Astralinre

Allow me to quote the original post: I see nothing in there where I mentioned by own personal morals. All I spoke of was good in absolute, universal terms. You're reading your own opinions about me into my post. So what do you make of Holyoake's arguments then that we can indeed deduce a set of universal morals from purely secular utilitarian maxims? I'm afraid I've never heard it, so would be so kind as to explain it to me?

I understand the philosophical reasons you gave, I just don't agree with them. I just think that people who need to feel there are moral absolutes invent this being so they can have them. I however, don't feel the need for moral absolutes so I don't agree with that philosophy. You gave a good reason for why 'there are no real morals without an infinite-personal being', I just don't think there are 'real' morals at all, so I don't need to subscribe to that. Right, you don't believe in a infininte-personal being, nor you do believe in real morals, so you're being consistant - your metaphysics agree with your morals. My post was saying that claiming real morality and claiming atheism created a contradiction. Under atheism, good is a purely subjective term. That was my whole point, and everything was blown way out of proportion.

Do you not understand that this is exactly what christian morals are? They are the morals agreed upon by christians - the only difference is they think that someone else made them up. Christianity is a culture, same as Islam, Judaism and all the other religions. Would you please just ignore the fact that I'm a Christian and take a moment to look at the philosophic reasons I gave for my statement? If you'd actually look at my argument, I never said that Christianity was right. All I said is that without an infinite-personal being, there can be no real morals. I'm sure two men often claim that this being has told them different and maybe conflicting things. I'm not talking about what men claim. I'm talking about philosophy, and the effect that metaphysics has on morality.

Ok, allow me to clarify my earlier post, as it has been completely misunderstood. (And thank you, Insane, for defending it for me. :)) I was speaking of absolute good and evil. If that which is eternal and self-existant is impersonal (If matter and energy are those things which have always existed... then there is no way for us to know true good and evil. Matter and energy cannot speak and tell us a definite code of morals. However, if the eternal self-existant substace is personal (If a god exists...) then it can speak to us and tell us what that absolute standard of morality is. That is why, under an atheistic worldview, no person can be truly good - because there is no way to know what is truly good, or if there even exists an absolute goodness. Of course, there is subjective, cultural goodness. Someone can still follow the laws of his society and do what he believes to be right. But there is no standard for him to measure his morals against. What he views as good, another may view as evil, and there is no way to choose one above the other. But in a theistic worldview, the infinite-personal being can speak to us and tell us what true good and evil is. Then we can measure one man's morals against another's and truly know good and evil, then we can truly be good. I was not trying to bash atheists or be "holier than thou" at all, and I hope you understand the post was grounded in philosophy, not in my arrogance. If I didn't do a satisfactory job of explaining my point, I suggest you read He Is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer, or any number of his other works. There's several good quotes in the book on the topic, but I can't find my book right now, and this is the most relevant quote I can find. "Morals, under every form of pantheism, have no meaning as morals, for everything in pan-everythingism is finally equal. Modern theology must move towards situational ethics because there is no such thing as morals in this setting. The word morals is used, but it is really only a word. "

Shhh... Trev doesn't have to know anything about this. :wink: Yup, in other words, people are naturally arrogant and will look for any justification for their pride, no matter how ridiculous it is.

You conveniently left out the part of religion making better people, something science and your petty insults could and will never do. Except you don't NEED religion to be a good person, have morals and make people a better person. I didn't say that you needed it; I just said that science and insults wouldn't. Science tends to make people more intelligent. More intelligent people tend to be more aware of the world around them, and more considerate; i.e. good. Science tends to make people more intelligent. More intelligent people tend to think they're better than those around them, which makes them inconsiderate, i.e. bad. Intelligent people who act arrogant were arseholes to begin with, in which case religion wouldn't help 'em out either. I can say from personal experience with myself and many people I've known that Christ can make even the most arrogant arseholes humble and considerate.

You conveniently left out the part of religion making better people, something science and your petty insults could and will never do. Except you don't NEED religion to be a good person, have morals and make people a better person. I didn't say that you needed it; I just said that science and insults wouldn't. Science tends to make people more intelligent. More intelligent people tend to be more aware of the world around them, and more considerate; i.e. good. Science tends to make people more intelligent. More intelligent people tend to think they're better than those around them, which makes them inconsiderate, i.e. bad.

You conveniently left out the part of religion making better people, something science and your petty insults could and will never do. Except you don't NEED religion to be a good person, have morals and make people a better person. However, an atheist cannot ever be a good person if his beliefs are true. Without an eternal, external standard (God) that determines true good and evil, no person can be truly good. There is no real morality, only made-up, subjective rules. In a materialist worldview, who's to say that feeding the homeless is any better than slaughtering and eating them? Both are simply forms of matter and energy moving around; there's no real difference between good and evil. Conclusion: It is inconsistant for an atheist to claim to be a good person. In the Christian view of things, God is the source of all things good. Happiness is a good thing. Those in Hell are completely cut off from God because they chose to deny him. If happiness is a good thing, and those people have rejected the source of all good things and been totally separated from him, then they can have no happiness. I believe that this is the true terror of the Christian version of Hell, and that the Bible's imagery of flames and burning sulfur and darkness are metaphors for how horrible it is. Edit: Spelling.

The cambrian explosion is in no way evidence for the "god put it there" theory. If that was not what you were suggesting then yes, I have misread your argument. He didn't say it was evidence for creation, but rather that it is evidence against the theory of evolution.

Thats almost like saying that if you can't explain it, God did it. Which basically puts the both of us at a stalemate. Indeed it does. Both are matters of faith. You have faith that there is a God, I have faith that there isn't. Neither of us can provide conclusive evidence to support our beliefs. You can say "Who created the universe then?" and I can reply with "Well who created God?" Well, as I've said before, something must be eternally existent. Because there is something here now, and because nothing can come from nothing, something must always have existed. The only two choices are the natural world (or an impersonal something) or the supernatural world (God). The problem lies in figuring out which one is more likely. (Personally, I believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the eternal reality.) As for evolution, I see the theory as more of devolution. Life went from tiny, prokaryotic bacteria that could provide their own food through chemo- or photosynthesis and could live in almost any environment on earth to an organism that can't go three minutes without oxygen or a few days without food or water. Now that's what I call progress. :P

I am your pet peeve! /me tosses a piece of well done steak at Insane. Amen and amen.

Meh, the way I see it, making the denial of the Holocaust illegal gives it a certain credibility that it wouldn't have otherwise. It seems to that they view denial of the Holocaust as a serious threat, which it isn't. They act as if the only way they can deal with it is by outlawing it. I agree with Deborah Lipstadt when she says, "The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."

It may by an over-hyped Halmark holiday, but I like Valentine's. I see it as a good excuse to do something nice for my girlfriend. I love to give her random suprises, but Valentine's Day is just a good occasion to do something for her that I wish I could do all the time (though my limited budget makes showering her with gifts all the time rather hard). :P

People who overreact to everything. (Top Three in Order: 1. My sister. 2. My friend's sister. 3. My girlfriend's friend.) People who mix up there, their, and they're. People who use too many exclamation points in their writing; especially in news articles. (I'm on the staff of my school's newspaper.) Meat that isn't cooked all the way. People who eat meat that isn't cooked all the way.

That's hilarious. :P :lol: But to point back to my post on the first page, does no else agree with me that it's fun to pop zits and watch them ooze? Or am I just weird?

I don't know about y'all, but I kind of enjoy getting a huge white head just because they're so much fun to pop. :oops: Anyway, I've got naturally oily skin, so acne's been a problem for me for about 3-4 years (I'm 16 now). Lately, I've started using that Neutrogena stuff, and it's worked much better than anything else. It also seems to help that I have to shave alot (well, compared to most guys I know that are my age). I guess it just opens up the pores more which makes then easier to clean out. Sparknotes: Use that Neutrogena stuff to wash your face after you shave.

Well, in Genesis it does clearly state that God made light on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. But why would that God create light appearing to be from the stars already coming to earth, for the sole purpose of our deception? Who's to say that it was solely to deceive us? Why couldn't it simply have been to give us light? But why would we need starlight when we have both the Sun and the Moon? Also, why would the Deity create the sun as being more than halfway through its cycle; why wouldn't It give us a young star, instead of a middle-aged one? We may not need starlight, but isn't it pretty? (And peoples throughout history have used the stars to mark the seasons and such.) And who knows why he would give us a middle-aged star rather than a younger one? I don't know enough about stars to know if the difference would have any effect on earth. But if he doesn't intend for us to be around long enough for the sun to burn up anyway, I wouldn't think it would matter. (As an aside, it seems that most of what God created was already in the mature stages of its development. He creates an adult Adam, mature animals, fully formed land and seas, full-grown plants, and so forth. Why wouldn't he also make the sun to be in the middle stages of its life, or the stars with their light already reaching far?)

Heh, interesting point you've got there. We always refer to God as "Him," which I'd guess is mainly because that's the traditional way of doing so. But the way I see it, God is neither male nor female, but encompasses both genders. Take Genesis 1:27, for example: "God created them in His own image; male and female he created them." To me that implies that God is both male and female.

Well, in Genesis it does clearly state that God made light on the first day and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. But why would that God create light appearing to be from the stars already coming to earth, for the sole purpose of our deception? Who's to say that it was solely to deceive us? Why couldn't it simply have been to give us light?

Facts are things that can be proven. What you've got there is a religious belief, not a fact. Yes, but to someone with strong religious convictions, faith is as good as fact.

When did he mention either of those? (I'm assuming that was addressed to killkill.)

So science is the only thing that can explain the past, and anything that is non-scientific cannot? Is creationism wrong simply because it is not science?

That's why I love you. Thanks, man. You ain't so bad yourself. :P

Sorry, but that reminded me a quote. Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882 - "God is dead." God, 1900 - "Nietzsche is dead." :P But you raise an interesting point. I'd agree that there are many gods made in the image of man. Take the Greek gods, for example. They were very promiscuous, irresponsible, and acted arbitrarily. With such gods, it's very easy to justify your own behaviour. However, in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, why would man create a God that demands more of man than he can give? Why would man create a religion that condemns him, says he deserves eternal punishment, and can only live by giving up his own pride?

Which brings us to an interesting paradox. Most theists believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god. A god that planned the universe out in minute detail and who remains aware of all that it contains. Any such being would undoubtedly be fully aware of all the decisions that each of us will make during the course of our lives and the consequences those decisions will have. Leading to a very deterministic point of view. My problem with this line of thinking is that the notion of an all-knowing deity naturally precludes anything other than a determinist theology. And a determinist theology cannot account for the notions of free will and sin. Or at least under a determinist theology either free will cannot exist or 'sin' is planned and accounted for by god from the outset. So while I can acknowledge that there may have been a supernatural 'beginning' to the universe as we know it, the idea of an interventionist deity doesn't stand up to any sort of rigorous scrutiny. My only problem with that line of reasoning is that is assumes fore-knowledge precludes free will. If I know that my friend is going to order grilled chicken instead of a steak, does it change the fact that he still chose the chicken? I can't seem to put words to my view of the situation, and I really don't think I can wrap my mind around the issue. However, I tend to believe that foreknowledge does not preclude choice. Knowing what one will chose does not change the fact that one chooses it and could have chosen something different. Forgive me if I'm not making much sense. On this issue, I just tend to fall back on the old catechism, because the whole matter seems beyond my reasoning. God's sovereignty not only coexists with our free will, but it establishes it. Sure, it's a paradox, but I believe in an infinite God who is big enough to encompass paradoxes.