity in order to have a concept of eternal, uninterrupted continuance. This is an assumption that it's tempting to make, but is ultimately unfounded. Additionally, even should someone be able to prove a continued existance after death, this in no way proves the existance of a directive force in the Universe, i.e. "God". The ideas do not depend on each other, unless the person involved makes that linkage. Which is perfectly fine, but you must remember it's a personal linkage and therefore can not be generally applied to everyone.
Those above beliefs have hardly any support in the scientific community, the refuge of the atheist. Lets look at the Big Bang theory for just a moment. It basically says there was an explosin that came from an infinitely dense ball of matter. Oh really where exactly did that matter come from. That I think points to a trancendent being. Of course not knowing a great deal about the Big Bang I may be missreading what it states.
I would think and I know your going to call this an assumption
Hehe, yep, probably. :D
but most atheists do agree with many of Marxe's, Darwin's and Freud's ideas.
So do many theists. How one feels about evolutionary theory, economic theory or psychological theory does not necessarily have to impact how one feels about metaphysical theory. Personally, I am a Quaker that feels Evolution happens, Freud had some good observations but was just a little too fascinated by poo, and Marx is interesting, but not really applicable to human society as it currently stands. Life is, by necessity and definition, a smorgasboard of ideas and experiences. You miss something if you don't try them. Either you miss this great chance you've been given by some divity or you miss this great chance you've been given purely by chance. The point is, you can pick and chose and see what resonates to you. If it doesn't work, you can always pick again. Theisim and Marx, Darwin and Freud do not have to be mutually exclusive. Science and Religion can go hand and hand (and, in my opinion, should because they both feed different sides of the life), so long as they understand that one can not and should not "dominate" the other in their home court.
Just because some theists may believe in these theories doesn't mean atheists don't. Saying atheists believe in these theories is not a lie. Its like saying I like ice cream. That doesn't mean Joe doesn't. I must say though I am a bit suprised an theist would believe, "religion is the opium of the masses"-Marx This is a paraphrase but,'"It is best to be an agnostic"-Darwin and, well I don't know of a Freudian quote but how many theists do you know that believe all thoughts are based on sexuality. I see all the beliefs of these men as fads. New fads will replace them eventually.
Such ideas "free them [me] to their [my] own and erotic a political pursuits.
Why is this bad?
It is potentially dangerous. Eroticism or promiscuity is wrong thats whats bad about that.Wrongheaded political pursuits can be extremely dangerous, and coming from a person in love with meaninglessness that makes such pursuits even more dangerous.
Everything isn't o.k. if it doesn't include hurting anyone (by the way it said to the best of your definition hence there is no point of reference of what hurt is)
Why isn't it and who gets to make the call? I did see the "best of your definition" part and you're right, this arugement flaps in the wind because the author himself didn't define his terms.
First off it is meant to flap in the wind because the author is talking as an atheist. Who gets to make that call? I say God. Many obviously disagree.
I would certainly think as a Christian you would have to say you reject that idea.
I do, on a personal basis given the experiences and searching I have done myself. I can not in good concience, however, make this judgement for anyone else because I am aware of my own daily questioning and to assume that I am somehow more in tune with some UberMorality stream than some athiest or different theist would be to deny the central tennant of my own search: That it is mine. This is my relationship with God. It doesn't make me automatically more moral or less moral than someone who has reached a different conclusion. It can't because, if it does, then my conclusion becomes less valid.
Atheists do not have to disbelieve this, for if they do believe such a statement is true and Turner is right they will not have contradicted themselves. This means that Christians who were involved in the crusade (though disobeying their own beliefs on behalf of their beliefs) may not have believed something was alright as long as it didn't hurt anyone, for heaven's sake (pardon the pun) they were hurting someone.
Okay, I must admit, you lost me there. It sort of sounds like you're saying that, so long as they believed themselves to be right, they were right, even if we can see today that they were clearly wrong. This can't be the case, can it? Can you explain your reasoning here a little more because I got confused.
Quite frankly I lost myslef too. Clearly the effects of typing past ten.
I am sure lots of people do believe in sex before, during, and after marriage, atheists included. I don't see labeling this moral relativism is unfair, for moral relativism allows for such thinking.
I only labeled it so because Turner labeled it an atheistic trait and you relabeled it a moral relativistic trait. Personally, I see no problem with sex whenever. I do see a problem with promiscuity, but I'm less inclined to call people who have frequent sex with multiple partners morally bankrupt than pray that they are being safe and worry that they are trying to solve one problem by substituting in another.
Sex whenever eventually means AIDS. Not to mention though shalt not commit adultery.
No matter if a 'blow job' is sex or not, it is wrong, remember 1Corinthians 6: 12-20.
Yes, well, again, it's only wrong by first Corinthians if you assume the Bible is the ultimate source of law, which many don't and even I, as a Quaker, view with a healthy dose of skeptsicim.
This will come off as arrogant but oh well. I don't assume the Bible is the ultimate source of law, I know it is. *Hides for cover from incoming bombs*
I think Turner means when he says the therapy of sin, (and I could be wrong) the practicing, or perhaps indulgence of sin.
Yes, but many theists practice this as well, execept they indulge in a hypocracy on top of whatever sin they're committing. Back in the day, the Papacy even sold indulgences to let people off the hook for sins they may not have even committed yet but were planning on. How is that a moral stance if it can be circumvented by a piece of paper anyone could purchase if they had enough money?
Atheists do though, thats why Turner can say that atheists believe in the therapy of sin, and not meantion theists practicing the therapy of sin. Hey this isn't the theist's creed.
Much of this 'poems' statements are contradcitions of themselves the taboo line is one of them.
I agree with you. I would go even further to say that the contradictory nature of the poem is what makes it so obviously uninformed and, in a way, unChristian. It shows no true desire to speak to atheists, but instead makes a lot of assumptions about what the author thinks they believe based on his own biases. It's self congratulatory, smug and rather vile as, instead of seeking understanding, it gleefully wallows in ignorance.
Well I disagree. It is designed to be nonsensical because Turner clearly feels atheism is nonsensical. I don't pick up on the self-congratulatory nature of the poem. Vile, perhaps, but so are many of the ideas expressed by atheists. I think Turner gave up on understanding long before he wrote this.
For if an atheist thinks that forbiddens are forbidden, well why are they forbidding forbiddens.
Again, there are many secular reasons that have perfect legitimacy for forbidden things. Many atheists and theists show surprising agreement on general life principles, all that differs is the motivation behind them. However, since actions speak louder than words, regardless of the path taken, can we say the final destination is the same, yet one is better for the journey?
Yes, but I would be interested to hear seeing how I never have, (maybe you have) why an atheist sees something as forbidden.
Turner was being sincere when he said "evidence must be investigated" but not when he said "and you can prove anything with evidence."
No, you can prove the rational facts with evidence. Proof is reasoning hand in hand with evidence (doh, who knew high school debate principles would ever bite me in the butt at this point in my life).
Again it sounds nonsensical because he is writing as an atheist.
:lol:
Hey I said despite the horoscope part. Jesus was not a good man (relax I'll explain) He was either the Son of God or the greatest charlatan in world history. I think, and again I am speaking for my interpretation of the 'poem' seeing how many atheists believe that Jesus' good morals are basically bad, for they are resrticting and don't "free" a person to his or her "own erotic and political pursuits."
You're really hung up on that phrase. Actually, Jesus was a good man. That was the whole point of him. According to Judeo-Christian theory, God sent him to us as a man to show us how to live as men. To assume he was anything other than mortal is to reject one of the central tennants of Christianity (this is something that greatly bothered me in Gibson's "The Passion" and the justification for the excessive violence he used, that it was supposed to show that Jesus was more than human. But if he's more than human, then the Bible and all of Christianity is wrong.) Jesus was a man who we can aspire to or he was a Superman that we can not. One way, he serves as an example, the other, he is simply a mockery of our broken lives and why should we strive to emulate the unattainable?
This seems to me as a difference of opinion that will not be change by either of us. Yes Jesus came in the form of a man, he was the Son of God though. Being the Son of God is a whole lot more than being human. By the way I think the greatest justification of the violence is the shroud of Tourin. hether or not it was Jeus' burial cloth the person sure looks like he took a nasty beating) Also, a verse is coming to me something like he was marred beyond recognition.
I don't worship the Bible either, for G.K. Chesterton a fellow Catholic called many protestants 'bible-worshippers' But that is a whole other debate.
Based on your previous quoting of it at me, you seem to. I could be wrong, but that is my perception.
Just because I try to OBEY the principles of the Bible which I believe are divine revelation doesn't mean I WORSHIP the Bible.
The same except for creation, sin, heaven, hell, Gol, and salvation, thats meant to be read as quite a bit.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Could you please explain further?
Turner means to say religions are not as alike as many see them as.
If you do not believe in a hell I ask you where does the Devil reside, or do you not believe in Satan either?
Actually, the concept of the Devil and Satan crept into the bible and the church rather later. In current translations, Lucifer makes an appearance in Chapter 14 of Isaiah with the following: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" -- Isaiah 14:12. In the initial Hebrew text of this passage, Lucifer was a Babylonian King, not the most favored of angels. Christian scribes are assumed to have mistranslated this (either as intentional error or as simple mistake) and now poets and religious theologians have managed to link the Devil, Satan and Lucifer together. However, this only removes Lucifer from the mix.
Again, in Hebrew, Satan is not a name, but a title, more properly referred to as "The Satan" and is is given to an Angel of God who acts as the adversary or accuser. This title is mentioned only 4 times outside of the book of Job and only 18 times in total within the Old Testiment. Let's examine The Satan in the book of Job.
In the beginning, God gives The Satan power over Job's possesions, but no power over him. The Satan then acts as the main sower of doubt, trying to convince Job that he only loves God because it is beneficial. However, when he can not wring this statement out of him, God gives The Satan the power to torment Job himself. Still no statement is forthcoming.
It is interesting to note that, at no time, is The Satan acting without God's express permission or, indeed, against his will. Additionally, The Satan never directly opposed God, simply Job, and then only under God's will. This argues that The Satan is not a permanent fixture and that the powers granted to the position are only given by God and only in specific situations. Therefore, it seems a reasonable assumption that many of the evil and craven acts committed by man are not the result of interference by The Satan, but instead of our own devising.
During the intertestamental period (roughly 300 BCE to 100 CE), the role of Satan took on a whole new significance. Suddenly God became associated with upmost Good while Satan became linked to darkest evil. No longer merely an appointed henchman, Satan was now a fallen angel who, along with a cohort of other fallen angels, sought the destruction of mankind and God. The reasons for this may have something to do with the emergence of Zoroastrianism in Persia (modern day Iran) and the prophit Zoroaster who's mythos (dating anywhere between 550 BCE and 6,000 BCE) is strikingly similar to that of the Christ. He performed miracles, taught the supremacy of one god "Ahura Mazda" and is generally credited with founding the first monotheistic religion (although this is obviously a very hard thing to claim). Zoroaster also taught of Ahura Mazda's twin brother, Angra Manyu, who served as the source of evil and destruction. Zoroaster believed that these two Gods would fight eternally, until finally Angra Manyu was defeated and, at that time, there would be a resurrection of the dead and a Final Judgement with subsequent division of all humanity into the righteous (who go to Heaven) and the evil (who go to...well, guess where). Thus, it seems that this is the framework the authors of the New Testiment grafted their conceptualization of Satan onto. The shift can be seen in Jewish writing of that time, a slow progression of God turning into the ultimate good while Satan emerges as the ultimate evil and the two are locked at each other's throats.
Why have I gone over all this, you may be asking. Although it's fascinating in and of itself, it serves to illustrate how the Bible itself has been influenced by other schools of thought.
Do I believe in Satan? Well, which one? Do I believe that people's illnesses are caused by demons and devils and unclean spirits? Nope.
Again a difference of opinion, or maybe a difference in fact rather. I don't buy the 'added on later' argument. If that is the case a great many people have been misled. If this was so easy to see I would think more people would hold your opinion.
Also There are so many Bible verses referring to the Bible, I don't think they all were just added on. And f so why?
I am also confused by this. What was your intent?
Whoops I meant Bible verses referring to the Devil
the prospect of hell appears to be the least attractive part of Christianity.
Yes, but it seems to still get alot of attention, perhaps even moreso than the message of Christ himself.
Maybe, but hell would lose members of a church, and certainly not gain them.
As for whats normal is good. I know I don't use that argument, hardly I think you have made an uh-oh assumption :D . I just find it easy to read from Romans chapter one verse 21 and on.
Yes, the words of Paul, the first man to think the word of the Lord God is best spread at the point of a sword. Not really what you might call the most understanding of the apostles.
Paul who wrote a majority of the New Testament. paul who never saw Jesusn in the flesh. Paul who persecuted Christians so bad he had to change his name. Yes, Paul, a giant of the faith.
each man must fine the truth IF IT IS RIGHT FOR HIM." That again allows for moral relativism, for the truth is no longer absolute, it is subjective. The point is reality can't possibly adapt according to something that is subjective like inabsolute truth.
Reality is far more elastic than you might think. Particularly if you follow the Many Worlds coceptualization of quantum physics.
For a lot of people's sake reality sure had better be more elastic than I think. An interesting theory. Perhaps even possible. I think it goes to far though.
If an atheist does believe in an absolute truth I ask where does he or she think that truth comes from?
If it is absolute, then it must not have "come" from anywhere. It must have always been there by fiat. Otherwise, for it to have "come" from somewhere, there must be something greater than it, which, by definition, means it is not absolute.
Your absolutely wrong :lol: I do doubt you last sentence. I think your defintion of absolute differs from mine.
Atheists rejected creeds of morality,
No, they didn't. They rejected blind faith, sought out their own answers and arrived at different conclusions than we did, much as you and I have arrived at different conclusions given the same basic starting point. Yet, I certainly don't consider you to be a bad person and I hope you don't consider me to be one, even though we differ in our interpretations of faith.
I don't think I would consider a person bad or immoral based solely on beliefs, rather actions are the true measures of the heart. It seems we both agree on this.
Jesus rejected, well I wouldn't call it a creed or moral. Individual thought as it corelates to moral relativism, individual thought like, "There is no right or wrong I am free to do and think as I please and there will be no implications that I have to respond to." That is dangerous.
Yes, but it is not atheisim, is is psychosis. To reject cause and effect, at least that imposed upon us by living and profiting from society, is indeed dangerous. However, it can not be wholly accomplished. You can, for example, kill someone and say, "Well, I think I was justified so I will do whatever I want." There will be a consequence imposed upon you by society. Society, in an effort to protect itself and it's members, will remove you from it. You can deny this all you want, but will most likely be removed anyway. Atheists and moral relativists do not reject cause and effect or action and consequence, they simply say it does not have to exist within a religious context.
Are you saying atheism isn't psychosis :shock: If though secularization spreads moreso the total absence of guilt will not allow for society imposing law, or at least enforcing them.
Now that I have typed all that I find that much of what we have debated about is for the most part all semantics (for the most part). The important thing is believing in Christ and obeying his word, to obey the will of the Father.
Hmm, well, only if you're a Christian and only if they make sense. Faith can't exist in a vacuum from society and reality. It must be held accountable. Otherwise it is no longer faith, but it is fanaticisim and the whole world suffers from it.[/quote]
Well I am talking to a Christian. I agree that faith cannot exist totaly out of reality (grant it it must somewhat otherwise I wouldn't call it faith) I think faith can be felt by the heart and sustained by the mind.