Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?
[Written by John W Loftus] It all started recently with Richard Dawkins and his charge that the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant fictional character he'd ever seen. So Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, wrote an article defending Yahweh's ways. Here are links to the further discussion so far. How does Copan's position fare now?
This is Copan's original article: Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?: The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics.
Hector Avalos wrote a devastating response to Copan: Paul Copan’s Moral Relativism: A Response from a Biblical Scholar of the New Atheism.
Here is professing Christian Wes Morriston's devastating response to Copan's inerrantism: Did God Command Genocide? A Challenge to the Biblical Inerrantist.
Undismayed, Copan wrote a rejoinder here: Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Mandated Genocide or Corporate Capital Punishment?
Anyone see Copan's Cognitive Dissonance Reduction like I do?
FYI: Paul Copan knew of Avalos's response before he wrote this last article. I had emailed him about it. But he chose not to respond to it. I wonder why?
HT on the Morriston paper to exapologist.
187 comments:
HI John,
What I would like to know is why are atheists upset at evil? I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same?
Regards, Rev Phil.
Hi Rev. The problem of an evil God is an internal problem to your specific beliefs. Read this.
Hi John,
Thanks for the prompt response.
Sure, it is and I have defend that on my blog however, but for the atheists to argue it is evil is a fallacy is it not?
Regards Rev. Phil.
No, it cannot be a fallacy. It's an internal problem to YOUR beliefs, not mine. Did you read the link? The only escape for you is to admit your God is evil by your own standards.
Hey John,
But why it is evil? If you say it is an internal coherence problem than is a internal coherence problem. But that is not evil. How is it possible for an atheist to make a moral claim?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
P.S. I did read most of it.
Either way the answer is yes, Yahweh is a monster.
For those who choose to worship 'might makes right' this is not a problem.
Those who don't we have to either make convoluted excuses or be rational and reject such ideas.
Hi busterggi,
I don't think you have answered the question?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
I'm sorry but I find these lengthy, scholarly, theological-philosoplical biblical essays and debates really irrelevant and missing the true point.
Because when summarized and crystallized, what these ramblings are really trying to do is to assert the properties of god: what he is capable or not capable of doing, what his mindset (attitudes and thoughts) have been and will be, what he wants us to do in the future and what he will do in the future.
Personal and unverifiable revelation aside, the only possible window and avenue through which we are able to try to ascertain these godly properties mentioned above is to study the bible, which is supposedly god's word. So all kind of scholars have throughout the centuries tried to study the texts and tried to make sense of all of it, just like now in this debate at hand where the question under debate is whether god is a moral monster or not, based on what is recorded in the bible.
In the debate, some people (primarily believers) put forward points that portray god as a moral and benevolent entity, and other people (primarily non-believers) put forward points that portray god as an immoral monster. Dialog ensues, with exchanges back and forth, people trying to find a common ground.
The crucial point to notice however is that even if the debate was completely "won" by either side, by having the other side to fully retract from their position and agree with your own arguments, no real truth has been found about the existence of a god. It would be like saying: "After debating this, we now agree: if a god existed that had the properties like the bible describes, then he would have the following properties: He is A and B, he feels C towards us and he wants us to D". So the resolution of the debate, whichever way it swings, does not bring any more evidence to light about the actual existence of the entity under discussion. It is completely possible that this centuries-long debate is only a load of hot air about the imaginary properties of some imaginary entity.
It is completely possible that the bible describes a benevolent god and that god does not exist. Or that the bible describes a monster god and that god exists. A benevolent god would be nicer to have if it was true, but it does not make god more likely to exist. Conversely, a monster god would be less nice to have, but it does not make god less likely to exist.
"What I would like to know is why are atheists upset at evil?"
Probably because the majority of them are not sociopaths.
"But why it is evil? If you say it is an internal coherence problem than is a internal coherence problem. But that is not evil."
Even without having a secular definition of the word 'evil', christianity does have such a concept, so, I would have thought, the concept can be used to show whether or not the christian god is evil as defined by christianity. Hence, I reckon, John W. Loftus is correct in saying that it is an internal problem.
I'm sorry I have such a potty mouth.
Sometimes I'm not smart enough to come up with a better word. And no disrespect to Sebastion, but my comment on your comment is "no shit".
peace out, feeno
@ Sebastian:
I think the goal might be to show, "your proposed god is incoherent and self-contradicting, so it can't exist."
Then again, I've heard it said, "You can't reason a person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into."
I agree with your point that establishing a god as emotionally unappealing isn't a proof of non-existance.
But, if belief was accepted because of emotional-appeal, then that line of reasoning might be useful.
@Reverend:
With regard to: "What I would like to know is why are atheists upset at evil? I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same?"
The condition you're describing is not 'belief in Darwinian evolution,' but might be a form of antisocial personality disorder.
If you legitimately don't understand why non-theists feel empathy, then perhaps it would be useful to seek the council of a qualified medical professional.
If you're making a rhetorical point, then the anwer is: "Atheism describes belief with regard to some fact claims. It is not a description of an ethical positions."
What I would like to know is why are atheists upset at evil? I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same?
Reverend,
This is a common misconception (intentional and unintentional) about evolution.
For example, my acknowledgement that the female of some insects species kill and eat their male counterparts after mating, doesn't mean I support cannibalism. Nor does my acknowledgment of evolution mean I support eugenics, etc.
My personal theory is that this misconception comes from the Christian idea that "All Truths are God's Truths."
If God is in control and can defeat evil, then he allows evil to exist. Therefore, everything is as it should be, which is ultimately good. As a Christian, would you agree with that statement?
If so, then I could see how you might misconstrue that, should one acknowledged evolution, then we prefer or support a "survival of the fittest" approach. Instead, this is a fact about reality, which was not intentionally used as part of natures plan.
We have to know where we are, how we got there and where we're headed before we can make effective change.
To use an analogy, you find yourself on a ship hurling though space. You want to return to earth, but you don't know your current position, what direction your traveling or if some kind of auto-pilot is engaged. You could push the big red button that says "aft starboard thruster", but where does that actually do you? Perhaps that only changes the ships orientation, so you still on the same course, but facing a different direction?
It's only when you determine where you are, how the ship works and your current course, than you can determine the correct thrusters to fire which will put you on a new course that will actually take you to Earth.
However, if All Truths are God's Truths, then you're not supposed to know how the ship works and you're headed in the direction God want's you to go, because God is in control. God is only interested in how you respond to being hurled through space.
Our "Dear Rev" here is trying trying in a smart assed way to claim that us Atheists are without morals and that without God cannot have a moral center. Which we all know to be total BS.
Hey Rev. If by being moral I have to follow your beliefs I would rather be amoral. You may choose to cherry pick the bible and only follow parts of it, if so then you are not a real believer. The fact is your religion, the religion I was brought up in and the one my family are still members of and some are fanatic about, allows you to beat your wife and kids if they disobey you, kill people different than you, especially us for "trying to lead you astray", own slaves and many other atrocities, not to mention absurdities. (Some of my family are fundamentalists who believe in very literal translations and would love to see me stoned to death for marrying a non christian. If they knew I was Atheist it would be even worse).
I don't care how you argue it, that stuff is in the bible. And that stuff is illegal in todays world, and if half of what it teaches is illegal then the other half should be thrown out as well.
Don't question our morals. It is your own you need to take a long hard look at.
REV BROWN
I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same?
CARR
I don't see the logic.
Apparently, because I believe in gravity, I should push people off cliffs.
Because atheists believe something is natural, doesn't mean that we believe it is compulsory.
But Reverend Brown has admitted he cannot show that his imaginary god is not evil.
Otherwise he would do so, and not try to sidetrack the discussion
Reverend Brown reads this passage and then decides he is going to worship a child-killer.
2 Samuel 12
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.
Christians like Copan will stand up in public and declare that child-killing is good.
HI All,
@ Footfodder
My Reply,
This again does not answer the question or really seek to. Furthermore all that it proves is that there possibly is a internal contradiction. Why would atheists be so outraged with this specific internal contradiction? What grounds do they have for labeling this contradiction 'monstrous' as the title of the blog suggests?
@ Richard,
I cannot see why you have asserted empathy into the debate? I think you have missed the point.
As a rhetorical point, I think John will disagree with you belief statement about atheism however, to go onto your point about it not being an ethical system, then why argue on ethical grounds against religion/Christianity? To assert that atheism does not have ethical descriptions only moves the posts to should it, does it, if so why so etc...
@ Scott
My Reply,
No, sorry. everything is not Good.
You said,
If so, then I could see how you might misconstrue that, should one acknowledged evolution, then we prefer or support a "survival of the fittest" approach. Instead, this is a fact about reality, which was not intentionally used as part of natures plan.
My Reply,
I see we are headed down this particular path that has implications based on implications. We will need to find firmer ground as the rest of your comment is now irrelevant. ;-)
@ Steven Carr,
You said,
I don't see the logic.
Apparently, because I believe in gravity, I should push people off cliffs.
My Reply,
Hey Steve, just asking a question?
You said,
Because atheists believe something is natural, doesn't mean that we believe it is compulsory.
My Reply,
I think you have missed the point. I am not talking about compulsion rather where does the moral obligation come from. You have taken gravity and said just because it is there does not mean I should use it to kill, but my point is just because it is there why be outraged if one does use it to kill? Does that clear up the point?
You said,
But Reverend Brown has admitted he cannot show that his imaginary god is not evil?
My Reply,
Wow where did I admit that? Methinks you are making it up? I'd be happy to be corrected if you can show me. :-)
You said,
Otherwise he would do so, and not try to sidetrack the discussion
My Reply,
Interesting... I started this discussion. How have I side tracked this one?
You said,
Reverend Brown reads this passage and then decides he is going to worship a child-killer.
2 Samuel 12
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.
Christians like Copan will stand up in public and declare that child-killing is good.
My Reply,
Great, now tell me on what grounds do you think child killing is wrong? Let us say we take away God for the moment, how do we base a society to live by? What argument would we give in a Godless world that child killing is wrong, this is my question, this is the point that I started the thread with. I would dearly love an answer ;-)
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Rev,
It's pretty obvious you don't understand the meaning of Darwinian Evolution.
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with individuals within species it has to do with relative dominance between species.
Darwinian Evolution explains speciation and is governed by adaptation through natural selection.
It does not explain nor sanction intra-species killing as a means to further a species. That would be contradictory.
Here's an example for you. You are a member of the human species and therefore have an opposable thumb which allows you to craft and use tools. Now, you make a fishing pole as a means to catch fish so that you will not starve and die. Therefore the human species proves itself to be more fit than the fish species.
It would be immoral to kill children within a given species because it would create a precedent whereby the next generation of that species would not allow the species to adapt and continue. Murder would be wrong for the same reason. It is an affront on the species.
If you are a Christian then you probably hold to a world-view that over-values personal revelation as a means to knowledge and therefore I can understand that you would misinterpret Darwinian Evolution. It is not about an individualized survival. It is about the survival of the species. One member isn't all that special really outside their relative importance to the whole species. Unless, he considers himself a Reverand with a direct line to God.
@Reverend:
With regard to:
"I cannot see why you have asserted empathy into the debate? I think you have missed the point"
Your first post was:
"What I would like to know is why are atheists upset at evil? I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same" (Emphaisis mine)
The connection between empahthy and being upset by the suffering of others should be obvious.
With regard to:
"To assert that atheism does not have ethical descriptions only moves the posts to should it, does it, if so why so etc..."
No, it really doesn't.
Lacking a belief in a god does not have moral imparatives.
So long as atheism means, 'lacking a belief in god' then atheism alone does not imply moral imparatives.
I suspect the objection you intend to make is something like, "But, then, virtually no one is actually an atheist. Almost all atheists would have to have have some moral system"
This is true, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. We use 'atheist' because it's a convenient starting point and a common denominator.
Perhaps I'm a humanist. Or perhaps I'm an atheistic buddhist. Or, perhaps I think morality comes from the dictates of a subterranian elf-king.
None of these possibilities is at all relevant to the question of "Is the entity proposed by certain christians coherent and internally consistent?"
In your reply you raise arguments like:
"Great, now tell me on what grounds do you think child killing is wrong? Let us say we take away God for the moment, how do we base a society to live by? What argument would we give in a Godless world that child killing is wrong, this is my question, this is the point that I started the thread with. I would dearly love an answer ;-)"
At best this is "Well, sure, you're right, but if you spread it around, people will do bad things, so keep quiet please."
More probably, it's a form of, "Well, with regard to your critique, Hey! Look over there!."
And, if your faith actually is the only thing keeping you from a child-killing spree then please seek medical help. This is not healthy or normal.
If it isn't, then you already know your answer. Most atheists want a society where 'right' and 'wrong' are judged based on fairness and empathy.
A minor correction to the above:
"But, then, virtually no one is actually an atheist. Almost all atheists would have to have have some moral system"
should have read,
"But, then, virtually no one is only an atheist. Almost all atheists would have to have have some moral system"
Hi Richard,
I just signed up for a Google account under the same name you have. I did not know there was already a Richard. Why did it let me have the same name?
Anyways, I went back and edited my profile and put a 2 after it. I do not want anyone to think that I am you. Should I completely change my name to something else if I want to post on this blog?
Hi Richard(2),
I really don't mind. I'm sure there are a lot more Richards on blogger. (Though, you're the first one I've met)
Please don't feel obliged to change your name on my account.
To avoid confusion here, I'd be happy to add a signature to my posts if I see that you've posted first in a thread.
To Philip Brown,
I am just curious, why do you call yourself "Reverend"?
Reverend,
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that God's allowing evil to wreak havoc on the earth is somehow bad? If God is the source of morality, then God's decision to allow evil cannot be evil. It must be good.
Ultimately the state of affairs we find ourselves in at the moment must be good compared than some other state of affairs that God would not allow. And since God is in control, then whatever state we find ourselves in must be one of many that God allows.
Does God allow it? Of course He does. And He also forgives it. God does not want little robots running around that are all programmed to do His will and nothing else.
clocipRichard2,
"Does God allow it? Of course He does. And He also forgives it. God does not want little robots running around that are all programmed to do His will and nothing else."
Please explain why innocent children die everyday from starvation brought on by nature.
Your perspective is dissatisfying in the face of real suffering.
Scott said, "My personal theory is that this misconception comes from the Christian idea that "All Truths are God's Truths."
If God is in control and can defeat evil, then he allows evil to exist. Therefore, everything is as it should be, which is ultimately good. As a Christian, would you agree with that statement?"
No, most Christians I know would not agree with this statement. In fact they would absolutely reject it. Everything is NOT as it should be right now. Everything is not ultimately good right now. The Bible doesn;t teach that, nor do preachers or scholars I know.
Chuck,
If you are so worried about the starving children, why don't you go help feed them? Or are you just mad at God because HE allows it? Are you also mad at yourself for doing nothing to help them?
Richard2,
I donate money to an NGO in Kenya that provides food and books to orphans and to an organization that feeds the homeless here in Chicago.
I am doing all I can.
Your automotan argument to rationalize suffering does not take into account the millions who are suffering due to nothing more than the whimsy of nature.
Where is God in that.
I don't believe a personal God exists so, I do as much as I can to be of service to those in need.
I don't rationalize their suffering using a theological concept around "free will".
Suffering exists and it will do our species well if we look to limit it.
Hi All,
I deal with each in turn..
@ Chuck O'Connor
Thanks for your vote of confidence ;-)
The problem you present however does not account for similar genetic species. To quote you, 'let me give you an example...'
Say two breeds of dogs are present. One breed is larger, stronger, has shaper teeth.. etc. And this particular breed of dog survives by eating its cousin. Is this not Evolution?
Consequently the position still stands.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Reverend said,
"Say two breeds of dogs are present. One breed is larger, stronger, has shaper teeth.. etc. And this particular breed of dog survives by eating its cousin. Is this not Evolution?"
No, that isn't evolution.
Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.
Hi Chuck,
Most starving people are not suffering from nature, but from politics. We have the resources to feed them, but the governments stand in the way. And if the nature there is the only problem, then let's move them somewhere where the soil and the crop is better! Once again, it is a governmental and political problem in most cases.
Those starving in India could eat the cows if they were not considered sacred. Move the starving to the coast and let them eat fish! There are enough fish in the sea to feed everyone! Lack of food is rarely the entire the problem.
You are looking to blame God for something that we can fix ourselves!
Hi Richard,
Thanks for you response.
You said,
The connection between empahthy and being upset by the suffering of others should be obvious.
My Reply,
Yes but empathy is different to evil? One is subjectively link the other is an objective moral label. My point still stands ;-)
You said,
Perhaps I'm a humanist. Or perhaps I'm an atheistic buddhist. Or, perhaps I think morality comes from the dictates of a subterranian elf-king.
My Reply,
So what you are saying is atheism has no claims pre se on morality?
You said,
And, if your faith actually is the only thing keeping you from a child-killing spree then please seek medical help. This is not healthy or normal.
My Reply,
By what standard? Please tell me why this is not normal or healthy. You statements are ambiguous and i suspect culturally biased! Why do you think killing children is a medical abnormality?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Hi Richard the second,
You said,
I am just curious, why do you call yourself "Reverend"?
My Reply,
Because I got Ordained.
Regards, REV Phil.
Hi Scott,
Sorry for your confusion.
I just simply want to know why atheists are upset are moral evil?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
HI jbudrdanl
Thanks for your comment I also entirely agree. It is funny how lots of atheists assume they know a lot about Christianity?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Hi Chuck,
Ok Sorry, I fear I may have got evolution wrong...
Can you help me understand which part?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Hi Phil,
I like your reponses, but I do find it offensive that you refer to yourself as a Reverend. Is that a special title that gives you a place of prominence among other Christians who are not "Reverend so and so". What makes you a Reverend and not Joe Blow Christian off the street? Are you more reverend than any other Christian? What is the point of calling yourself "Reverend"? There is no one in the Bible referred to as "Reverend" is there? I think not? So what's up with this man made title?
(please forgive me for being off topic here but I was steaming at this "Reverend" title and needed to unload a bit)
Reverend,
We've given you many reasons why an atheist would be upset by moral evil and how one could assess morality by using evolution as a standard.
You've shown your inability to understand evolution and to equivocate on the self-evidential moral position against infanticide.
Now, do you wish to dialogue or not?
Reverend,
One dog killing another is not an example of a species facing extinction due to their inability to evolve via adaptation through natural selection.
Question back at you, why are you ignoring my earlier clarification and continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" by placing it within an individualized context?
Reverend,
What makes you assume I am an atheist?
Hi Phil,
You say you got Ordained? Is that in the Bible anywhere? Does that make you someone special or more Holy or something?
I am not trying to be offensive, but yet I am trying to be offensive. I hope you understand where I am coming from.
Hi Richard2,
Sorry if my 'title' offends you. I use it merely to announce I am a Christian and work full time in ministry on these types of blogs. Its purely for identification purposes. I think nothing of my title and never say it face to face with people. However due to the rather vast problem of anonymity on the blogs I am assuming that this will assist people is where I stand.
I hope this helps.
Regards, Phil.
Richard2,
Please provide evidence to your claim that starvation is due to politics. The people I help are known as Pokot. They make up less than 5% of Kenya and are starving due to blight in the NW region of Kenya. This blight has nothing to do with politics.
Here are some stats for you from Bart Ehrman's book "God's Problem" (I recommend it), "We live in a world in which a child dies every five seconds of starvation. Every five seconds. Every minute there are twenty-five people who die because they do not have clean water to drink. Every hour 700 people die of malaria. Where is God in all this? We live in a world in which earthquakes in the Himalayas kill 50,000 people and leave 3 million without shelter in the face of oncoming winter. We live in a world where a hurricane destroys New Orleans. Where a tsunami kills 300,000 people in one fell swoop. Where millions of children are born with horrible birth defects. And where is God? To say that he eventually will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful thinking."
Now, I said I am doing something about it. Not because I believe your god commands me to do so but because it is the right thing to do.
What are you doing about it?
I don't blame god. I do oppose the view that suffering exists because I exercise my free will.
Hi Chuck,
Which reason is given?
Phil.
Hi Chuck again,
You said,
One dog killing another is not an example of a species facing extinction due to their inability to evolve via adaptation through natural selection.
My Reply,
Why not?
You said,
Question back at you, why are you ignoring my earlier clarification and continuing to misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest" by placing it within an individualized context?
My reply,
I am waiting for your explanation as to where I am wrong. Ignoring is the wrong presumption. You assume I misunderstand evolution but as yet have not explained why? I wait to here your explanation?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Hi Chuck,
You said,
What makes you assume I am an atheist?
My Reply,
I have not.
Phil.
Hi Richard2,
No, Ordination is not in the Bible. Would you prefer if my title said Works full time in Ministry and studied at a Bible college?
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Reverend,
Reason for what?
Please be more specific.
Thanks.
Hi Chuck,
Reason for not understanding Evolution...
Hi Phil,
Can you show me "full time ministry" in the Bible? Can you show me "ordination" in the Bible? Who comes up with this unbiblical jargon?
Hi Richard2,
Sure people come up with it, but we could say the same for the Trinity? That word is not in the bible yet any Bible believing Christian would profess belief in a Triune God.
Should we throw the baby way with the bath water?
Hi Phil,
If you know that ordination is not in the Bible, then on what basis did you get ordained? There is really no such thing as being ordained, so why do it? It has no meaning whatsoever.
Hi Richard2,
I think this is way off topic. We can blog about it over at my blog if you like?
However, you point could be said about a great many things in the Bible... The Trinity is but one example do you use it...?
Reverend,
I have explained why. Twice now.
If you don't understand the explanation then I suggest you do a little work in understanding the concept of how species adapt through natural selection.
I will try one more time. One member of a species (or sub-species given your dog example) killing another member of that species is not Darwinian evolution. Darwin's theories explain diversity of species which is dependent upon that species adapting to their environment via natural selection.
A random killing is not an example of wide genetic mutation to enable a species to adapt to its environment so that species may survive.
I personally think the myths you believe as truth are an example of the human animal's ability to adapt. We, as a species, have evolved brains that can abstract our experience as metaphor as a means to creating socialization because via natural selection we have seen how interdependence is more efficient than independence. Things like religion, art and sport allow us to enjoy incentives which give value to the collective. Your faith is an example of adaptation through natural selection. It does become obsolete however and self-defeating when it presumes supernatural truth is more important than facts.
Hi Phil,
Neither Jesus nor the apostles needed to use the word Trinity to teach us about God's nature or makeup, so why should we need to use the word Trinity? No, I do not care for man made rituals or unbiblical words. God's word is sufficient in itself.
Reverend,
One final clarification on natural selection (the proper term biologists use when speaking of the metaphorical process Spenser, not Darwin, dubbed "Survival of the Fittest").
I hope this clarifies it for you, "Survival of the fittest is a metaphor and In an evolutionary sense, fitness is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool, and should not be confused with physically fit meaning biggest, fastest or strongest, which does not necessarily lead to reproductive success. It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase "natural selection" almost exclusively."
Hi Chuck,
Thanks again for taking the time.
You first point is slight misunderstood.
You said,
Darwin's theories explain diversity of species which is dependent upon that species adapting to their environment via natural selection.
My Reply,
Yes, but not holistically, Darwin's major advancement was the biological evolution has its inference in a shared common ancestor, and have, using Darwin's words, 'descended with modification.' The main mechanism for this biological evolutions is 'natural selection.' Furthermore descent connotes heredity and indeed genes passing from one to another. Moreover it is commonly understood that descent through modification refers to genealogical relationships.
Consequently you definition is lacking in the most fundamental point. My analogy of two dogs is fitting.
Perhaps you are the one that needs to do more work of evolution.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Richard2 wrote : God does not want little robots running around that are all programmed to do His will and nothing else.
So, since God is supposedly good, then not being robots is morally good, and being robots are morally bad, correct?
If God's nature is the very definition of good, then God allowing evil must be good. And if God is in control at this very moment, then the state of affairs we find ourselves in must be ultimately good, or God wouldn't and couldn't allow it.
Or could a perfectly good God do something, like allowing evil, if allowing evil was morally wrong?
Hi Richard2,
But you yourself have just made the same error. You are using the word Bible. The same rule could be applied to you. Jesus never used that word neither did the apostles.
Methinks you may have double standards.
Reverend,
Your point of dogs killing each other has nothing to do with natural selection. Did you not see my academic definition (taken from the Wiki on Natural Selection) regarding brute strength having nothing to do with natural selection?
I thought you Christians were supposed to be humble.
You didn't even know that Herbert Spenser (not Charles Darwin) coined the term "Survival of the Fittest".
Man get off the pot and set forth an argument for a change...bickering about the man's title...what a cop-out...
The man has a right to call himself what's appropriate for the day...Just like me...
SO WHAT the title isn't in the Bible...Jesus is in the Bible and you still don't honor him so what does that prove...NOTHING!
Does anybody here have an on point argument or care to answer the Reverend's question?
Let me put it my way,
What is the basis for your view and standards of morality and where does it come from since you don't believe in God...don't give me that Dawkins CRAP about a MEME either...that's a bunch of unscientific garbage...
Hi Chuck,
It seems you have gone bak to my original post. Nice.
However let me repeat what I just said...
Darwin's major advancement was the biological evolution has its inference in a shared common ancestor, and have, using Darwin's words, 'descended with modification.' The main mechanism for this biological evolutions is 'natural selection.' Furthermore descent connotes heredity and indeed genes passing from one to another. Moreover it is commonly understood that descent through modification refers to genealogical relationships.
Henceforth both dogs would have their ancestor shared and it would be one that would survive against the other. The elements that entail it to survive would be what we could label fittest. My point still stands and as yet it appears you cannot refute it. I sorry of you find this arrogant. But let me remind you, you accuse me of ignorance not me.
Regards, Phil.
Superintendent,
I made my point. Survival of the species confers morality.
Thanks. I don't need God to practice ethics or be concerned with morality. I only need to recognize that interdependence is the ideal state for our species and therefore autonomy needs to be respected if the appropriate level of trust will be achieved to maximize interdependence. Therefore things like murder, rape, genocide, etc . . . are wrong.
Is that a sufficient answer and would you like to dialogue on these ideas with charity and respect?
Reverend,
This is not evolution, "Henceforth both dogs would have their ancestor shared and it would be one that would survive against the other. The elements that entail it to survive would be what we could label fittest. My point still stands and as yet it appears you cannot refute it. I sorry of you find this arrogant. But let me remind you, you accuse me of ignorance not me."
Because as I've noted, natural selection refers to genetic modification, not brute force. Do you see how your argument rests on your misunderstanding of natural selection?
Once again I will state the "scientific" definition of natural selection, " fitness is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool, and should not be confused with physically fit meaning biggest, fastest or strongest, which does not necessarily lead to reproductive success."
Your illustration is that of one dog killing another dog and if your argument is that the dominant dog is genetically predisposed to kill the other dog as a means to ensure that his favorable genetic variants in his gene pool get passed along then I will need a more thorough hypothesis than the strawman you build. You are just continually proving your ignorance of a scientific concept. Didn't you say that atheists shouldn't parade their ignorance of Christianity. I'd suggest you do the same in regards to biology.
Your apologetic misrepresents the scientific concept.
Reverend wrote: I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same?
Reverend,
First, when you say "...if it is all about survival of the fittest.." You're making an assumption that is not implied by atheism, as it is a negative. My foundation for morality is not defined by atheism.
Buddhism, which has no creator God, would not be "all about the survival of the fittest," should they acknowledge evolution is true. This is because Buddhism is a positive belief.
Second,
Do you think God intentionally created the universe with a plan in mind? Do you think I am tempted beyond what I can withstand? When God's creatures gave God evil did he defeat it or intentionally decide to make "evil-aide" instead?
Should God exist, everything that occurs is allowed to occur. As he is supposedly all powerful, God could destroy evil, but he does not. This would be a conscious decision by God.
This is in contrast to a natural process that makes no conscious decisions and allows nothing. Acknowledging evolution has no more moral implications than acknowledging gravity. They are both processes that occurs in nature.
Scott,
Well said.
Reverend,
The problem with your example is that it is a vague, singular, incomplete event and have listed only two traits. You wrote:
Say two breeds of dogs are present. One breed is larger, stronger, has shaper teeth.. etc. And this particular breed of dog survives by eating its cousin. Is this not Evolution?
You haven't described evolution because you haven't described how the larger, stronger dog received these traits, nor have you described how these traits were actually passed on to future offspring.
It could be that, in this case, the "cousin" variation is much faster, better hunters, etc. and can usually evade the larger and stronger dogs. However, in this particular case, this particular dog was sick, or happened to be one of the few that are caught and killed due to specific circumstances.
Furthermore, it could be that this larger stronger dog is then surrounded by hundreds of these smaller, faster dogs and killed. He to might get sick or killed by a even stronger or larger breed of dog. He doesn't reproduce and evolution does not occur.
Or it could be that the stronger dog was bred by dog breeders to be larger and stronger. As a result, it's traits do not come from natural selection.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Chuck C,
you said: "I don't need God to practice ethics or be concerned with morality.
Oooh I think you need him to do that a lot more than you think or display but we'll work with that for now.
You said:"I only need to recognize that interdependence is the ideal state for our species"
What allows you as a "species" to come to this "recognition of interdependence" and how does that provide morality?
You said: "and therefore autonomy needs to be respected if the appropriate level of trust will be achieved to maximize interdependence."
OK that's a conclusion BUT what is the basis for that knowledge? ie; what's you epistemology?
You said:"Therefore things like murder, rape, genocide, etc . . . are wrong."
Now, how is that? Since evolutionary process is BLIND, does not account for moral behavior, you're still left with explaining how you figure that any of the things you mentioned is wrong...You drop the ball in making a leap from a totally blind process to something and I do mean ANYTHING being wrong...since evolutionary process doesn't account for it, where does that come from? Seems like you're saying from society or community so far? So please make it a lot more plain and specific than you are.
In short, you make no sense...now that's charity and respect my friend.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said..."The man has a right to call himself what's appropriate for the day...Just like me..."
Glad you seem to agree somewhat Harvey its all got a lot to do with whats relative of the day.What peoples experience might suggest is seeming to be ok or not ok etc.And as with all things you religo folk along with input from many others as well, will sooner or later all come to some conclusion of whether maybe one should have a title or not etc.
And once again just a friendly reminder Harvey, i`d still like to hear your reply on the "Is atheism rationally coercive" thread please when you have some time.As you are not avoiding answering it.
When faithful folk so often question humans ever being able to use evidence and experiences and make decisions etc to be able to get to any moral standards etc.Im often left wondering if these folk actually think us humans are always totally stupid or something?.Do they ever consider that maybe suggesting a non believer cannot come to any morals without help of some supposed god,is awfully a lot like suggesting those without a god cannot be intelligent at all?.
A claim which in my opinion only seems to suggest that absolute need of faith is actually what produces the most unintelligence.Though any mention of this phenomenon happens only to bring forth crys of atheist having biased judgment etc or simply just being mean.No thought is given that faith folk actually making suggestions of non believing humans possibly lacking intelligence to make these decisions,in itself in effect is a great put down to those of us non believers who consider we are actually able to!.
God help us for mentioning what so very many of us experience and actually see happening.
Hell these faithful folk even read a book that also talks about free will and even seems to suggest humanity might have actually had a brain to use for themselves.Guess all the other contradictions that lie also within this book just become far to overpowering for much in depth thinking to be done.
They talk of morals and absolutes etc,then go on later to remind us that we must also always remember to make allowances between whats maybe written differently in between the old and new testament etc.So much then for their ideas of any absolutes etc im left thinking!,they only seem to count when it suits certain folk and the old faith belief they wish to preserve.
If absolute morals ever existed as a start and a finish,then surely one would be forgiven for thinking that maybe even today there should still be a need for me to be stoning certain people to death?.
Harvey: Man get off the pot and set forth an argument for a change...bickering about the man's title...what a cop-out...
The man has a right to call himself what's appropriate for the day...Just like me...
SO WHAT the title isn't in the Bible...Jesus is in the Bible and you still don't honor him so what does that prove...NOTHING!
Harvey, it would help if you would carefully read what you are responding to. The person nit picking about the title "reverend" is one of your own, a fellow Christian who doesn't think it's biblical.
@Reverend:
My Reply,
Yes but empathy is different to evil? One is subjectively link the other is an objective moral label. My point still stands ;-)
I am not familliar with the phrase 'different to'. What does this mean?
The question you asked was, "Why are atheists upset ...?". The answer was, "Atheists often posess empathy."
I am also not clear about how your points relate to John's position.
John is taking the stance:
1. The God described in Christian Theism is internally-inconsistent.
2. The argument provided is sufficient to show this.
These claims are true, or they are not. John's personal ethical epistimology has nothing to do with their truth or falsehood.
It seems that your reply, "What I would like to know is why are atheists upset at evil? I mean if it is all about survival of the fittest, Darwinian Evolution, stronger eating weaker, why get upset about a God that might do the same?" has nothing to do with John's article.
Can you please explain the connection? This might help me understand your point.
If there's no particular connection beyond, "Well, your beliefs are irrational, too" then I think it would be appropriate for me to stop participating in this line of discussion, out of respect for our host.
If you'd like to re-start it somewhere that it's not off-topic, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
"So what you are saying is atheism has no claims pre se on morality?"
Yes. And, for completeness, I believe the same thing about theism. (Roughly, Theism:Christianity::Atheism:Secular Humanism)
"By what standard? Please tell me why this is not normal or healthy. You statements are ambiguous and i suspect culturally biased! Why do you think killing children is a medical abnormality?"
I'm not being rhetorically clever here. I'm saying that, if this case, you should seriously consider medical treatment.
A lack of empathy is a symptom of a number of psychological disorders.
Are you asking for a DSM-IV citation, or are you questioning the concept of a mental illness, in general?
Superintendent,
Thanks for the response. I am not a philosopher, just a garden variety skeptic who once was a believing Evangelical who no longer can rationalize Christian superstitions as truth. I'm still working things out. May I ask for patience.
Here are my responses to your responses.
I said: "I don't need God to practice ethics or be concerned with morality.
You said: "Oooh I think you need him to do that a lot more than you think or display but we'll work with that for now."
I don't believe in a personified being existing outside of space time that answers my needs so, I don't know how God will help me do a lot more things. Honestly Superintendent, it is the kind of arrogance I read in your reply which invited doubt into my faith and got me started on checking the historical and scientific claims of believers. So far, my doubts have been answered by history and science, not the apologetics of believers. I'm still willing to give it a shot. Can you tell me what I will need God for?
I said:"I only need to recognize that interdependence is the ideal state for our species"
You said: What allows you as a "species" to come to this "recognition of interdependence" and how does that provide morality?
I don't make this recognition as a species. I make this recognition as a man. My recognition is based on my experience coupled with historical evaluation of different socio-cultural-economic systems. The ideas of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Hobbes help form my perspective as well as living within a representative republic that operates within a capitalist economy. My MBA has helped and the work I do as a communications strategist within the medical community.
I said: "and therefore autonomy needs to be respected if the appropriate level of trust will be achieved to maximize interdependence."
You said: OK that's a conclusion BUT what is the basis for that knowledge? ie; what's you epistemology?
I just think it is pretty difficult to enjoy true interdependence if a person doesn't own themselves. Can you clarify what you need from me to fulfill your demand for epistemology? I am not a theologian, academic or philosopher.
I said:"Therefore things like murder, rape, genocide, etc . . . are wrong."
You said: Now, how is that? Since evolutionary process is BLIND, does not account for moral behavior, you're still left with explaining how you figure that any of the things you mentioned is wrong...You drop the ball in making a leap from a totally blind process to something and I do mean ANYTHING being wrong...since evolutionary process doesn't account for it, where does that come from? Seems like you're saying from society or community so far? So please make it a lot more plain and specific than you are.
My conclusion stems from my assessment that the advancement of our species has led us to realize efficient living via interdependence and interdependence cannot be achieved if the autonomy of the individual is threatened or ignored. Murder, rape, and genocide would be examples of autonomy being threatened or ignored. I am not arguing for the morality of a blind process but, I am arguing for the consequence of this process, interdependence, as a catalyst for my understanding of morality.
You said: In short, you make no sense...now that's charity and respect my friend.
Again, it is this kind of arrogance backed by what I have come to see as superstition which makes Christianity unattractive to me.
Be well. I hope my answers helped clarify things. Please let me know where they didn't.
Thanks
"If you are so worried about the starving children, why don't you go help feed them? Or are you just mad at God because HE allows it? Are you also mad at yourself for doing nothing to help them?"
I'm afraid I don't follow.
I am not mad at the Christian God. This is like asking you "are you mad at unicorns for not using their healing powers on more cancer patients?"
I am, convinced by the arguments that an all-good, all-powerful being is inconsistent with the world that we see.
This (alone) does not justify atheism.
I could, for instance, belive in a good, but finitely powerful god. (Odin, for instance).
Or, I could believe in an omnipotent but not particularly good god. (A deist god might be so far beyond our comprehension that our concepts of 'good' or 'evil' just wouldn't make sense)
I've found arguments about the necessary of suffering somewhat unconvincing.
I'm happy to accept that some suffering is instructional. But, the argument would need to be that all suffering is necessary.
Earthquakes kill a lot of people. They could be quietly reduced in frequency, and that would make the world better.
Mosquitoes kill more humans than any other animal. They could develop a high sensitivity to pollution that would make them die in industrialized areas.
There are any number of other things that could reduce the suffering of many (or even just one) people.
The only real defense I've seen to this is, "Well, God has a plan that we can't understand."
This is also troublesome. If we can't understand the plan, or the goals, or the actions, then how can we call it 'good'? To do so strips 'good' of meaning to the point that all the arguments for an incomprehensible, good God would apply identically to an incomprehensible evil God.
So, "God loves us. Temporal suffering is just part of his plan to bring greater happyness, we just can't understand the plan. God is good."
Becomes, "God hates us. Temporal happyness is just a part of his plan to bring greater suffering, we just can't understand the plan. God is evil."
@Chuck
If you don't mind, I'd like to expand on one of your points. (I do have something of an academic background)
You said: OK that's a conclusion BUT what is the basis for that knowledge? ie; what's you epistemology?
I just think it is pretty difficult to enjoy true interdependence if a person doesn't own themselves. Can you clarify what you need from me to fulfill your demand for epistemology? I am not a theologian, academic or philosopher."
Humanist epistimoloy is actually quite easy. They don't really need one, since humanists are not making claims about the universe.
Formally, humanist ethics might start with the claim, "I posess empathy."
This is a simple fact-claim (akin to "I am blond"), so it's not really disputable on an moral level.
From there, it follows. "Since I have empathy, I want to act in a way that helps* others."
And then we get our specific ethics out of, "Based on prior experience and rational expectations for the future, what's the best way to improve the world?"
For instance, I believe that, in general, a society will be generally happier if people are afforded freedom of conscience.
The big critique that can be made is, "You took 'I have empathy' as an axiom. So, if someone doesn't have empathy, they can ignore all of your logic, and you can't call them objectively wrong."
An easy response here is, "Yes, this is true."
*in this context, 'help' and 'improce' are related to 'increase the happyness of'/'reduces suffering of'
Richard,
Since you wanted to help Chuck O, and that's fine, you said: Formally, humanist ethics might start with the claim, "I posess empathy."
and "This is a simple fact-claim (akin to "I am blond"), so it's not really disputable on an moral level.
If the humanist says this, how can it be a "fact claim" since it would be immaterial, cannot be measured or reproduced in any way? What is the basis for making it a "fact claim"?
Sorry Chuck O, if I came across as mean spirited, I was kinda tired of seein all the hem-hawin' goin' on without makin' any type of argument and Reverend is entitled to his peace also plus he never beraded you for your harassment. the proof is in the posts...
Hi Phil,
The English word bible comes from the Greek word "biblos" which both Jesus and Paul used. It simply means book. So there is no double standard on my part.
Harvey: I was kinda tired of seein all the hem-hawin' goin' on without makin' any type of argument and Reverend is entitled to his peace
Again Harvey, it was one of your fellow Christians "hem-hawin" about the reverend thing.
On the issue of morality, let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if God really didn't exist, what would you do then? Would you go out and start killing, raping, and steeling? What would be your basis for being moral without God?
Anthony,
Where do you think morality comes from in the first place? Why do humans have a "conscience" about right and wrong? You do not need to believe in God to have qualities from God.
@District
If the humanist says this, how can it be a "fact claim" since it would be immaterial, cannot be measured or reproduced in any way? What is the basis for making it a "fact claim"?
We can measure internal, immaterial things.
For instance, once I ran a pedagogical study where we were testing for student understanding of certain concepts.
It's impossible to prove student learning, or student understanding in the purely logical sense of 'prove'. (Heck, I can't even prove that they're not p-zombies)
In an empiracle sense, we just look at what students do (do they answer questions correctly?), and see if it matches the model 'students understand this concept'.
Similar things can be done with empathy. If someone acts like they have empathy, then we can say, "The evidence supports the assertion that Tom has empathy."
Why do you think that empathy is impossible to prove (in the empirical sense of the word)?
Though, I'm not sure I see where you're going with this line of reasoning. Could you expand on what you see as the problem here?
@Richard2
Where do you think morality comes from in the first place? Why do humans have a "conscience" about right and wrong? You do not need to believe in God to have qualities from God.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that conscience was implanted by some thinking being.
Why should we think it's God (in the sense of the singular, roughly judeo-christian being) as opposed to a council of subterranian elf-wizards, Odin, The Goddess, or the Tao?
If I accept that my conscience is from some super-being, then I'd take that as evidence against the Christian god.
The supposed actions of that being are often abhorant to my conscience. (For instance, I don't accept collective punishment in war, and particularly not when the punishment is mass-rape)
Richard2 I am confused when you say, "You do not need to believe in God to have qualities from God." Aren't you assuming these qualities come from God? I am troubling follow you.
Richard - Thanks for covering my lack of epistemelogical dexterity. Epistymology is one of those words that gets thrown out there in debates that I used to pretend I knew the meaning of but now feel foolish pretending. I guess epistymologically I would be defined as a humanist or a secular humanist.
Superintendent - thanks for your reply. I don't think I was berating Reverend Phil. I was disagreeing with his understanding of natural selection and evolution. He hadn't convinced me of his point as superior to my own so I was not going to concede.
Getting back on point with the original posting, I've read Copan's original article and am halfway finished with Avalos rebuttal. The thing I find disconcerting is the selective use of information Copan practices as a means to winning his point. This behavior seems common amongst Christian apologetics, a selective parsing of available information to reinforce a decided conclusion. I don't see many believers asking themselves with sincertity or vigilence, "What if all I believe is false? How can I be certain I am right? What are the implications of my certainty?" The implication I saw was a willingness in myself and a willingness in others to ignore the wealth of evidence against certain faith claims because that evidence was inconvenient to making the faith claims or, a selective parsing of available data to make a claim seem stronger than it is.
For the sake of faith Copan seems dishonest to me. I don't know if he is a liar but, Avalos points out a large number of purposeful omissions and therefore I question the Copan's intellectual ethic.
I have read the Bible and found the God of the Bible and His creation to be true. I have tried it and tested it for many years. God has never lied to me, and neither has His word. I have never been let down by following the NT writings to the church. Not one single time. I used trial and error. So far, no error. The proof is in the pudding, and God makes great pudding!
Richard2,
You said, "I have read the Bible and found the God of the Bible and His creation to be true. I have tried it and tested it for many years. God has never lied to me, and neither has His word. I have never been let down by following the NT writings to the church. Not one single time. I used trial and error. So far, no error. The proof is in the pudding, and God makes great pudding!"
Can you give me a specific example? I've heard this stuff over and over again and I've found it to be the spiritual experience of the person sharing but not something that exists outside of the emotinalism of the person sharing.
Thanks.
The Bible says that a soft answer tirns away wrath. If I answer someone who is mad at me with a kind response, and ask for their forgiveness, their anger subsides. If I retaliate, it makes matters worse. There are 1000's of such examples.
correction - TURNS away wrath
"The Bible says that a soft answer tirns away wrath. If I answer someone who is mad at me with a kind response, and ask for their forgiveness, their anger subsides. If I retaliate, it makes matters worse. There are 1000's of such examples."
Thanks for the specific example but, isn't that belief common to other religions like, for example, Buddhism that encourages mindfulness as a means to compassion? How is that idea exclusive to the bible? How does it make the supernatural claims of Jesus' death and resurrection true?
I am not seeking argument. I am sincerely asking you these questions.
I never said it was exclusive. I am sure God reveals His principles to others outside of Christianity as well. I have spoken in a foreign language that I never learned in school. The Bible speaks of that. Is that exclusive? Probably not. I do not need it to be exclusive. If God gives that to others as well, that is up to Him.
Rev Brown and Harvey,
Are you guys really going to be so obtuse as to claim that you have no idea why members of society would think working together is a good idea? Neither of you are being intellectually honest with yourselves if you really cannot concede this point.
According to your book of Jewish fairy tales, slavery is OK, as long as you follow the rules. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Forgive me gentlemen, but I am going to assume that neither of you own slaves nor think it is moral to do so.
Your claims to moral superiority are irrelevant. You worship a god that has not only condoned slavery, but ordered the slaughter and rape of innocent women and children. (Numbers 31) I am certain that no such monster exists, but even if such a being did exist, then I would be compelled to stand against him.
I do not have any slaves, but my wife does - ME! Please tell her that it is immoral!
Richard2 you said, "I never said it was exclusive. I am sure God reveals His principles to others outside of Christianity as well. I have spoken in a foreign language that I never learned in school. The Bible speaks of that. Is that exclusive? Probably not. I do not need it to be exclusive. If God gives that to others as well, that is up to Him."
But, isn't the thrust of your faith rooted in a belief that no one can know the father except through the son? That to me would be exclusive. Again, just looking for clarification here.
The Son can reveal Himself to whomever He so chooses!
Richeard2,
You said, "The Son can reveal Himself to whomever He so chooses!"
Then why did he command his disciples to baptize people in the name of the father, son and holy spirit?
"Then why did he command his disciples to baptize people in the name of the father, son and holy spirit?"
What has that got to do with revealing Himself to anyone? That was about water baptism, not anything else.
Harvey wrote: If the humanist says this, how can it be a "fact claim" since it would be immaterial, cannot be measured or reproduced in any way? What is the basis for making it a "fact claim"?
Harvey, you've make a significant number of assumptions in that paragraph.
What is your basis in claiming empathy it is not based on material brain states, therefore immaterial.
In fact, given that the line between material and non-material continues to blur, how do you define what is immaterial or material? Or are you asserting your world view that humans have immaterial souls, which they make moral judgements?
Furthermore, what is your basis for claiming that empathy cannot be measured or reproduced? Do we not observe people showing empathy? Do we not observe some people showing more empathy than others?
So, it seems you put the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Richard2,
Why did Jesus initiate the great Commission if, he can reveal himself to anybody at anytime with anymeans or, why didn't he provide that caveat to the great commission to provide context for evangelism? You seem to be a bible believing Christian and therefore I doubt you live with ecuminical religious respect.
Jesus is the only way and he was pretty clear on how people would get to know him both in the Gospel and the book of Acts.
There is a one on one evangelical martyr's road that looks to spread the Jesus brand which, if taken seriously, says all other religions are false.
Now, what do you believe?
It is not called the great commission. That is more man made jargon.
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent - Jesus was not. The Holy Spirit can reveal God to any man at any time. Sometimes He uses those who already have this knowledge to speak to others, but it is ultimately still that the Holy Spirit that does this revealing.
It is throught the death burial and resurrection of Christ that made this all possible, hence no man comes to the Father except through Christ.
Yes, there will always be counterfeis and imposters, but that does not stop God from His revelatory process.
Richard2,
You said, "It is not called the great commission. That is more man made jargon.
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent - Jesus was not. The Holy Spirit can reveal God to any man at any time. Sometimes He uses those who already have this knowledge to speak to others, but it is ultimately still that the Holy Spirit that does this revealing.
It is throught the death burial and resurrection of Christ that made this all possible, hence no man comes to the Father except through Christ.
Yes, there will always be counterfeis and imposters, but that does not stop God from His revelatory process."
According to the Gospel of Mark there is a transactional quality to the experience of Salvation which seems to include Baptism and some form of essential volition on the receiver of the gospel message in the form of response.
Here's what the bible says, ""Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17And these signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
I believe you believe what you say you believe but fail to see how that jives with Jesus' instructions in Mark.
Therefore, your belief seems to be a self-generated system based on your emotional experience and inconsistent with your claims relative to your claims on the bible's inerrent holiness.
Hi Chuck,
Mark 16 ends at verse 16 in the best manuscripts. The word "damned" is a KJV translation. The Greek word is KRISIS which is simply judged.
The apostle Paul is the one who receives the revelation of salvation by grace through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. That truth is not revealed in the "Gospels".
Jesus did not go to the Gentiles and forbade His diciples to go to the Gentiles. He only ministered to the Jews, who were still under the law of Moses. The gospel to the NT church comes through the apostle Paul. He is the apostle to the Gentiles and was not one of the original 12.
Richard2,
You said, "Mark 16 ends at verse 16 in the best manuscripts. The word "damned" is a KJV translation. The Greek word is KRISIS which is simply judged.
The apostle Paul is the one who receives the revelation of salvation by grace through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. That truth is not revealed in the "Gospels".
Jesus did not go to the Gentiles and forbade His diciples to go to the Gentiles. He only ministered to the Jews, who were still under the law of Moses. The gospel to the NT church comes through the apostle Paul. He is the apostle to the Gentiles and was not one of the original 12."
Does this mean all religions are valid and one doesn't have to accept Christ to enjoy the perfect moral righteousness of God?
I just made the 100th comment! Do I get a prize?
No, all religions are not valid. It is not about religion. It is about the finished work of Christ as reveled by Paul in the NT letters to the churches.
Religion is about man searching for and trying to please their deity. Salavtion is about God sending Christ to saved mankind from sin and death, which is yet to be fully realized. There will be a new earth where righteousness dwells. There will be no need for ANY religion!
I just made the 100th comment! Do I get a prize?
No, but if there was one I could delete it and let mine be the 100th. ;-)
Richard2 you said, "No, all religions are not valid. It is not about religion. It is about the finished work of Christ as reveled by Paul in the NT letters to the churches.
Religion is about man searching for and trying to please their deity. Salavtion is about God sending Christ to saved mankind from sin and death, which is yet to be fully realized. There will be a new earth where righteousness dwells. There will be no need for ANY religion!"
This sounds an awful like the Christian religion to me.
Christ's accepted us! It is not about us accepting Him. He is very well aware of the deceptive nature of sin and Satan. He came to set us free from this deception. We love Him because He first loved us. We did not seek Him, He sought us! We were lost, not Him!
Yes, well it depends on how you define "Christian". Some Christians are playing the religious games with it's rules regulations, and condemnation. Jesus came to end all of that. He came to set us free from the law and to give us grace and freedom.
Richard2,
You said, "Yes, well it depends on how you define "Christian". Some Christians are playing the religious games with it's rules regulations, and condemnation. Jesus came to end all of that. He came to set us free from the law and to give us grace and freedom."
And all I have to do is believe that stories in a book are history and fact. Sorry but, it sounds like an awful like religion to me.
I am not asking you to believe anything. Belief in God is a gift from God.
Richard2 you said,
"I am not asking you to believe anything. Belief in God is a gift from God."
I find this idea disturbing because it confers God's blessing on those who imagine they've received it absent of any proof besides their own imagining. It provides one a self-centered morality.
Does someone imagine love? Yes, that is possible. But there are many that really do experoence love and it's emotions and wonders, especially during a fulfilling marriage, with a great family.
Richard2 you said, "Does someone imagine love? Yes, that is possible. But there are many that really do experoence love and it's emotions and wonders, especially during a fulfilling marriage, with a great family."
What does this have to do with having a relationship with Jesus and the believe that you were predestined for this relationship because God chose you?
God chooses everyone! Some now and the rest later.
Richard2 you said, "God chooses everyone! Some now and the rest later."
Where in your bible does it say that? Please provide me those passages.
Scott,
Back to the morality issue. You said:"What is your basis in claiming empathy it is not based on material brain states, therefore immaterial."
Empathy like other emotions cannot be measured and one cannot tell where they come from. Other things such as love etc, are the same. These are immaterial realities that Metaphysical Naturalism DOES NOT account for.
example: You do a brain wave spectrometer(if there is such a thing) and all you'll see is areas of the brain the "may" undergo certain activity under certain stimuli, but this is once again immeasurable...by saying immeasurable, I mean does the meter get a really dark red for more love and a soft pink for less love? Are there different colors to show the intensity of love/hate/friendship/lust etc?...As you can see this notion is absurd and is not rooted in reality or science.
My position is that your moral senses (both ethos and ethic) derrive from an immaterial part of you that God has created and if you solely and purely were materially (ie:evolved by natural processes) there would be no distinction between good/bad and or right/wrong as naturaly evolutionary processes do not account for or distinguish the difference between good/bad and right and wrong...in fact evolution leans towards the worst behaviors being the ones that cause the species to survive...
The ability you possess to "know" and "perceive" something as being morally good or bad is given to us ONLY by God, Christian and sinner alike.
So yes, I make an overarching claim and there is no metaphysically natural process that accounts for your morality...the path that Chuck O takes is the most popular saying that morality is a product of learning or social interractions...that ultimately would mean that the naturalist would have to acknowledge a point when he/she were amoral and learned such morality from the community...is that the route you wish to take?
Hi Chuck,
Romans 8:21 says the entire creation will be ste free from it's bondage to corruption! 1 Cor 15:22 says "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ, all will be made alive. Then it goes on to say in vs 42-44 that everyone will be raised in power, spiritual and incorruptible.
Superintendent you said,
"So yes, I make an overarching claim and there is no metaphysically natural process that accounts for your morality...the path that Chuck O takes is the most popular saying that morality is a product of learning or social interractions...that ultimately would mean that the naturalist would have to acknowledge a point when he/she were amoral and learned such morality from the community...is that the route you wish to take?"
What if my morality is continually shifting and evolving. It is not a binary reality. I am continually developing. The Christian hypothesis seemed truthful to me but I no longer accept all the claims it makes. Some of it still informs my morality but not to the extent it once did.
Richard2,
You said, "Romans 8:21 says the entire creation will be ste free from it's bondage to corruption! 1 Cor 15:22 says "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ, all will be made alive. Then it goes on to say in vs 42-44 that everyone will be raised in power, spiritual and incorruptible."
Cool. I am going to remain skeptical of this claim until I see evidence I can trust but it seems like a nice sentiment. I don't think the other Christianities agree with you however.
Reverend and Superintendent do you think you can weigh in on the passage of Romans Richard2 shared. It sounds like by his intepretation I don't need to accept Jesus at all and if I choose to see him as a character in a book it doesn't matter.
Superintendent you said, "example: You do a brain wave spectrometer(if there is such a thing) and all you'll see is areas of the brain the "may" undergo certain activity under certain stimuli, but this is once again immeasurable...by saying immeasurable, I mean does the meter get a really dark red for more love and a soft pink for less love? Are there different colors to show the intensity of love/hate/friendship/lust etc?...As you can see this notion is absurd and is not rooted in reality or science."
It is called an fMRI and yes the brain lights up with different colors.
Empathy like other emotions cannot be measured and one cannot tell where they come from. Other things such as love etc, are the same. These are immaterial realities that Metaphysical Naturalism DOES NOT account for.
Harvey,
Why do I need to account for something that cannot be measured cannot be reproduced?
In other words, why do YOU assume anyone actually exhibits any of these phenomena, which requires accounting for?
Chuck O,
You said:"What if my morality is continually shifting and evolving. It is not a binary reality. I am continually developing."
I think it is continually evolving, but notice the direction, only to better and more virtuous qualities...in fact, those better and more virtuous qualities are universal. A man saving a child from a burning building is hailed all across the globe.
The point I make is those actions that are universally accepted and otherwise are not a product of any natural selection or survival of the fittest. Our perception of values as either being good or bad cannot be based on evolutionary processes as those processes do not care.
In the Christian world view we have an intrinsically good God who makes a declaration upon man and his own creation. That declaration was that it was all good. I propose that all mankind can only know moral good because of that declaration and from that declaration we gain all sense of moral objectivity...anything outside of that is purely subjective and is only based on our opinions...since we have morals that are universally accepted as good and bad, we only have that because of the obcetive standards that God has set.
Scott,
You said: "why do YOU assume anyone actually exhibits any of these phenomena, which requires accounting for?"
Naturalism being a closed system requires that all phenomea are accounted for, isn't that right? Whatever cannot be measured isn't scientific, is that not a metaphysical naturalist premise?
Now I know them's fightin' words so I'll sit back and let you fine men and women pontificate over that for a minute.
Thanks.
Superintendent thanks for your reply. Your response sounds an awful like adaptation through natural selection at an epistymological (I finally learned the term) level.
My hypothesis is that for the sake of collective moral god, men invent god stories to atomize and formalize the most favorable moral rules. Time takes care of the rest.
Your explanation increases my confidence that morality is innate and becomes stronger with adaptation. It is the way I reconcile the multiple religions at play now and the differing Christianities now and those relative to past Christianities.
Harvey,
Perhaps my question was not clear enough.
On one hand, you're demanding that I account for empathy.
But on the other hand, you're claiming that empathy cannot be reproduced or cannot be measured.
This seems to be a contradiction.
Should it be the case that empathy cannot be neither reproduced or measured, then it's unclear as to why I need to account for it, as it would appear to be impossible to know if anyone was was actually experiencing empathy to any degree.
Hey guys,
John, sorry for the off-topic post, but I need help. I am practically a lone voice arguing against a bunch of Catholics at http://www.beingfrank.co.nz. I have to admit that I'm getting nowhere with them, so I was wondering if some of the big brains here could wander on by occasionally and help me out? Would be much appreciated, thanks in advance. Kiwiatheist
@District Supt. Harvey Burnett
"In the Christian world view we have an intrinsically good God..."
The idea of an "intrinsic good" is formally incoherent. "Good" is a judgement, an evaluation. As such it requires both subject and object and depends upon the relation between the two (values are a species of relationship). There is no such thing as "intrinsic good"; there simply cannot be. God is not and cannot be "intrinsically good". You may argue that He is the standard by which "good" is defined, but that does not make Him intrinsically good.
"Naturalism being a closed system requires that all phenomea [sic] are accounted for, isn't that right? Whatever cannot be measured isn't scientific, is that not a metaphysical naturalist premise?"
I've seen variations on this idea previously, but have wondered what force it's supposed to hold. Theism is also, by definition, a closed system in which all phenomena must have an accounting (even in the sense of that accounting being "God's will"). And measurement is an epistemic concern that exists no less for the theist than it does the naturalist, so what's the point? What benefits derive from holding to a closed theistic system vs. a closed non-theistic system?
Bill S,
You said: "There is no such thing as "intrinsic good"; there simply cannot be. God is not and cannot be "intrinsically good"."
I'm so glad I come here for conversation and you thankfully stumbled on a jewel that I'll be glad to address...
Your definition of "intrinsic goodness" is philosophically correct, however God's goodness wasn't derrived from man's declaration of his Goodness, it came from himself as he was self-existent, fully awhare and a fully sentient being from eternity.
So your philosophical definition cannot account for the God described within the bible. I would simply suggest that's what we'd expect IF we were dealing with a being who was the "creator" and had a truely higher knowledge and status than us. All I know is that when creation began God was already, and HE made the declarations of goodness upon humanity. So what may be logically incoherent to the philosophical mind is totally logical and both coherent to the spiritual mind...what's the difference, SIN ie: unbelief which entraps the philosophical mind. I could say more but then I'll get preachy and that's not what we do here.
You also said this:"And measurement is an epistemic concern that exists no less for the theist than it does the naturalist, so what's the point? What benefits derive from holding to a closed theistic system vs. a closed non-theistic system?"
And that would take over an hour to properly address and answer coherently, but let me add a little more confusion,
The naturalist only accounts for material universe. The theist belives that part of the material universe includes the immaterial parts of the human (which the naturalist doesn't deny but simply finds other ways to account for) and the unseen spiritual dimension of existence.
IF the continuum is closed such as the naturalist believes, then certainly there is no room for interventions outside of science and what is naturally discovered, however, that clonclusion overlooks and disqualifies an abundant and overwhelming amount of evidence which includes but is certainly not limited to personal testimony through thousands of years to the openess of the natural continuum.
I propse that the refusal of the metaphysical naturalist to evaluate, consider and make use of the evidence that suggests immaterial reality, which in my opinion further suggests God, is simply burying one's head in the sand and refusing to accept that possibilities and occurances exist which cannot be explained by naturalism or scientific discovery in any manner. I wrote an article on it both HERE and HERE specifically as it pertains to miracles. Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
@District Supt. Harvey Burnett
"I would simply suggest that's what we'd expect IF we were dealing with a being who was the "creator" and had a truely higher knowledge and status than us. All I know is that when creation began God was already, and HE made the declarations of goodness upon humanity."
Even if true, irrelevant to the question of the intrinsicity of goodness. God's declaration of Himself as "good" doesn't mean that He's intrinsically good.
"So what may be logically incoherent to the philosophical mind is totally logical and both coherent to the spiritual mind...what's the difference, SIN ie: unbelief which entraps the philosophical mind."
"Coherence" doesn't depend upon whether one accepts "spirituality" or not. Ideas, definitions, indeed, logic itself depends upon the truth of the law of non-contradiction. "Intrinsic goodness" is self-contradictory and therefore an impossibility, QED. Any argument to the contrary (that self-contradictory notions aren't necessarily false) is itself self-contradictory and thus refutes itself.
I don't mean to suggest that this is some sort of problem for theists (except those who insist on declaring God "intrinsically good"). God Himself could not cause the LONC to be false. A theist would argue that it's a part of God's nature. Non-theists may hold that it's part of the nature of existence. The distinction is without difference, but it's certainly no more of a problem for the theist than it is for the non-theist.
Here's how I would sort this out from the position of Christian orthodoxy: God's goodness flows from His perfect nature, which is the source of all that exists (except Himself, of course). What we identify as "good" in the world is the intersection of the alignment of our own nature and the nature of existence with the nature of God.
More to follow...
@District Supt. Harvey Burnett
"I propse [sic]that the refusal of the metaphysical naturalist to evaluate, consider and make use of the evidence that suggests immaterial reality, which in my opinion further suggests God, is simply burying one's head in the sand and refusing to accept that possibilities and occurances [sic] exist which cannot be explained by naturalism or scientific discovery in any manner. I wrote an article on it both HERE and HERE specifically as it pertains to miracles. Let me know what you think."
I must admit I only skimmed those articles, but at first glance they seem immediately problematic. Wherein do you define "natural" and "supernatural"? Until I understand what you mean by these terms, I'll be unable to follow the argument you're attempting to make.
I suspect that these terms are more or less meaningless (or at best, fuzzy); that they generally stand as placeholders for "that which we know through ordinary means" and "that which we don't know through ordinary means". In other words, they don't represent an ontic division of reality, but rather an epistemic one and as such are irrelevant in a discussion which ultimately reduces to ontology.
Not that this is your fault nor do I mean to suggest that you are deliberately obfuscating; I believe this is a widespread issue. We discuss & debate "natural" and "supernatural" but rarely stop to consider if these terms have any actual meaning!
For example, the first precept you list as those held by "antisupernaturalists" is:
1. Humanity exists in a closed system. Every cause has a natural effect.
Why use the word "natural"? Couldn't we reword thusly:
1. Humanity exists in a closed system. Every cause has an effect.
This statement is likely to be endorsed by both theists and non-theists, yes? So we would appear to be on even ground and this was the basis for my question. From this starting point, and given that we each have the same epistemic "measuring problems", what benefits accrue from theism vs. non-theism (as ontological systems)?
For example, in philosophy of mind discussions, I've often heard it said that "causal closure" of the physical realm is a problem for physicalists. But why? Surely the "non-physical" realm is closed as well. Why is causal closure a problem for one and not for the other? It seems to me that both of these issues derive from a failure to closely examine these dichotomies we assume to exist (natural vs. supernatural, physical vs. non-physical). I would argue that in fact they are epistemic artifacts without ontological significance. Once you accept this, the relevant question becomes an epistemic one: how best to determine what reality is like (i.e., what method of gaining knowledge is best at determining and preserving truth)?
Superintendent,
I appreciate your writing style. It is not bogged down with pretentious vocabulary as many apologetic philosophers practice.
However, I am not buying what your selling. I say this for one reason. You say,"The presupposition is that miracles do not occur in our modern world. However, as a matter of fact, there are many miracles that currently occur, and they are not isolated events."
Can you please produce specific documentation where someone who has died was brought back to life and, please produce evidence to confirm that it was God who brought this person back to life.
Naturalism and the Critical-Historical method exist to provide a leveling tool for intellectual ideas otherwise, one can exploit others with their rhetoric and claim truth without evidence.
If, as you say, miracles exist and happen with great frequency please present a documented case that can be examined by all matter of epistymology with the conclusion that yes, this is a miracle.
Otherwise I find your writing interesting but without merit.
I think you brand the naturalistic method arrogant because it discounts unsubstantiated claims to reality without recognizing the extreme arrogance such a statement demands.
I wish you well and hope your ideas fade with time just as demon possession has been supplanted by the germ theory of disease.
In response to Rev. Brown,OP:
Interesting point. Your question is really whether atheists can be moral without a supernatural source for morality.
Ironically, religious people must rely on themselves rather than the Bible for their morality in a great number of cases. For instance, the Bible commands the killing of witches, non-believing family members, sanctions slavery, etc.
Bible-believers must segregate these commandments from the body of morality that is sanctioned by God, as they are outrageous and unacceptable in our modern, relatively civilized society.
So my question to you is this (and I am sure this is a pretty stale thought):
On what basis do you determine which of God's prior commandments are immoral? The Bible?
The answer has to be: one's own set of morals that are gleaned not only from religious tradition, but also from shared community values. These are "set" (I hate to use the word) by the collective will to ostracize and punish those who do harm to other individuals and society as a whole.
The primary ethic, out of which all others grow, and can easily be explained by socio-evolutionary sources without God, is "do no harm to others." Why no God? Simple, we have pain and suffering to show us where others are immoral.
Also, Rev. Brown, I can't help it:
Your idea that "it is all about survival of the fittest" is not really applicable to this discussion. The theory of evolution (which you likely don't believe, that's fine) is not "kill everyone else and your species (clan, race,etc.) wins," it is about heritable traits leading to more likely survivability for a species or sub-species. See Darwin's finches.
Think of it this way. If the earth was suddenly bathed deadly radiation, those with more resistance to it would be more likely to survive. Those genes would be passed on...so you get a more resistant group at the other end of the event...see? They didn't have to kill anyone to adapt to the environment!
This "survival of the fittest" thing is really a mischaracterization of the theory...certainly doesn't have anything to do with the social survival of one clan over another through genocide, as you seem to suggest. May I suggest a community college Anthro 201 course? That's where I learned about it.
Chuck,
Your efforts to engage Super. Harvey are commendable. Many of us who frequent DC, have tried to engage Harvey.
We have asked for Harvey to produce evidence for his claims, but he appears to lack the capacity to do so.
Harvey is an exorcist who claims he has performed many demon expulsions. We've asked for him to produce some body of evidence that could be evaluated separately from the emotionally intense and frenetic atmosphere of an exorcism's hand-to-hand combat with demons. He can't produce it.
He claims that he knows that those he exorcises are indeed possessed, but he remains incapable of producing anything that backs him up.
His miracle claims are similarly unsupported. His claims remain empty assertions which here at DC hold no sway, but among those listening in to him make the same claims from the pulpit, those who ask for no evidence other than his say-so, he is as a truth-streaming god. For them, if Harvey says demons are real, then demons are real. If Harvey says there are miracles, then there are miracles.
To most others,said miracles might be the obvious product of coincidence, medical misdiagnoses, ignorance or intentional deception, but for Harvey's minions, Harvey's word transforms naturalistic causes into God's handiwork.
Again, Chuck, I commend you, and I do hope the effort you've expended with Harvey has a fruitful outcome.
Russ,
Good to hear from you.
I don't know if I will ever change Harvey's mind but as long as I hold onto my own.
I am learning to stand firm and not get caught up in rhetorical religious claims.
It is a very liberating experience.
Peace to you.
First of all Russ doesn't know his behind from a hole in the wall...
Whatever he's talking about is a delusion of his lame mind so who the heck is that fella anyway???
So back to any real arguments???
Chuck O,
You said: "Can you please produce specific documentation where someone who has died was brought back to life and, please produce evidence to confirm that it was God who brought this person back to life."
First of all this type of thing was a common occurance to folk that didn't have medical access but who believe in God. I have many individuals in my church who lived through Jum Crowe and will tell you some things that are FACTS brother...real down to earth things that happened and whole communities knew about it...so evidence is no problem, watch who you ask, you might get what you're looking for and then what will you do?
Secondly, all sources confirm that Jesus was dead. He made a claim and NONONE else made one saying that 1- god would raise him up, and 2- He would raise himself...
He rose and there is no evidence left to the contrary...What more needs to be said?
He said it, he claimed it (no one else made the same claims) and it's done.
Bill S,
you said: "Coherence" doesn't depend upon whether one accepts "spirituality" or not. Ideas,"
Coherence DOES depend upon the SIN nature of man. Sin is an inhibitor to the mind...The bible calls it a carnal mind. it's that part of us that need illumination before the dots can be connected. That's why philosophy only goes so far and most times that's back to our sinful understanding of concepts and ideas that can only be perceived spiritually.
So do you acknowlede man's spiritual being or nature?
Bill S,
I hear ya about the terminology issues...let me chew on that for a minute and get back with either my coherence or incoherencies-LOL on that.
Thanks.
Superintendent you said, "First of all this type of thing was a common occurance to folk that didn't have medical access but who believe in God. I have many individuals in my church who lived through Jum Crowe and will tell you some things that are FACTS brother...real down to earth things that happened and whole communities knew about it...so evidence is no problem, watch who you ask, you might get what you're looking for and then what will you do?
Secondly, all sources confirm that Jesus was dead. He made a claim and NONONE else made one saying that 1- god would raise him up, and 2- He would raise himself...
He rose and there is no evidence left to the contrary...What more needs to be said?
He said it, he claimed it (no one else made the same claims) and it's done."
First, I don't see a specific and documented example in your assertion.
Second, I have trouble seeing the gospel accounts as anything other than myth. They don't hold to the critical-historical method (which I know you disdain but, is the only way we can verify the historicity of ancient texts).
So, I'm still dissatisfied and am still not buying what you're selling.
Can you give me a good example of a miracle I can observe with objective standards. A VHS copy of something will do. Thanks.
Chuck O,
I appreciate your evaluation of my conclusions so far as HC Methodology is concerned. I'm not offended at your statements in the least. It seems that at least you're giving me an honest chance and That's appreciated.
So far as HC method in general, I would hold that a natural or scientific cause should be the first stop, so to speak for all events. However, when we have to bend past credulity then "Occam's razor" should be applied, especially when there is a claim made by the being we know as God.
Sometimes all truth needs is simple belief.
Chuck O,
You said: First, I don't see a specific and documented example in your assertion.
I haven't given any for others, then I've got my own medical records to verify my miracle event in my life. By the way every event is not believeable just because it's on videotape, we've already been around that here at DC and to assume that you'll only accept evidence since 1922 or so because youy can see film of it is ridiculous and is not how historical research is done my friend.
You may think the owrld is straight forward but I still know a lot of peopel who don't even have birth certificates...they are either lost or destroyed. Are we to assume that they don't exist because we can't see a paper that says so...That's ridiculous.
So far as mine is concerned, on DC Dr. Evan told me a condition I had when I was young. All I know is that God healed my body and 30 years later I'm here baby and that event NEVER occurred again...so walk a mile, that is IF you really want to know.
You said: Second, I have trouble seeing the gospel accounts as anything other than myth.
That's another post and one that I believe had been refuted even here on DC...that's really a non-starter.
You said: They don't hold to the critical-historical method (which I know you disdain but, is the only way we can verify the historicity of ancient texts).
HC Methodology hasn't weakened the bible as far as I can see. The naturalist does with the bible what they claim believers do, fill their arguments with a bunch of special pleading and that makes it an obviously flawed way to approach the biblical text.
Superintendent,
You made the claim miracles happen all the time. I don't see why asking for a video-tape of one would be a problem. Are you modifying your claim and are saying that miracles aren't as prevalent as you stated and therefore asking for simple documentation might be difficult.
I'm sorry but your personal testimony is dissatisfying to me.
I trust Bart Ehrman's writing on the subject of gospel historicity more than yours. Yes, I see the Jesus myth as an interesting one but nothing more real than Gilgamesh.
Now, you made the assertions. Change my mind.
Isn't that your calling?
Just produce a video-tape of a documented miracle and allow me to investigate in-depth for its veracity and I will concede that your claims to the supernatural have merit. Until then, I think you are blowing hot air.
Chuck O,
There are plenty of documented miracles to go around. I was talking cumulatively also. There are yet many stories from before the time that video was invented...
Look, do a google on Bishop Darrell Hines. in fact here's a link: http://www.hinesfeet.com/about.htm
He died, was struck by lightening, was medically diagnosed DEAD DOCUMENTED...prayed for, came back to life and lives TODAY...He's a Bishop in Milwaukee Wis. CALL HIM...there is TV interviews, newspaper print everything he'll give it to you...If you want I'll even broker it...
So far as mine I was about 12 years hematuria painless bloody urine, bright red my friend, without doctor or medicine...gone forever. So what you don't like it, I'm living proof of a miracle buddy...
You can go to http://menshealth.about.com/cs/diseases/a/hematuria.htm to learn more about the illness I HAD...
So that's at least 2. There's plenty more but that's not the topic in this post now is it???
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said,
First of all Russ doesn't know his behind from a hole in the wall...
Harvey, you yourself have been so kind as to outline the distinction between my behind and a hole in the wall. So, now, all thanks to you, I do indeed know my behind from a hole in the wall. [Do you seriously think none of us knows you meant to say "ass" instead of "behind"?]
You continued,
Whatever he's talking about is a delusion of his lame mind so who the heck is that fella anyway???
Translation: As a truth-purveying virtuous man of Gawd, I command you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Keep your eyes fixed on the sonorously-voiced bulbous headed apparition and believe the words I put into its mouth.
Harvey, I laugh at statements like
So back to any real arguments???
REAL arguments, Harvey? Real arguments require real premises. Unless you can demonstrate that the premises are known to be true, none of your reasoning means anything. You're making it up.
Let me share some thoughts with you that are similar to things I've said on other threads here at DC.
I'm certain that if I asked you to define that Christianity thing you seek to protect, Harvey, you could per philosophical prescription lay down premises and assumptions specific to your version of Christianity in exactly the same way as those theologians rushing to the aid of those Christianities you reject. And what will you and your theological colleagues have done? You'll have concocted distinct Christianities.
Adorn your phraseology with all the philosophy-speak you like, but what you're doing is reasoning about a Christianity you made up. You made it up. Your follow-on reasoning can be as meticulous, as precise as you like, but even perfect argumentation cannot create reality from your arbitrary - you could have chosen completely different starting points - intellectual fabrication.
Realize this: free-range Christianities with their peculiar clergy; seminaries; schools of divinity; and, philosophy departments are idea mills, particularly well-suited to stamp out new religions and gods, precisely because no standards exist to constrain them. New Christianities and associated deities just pour out of these places. Many are brainstormed to life in pubs and taverns and are lost when the napkins go out with the peanut shells and cigarette butts. Some find greater longevity as an essay, term paper or a thesis, but eventually most disappear never having reached the pool of potential converts. Still, a good number take root as entirely new Christianities. Today, a thousand new Christianities pop up each year, all rooted in their own premises and assumptions.
If anything characterizes the Christianities, it's variability. Some are atheist. Some reject miracles including virgin births and resurrections. Some reject hell. Some throw out all of the Old Testament. Others throw out everything in the Old Testament, except for original sin. Some claim to be Biblical literalists. Some view the Bible as nice metaphor and allegory. Some throw out the Bible altogether. Some of the theistic Christianities have a god that sends people to hell; others have a god that doesn't. They are all making it up. They're not the same. They're not logically compatible. There is no standard. There exist no constraints. Still, most claim to be the bearers of "THE TRUTH."
So, again, Harvey, I laugh at statements like, "So back to any real arguments?" since you are actively just making it up, while you ignore that other Christian clergymen are making up their version of truth which conflicts with or contradicts yours.
You flower up your language with words you think sound respectable - open and closed systems, continuum, metaphysical - but, it hangs on nothing of substance. If you want your god's goodness to be more than a vacuous premise, posed as an intellectual plaything, you must be able to show it to be something other than one more of your baseless assertions.
By the way, there's another gentleman, he's deceased now. Name was Bishop L.H. Ford. They named a stretch of highway after him in Chicago after his death. The Bishop L.H. ford Freeway.
Exactly 7 years before his death, he was diagnosed as having advanced prostate cancer, given 12 mos. or less to live. In one episode in the hosptial he asked God for 7 years...A female missionary prayed for him, cancer went into remission...EXACTLY 7 years later to the date he prayed, he died...
This is one of the most widely known things throughout our church regarding this man. Quite a few people in Chicago that knew him knew of this also and some of them aren't "church people".
Coincidence? Yea right!
Russ,
You said: Let me share some thoughts with you that are similar to things I've said on other threads here at DC.
You're a piece of work, Do you take medication for your condition...I think they got a new one out called diprivan...that may be just what you need to make it through your episodes...you should be able to get a scrip from one of Michael's doctors...
Good luck with that...IF I believe in luck that would be a good thing, but what they hey...
Just in case you're wondering Russ is some seriously jacked up God hater who never has a point of an argument...sits in the shadows getting mad when atheistis arguments are challenged...he's like a poutin' child...like one of those in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
He's sounds like one of those midgets in the "Wizard of Oz"..."We represent the Lollipop Guild, Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild!" Probably looks like that too-LOL!
Harvey,
I have a serious question for you. I'm repeating this from the comment thread on Lee Randolph's post, "Direct Evidence Of Moral Behavior From Evolution." You didn't address it there so I thought I'd politely ask again, since it follows the morality theme. Here, though, it juxtaposes nicely with what you claim as the source of all human morality.
The following quote is from the bookjacket of Jeff Sharlet's 2008 book, "The Family":
The Family is about the other half of American fundamentalist power—not its angry masses, but its sophisticated elites. Sharlet follows the story back to Abraham Vereide, an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a “family” that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of “biblical capitalism,” military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, the Family's leader declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
Often in discussions about morality here at DC, you like to claim that the likes of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao serve as evidence that atheists are bad. Yet, this book chronicles Fundamentalist Christians revering those same people.
Harvey, it is strange indeed that Hitler, Lenin, and Mao can serve as your Christian Fundamentalism's reliable examples of atheist immorality while they also serve as support and justification for other Christian Fundamentalists.
I'd be interested in what you think about it.
Russ
Superintendent,
I am a practicing Russtafarian and find his ideas edifying.
I find your examples of miracles really nothing more than urban legend.
Again, I ask you, can you provide a video-tape of a miracle I might be able to obtain and then examine from every available theoretical angle to confirm its supernatural quality?
Or, are miracles not as prevalent as you say?
Thanks. I hope you are well.
"There are plenty of documented miracles to go around. I was talking cumulatively also. There are yet many stories from before the time that video was invented..."
And there are those stories in any religion. I went to a pentecostal church most of my life, I saw many people "claim" that a miracle occurred in their life, I am 55 years old, I have never witnessed anything that could be remotely classified as a miracle. I saw people with diseases get better, but people with diseases in other religions, or no religion gets better as well.
What I have seen, is one fraud exposed after another. Charlatans, and scam artist vying to separate some poor suffering old woman from her last dollar, giving false hope, without little concern for ethics or empathy. I have never seen, a person, lame from birth, with legs withered and atrophied, instantly jump up and and walk, or for that matter anything remotely close, as the bible describes. I have never seen a suspension of the laws of nature.
What I did see, was exactly what you are proposing.
"I heard of this guy who...or, I read about this guy who...."
I'm 55 yrs old. Pastor's have told the congregations that I attended for 40 years to "expect" a miracle. A christian friend ask me not long ago why miracles are more common in third world nations? That's easy. There are no medical records. It's harder to catch the fraud.
@District Supt. Harvey Burnett (henceforth DSHB...I'm getting tired of typing that out...)
"Coherence DOES depend upon the SIN nature of man. Sin is an inhibitor to the mind...The bible calls it a carnal mind. it's that part of us that need illumination before the dots can be connected. That's why philosophy only goes so far and most times that's back to our sinful understanding of concepts and ideas that can only be perceived spiritually."
You'll forgive me, but this smacks of special pleading. But at any rate, it's irrelevant. As I noted previously, logic depends on the law of non-contradiction, which not even God can change. Therefore sin can't possibly affect our ability to reason logically (insofar as our reasoning is limited to knowledge discerned via this law). So when we're discussing the coherence of concepts, the self-contradictory nature of any concept allows us to dismiss it REGARDLESS of any alleged effect of sin (as the law of non-contradiction is necessarily true regardless of the reality or non-reality of sin or its noetic effect).
DSHB: "So do you acknowlede [sic] man's spiritual being or nature?"
What do you mean by "spiritual"? This is the very point I'm attempting to make. We throw these words around like we all know what they mean, but I don't believe we really do. In fact, I don't think they have any real (meaning "inter-subjective") meaning. What is "physical"? What is "non-physical"? Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are in fact merely different aspects of the same thing, so what does it mean for something to be "physical" or "non-physical"?
As far as I'm concerned, reality is reality regardless of any categorization we attempt. IF God exists, then obviously the fundamental structure of reality is manifested in His nature. If not, then it's manifested in the nature of existence. Either way, separating reality into "spirit", "non-spirit", "natural", & "supernatural" makes no sense to me unless we define exactly what's contained within those categories. Right now I'd argue we've not yet done so and I think this is a major source of disconnect between those who call themselves "naturalists" and those who call themselves "supernaturalists".
Harvey,
If God is really out there working miracles in reality, our ability to detect them has increased exponentially over the last 100 years. Yet supposed "evidence" for miracles doesn't seem to have remotely kept pace.
Shouldn't advances in medical imagining and monitoring systems result in an exponential increase in documented supernatural healing? It would seem this matter would have been clearly resolved in your favor by the medical community years ago. Yet, here we are.
Shouldn't we be seeing an exponential increase in documented miracles due to the explosion of media savvy consumers armed with cellphones and pocket cameras that take photos *and* video? And let's not forget satellite photography, paranormal research, etc?
Or has God intentionally reduced the number of miracles in step with out ability to detect them to keep them statistically indistinguishable from random chance?
Also, I'm still wondering why you demand an account for something that you yourself imply we cannot reproduce or measure?
If this were the case, then I would seem impossible to know if anyone was experiencing empathy.
Surely, people act with empathy in a wide range of scenarios, which have been documented and studied. Some of which occur in controlled environments specifically designed to produce and measure empathetic responses to hypothetical situations, photos or videos.
Here's just one example I found after making a quick search.
Key scientific studies on empathy.
Chuck O,
You said: "I find your examples of miracles really nothing more than urban legend."
Chuck I AM an eyewitness to not only my event but many others, people who wish to disbelieve will disbelieve NO MATTER what evidence is presented...
Now, I've seen the NEWSPAPER CLIPS for Hines. It is well documented he was DEAD for 45 minutes NO HEART BEAT...CONTACT HIM...IF you want to know what God can do...do so, go to Milwaukee and see it for yourself, he'll show you and you can call the reporters themselves. So there's no "urband legend" in anything I'm saying 4-shure!
Bill S,
You said:"As I noted previously, logic depends on the law of non-contradiction, which not even God can change."
You see that's what I'm talking about my friend, IF God couldn't change it, IT would be greater than him and that's not the case. God is not subservient to any natural law or otherwise. What seems like a contradiction may not be one when it pertains to God. There are many basic biblical premises the same way. The Trinity is one cush concept.
You also said this:Either way, separating reality into "spirit", "non-spirit", "natural", & "supernatural" makes no sense to me unless we define exactly what's contained within those categories.
Now, you have stumbled onto another point that I have talked about often in ministry and it comes from the fact that in Genesis, when God "breathed" into the clay that he had formed what was produced was called a "living soul" that body sould union was called man. There are material and immaterial aspects of our being that are intertwined although I believe that we can shut off capacities of our being. I believe the atheist has done just that.
Still pondering your language issue I'll share my thoughts with you on that later.
Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg,
I just still can't figure out how someone who is name practically every name in the bible is an unbeliever, John The Baptist, Emmanuel~ God With Us (Jesus) Zorg (and Zorg may even mean God in some language) All I know is what I know, God is real, Jesus is the eternally risen son, and no charlatan can make me turn my profession from HIM. So your actions and responses are on YOU not God!
Scott,
you said:Shouldn't advances in medical imagining and monitoring systems result in an exponential increase in documented supernatural healing?
In some cases they are, they tend to call it "spontaneous" events as opposed to miracles now days.
I'll read your empathy chart and get back on the issue. I guess also.
Russ,
fella you don't impress or encourage me to dialogue with you in the least, all you do is attack and hurl totally untrue information around, make unfounded assertions and I have no idea who the heck you are...so excuse me IF I overlook you and anything that you could want me to answer...
Harvey,
(Shhh, so you know, Diprivan, isn't new. It's been around for at least 30 years. I know because I used it in the late 1970's when I was chief surgeon in a molecular toxicology lab. But, I do get your point, and I deeply appreciate the warmth and God-imparted empathy with which you express it.)
You asked, Do you take medication for your condition?
Harvey, you, and others of your religious ilk, are my "condition," so there exists no medication for ameliorating what ails me short of drugging myself into complete apathy or oblivion. For me, morally I can't ignore you - you, in the broadest pluralistic sense - since your ignorance of the world and your active perpetuation of it constitute a very real threat to mankind's ability to address its serious problems, both today and tomorrow.
Isn't it a sweet irony, Harvey, that if your version of a Christian god really is, as you so strongly assert, the source of all human empathy, that you somehow end up with an empathy that wants all children to be reared to be ignorant of the science that is the bedrock of their very existence, while I, who you consider an evil atheist, want them to be as fully knowledgeable as possible so they can take care of themselves and their families, even as they practice informed stewardship of that which brings them life, the Earth. Your empathy leads you to self-servingly guide those who listen to a profound and stultifying ignorance. My empathy leads me to promote knowledge and understanding, the course of proven benefit.
If it were the case that your imaginings remained private, you could be left to them with no ill-effect, but you make them public; you insist that they are true; and, you insist that you be allowed to tailor public policy that affects us all based on those imaginings. If we look about the world, we see the adverse affects of you and those like you, and we know that your attempts to broaden your influence must be opposed.
The most recent George Bush was one of your mindset. Evidently his being guided by your shared deity wasn't in the best interest of human beings. (By the way, Harvey, you are a financial services advisor who has some god on his side, so did your portfolios show signs of miraculous intervention during the our current economic problems. Is your god stepping up to the plate for your similarly god-fearing clients?)
My "condition," as you called it, is characterized by persons like you being observable hypocrites, cheats and liars, Harvey. You take money from people for financial instruments, right? You take this money from them to provide for a future that you also claim is not going to happen since the Lord is expected any minute, now, right? The fact that you are helping them plan for their family's future, and for their retirements, tells me that you either don't believe the Lord is coming, or you're a fraud. Either way it does not reflect well on you, and it certainly should give us second thoughts about the rest of what you claim to know about your version of god.
My "condition," as you called it, is characterized by persons like you fashioning miracles from the clergy's favorite tools and raw materials: coincidence, medical misdiagnoses, ignorance, intentional deception, and the incredible gullibility of believers. The "miracle" is then used to take money from those deceived. The "miracle" is always unverifiable. Always. Harvey misremembers a diagnosis or the doctor makes a mistake and that qualifies as "miracle." It is the unverifiability that moves it up to "miracle" status in the mind of unscrupulous clergy. Real data always shows that we're not seeing a "miracle" or that the data is not adequate to decide it.
Harvey, if you had the goods, you'd put it out for all to see. How do I know? You want us to believe you. You desperately want us to believe you. With nothing real to show, you invent miracles for your credulous congregation, but we, here, see that you're making it up.
Indeed, today, when video and still cameras and sound recording equipment would make the documentation of a God's-honest "miracle" almost trivial, what we see instead is a reduction in number of claims of the miraculous compared to when miracles were less verifiable. Our ability to prove "miracles" has made them disappear. Clearly, miracles are only miracles if they are unverifiable.
Understand Harvey that throwing out communities of believers as evidence for miracles is useless. They are very poor analysts regarding these matters. We know they have quite low threshholds for what they accept as "miracle."
As an example, five million faithful Christians a year flock to Lourdes looking for their miraculous healings. About 200 million have sought their miracle since 1860, and the Vatican officially recognizes 67 miraculous healings (no doubt, completely unbiased, but they, too, refuse to produce evidence supporting those 67 healings). Even if we assume only a small fraction of those 200 million visitors have wanted a healing, 67 out of, say, one million is worse than the observed remission rates of most cancers, and much worse than the natural cure rates of most other ailments.
Clearly, the numbers tell us that believers are not to be believed concerning miracles. You're a believer, Harvey. Concerning miracles, we know you're not to be believed.
In some cases they are, they tend to call it "spontaneous" events as opposed to miracles now days.
Harvey,
In many cases, we do not know all the possible conditions that result in the onset of a particular disease. Therefore, it should come to no surprise that, in a small number of cases, these diseases disappear just as mysteriously as they appeared.
In some cases, a closer study of these recoveries can provide important insight into how genetic variances can boost an individuals immune system or make them respond more positively to treatment. This information can be used create more effective treatments for everyone. However, this study occurs in the field of medical research which, for the most part, is separate from the field of matching existing cures with known medical conditions. Practicing medical doctors are usually unaware of such research until it results in an established treatment.
Nor is there any clear evidence that indicates these "spontaneous" occurrences happen to Christians than Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., or are related to prayer.
This is what I was referring to when I said "indistinguishable from random chance."
Superintendent,
My offer still stands.
Just let me know when you have the video-tape (or DVD - that format will do) of the documented miracle and I will provide my mailing address and you can send it to me.
Pastor Hines story is about as compelling as yours.
I'd like objective evidence of the miracles you say occur all the time.
Thanks. I hope you are well.
@DSHB "You see that's what I'm talking about my friend, IF God couldn't change it, IT would be greater than him and that's not the case. God is not subservient to any natural law or otherwise. What seems like a contradiction may not be one when it pertains to God. There are many basic biblical premises the same way. The Trinity is one cush [sic] concept."
Do you seriously mean to argue that God can change His own nature? That He can be both God and NOT-God? That He can exist and not exist? There are numerous things wrong with this, including:
1) It stands in clear contradiction to Christian orthodoxy. God is both eternal and immutable. He therefore cannot change His own nature or not be God.
Moreover, by arguing that God could alter the truth of the LoNC you're essentially arguing that chaos, rather than order, is a fundamental state of affairs. This also violates Christian orthodoxy as it holds that God's character is rational and orderly, rather than chaotic.
It might be the case that you're thinking of the LoNC as prescriptive rather than descriptive. If you understand it as a description of God's nature, rather than something outside of God that dictates how He must be, the issue you present simply vanishes.
2) You characterize the LoNC as a "natural" law and thereby fall into the very trap we're discussing. If the LoNC is an expression of God's nature it CANNOT be a "natural" law using the definition you seem to be using of "natural", so your argument here is self-defeating.
3) In any event, any argument that attempts to show that the LoNC isn't necessarily true is itself self-defeating. In order to argue that something is false, you must assume that there is a difference between "true" and "false". Such a difference doesn't obtain unless the LoNC is true. Therefore any attempt to argue against the truth of the LoNC necessarily assumes its truth and thus refutes itself.
DSHB: "Now, you have stumbled onto another point that I have talked about often in ministry and it comes from the fact that in Genesis, when God "breathed" into the clay that he had formed what was produced was called a "living soul" that body sould [sic] union was called man. There are material and immaterial aspects of our being that are intertwined although I believe that we can shut off capacities of our being. I believe the atheist has done just that."
Well, as I said before you'll need to define your terms. "Material" and "immaterial" would seem to present a dichotomy (that they are two separate things) but I would like to see some argument that such a separation actually exists. Most people think "matter" means "hard stuff", like the ancient Greeks who believed "atoms" were tiny, tiny particles like rocks out of which everything else is composed. But we know that's not the case. So what is the relevant difference between what you're calling "material" and "immaterial"?
Russ,
No kidding about the diprovin??? What a basket case...I have no oblicgation to you in the least so knock yourself further out with the commentary you're ignored by me...Later
Chuck O,
You're past the point of no return, you have modern testimony and evidence that you only wish to discount and not followup to confirm yourself and further limit your evidences to "video" WHAT A FARCE...so you're outta here too, until you become reasonable in your methods of evaluation...LATER!
Scott,
Although you're still in denial also, I'll entertain further comments for a minute but you're about done like a holiday duck too. You said: Therefore, it should come to no surprise that, in a small number of cases, these diseases disappear just as mysteriously as they appeared.
The question was about miracles happening. First these type of events are in NO WAY limited to an unknown cause. Many of these spontaneous reversals occur with known diseases so your attempt to limit and confine is not accurate. Secondly, the number of miracles. In fact since miracles aren't normative that's what we'd expect, so once again this is a 'red herring' and offers no value to the question do miracles occur...Obviously YES they do.
You also said: Nor is there any clear evidence that indicates these "spontaneous" occurrences happen to Christians than Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., or are related to prayer.
That was also NOT in question either. IF God is the God of all people I would also expect even an atheist to have undergone a healing or a spontaneous removal of a malady. So your standards and expectations are skewed. We still have the fact that God made the claim of healing, demonstated that claim in Jesus life, followed by the Apostles and left that gift in the world today throuh his church. Are healings limited to the church only? NO, but that's another question entirely isn't it?
Bill S,
Now you offer a peculiar argument and the most I can figure you just can't get things out of the garage. Let's try this for immaterial reality:
Immaterial entities
1-don’t extend into space
2-have no weight
3-have no chemical characteristics
4- are not discovered through the aid of our five senses
5- Are discovered by the process of thought, introspection, and reflection
6- they can’t be proven empirically or described in terms of scientific laws
Immaterial reality suggest by its very nature that there’s more to the world than just the physical universe (Natural universe).
Further if nonphysical things — like moral rules — truly exist, then materialism or metaphysical naturalism as a world view is false.
Secondly, IF God created, he can suspend all forms of what we know as law. Similar to the airplane flying into the sky. The laws that govern flight supercede the laws of gravity. The law is not reversed.
What you say is a contradiction would be a reversal of law...That's NOT what I'm talking about I'm talking about a superceeding of law. If NATURAL or known laws can be superceeded by other laws then it's not a problem to understand that God, who created all laws naturally and otherwise can superceede, interveine and disrupt laws at his discretion for his purpose. That's not a contraditction in any manner that is totally consistent with his nature.
Therefore your argument regarding contradiction has no weight and is a moot point.
I'll get back with ya.
Scott,
Back to this empathy bit, he article you submitted does what every other brain study says...it gives how the brain RESPONDS to certain stimulii, pictures etc...
Science can only measure response, not what initiated the empathy...When we're talking about how somethign originated we're not talking about how something responded...so that study helps NOTHING and adds not one point to what the discussion is.
If moral values are natural or material, we should be able to find their center in natural reality but we cannot. the definition of immaterial entities in the previous post.
Look acquiest the point. The only route you have is that future science will give us an answer. That would be your best answer and only alternative for the metaphysical naturalist...faith in science.
One more thing, as I get back to the original premise of this article...if you believe that morals come from evolution, then you also believe that morals are only illusions to help us somehow live in harmony or that they come from chance happenings within the genome as I described earlier. These answers seem to be the worst possible answers but I notice as the arguments developed here, that's the path that some of you take.
I just use common sense when I read passages in the bible that adress the issues. The bible clearly teaches that God is involved in evil. The most evil act ever commited (according to the bible) was done by God. Namely, the murder of His own son:
For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you annointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PLAN HAD PREDESTINED TO TAKE PLACE. (Acts 4:27-28)
One evil act is in view (the murder of God’s Son) yet god was behind it all.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6)
According to the bible, the God of the bible is ultimately the one responsible for things like:
Rape
Child abuse
Torture
The murder of his own innocent son etc., etc.,
He’s crazy
One more.
Job 2:10
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?
The bible teaches that God is in control of everything. He’s insane:
Eph.1:4 Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…
Col.1:15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of (Greek, protokos: prior to and sovereign over) all creation.
1 Thess.5:24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
Ex.4:11 And the Lord said to him (Moses), “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”
Deut.2:30 For the Lord your God hardened his (Pharaoh’s) spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.
Deut.32:39 See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; it is I who puts to death and gives life. I have wounded, and it is I who heals; and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.
1Sam.2:6,7 The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, and He also exalts.
2Chron.20:6 Power and might are in Thy hand so that no one can stand against Thee.
Job 42:2 I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.
Prov. 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.
Prov. 19:21 Many are the plans of a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will be established.
Not only that but The Bible is full of statements which give God the credit for creating all things, including all kinds of cruel things. In the book of Job for example:
God takes credit for creating the “ostrich” which he “did not endow with wisdom,” so that she is “cruel to her young” (39:16–17). Creatures which neglect their young or even eat them. God claims this behavior as his own creation.
God takes credit for the “birth pangs” of wild goats(39:3), far from the influence of any humans. This is a representative example of animal suffering without any
human influence.
God takes credit for creating creatures like the eagle, whose babies “drink blood” (39:30). Besides the eagle, God mentions the lion, which hunts its prey (38:39), and the raven (38:41), which eats only dead creatures, as creatures of which he is proud.
God takes credit for the warhorse, which “strikes terror” into the hearts of those around it (39:20). The horse loves warfare (39:25). This is a representative of animals which not only practice violence, but seem to love it. Cats which seem to enjoy torturing mice also fall into this category.
God takes credit for creating the “leviathan,” which has“rows of sharp teeth” (41:14). This is a representative example of animals that are designed for killing.
And as I pointed out above God does claim direct responsibility for the creation of natural evil, that is,things in nature which terrorize us. In Isa. 45:6–7, God speaks of his creative acts:
I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things … Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to himwho is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?”…It is I Who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
The passage says that God creates “evil.” The word is translated “disaster” in the New International Version (NIV),but is the exact same Hebrew word as “evil” elsewhere in the Old Testament. The translators of the NIV chose “disaster” because many theologians have argued that the “evil” which God claims to create here is “natural evil,” not human sin. I agree that human sin is not in view here as the
“evil” which God has created. But God does claim direct responsibility for the creation of natural evil which are the things in nature which terrorize, destroy, and abuse people and animals.
Harvey,
"All I know is what I know, "
Michael Shermer in a recent debate ask his opponent, "if I, this evening, provide conclusive proof that there was no resurrection, are you prepared to abandon your position that Jesus was the son of God?"
About 3,000 were in attendance in Austin Tx. and they were mostly theist present. Before the man could answer the question, a chorus of "no's" began to sweep thru the building. Michael Shermer smiled and said, this is not, never was, or never will be about evidence. There is no evidence sufficient to move the believer from his position, whether he his claiming Jesus to be God or Allah or John Frum. Belief is belief.
I’m contributing a chapter to John’s newest book due out this fall.
My chapter will cover human sacrifice in the Bible from the prospective that the Israelites are the only know chosen people where a god (Yahweh) keeps to himself so he can both bless and slaughter as his mind swings from evil to good.
Now compare the Biblical accounts with the religious texts from Ugarit or, what the Bible labels the evil Canaanites and just do a basic readings in these text (English translation: Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edited by JCL Gibson, T&T Clark, 1978).
Any objective reading will factually show just how morally evil the Israelite god Yahweh was to his very on chosen people!
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"sits in the shadows getting mad when atheistis arguments are challenged...he's like a poutin' child...like one of those in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory""
Funny, from this side of the screen it certainly looks like you're describing yourself there troll. Perhaps you should look into meds.
"I just still can't figure out how someone who is name practically every name in the bible is an unbeliever, John The Baptist, Emmanuel~ God With Us (Jesus) Zorg (and Zorg may even mean God in some language)"
It's a character name from the movie "The 5th Element". Not everything in the world revolves around your religion y'know.
"You're past the point of no return, you have modern testimony"
You're so called modern testimony is so much garbage. Produce actual proof or shut up. YOU are out of here. (doesn't that just sound wonderful though?)
Cole,
In every society in the world a person's final act of saving someone else is praised. If a child is in a buring building and a parent or even a stranger goes in to save them, that person is considered brave...Even in situation where the person in control doesn't go in, if they order something to save people's lives they are considered a good leader...example: President Roosevelt never went to WWI but he and congress ordered our soldiers into it. There were thousands lost on D-Day, but guess what, the American efforts changed the world...
Do you hold ANY of the over 10,000 soldiers that died in the Normandy Invasions, or President Roosevelt or any members of congress as monsters because they ordered and coordinated the the efforts that would eventually liberate the world and end WW2?
OF COURSE YOU DON'T!
You hail their actions as great even though when the nations were planning it they all KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was going to be loss of life and some mother and fathere would NEVER see her child again...Yet HISTORY says this was a good thing and we all agree because we knew that the HAD TO BE loss of life!
You don't want to believe it but you and ALL OF US are/were in sin and could do nothing about it...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. God gave the order and the order was followed and it was done correctly.
The only reason you can't see it is because of what we're talking about. Your moral values are subjective, based on your thoughts which are in essence illusions.
Objective moral values lead to a much better conclusion and evaluation of God's relationship to man and man's problems. God addresses them betteer than even Roosevelt...he sent Jesus not an army and the only life that was given was his after the flesh...so your theory doesn't pan out even among humanity, no spiritual nothing considered.
So far as evil, good can't be produced without a potential for evil. Evil however is actualized by man, NOT God. So out of all the scriptures you quote you miss James didn't you:
James 1:13-14~"13-Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempteth he any man: 14-But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed."
The problem is simple SINNERS don't want to take ownership of THEIR sins...God hasn't done evil or set it out there to trap you, YOU have, WE have, HUMANITY has. That's the problem, NOT God.
Many of these spontaneous reversals occur with known diseases so your attempt to limit and confine is not accurate.
Harvey,
I guess I wasn't clear enough in my original comment. There are essentially two domains in medicine: research and practice.
Practice is a systematic process designed to assign a previously known diagnosis to a patient's symptoms and then applying a known set of treatments, which have previously been proven effective in treating this diagnosis. However, the actually conditions MDs actually run into in the wild doesn't always neatly fit into these predefined boxes. This can occur on either or both ends of the process.
So, when a MD runs into a situation where a patient responds to treatment in a way that is unexpected, this in no way "proves" this was actually a miracle. It may appear "spontanious" from the perspective of the MD, but this is because he is limited to seeing every patient as always having a "known disease." For the most part, doctors do not assume a patient have an "unknown disease" because they do not know how to treat unknown diseases. Nor do they assume that specific patients will respond in unknown ways to known treatments.
In fact, It's counter productive to the entire process as most MDs are not trained to classify new diseases, let alone develop new treatments. Nor are all patients willing or capable of beings research subjects as their condition may disqualify them, etc.
On the other hand, medical researchers are trained to identify new diseases and create new treatments. They do this by assuming people have unknown diseases or significant, but yet to be classified variants to known diseases and by assuming that individual people may respond in unknown ways to known treatments. Eventually these new discoveries become established and eventually make their way to MDs.
In some rare cases, willing patients may exhibit only a specific set of symptoms (or the clear lack of symptoms) which make them valuable research subjects, as I described previously.
But, in most cases, patients are NOT ineligible to become research subjects because of their age, multiple conditions, lack of detailed data their previous condition / treatment, etc., which would invalidate the results. These cases never leave the domain of practice and may be considered "spontaneous" by MDs. Again, this is because, unless the patient responds to a known treatment in a known way, it's labeled "unknown" by the MD.
However, this does not mean there was no concrete reason why these people got better. It means medical research into their recovery would not give any significant results that could be used to treat future paitents.
So, to summarize, it seems you're uninformed about what "spontaneous" means in the context you're attempting to use it.
Zorg,
I've provided proof on this blog that all an atheist has to do is pick up a phone and call someone to retrieve about a man who was dead for 45 minutes was prayed for by a Christian, came back to life, has a medical record and press reports to back the story up and NONE of these cats will take up the offer.
They only whine and cry "foul" discount the story out of hand even though whole cities (almost) know about the event, they say it's not real. I've even presented my own testimony and it's discounted... A FOOL only knows what they want to know!
There is NO evidence that can be produced to make a believer out of the radicals that post here...NONE. They either won't believe or they'll look for and produce some kind of lame skeptical response. So the problem is NOT the Christian changing, because there is NO counterproof to overturn the resurrection, the problem is the unbeliever accepting pirma facie evidence, believing it instead of looking for excuses to support their presupposition and moving forward in their life.
With that, I'll move on to the next thread to uncover more lame atheist excuses and blow up more anti-Christ advocate temperments for my good pleasure!
Later!
Harvey,
You seemed to have missed what the scripture teaches about who is the one who is ultimately responsible for evil and cruelty in the bible.
God was the one ultimately responsible for the intense brutal evil murder of his own Son.
For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you annointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PLAN HAD PREDESTINED TO TAKE PLACE. (Acts 4:27-28)
One evil act is in view (the murder of God’s Son) yet god was behind it all.
God is in control of EVERYTHING:
Eph.1:4 Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…
Col.1:15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of (Greek, protokos: prior to and sovereign over) all creation.
1 Thess.5:24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
Ex.4:11 And the Lord said to him (Moses), “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”
Deut.2:30 For the Lord your God hardened his (Pharaoh’s) spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.
Deut.32:39 See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; it is I who puts to death and gives life. I have wounded, and it is I who heals; and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.
1Sam.2:6,7 The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, and He also exalts.
2Chron.20:6 Power and might are in Thy hand so that no one can stand against Thee.
Job 42:2 I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.
Prov. 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.
Prov. 19:21 Many are the plans of a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will be established.
As I already pointed out from the book of Job God is given credit for creating all kinds of cruel things. He is the one ultimately responsible for them. In the book of Job for example:
God takes credit for creating the “ostrich” which he “did not endow with wisdom,” so that she is “cruel to her young” (39:16–17). Creatures which neglect their young or even eat them. God claims this behavior as his own creation.
God takes credit for the “birth pangs” of wild goats(39:3), far from the influence of any humans. This is a representative example of animal suffering without any
human influence.
God takes credit for creating creatures like the eagle, whose babies “drink blood” (39:30). Besides the eagle, God mentions the lion, which hunts its prey (38:39), and the raven (38:41), which eats only dead creatures, as creatures of which he is proud.
God takes credit for the warhorse, which “strikes terror” into the hearts of those around it (39:20). The horse loves warfare (39:25). This is a representative of animals which not only practice violence, but seem to love it. Cats which seem to enjoy torturing mice also fall into this category.
God takes credit for creating the “leviathan,” which has“rows of sharp teeth” (41:14). This is a representative example of animals that are designed for killing.
And as I pointed out above God does claim direct responsibility for the creation of natural evil, that is,things in nature which terrorize us. In Isa. 45:6–7, God speaks of his creative acts:
I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things … Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to himwho is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?”…It is I Who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
The passage says that God creates “evil.” The word is translated “disaster” in the New International Version (NIV),but is the exact same Hebrew word as “evil” elsewhere in the Old Testament. The translators of the NIV chose “disaster” because many theologians have argued that the “evil” which God claims to create here is “natural evil,” not human sin. I agree that human sin is not in view here as the
“evil” which God has created. But God does claim direct responsibility for the creation of natural evil which are the things in nature which terrorize, destroy, and abuse people and animals.
Scott,
You said:"However, this does not mean there was no concrete reason why these people got better."
There would have to be a concrete reason, so that's not not unusual as a miracle would be an intervention of superceeding of of a natural process.
Once there is an intervetion everything would work in an scientifically observable way. miracles are not magic.
Like I said, I appreciate our commentary, but I'm out. I saw your comment before I cloed the screen and thought to respond. Anyway I'll catch ya later.
Harvey wrote: There would have to be a concrete reason, so that's not not unusual as a miracle would be an intervention of superceeding of of a natural process.
So, apparently, you've retreated to the point where we have no way to distinguish miracle from a natural event.
Harvey wrote: Science can only measure response, not what initiated the empathy...When we're talking about how somethign originated we're not talking about how something responded...so that study helps NOTHING and adds not one point to what the discussion is.
Not one point? Really?
What happened to your claim that empathy cannot be measured and reproduced?
Science can only measure gravity. While we have theories about what causes gravity, we do not know exactly how it works.
Does this mean gravity must have a supernatural cause?
Harvey,
No one is sinful. Period. You make money by convincing people they inherited the disease of sin. You bilk them in the collection plates. You bilk them in any way that your religion, directly or indirectly, gets your hand into their pockets.
The Bible is fiction. Pick your favorite literary form, myth, fable, legend, interpreted as metaphor, simile, parable, or allegory.
There was no Adam or Eve. No original sin. No inherited sin. No needed forgiveness. No saving Jesus sacrifice. No end of the world.
You only push this stuff because you make money doing so. Yet, by your own behaviors, you prove you do not believe it. But, it makes for good cash flow.
We all need to take care of each other, Harvey, because it is observed by the non-deluded, and those not generating direct or indirect income from it, that the world is a far more enjoyable place for all of us if we do, and, we all, religious and non-religious alike, observe that no god is helping any one, any time, any where. The religious provide humanitarian aid precisely because they see their god does nothing.
It's better for you, and other clergy, financially, directly and indirectly, to pretend that there are ghosts, demons, spirits, devils, gods, angels and any other product of superstition and imagination.
In keeping to the title of this post, "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?" I say, yes, Yahweh is a moral monster and that you, Harvey, have made yourself into his image. You take advantage of a congregation of people who lack the intellectual wherewithal to discriminate your bullshit from reality, and you think of yourself as morally upright.
This site, this post and this thread serve as proof that what you're selling your congregation is a complete fantasy which only works because your audience plays along and suspends its disbelief. In your church, from your pulpit, it must all seem so easy. You want a miracle. You merely speak the words and the audience plays along. Even as you train them, they train you.
But, here, Harvey, the audience knows smoke and mirrors when we see them. We know you got nothing but pyrotechnics and laser lights because when we ask for evidence, you tell everyone to go away. If you had it you'd give it. We know that. We know you need desperately, Harvey. You need desperately to be believed. You need desperately to be believed on the force of personal charisma alone. You need desperately to be believed without evidence.
So you give us a little song and dance, a bit of vaudevillian sleight of hand, a few jokes, a skit, and maybe a mime, and, then, you hope. You hope we bought it. You hope we will believe, and, by doing so, endorse you, build you up. But, we don't buy it. Although we love a bit of stagecraft, Harvey, there must be substance behind it connecting it to the world we live in. You deliver nothing like that.
As the stage lights dim and the fog dissipates we see your scattered props and your tattered script and we know you are nothing but an actor performing a role. We've seen it all before. It's tired, worn, amateurish, and poorly executed. We learn no lessons and we're not entertained.
In all seriousness, you should stick to your home venue where you can attract unscrutinizing, highly receptive and generous crowds show after show after show.
In pure charlatan fashion, you come here hoping to shut out the real world by miring things down in mostly irrelevant philosophical argumentation. As long as the real world is considered off-limits, you're free from accountability for your claims. You remain contented as long as you're not forced to confront how your religious notions are observed to play out in the real world. However, when someone says, "Give me evidence," which is altogether different from the docile acquiescent houses you're accustomed to, you turn tail, whine and wrap up in your philosophy security blanket where you can shut out the real-world demand for evidence.
Yes, Harvey, Yahweh is a moral monster, and he is you.
Harvey wrote: He died, was struck by lightening, was medically diagnosed DEAD DOCUMENTED...prayed for, came back to life and lives TODAY...He's a Bishop in Milwaukee Wis. CALL HIM...there is TV interviews, newspaper print everything he'll give it to you...If you want I'll even broker it...
He was DOCUMENTED as having no pulse *after* he arrived at the hospital, correct? Because, should someone's heart and brain activity have stopped *at a hospital* recitation attempts would have ceased long before 45 minuets had passed.
Was he monitored during this entire 45 minutes? Was CPR applied in transit? In the case of electric shock, CPR for an hour or longer can allow stunned nerves to recover, allowing people to appear to come back to life.
This is the kind of DOCUMENTATION required and, in these kinds of situations, its' not a priority nor is it always possible.
So far as mine I was about 12 years hematuria painless bloody urine, bright red my friend, without doctor or medicine...gone forever. So what you don't like it, I'm living proof of a miracle buddy...
What I like has nothing to do with the fact that Hematuria is actually a symptom, not a disease. Was the cause determined? If not, then it's unclear why you consider this a miracle.
Furthermore, allowing bright red urine go untreated for 12 years doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your decision making abilities.
Harvey,
My point is that the God of the bible is insane. He is responsible for both good and evil.
Lamentations 3:37-38
Who has spoken and it came to pass,
unless the Lord commanded it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
thar good and bad come?
He controls everything all the way down the brutal murder and torture of His own innocent Son:
Acts 4:27-28
For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you annointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PLAN HAD PREDESTINED TO TAKE PLACE.
What is the foundation for morals? I don’t know. But the God of the Bible is apparently responsible for good and evil. He’s a monster.
Harvey
"There is NO evidence that can be produced to make a believer out of the radicals that post here...NONE."
I'm not a radical. I am 55 yrs old, I went to church every week most of my life at least three times per week. I didn't want to lose my faith. The cognitive dissonance between what my faith professed and what I witnessed was deafening. It took two years to get to where I could look at what I believe objectively. The indoctrination of my culture and faith caused such anxiety that I thought I would lose my mind. But I began to see that my cultural proclivities with respect to my faith was no different than people of any other faith.
I have had my fair share of attending pentecostal dog and pony shows for headaches and hemorrhoids. Every time a news outlet investigates the claims of faith healers it is shameful. ( Benny Hinn's HBO special several years ago for example), If anything an argument could be made for divine obfuscation, based upon our current knowledge in cosmology, paleontology, geology, biology and most important the plethora of theology.
Your assertion that no evidence would be sufficient to change the view of an avowed atheist is obtuse and presumptuous at the least.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said..."My position is that your moral senses (both ethos and ethic) derrive from an immaterial part of you that God has created and if you solely and purely were materially (ie:evolved by natural processes) there would be no distinction between good/bad and or right/wrong as naturaly evolutionary processes do not account for or distinguish the difference between good/bad and right and wrong...in fact evolution leans towards the worst behaviors being the ones that cause the species to survive...
Hmmm well Harvey i do see your delemma.By use of your fine type intelligence it seems you`d likely somehow come to the conclusion the worst that could happen would equal the species having a will to survive.Yes well i suppose with the brain waves of the faithful type fast at work, the need of human survival for them might not seem to be such a real biggy in life.I guess it could be quite hard for a doctrinally muddled faithful type to find some real distinction as to whether human survival should likely really have any good common sense reason to be actually be able to be seen as good or bad and right and wrong etc.
Thanks Harvey for reminding me again of one of the many good reasons to continue not bothering being a faith believer with complete loss of any common sense.
You said "The ability you possess to "know" and "perceive" something as being morally good or bad is given to us ONLY by God, Christian and sinner alike."
You may say that all you like of course,the world has become very accustomed to these claims of faithful folk that lack in any realistic substance.But i suggest you would do better if you could actually show even a once of good reason connected to what we humans recognize as holding even a little amount of common sense.
It seems you obviously find it very hard to see any good reason in survival for humans,but personally i feel many humans might likely not feel quite so inclined to follow you in your footsteps.
You said"So yes, I make an overarching claim and there is no metaphysically natural process that accounts for your morality...the path that Chuck O takes is the most popular saying that morality is a product of learning or social interractions...that ultimately would mean that the naturalist would have to acknowledge a point when he/she were amoral and learned such morality from the community...is that the route you wish to take?"
You mean like (our learning) that maybe stoning people to death as common practice seemed amoral and very wrong and that maybe it wasnt such a great idea after all?.And us learning to change some of these old barbaric laws?.
Well Harvey yes!excuse me for disagreeing with you but i really do think that should be the best road to take.Because if we didnt we could end up clinging to senseless pretenses of stupidest absolutes which would quite likely leave us all as ignorant uneducated idiots who might still be of the type of thinking that maybe stoning people to death as quite a common practice was still quite ok and actually still quite a good idea.
You said to Chuck O "I think it is continually evolving, but notice the direction, only to better and more virtuous qualities...in fact, those better and more virtuous qualities are universal. A man saving a child from a burning building is hailed all across the globe."
So what?...If in managing to actually use some reasoning and common sense,please dont tell me you would actually ever be expecting any different answer.Like dont tell me your type common sense could suggest it to ever be likely that many humans any where in this world these days would ever likely see children burning to death as actually a good thing?.
If you still dont see this as a quite natural conclusion for most if not all humans worldwide to all likely arrive at sooner or later,then i suggest that John Loftus past suggestion on another thread of faith belief maybe seeming to be the cause of much ignorance, is actually being proved.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said..."In the Christian world view we have an intrinsically good God who makes a declaration upon man and his own creation. That declaration was that it was all good. I propose that all mankind can only know moral good because of that declaration and from that declaration we gain all sense of moral objectivity...anything outside of that is purely subjective and is only based on our opinions...since we have morals that are universally accepted as good and bad, we only have that because of the obcetive standards that God has set."
Oh i see these objective morals are set down by some supposed god hmmm??.Like the old moral supposedly set down by some supposed god that maybe we should stone cetain people to death.That later changed due to being (relatively) connected to many humans becoming quite unhappy at some their family being wrongly accused ending with many injustices that couldnt be undone after their death.
Yes well i suppose it could maybe be agreed that just maybe the faithful might find it hard and difficult to actually be able to use some common sense to see a need for change,by using reasoning and a common sense approach to these type equations of life.After all their objective type mind set of how morals could only likely ever be formed,also supposes that we humans neither could likely ever possess a brain of our own.
Note to self....Another good reason to not wish to join the ranks of the faithful....They wish to try suggesting we are absolutely (all) complete brainless idiots.A suggestion that only a idiot would likely agree to.
Chuck O'Connor said..."Your explanation increases my confidence that morality is innate and becomes stronger with adaptation."
Hi Chuck maybe that would depend on whether you take the innate part as being innate as being learned from the parents or tribe,as of birth.Or whether you are talking about these things being innate in each single person as of birth without any need of them being passed on by parent or tribe.
If any ones belief here is that morals are innate in us as of birth without any need of them being passed on to us by those around us we are born to.
I ask please show me some evidence of even (just one) new born baby who innately knows not to steal or knows that loving your neighbor etc is thought to be good.Or one that innately even knows that being very impatient for the bottle or tit can be thought to be rather rude.Or that without any input from it elders around it already knows as of birth,that hitting or pinching its mother is wrong.(I personally) have yet to see even one new born baby that hits or pinches its mother in anger,and then innately looks guilty of what it supposedly is supposed to know is morally wrong. Without even a word need first being spoken by those around it to in fact pass this knowledge on.
Gandolf you said, "I ask please show me some evidence of even (just one) new born baby who innately knows not to steal or knows that loving your neighbor etc is thought to be good.Or one that innately even knows that being very impatient for the bottle or tit can be thought to be rather rude.Or that without any input from it elders around it already knows as of birth,that hitting or pinching its mother is wrong.(I personally) have yet to see even one new born baby that hits or pinches its mother in anger,and then innately looks guilty of what it supposedly is supposed to know is morally wrong. Without even a word need first being spoken by those around it to in fact pass this knowledge on."
I stand corrected. I should have said, our capacity for morality is innate. We can adapt to our given environment so that we enable community which is essential to our survival. I don't believe morality is anything more than this. I also don't believe it is an outside in proposition or one handed down by god.
Thanks for helping me clarify my position.
Superintendent,
Your unwillingness to provide an objective measure of miracles saddens me.
If, I do happen to encounter the miraculous then, I will let you know.
The exchanges we've had and the one's I've observed make me confident of two things. You believe what you believe and what you believe is strengthened by its inability to be examined.
I wish you well but do not believe what you've stated.
Chuck O'Connor said..Thanks for helping me clarify my position.
No worries Chuck...I was just wondering what you were actually meaning/thinking.
maybe i missed somthin' cuz i'm not wading thru all 184 comments, but even IF there is a man whose pulse and breathing started back up, who is to say god had anything to do with it? all other factors point to god being a myth, so a random restarting of electrical activity or low level electrical activity that was always present resuming the heartbeat are more likely. also just as likely as intervention by god is intervention of the equally mythological satan, that the man is now a 'zombie' waiting to strike rather than a human, and that aliens sent a raybeam to restart him. but the gulllible can go with the god thing rather than science, sure. but some scientific explanation is more likely. such as some stress chemical that prevented the electrical signals that control heartbeat finally dissipated or were neutralized, allowing the heart to respond to the electrical signals again? that is a theory from a landscape designer. surely a scientist or doctor could do as well or better. 'god'? not likely.
Are you in denial with your head buried in the sand? Ya think maybe?
Simple answer to a simple question:
Q: Is Yahweh a moral monster?
A: Yes.
Post a Comment