Religion and Morality

[Msd22000]

Skunk has hit one of the key nails on the head. Morality has as a core value empathy. Most morality whether it comes from a religious or non-religious source has empathy for the other at it's core. Based upon this I think that we can say that there are moral absolutes in this world.

Murder is wrong because it shows an utter lack of feeling for the person being killed, it is an utterly self centered act. Stealing is also a self centered act, I want what you have and don't care what you feel about it. Almost all of the other prohibited or disaproved on behaviors are disliked because of their lack of empathy for the other.

We consider behaviors good when they show empathy for others. Giving to charity, helping someone with a problem, dedicating yourself to healing others whether that healing is physical, psychological, or spiritual.

Arguments have been made that postings in a forum are not going to change anybody's beliefs. That is essentially correct. What the postings can do is allow us to see more of the other persons point of view. Maybe it can help us get past the knee jerk "YOU ARE WRONG" reaction to the point of acknowledging that that while you may not believe exactly the same things that I do you may hold many of the same core values that I do. That my battle is not with you because you are a christian and I am an athiest. Rather our battle is with those who would harm others. Our battle is with those who deny the humanity of others, and their right to live a full and meaningful life.

While I do not agree with all of Ralph's beliefs I do believe, along with Noa, that he has every right to those beliefs. He has the right to express those beliefs in his writting and his comics. Just as Madcat and Noa have every right to believe as they do, and to express those beliefs. Those rights end when you try to force them on another person. Of course individual beliefs are simple. The problems come when you apply these beliefs to society. How much religion or lack thereof in public affairs is too much? When you include religion, whose do you include?

People have stoped listening when one side or both begin demonizing the other. When they start screaming things like: Look at the stupid christians, they are so stuck in 2000 year old words that they couldn't see reality if it hit them over the head. Or, look at the godless doomed athiests, they don't believe in God so they obviously have no morals and are doomed to burn forever.

Lets acknowledge two simple facts. 1) The world is a complicated place. There is very rarely a one size fits all solution. Often the best we can do is an imperfect compromise. 2) That the exact source of a persons beliefs are less relevant that what they believe. Athiests are just as capable of being moral people as are the followers of a religion. Both religion and science have been used and abused by people in the past, and the present for that matter, to commit terrible crimes and injustices upon others. Both have been used to support indefensible positions. It is never easy to admit that you may be wrong even over a relatively minor thing like what the weather was yesterday. When you involve the core beliefs of a person, the things that help make them who they are, the reluctance becomes almost infinite.

In my view it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, it is a question of what do we believe is wrong and should be prevented. And can I, in a relatively calm manner, try to convice you to accept at least some of my point of view, or am I so full of s--t that it is coming out of my ears?

[W.M.Y.L.G. Joe]

[quote]if yes, what do you believe a Soul is? I would especially like comments from the religiously knowledgeable on this matter, how does the Bible as well as other other religions define the soul?

here's a definition from Encarta Encyclopedia

soul (s

[Marcus Talbain]

*bops Joe on the head*

[Ransom]

The source of morality, now that is something worth contemplating. (Socrates would approve, I think.) As an athiest, where do I get my ethics from? Am I just absorbing them by osmosis from the surrounding Christian culture?

I see no reason to deny that I'm influenced by it. After all, no man is an island. However.... The next question we have to ask is whether the culture has ethics because it's Christian, or whether the churches are just unfairly taking credit for something that would have been there anyhow.

If you look around the world, as well as through history, you'll find most cultures have a sense of right and wrong that doesn't vary too drastically. There are some differences in their taboos. There are some differences in their ideas of what's a fair and just punishment for various transgressions. And of course, many of them have treated certain classes of their people as inferiors -- often women, but sometimes other classes, as in the caste system.

But looking past the differences, there are also many things that seem to be universal. Lying, stealing and cheating is bad. Wantonly harming people or destroying things is bad. Sexual promiscuity is frowned upon, albeit in varying degrees. Helping the weak, the sick, and the poor is good. Marrying and raising a family is good. And so forth..... And this appears to be pretty universal whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Shintoist, Confucianist, or even -- heaven forfend -- a godless Communist.

Now, some overly intellectual athiests would probably step in here and start talking about the need for a society to have standards of behavior in order to function. As a practical matter, you can't build a society and hold it together if people are running around fighting each other, ripping each other off, and generally tearing things down. I've heard that argument before, and I'm sure it's true, but it strikes me as being a bit cold and bloodless. I think it's not the entire answer.

.....

I just thought I'd chime in with my two cents here, since I'm delaying my homework. I don't believe Christians (Like Me) would find any problem with non-Christian cultures having similar morals, quite the opposite. I see Christian worldview as one of recovery, rather than discovery, therefore, it's not that Christians have found something novel or new, but that we find that which was lost. In all those cultures, both "Christian" and what not, we do find morals, but we also find people directly contradicting those morals. People still lie, kill, and steal. We all seem to innately have a sense of morals, yet we cannot follow them!

Here I would argue that the remedy can't ultimately come from us, but from someone else (3 guesses). Therefore, God directly intervenes, through special (as opposed to general, as in nature and intuition) revelation (the Bible) and His direct redemptive sacrifice (the Cross).

Several have mentioned empathy as the key to morals. While I don't deny that empathy is good, if we are incorrect in some of our assumptions, we may do harm even when we desire to do well. You may give a starving man solid food in compassion, but because you were ignorant of the truth (that people near starvation cannot handle such food) you will kill him. The Inquisitors believed they were saving the souls of their victims, the communists thought they were bringing in a beautiful world of equality into being. If someone lets another live out this life comfortably, and it turns out that there is an afterlife that he doesn't prepare for, he has done the person harm, despite his intentions. Therefore, although we don't need to get nasty on each other about it, it does matter who's right in the end.

Of course, this doesn't exactly explain why you should believe me versus someone else's system. I just thought I'd put it out there to think about.

[Msd22000]

Several have mentioned empathy as the key to morals. While I don't deny that empathy is good, if we are incorrect in some of our assumptions, we may do harm even when we desire to do well. You may give a starving man solid food in compassion, but because you were ignorant of the truth (that people near starvation cannot handle such food) you will kill him. The Inquisitors believed they were saving the souls of their victims, the communists thought they were bringing in a beautiful world of equality into being. If someone lets another live out this life comfortably, and it turns out that there is an afterlife that he doesn't prepare for, he has done the person harm, despite his intentions. Therefore, although we don't need to get nasty on each other about it, it does matter who's right in the end.

In my view empathy is not the only basis for morality, merely a good starting point. Random, you do make some good points. You are right about the answer having to come from something greater that the individual. The question is what is that something greater? The Inquisitors and Communists went about their tasks with a noble goal, but the process was fatally flawed, and it lacked completely in empathy for their fellow man. It is not just the destination, but the path that you journey to get there that is important. A path that is lacking in morality to atain a goal is just as bad as not ataining the goal at all.

Personally over the last several years my beliefs have changed from athiesm to a belief that there is more likely than not a God of some sort. The problem that I personally have with organized religion is that too much effort seems to be spent on proving the other guy wrong, and making sure that the followers behave in a certain way.

The problem that turns me off is that they are all so willing to doom their fellow man to torment everlasting for not believing exactly their way. Lets think about that concept. They say that a just and loving God will doom someone to torment, for all of eternity, simply because they do not praise him, and/or various prophets in a certain way. A good example of this is an event that happened to me several years ago. I was at the Pike Place Market in Seattle when several gentlemen aproached me. One of them asked if I had found salvation in Christ. When I indicated that I had not he proceeded to berate me as a sinner doomed for all eternity. I quickly left in disgust but, right or wrong, it left a lasting impression about organized religion.

Over the years I have come to believe that it is less important to God, if he exists, that we properly abase ourselves than it is that we do the best job we can, given our limited understanding, to be a good person and to make the world a little bit better. Now whether we get that inspiration from a holy book, or from the logic of the mind is something that each person has to determine for themselves. What we can do is through discussions like this one, even with the occasional heated exchange, is try to fill in the gaps for each other.

Whew, that came across as a little preachier than I intended. I would welcome the oportunity to discuss this with you folks some more. This thread is making me think about things that I have taken for granted for a long time.

BTW - Joe gets a mild bop from me too.

[Archae99]

Much of it also has to do with the choices we as people of a society make, as well.

For example:

I have a choice between using a CD-ROM of Windows 98 that I bought secondhand, but is still the real thing, or I can use this CD-ROM a former neighbor gave me, that he made as an illegal copy.

If I used the illegal copy, my conscience would bug me.
I don't have the "fear of hellfire" a theist has.
But it still bothers me that I would be stealing from MicroSoft.
(And please, save the anti-MicroSoft jokes. I've heard them all.)

My former neighbor did get caught, and the authorities confiscated thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment from him.
I was questioned by those authorities, if I had any illegal copied software from him.
I was honest about it, and told them I didn't because it would bother me having these, and I didn't really trust the copied stuff to work right.

BTW, guess which one of us, my former neighbor and I, was a devoted Christian, (outwardly at least,) and which one has no faith at all.

Today we saw how one man's desire to force his choice for his faith on everybody, failed.
Roy Moore, the chief justice of Alabama lost in a federal court, and now that ugly chunk of rock he sneaked into the state courthouse in the middle of the night has 30 days to be removed.
(Even the Christians I know who have seen it, say it's ugly. It's a big ugly grey chunk of rock.)

Moore during the federal lawsuit showed over and over he doesn't give a flying (bleep) about other's choices, the religion HE wants gets shoved on everybody.

[ZOMBIE USER 12293]

*taps Madcat on the shoulder* well, you did want a discourse... look at this mess!

I'd chime in with some personal takes but it wouldn't amount to much. At least we're well past the steriotyping and name calling, which is a definate bonus.

Noa

[Kanaeda Kuonji]

I believe that Jesus himself was skeptical of organized religion. He felt that an organized church would serve to corrupt, and there has been very little to prove him wrong.

MSD2200, what you have shown is exactly why I have left organized faith. I got tired of hearing the apologetics and the threats. The organized churches spend so much time with their noses buried in a book that they can't even see the forest, let alone the trees.

As for Chick Tracts, I find them useful for starting a fire, and maybe as toilet paper, but that is pretty much it. The man's got too many issues, and I destroy any Chick Tracts I come across.

My greatest problem with the organized churches is that they take themselves too seriously, and their faith becomes perverted. It made me sick to think I used to belong to an organized faith of any kind!

I have no feud with those who practice their faiths with sincerity, but are careful not to take their faith too far.

I promptly show pious hypocrites and the overzealous the door. Any questions?

I am looking for my own path now. And organized religion of any kind will have no part of it. What will I find? Not sure, really. That's what makes it cool.

[ZOMBIE USER 12759]

In defense of organized religion, I'd like to say that I've never felt pushed around in any way by members of my church or anything like that. Actually, I have found that in some cases, it's good to have people that have sat around and thought about some of the more mystifying aspects of faith. Life after all, even for someone of faith is never empty completely of doubt, and it can be very reassuring to talk to someone who may have a bit more of the answer you are seeking than you do. I think that there are many people who choose to be part of organized religions that have a lot to teach. You have a point, in that in some cases, a religious organization can become self-serving and corrupt. But discarding organized religion altogether is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater in my humble opinion. Not, mind you, that being able to find your own answers to your questions on faith isn't necessecary. I think everyone does this sooner or later. However, there's no reason that one cannot discuss these questions with others. Cutting yourself off from the rest of society isn't always a bad thing, but it does make things tougher. Granted, it is cool to be self-sufficent. But you know, it may well be that some organized religions are institutions descended from Christ's ministry. If you believe that (which I do), than that's pretty cool too. Also, if you take organized religion too far, you begin to believe in the church, not God, and that's bad. But if you cut yourself off from everyone else, you may find yourself lonely, and that's no fun either. Lastly, I'd just like to say that those people who proseletize on the streets strike me as a bunch of jerks. Be skeptical of anyone who tells you that you are going to hell, especially if it's because you didn't read their pamphlet. If it's any consolation, they bother us organized religion types too. Heck, I'm a Catholic, that's about as organized as it gets, and don't get me started on what one of them said to me the other day! I wouldn't judge organized religion on the likes of soapbox preachers or the "Reverend" Baker and his "lovely" wife Tammy Faye... (hoo boy, I just know I'm going to get somebody mad at me today... ) There are much better examples of organized religion. I'd start with Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine for you historical types. If you'd like someone more modern, try Mother Theresa. She is perhaps the best example I can think of in fact since she demonstrates quite well imho the way organized religion can bind people together to do good works. I'm not saying that people who keep their faith to themselves are incapable of good. (Not by any means) But it is a fact that many hands make light work.

Oh and P.S. Kaneda, I agree that Jesus was critical of the heads of the Jewish faith during his ministry, but I think that that was because they already were corrupt. They had sold out the Jewish people to the Romans after all. (A gross oversimplification of the sociopolitical enviroment then, but you get the picture). There are many signs that Jesus wanted the system of the times to change, but I can't think of any that say he didn't believe that there shouldn't be a community of the faithful. Quite the contrary in fact. A lot of what he said resembles socialism! Some would go so far as to argue that he essentially demanded communal ownership of property, and that his return would occur when everyone works together. Doesn't sound very unorganized to me


Wow. I typed all that! *sigh* still waiting for the meteors to hit... Should be another four hours or so.... I'm kinda bored actually... I'm afraid I'll fall asleep...

[ZOMBIE USER 12759]

Oh and oh yeah, I completely agree with you that the "Believe what I say or you'll go to hell." Argument is bogus. I think it's probably pretty hard to get there without intentionally trying. Actually I kind of doubt that anyone's there at all. (HEY! I finally got you Atheisitic types to agree with me on one thing, right? )

[ZOMBIE USER 12293]

One of the points that I should bring up right about now is the fact that organized religion, personal beliefs and secular people do not own exclusive rights on stupidity, arrogance or beligerance. Doesn't matter what political group, social class, ethnic or religious persuasion you fall under, chances are that your subset has it's share of kind, understanding and wise people as well as it's share of nit-wits, pontificators and close-minded boobs.

This is pretty much the reason why I nailed Rennen earlier in this thread, though I do agree with his assesment of Ralph's comment about "self righteous athiests." That hurt, Ralph. Not all atheists are a bunch of "anti-religion" fanatics hell-bent on burning all the churchs, synagogues and temples down. At least not anymore than all Christians are determined to convert the entire world to their line of thinking. Both camps are guilty of having some loud-mouthed antagonists who need to shore up thier own concepts about the nature of the Universe by throwing rocks at another's beliefs.

Best solution I've found for this is to take each person as one of one as opposed to one of many. Some bible-toting whack job comes up to me on the street and goes off on a tirade about how I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity, I try to look past the cross around his neck and the group he claims affiliation with and say, "okay, this guy is a few sandwiches shy of a picnic." Likewise, to my religious friends out there, I recommend that you restrain yourselves from lumping all us non-theistic types into the rather narrow camp of "secular humainst morons with chips on thier shoulders."

The real source of this problem is that by going with a set of beliefs, one pretty much says that all other beliefs are incorrect, flawed or outright wrong. Either you believe in God or you don't: If you believe in God you are saying, either directly or through inferance, that people who don't believe in God are wrong, and vice versa. Same with political stances, views on history, philosophic takes, etc. Side up with one group on a particular issue and I guarantee that someone in the other group thinks you are a deluded and confused person who doesn't see the "big picture."

The good side to all this, which I'm sure you are all aware of, is that it makes life and people interesting. Imagine how boring it would be if we all listened to the same music, wore the same clothes, had the same religion, etc. Personally, the idea of people agree with me 100% would creep me out.

Back to the point I was shooting for: I think it's better (and fell free to disagree... like you need my permission to do that, right?) that we learn to not judge a group by the actions of one. Yes, it turns me off to have some fanatic in my face about how my life is all wrong and I'm a bad person. Only person I try to hold accountable is the person attacking me, not the people he/she claims to represent. Lack of compassion and prejudice have a bad tendancy of following one another.

Noa

[Kanaeda Kuonji]

I myself have one other beef with organized religion, and that is people who join a religious group solely for "fire insurance", and not care less about the doctrines of a faith.

On top of this, I didn't agree with the dogma of many churches. That is the reason I have chosen to walk away from the Latter-Day Saint Church and leave organized religion entirely. I am not going to keep my nose in a book so long that I can't see the forest, let alone the trees!

Another thing is that too many preachers have forgotten their mission: to attend to the spiritual well-being of those who wish to be under their wing. Far too many have forgotten this and abused their power as a result.

I count, as 4 examples, these men: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jack Chick, and Kent Hovind.

Their congregations have also forgotten their roles. Should their ministers, reverends, etc. abuse their power, it is the duty of a congregation to find one better suited for them, rather than listen to the kaka these false prophets provide.

I don't suffer fools well, and the combination of hypocrisy and overzealousness in so many churches finally drove me away. The reason so many faiths are having trouble keeping members is quite simple: not because of any fault of the good members of the faith, but there are too many rotten apples.

Don't get me started on the ICR or Patriot University. I know those two all too well.

Bear in mind that such abuses are almost universal in all religions.

But they have their good side as well. People like Mother Teresa (we need more people like that) and others.

[Msd22000]

I have taken a little bit to respond because I was re-reading this thread and thinking about what has been said.

Madcat, I apologize if my previous post seemed like I was bashing all of organized religion. Yes, people like Mother Theresa, Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine are some of the best examples of what a person can be. That they did what they did because of the faith that they held, and I am not arguing that faith was the only motivation but rather a significant factor, does not diminish their accomplishments one iota. I also agree that as you said groups of people examining their beliefs in an open and non judgemental manner can help each other come to a better understanding of their place/path in the world.

I also agree with previous posts that have stated that almost anything taken to extremes is harmful. I am turned off by the rationalist that argues that everything is relative. That right and wrong are what we choose them to be, and that there are no wrong beliefs. I am also turned off by the faithful that argue that anyone who does not believe exactly as they do is completely wrong. That they have the one and only lock on what is right and true.

Unfortunately, organized religion has gotten some very big and very public black eyes in the last few decades. The aforementioned "Reverend" Baker being an outstanding example of some of the things that I think are wrong. I would also argue that the rationalist intelectuals have gotten some equally nasty black eyes. The over emphasis of Political Correctness, or the femenists that argue that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.

In my view there are things that are wrong no matter what the reason. Many of these are the same as those believed in by someone of a more religious bent than I. However, I reject much of Ralph's jello mold analogy. I would argue the following. 1) Yes people are influenced by the world around them. We can't help it, we live in it. We can no more fail to be influenced by it than a glacier can fail to be influenced by the valley it flows through. 2) Some people are more influenced by the world around them than others. This does not indicate a weakness of spirit or intellect. Under the correct circumstances anyone can be strongly influenced, possibly in a detrimental manner. This degree of influence can and will change as events change. It may be temporary or it may be lifelong. What I want to point out is that belief in a religion is not the SOLE factor in determining a persons morallity or lack thereof. Some people find great comfort and strength in religion, just as others may find it stifling and narrow.

Sooner or later we will all die, and when that happens the last greatest question of existence will be answered. Whether that answer is the athiests complete cesation of existence, the Judeo-Christian becoming one with God, or the Hindu reincarnation for the next cycle we have no way of knowing. Faith and rationality have their place in the world. I feel that they interact with each other, each doing its little bit to lead us collectively to a better understanding of the universe and our place in it. Both are constantly changing, grapling with the questions of How, Why, and Where are we going?

As I have gone through my life, I am 40, I have found myself moving slowly toward a belief in a God of some sort. As Petey said "It's all just a little too orderly to be an accident". However, I personally still have great reservations about joining an organized religion. Probably because I don't want to be told how to believe. My personal perception, right or wrong, is that too many religions are too concerned with the how. In this I am not talking about right and wrong, I am talking about the social pressures to behave in a sufficently righteous manner. Which has little to do with belief and everything to do with the external manafestations of the appearance of belief.

That said I think that we have all appeared to reach a meeting of the minds in this thread. In other words that YES there are moral absolutes that can be believed in and followed regardless of your personal belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. Thanks to all of you for for letting me putting in my two cents worth.

[Arctyc]

Problem with not putting people into cookie-cutter molds is that sometimes by definition they should be fulfilled. A person that calls themselves Christian should at some level care for the welfare of their neighbors' (read: everyone's) souls. And believing that Christianity is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, would at some level like for them to become Christian.

The problem lies in the loudmouths. Some people never consider that sometimes the most obvious evangelistic methods are the worst. You shout at someone, they plug their ears and walk away. You do good; they may get interested. I do not Bible-beat; because the Bible is a resource. We are the messengers. The best way I can do humanity, Christianity, and myself good is to 'walk the walk'. And sometimes, God lets you know it's worthwhile.

(I'm going to digress into an irrelevant point here; skip if you'd like. Youth Group; fun stuff. We help people out on summer trips, a week of sweat. Yet none of us could have predicted that the night before leaving for our destination in West Virginia, the area would experience their worst flash flood in a hundred years. We went from repainting and repairing houses to maintaining a donated-clothing center, shoveling contaminated sludge from basements and cleaning up what houses were still in livable condition. Despite the tragedy, it was the best week of my life.)


Finally, I would advise taking this entire thread with a grain of salt. The written medium always comes across as more harsh and severe than the speaker may wish it to. As a final aside, I advise everyone here to go and watch the movie 'Dogma'. Why? 'cause it's funny, you pillowheads!

[Calbeck]

Noa
What I would like, however, is a fair, reasoned, logical debate.

Good enough for me. -:)

Now, as an opening point, I should note that aside from religion, humanity has never developed a set of moral codes. Whether Hindu, Christian, totemic, or Greco-Roman, humanity's "moral fiber" has always been set in place by various forms of churches.

Which is not to say humanity doesn't come up with moral RULES --- thousands of memoirs, for example, are laden with ideals of morality. But these are generally scattered throughout, and exceptionally few are the memoirs that are intended to act as an actual Moral Code.

The reason for this, it seems, is that in order to SET a moral code in stone, you have to have an Ultimate Authority who can Do Something To You If You Don't Follow The Code. If you're in a fight and some guy runs up and tries to break it up, saying "Smite not thy brother, for we are all brothers through the blood of Adam!", odds are he's going to get punched next.

Unless, of course, he has a nifty halo and maybe a couple of angels winging around nearby with big flamy swords and such.

Having a God, or Buddha, or whatever, makes Moral Codes STICK.

The only other option is to legislate morality, which technically was achieved with the Anglican Church, which a king created specifically to maintain religious control over his populace in the face of threat of excommunication from the Catholic Church by the Pope.

But legislating morality tends not to work, because people inherently know that mortal beings are capable of error, and therefore any code they render may be erroneous (and what the King doesn't know won't hurt him).

So I would argue that, in practical terms, a Moral Code requires a God of some sort in order to have any real application to a society. Whether or not the God in question is fictitional is a subject for another debate. -:)

Noa
What I am interested in, if you boil it down, and on this particular subject- one of a great many that fascinate me- is to understand how the theist mind works. How does one explain the unexplainable? How does one reconcile Biblical statement with contrary scientific fact?

As noted by Arthur C. Clarke, there is a point at which technology becomes magic and vice-versa.

The difference, really, is a matter of what we know and do not know, and the assumptions we tend to make to fill in any gaps. Any given assumption can be incorrect, and that must always be borne in mind.

For my part, I as a Christian see the Bible as something that Humanity wrote. God had a hand in it, but He did not write, copy, or collate it. We did. And we screwed up quite a bit along the way. A key example of this would be the Council of Nicea, whereby the ancient version of the Catholic Church declared what was and was not "canon" material, and threw out anything that did not meet their THEN-current interpretation of God. They also included other material on basis of political needs of the day.

The Book of Job, for example, read dispassionately and from the view of a historical researcher, appears to be a Babylonian myth picked up by the Hebrews and adopted as a cautionary tale. God, in this story, acts precisely like one of the ancient Babylonian gods, to whom Humanity was something of a plaything and anything was fair game in order to ensure worship. Elsewhere in the Bible, God has distinct concern for innocents, such as in His argument with Lot over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. But it was a big help for the Catholic Church to be able to hold up a part of the Bible and say, "See? If you suffer it's not God's fault (and therefore our fault), it's a matter of God testing you!".

From this Book, more than any other, came the idea of "God's Unknowable Plan", which has routinely been used throughout history by the various churches to shut down any uncomfortable form of questioning by the faithful.

For my own part, I recognize the fallibility of Humanity and therefore consider the Bible to be wide-open to scholastic scrutiny, which I myself have been endeavoring (on and off) to apply as best I can.

Noa
A favorite, asked of those who believe evolution, starting with single-celled organisms, but that were created by a, well, Creator; Okay, we can't see, hear or detect this God, He must be somewhere outside this continuum.

Got to point out here that you're making an assumption as your basis for the remaining argument. If we are in fact to postulate the actual existence of God, then He has been seen, heard and otherwise detected hundreds of times throughout human history --- the problem is, the evidence is almost purely eyewitness material and was been handed down for millenia by oral tradition long before being scribed into a book.

Nonetheless, discounting these eyewitness accounts out of hand is poor scientific procedure. Better to say that CURRENTLY we don't see, hear, or detect God. Just because the ancient Romans didn't see, hear, or detect the planet Pluto doesn't mean it wasn't there all along.

Noa
Except, we'd have the exact same evidence if "God" happened to be one... well, man for want of a better word, who zipped through this solar system about 3.5 billion years ago, in a little spaceship.

Say he flew through, saw the potential in this planet, landed, and dropped off some artificially created biological material at a few random spots, and flew off to some other section of the galaxy.

One real problem with that theory: the overall age of the universe. Earth, at 3.5 billion years, is not all that old universally speaking. According to the Hubble Telescope findings, the universe itself is only about 12 billion years old.

Yet in order to be able to "seed" Earth with life of the sort that's currently here, that life would have had to originate on another planet. That would require a planet at least similar to Earth, and this "Planet X" would therefore have itself required enough time to cool off from the Big Bang, coalesce into orbit around a star, develop life entirely on its own, have that life evolve into something capable of interstellar travel, and THEN Earth could be seeded...putting the creation of the spaceman's home at roughly 7 billion years.

Given the billions of years necessary for enough matter to have cooled from the Big Bang to produce galaxies, then stars, then planets, then life, it may not be reasonable to suggest that a habitable planet could have come into being as early as 7 billion years ago.

There is also the problem of Ockham's Razor: the simplest solution is most commonly the correct one.

What is more likely to have happened: a spaceman from a planet twice as old as ours drops in on Earth and seeds it with life for no apparent reason, or an energy-based entity looking for something new to do decides to manipulate the existing life already on this planet?

Noa
Usually I then ask, Okay, why do you believe so vehemently, why is your faith so strong? Moreover, why do you believe something from a story that we, as men, as humans, wrote?

Specifically, my faith in the existence of God comes from Revelations and John's depiction of "and the heavens rolled together as a scroll upon a pedestal", followed directly by descriptions of atmospheric effects that mirror those which occur during a nuclear explosion --- or, possibly, a near-extinction-class asteroid impact.

John, with no knowledge of nuclear anything or asteroid anything, made a pretty darned good description of what would happen during a major nuclear war or a serious asteroid strike. The reason I say "asteroid" pertains to the suggestion that John is referring to a SINGLE specific thing, namely "Wormwood". And let's not forget John's description of a star falling from the heavens.

I can just SEE an astronomer spotting an incoming asteroid that we can do nothing about and calling it "Wormwood" in a fit of personal fancy, possibly thinking that it will be a near-miss and therefore something to laugh about.

Noa
And until a theist can honestly say he's thought to him or herself and said "Okay, what if he didn't do it? What if it did 'just happen'?" then can he say his faith is really all that solid? That unchallengable?

Such a view is the standard...but most theists in my experience have their faith because of things they've seen, heard or experienced that DON'T meet the theoretical model of a world without a God. When the atheist model fails --- whether due to objective or subjective interpretation of given phenomena --- it can hardly be expected to retain its own believers.


Scott Malcomson

[Calbeck]

Most ethical standards can be based outside of the notion of a morally perfect and omnipotent creator by recognizing that we all have to live with one another and certain standards need to be in place for that to happen (at least with any success).

Sure, but there's nothing to hold you to it. Hence Ralph's original point regarding Jello molds: morality, without Some Big Guy to back it up, becomes "something to be discarded when inconvenient to the needs of the moment".

Let

[Calbeck]

I believe that Jesus himself was skeptical of organized religion. He felt that an organized church would serve to corrupt, and there has been very little to prove him wrong.

....

My greatest problem with the organized churches is that they take themselves too seriously, and their faith becomes perverted. It made me sick to think I used to belong to an organized faith of any kind!

I am looking for my own path now. And organized religion of any kind will have no part of it. What will I find? Not sure, really. That's what makes it cool.

Join the Neo-Protestant Movement, then! -:D

We protest Organized Religion as being a self-corrupting creation of Humanity, and believe that faith comes from introspection combined with openminded critical examination of the Bible.

We have no church, no roster of members, no tracts per se. Our dogma is simple:

1) God is not an @$$hole.

2) If someone tells you to do something that would require you to be an @$$hole, they do not represent God.

3) Be excellent to each other!

Of course, we wouldn't be a Movement without a certain amount of internal controversy: some NPs want to add:

4) Party On, Dude!

Which some of us think could be improperly interpreted as a "church command" to party on whether appropriate to the situation or not. -;>

[UncleMonty]

People have a tendancy to complcate things.
Look what they added to the ten commandments.

There is only one church, and it has no name. It incorporates all followers of Christ wherever and whoever they may be. There are any number of temples, meeting halls, and other buildings - but the term "church" was created to describe Christian people, not the walls around them.
That's where organized religion sometimes irritates me. Christians sometimes forget that we don't really attend church, or go to church, or leave one church to join another - because we are the church, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[ZOMBIE USER 12293]

Calbeck,

...

Hate to say it but your entire arguement seems to boil down to "God has to be around so he can add 'teeth' to morality." Which is waaaaay off the topic. Madcat asked me how an atheist could come to a solid moral code to follow, and I was giving one of several philosophical answers (as provided by noted philosopher and atheist Hobbes). The point of my rant was to show that a completely selfish person could develop a moral code through reason and deduction (the concept of Enlightened Self Interest, which hits about the same moral standard that a cat named Jesus set some time beforehand. Hobbes takes a noticably different route to get there, though).

There IS something to "hold you to it": it's called society. As I stated, we aren't creatures of solitude and have to deal with one another in order to get anywhere. True, it's not an all-powerful, morally perfect and omnipotent force, but do we really need a nuclear threat to keep us from calling each other names? Society has rules that are enforced by it's citzenry, though certainly not with perfect results. As to the point of "well if I don't get caught, it's alright." I can show you several societies composed of people who thought that very thing: they're called "prisons."

But let's push this idea a bit around and see what can happen, even without so called consequences:
Anarchy. No laws in place and everyone doing whatever they feel like, to include killing, stealing, kicking puppies, etc. How effective would that society be? Would you (or anyone with half a brain) want to live in a purely anarchistic state? Sure, you will find people who would say, "yeah, that sounds great! No rules, no authority. Sounds perfect, where do I sign up?" How long do you think they would last? Would the human race survive such a state for any length of time? Eventually, the strongest (person, group, whatever) would take control and start putting laws into place, even if they were only "strongest rules." That becomes a force which deals the consequences, though probably not a very good one. So the lifestyle becomes a pure form of horror or someone takes power and weilds it over the others... either way, you have a serious consequences for behavior.

The drugs issue that I brought up was to show that there too are consequences for the actions of immoral behavior: Your body gets damamged and you get to live with the results. Ever talk to a reformed drug addict? Ask them how messed up thier lives are because of thier actions. You'll hear some gruesome tales about kidney problems, chronic pain, nerve damage, psychological problems and the like. You better believe that doing drugs is it's own worst curse! Nothing nearly as bad as having a monkey on your back and watching your life fall apart just so you can keep "getting your fix." Wake up from a binge and find your cd collection, furnature, television, family gone and tell me that you didn't have to face the consequences.

Now, to the point that "without God, people will do what they want." Sure they will... never said otherwise. And yet, I don't have (nor do I want) God and live a fairly moral life (alright, it ain't perfect or even close, but I do try... which puts me a bit above the hedonistic types). I base my morality off of philosophy, reason, and an unfortunate amount of trial and error. It's not a foolproof system and it takes more effort than I care to explain, but I try to be as good a person as I can, help my fellow humans when I can, and live a life of virtue as best I can for my own reasons.

Outside of myself, well... I have no real affectual way to alter that on my own. It takes a lot to get an entire population to go along with the idea of morality... which is why I'm an unusual atheist who thinks religion is a pretty good thing for the most part. I didn't always think this way, but then again, life is about change and growth, so hopefully, I'm doing something right here. Someday, I hope that people will gain the wisdom to live good lives for their own sake, but I think we have a way to go on that one... I'll even state the obvious and say it probably won't happen in the foreseeable future, but I can dream can't I?

Noa

[Angel Bear]

One possible solution I thought up several years back was to give the AI systems a conscience, so they could decide for themselves not to follow some orders, and not to cooperate with some plans. So if you ask your robot bush to produce nerve gas (or something worse), it would tell you to get stuffed. But there's also the possibility of convincing the robot to produce something dangerous for you, if it sees that you aren't going to misuse the stuff.

True, but wouldn't the Three Laws of Robotics come into play here? You can't order a robot to produce a deadly nerve gas because it would lead to the harming of sentient beings?

But I digress. We're not talking about AIs that we would produce. We're talking about a Doomsday weapon that a warlike race might produce.[/quote]