Your standing on religion

[Mercifull]

Its impossible not to generalise when discussing religion because i belive that every person has an individual and unique view and faith. However I cant write a post about the 2 billion different christians in the world so I have to generalise a little bit ^_^ Sorry If i offended you.

[xyrec]

 

 

 

 

If an impersonal something exists, then it explains the unity of reality. If matter and energy are all that exist, then it would make sense that everything is made up of matter and energy. However, it doesn't explain the diversity of the world. If there is nothing but matter and energy, then what is the point of diversity? There is no more meaning for a human than a plant or an atom - they're all just that same impersonal something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*barges into thread*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that many atheists/agnostics (including me) would argue that there's nothing about a human that's fundamentally different from a plant or atom. I know you didn't really get to finish your argument, so I'll ask you: what makes you believe that a human isn't simply a collection of atoms?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are just a collection of atoms. However so is a house. If you saw a house would you assume that it spotaneously came into existence by some process of nature until proven otherwise? I won't even bother going into a discussion about irreducible complexity because it always gets ugly....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing that's different about a human and a plant is that a plant works as part of the ecosystem and helps keep nature in balance. Humans on the other hand have a long standing track record of upsetting the balance of nature by, for example, hunting for sport instead of just survival and as a result driving animals into extinction. Or deforestation and destruction of natural resources. Compared to all other life on the planet humans are by far the most unnatural of all things in nature. It's like as if humans weren't originally a part of the ecosystem.

[DaN]

I Despise relegion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because it creates narrow minded immature morons who belive they are right about EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heres an ideal example

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you believe in nothing, you have no purpose in life other than to party hard, screw as many chicks as you can (to ensure your genes is passed on) and then die when you're time is up. Wow, what a bleak outlook... If our kids are being brought up to not believe in a god, no wonder there are more suicides, school shootings, murders and bombings then ever before... Because hey! THERE AREN'T ANY RULES!! :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course why Do I bother helping people when I could go to a party instead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I spend more time helping others than myself I have a ton of problems I have to deal with all the time This is because I help others and put them before me wich is why I never help myself (hence the probs of life)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can garuntee ive lead more of a purpose in my life then you have in yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to think I could give that up along with all the difficulties it causes

 

 

 

and worship a book and drink wine and eat bread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Face it for all the preaching and worshiping what your doing is pointless YOUR life has no purpose.

[Pyro]

 

 

 

So if you believe in nothing, you have no purpose in life other than to party hard, screw as many chicks as you can (to ensure your genes is passed on) and then die when you're time is up. Wow, what a bleak outlook... If our kids are being brought up to not believe in a god, no wonder there are more suicides, school shootings, murders and bombings then ever before... Because hey! THERE AREN'T ANY RULES!! :wink:

And according to that theory, the only reason you care for others is because you believe a god wants you to. You know, somehow I feel that says more about you as a Christian than it does about me as an Atheist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am also going to add that Sweden is one of the most Atheistic nations on the planet, and yet also one of the nations with the lowest crime rates. Since you seem to be fond of strange generalizations, let's simply conclude that religion makes people violent.

[insane]

Its impossible not to generalise when discussing religion because i belive that every person has an individual and unique view and faith. However I cant write a post about the 2 billion different christians in the world so I have to generalise a little bit ^_^ Sorry If i offended you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was talking about blazer's catholic talk. Sorry I wasn't more clear. You were making an arugment - he was making a pointless generalization. Though you were generalizing as well, your served a purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you believe in nothing, you have no purpose in life other than to party hard, screw as many chicks as you can (to ensure your genes is passed on) and then die when you're time is up. Wow, what a bleak outlook... If our kids are being brought up to not believe in a god, no wonder there are more suicides, school shootings, murders and bombings then ever before... Because hey! THERE AREN'T ANY RULES!! :wink:

And according to that theory, the only reason you care for others is because you believe a god wants you to. You know, somehow I feel that says more about you as a Christian than it does about me as an Atheist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe being a Christian means you strive to be more like God - his destination is set, whether he helps people or not (according to christianity). God desires faith and dependence on Him, not a bunch of half-hearted deeds. Doing these "good deeds" because God wants you to, or out of a feeling of obligation - according to the Bible, these deeds will be fruitless. It's having a thankful heart to God for bringing us salvation that will bring these non-obligatory actions, for love of God and people - not because we simply "have to".

[Pyro]

 

 

 

I believe being a Christian means you strive to be more like God - his destination is set, whether he helps people or not (according to christianity). God desires faith and dependence on Him, not a bunch of half-hearted deeds. Doing these "good deeds" because God wants you to, or out of a feeling of obligation - according to the Bible, these deeds will be fruitless. It's having a thankful heart to God for bringing us salvation that will bring these non-obligatory actions, for love of God and people - not because we simply "have to".

Point taken, though I'm of the opinion that it doesn't make the point I was trying to make any less valid.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

I believe being a Christian means you strive to be more like God - his destination is set, whether he helps people or not (according to christianity). God desires faith and dependence on Him, not a bunch of half-hearted deeds. Doing these "good deeds" because God wants you to, or out of a feeling of obligation - according to the Bible, these deeds will be fruitless. It's having a thankful heart to God for bringing us salvation that will bring these non-obligatory actions, for love of God and people - not because we simply "have to".

Point taken, though I'm of the opinion that it doesn't make the point I was trying to make any less valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup - I realize now that I wasn't taking your point in context of the post you quoted. Though for what it's worth, my point makes sense by itself IMO.

[xyrec]

Morality. I'm a good person. Ive said this many times before but ill say it again. I do good stuff to people, I help out charities and donate a lot of my time and money to help other people. I don't do anything illegal and I'm nice to my friends and family. I don't belive in god yet i'm still more of a christian than most christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being good to other people is about having morals and respect, you dont need "god" to tell you whats right and wrong. You know whats right without being told, or at least I do. You are simply blinded by faith in something which does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is that without a head figure to hand down law of some sort, there is no true right or wrong. If there was no universe, only you, and then you created a universe, you would have the express right to control what goes on in that universe and to say what is right and wrong. However if there is no god and we're all just an accident, right and wrong are up to interpretation and anyone who decides that it's right to kill people can kill people and basically be right since there is no definition of right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the record, look at New Orleans, one of the most right wing religious areas in America. In the time of need and in the time of despair in the superdome people were being stabbed, raped and killed. Horray for god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because a person who claims to be religious commits a crime, it doesn't mean that religion is false and it shouldn't reflect on the God they believe in either. Unless of course they believe that God directly controls all of their behavior....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neanderthal man did not one day give birth to modern human, we are are evolved over millions of years by natural selection and "survival of the fittest". I guess its kinda "by accident" tho its a bit more complex than that. We are FAR from perfect, very much so. I dont consider a perfect being to go incontinent when it reaches a certain age, and before you bang on about eyes being so amazing. Look around you, look at all the people wearing glasses ot correct their imperfect vision.

 

 

 

You are simply another "Intelligent Design" person whos been told to many lies over the years that you truely belife it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The notion that humans evolved over millions of years is one of the holes in evolutionary theory. Despite there being fossils of untold numbers of animals including ancient primates, there are none of any "missing links" of any kind. There is no fossil evidence present of humans evolving over time, it just isn't there. There are no complete skeletons of ancient humans. They have chunks that arn't enough to prove that they're anything other than a fossil of something that was once alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Natural Selection only favorable evolutionary changes survive to perpetuate and negative changes are weeded out. So any ape-man type creature who would've evolved from ancient apes should've been more capable of surviving yet today we have chimps and gorillas, and then humans, with a huge gulf in between the two. It defies logic that a whole series of ape-men who were perfectly suited to survive in their environment would all be wipe out, yet the higher ape-men and lower apes would somehow survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also if humans have been developing for millions of years then humans should've been just as intelligent as they are now for tens of thousands of years, considering that humans from all of recorded history were just as intelligent as we are now. So if humans have been as intelligent as we are now for many many thousands of years, why have advanced cultures only poped up within the 6000-4000 years? There should be archaelogical evidence of human cultures developing as far back as 50,000-100,000 years ago, but the evidence just isn't there. At best scientists think that maybe they've found some things that are 10,000 years old but what they find hardly convinces me. However a perfectly preserved man in ice whose 6000 years old and is basically identical to modern people does convince me of something, but that something isn't evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding holes in the Theory of Evolution isn't proof for any other speculation such as Intelligent Design. ID has to have direct proof to support it. It doesn't. No matter what it claims, there is no proof, it just attacks on Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can argue til you're blue in the face that proving one thing wrong doesn't prove another thing right but even science doesn't back you up on that. They prove things all the time by proving another thing wrong or right. Many scientific theories are based upon the observation of an effect that something has on it's surroundings even though it can't be seen. None of us has ever seen gravity, but if you've ever jumped, you've seen it's effects and know it's there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you could prove that abiogenesis followed by evolution is impossible without some sort of outside influence then it would by extension prove that some higher power does exist because as I"ve said before, life is here, at one time it wasn't here, and if it didn't start by abiogenesis, then it had to be helped along by some outside influence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1st) Intelligent Design isn't a Scientific Theory... At best, it's philsophical speculation and at worst it is medievil magic from a invisible magical being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refer to previous paragraph. If it's not possible for life to have gotten here through chemical reaction and evolution, then that only leaves on scientific conclusion, outside influence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd) Intelligent design is untestable.. It is untestable, unless you can present the Designer, that's the only test I can think of about ID.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because no one can bring you god for show and tell doesn't mean there's no way to show proof of his existence. I can't bring gravity and show it to you, but we know it's there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd) ID is non falsifiable, how do you falsify a statement that has no evidence to support it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That makes no sense. Of course you can falsify something that has no evidence to support it. If I say the sky is orange with no evidence to support that you can easily prove me wrong. Go to a scientist and get the right equipment and you can measure the vibrations of the wavelengths of light that are difused through our atmosphere and tell with all certainty where on the spectrum of light that it falls and thus prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to see that this attitude leads you to follow the same path you accuse religious people of following. If you simply settle on the notion that it's impossible to prove that god exists, then you'll never bother to try and prove it and never learn from your pursuits. If scientists just said "well it's impossible to prove evolution happened so we just won't bother trying" then they wouldn't have learned anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4th) A Scientific Theory is a model that that is verifiable from outside sources and explains how things work.... It makes predictions. ID can make no prediction, except that when it looks complicated to someone with authority, he claims Intelligent Design did this and case close, no more to be learned. No avenues to explore,, no anything.. Now, Science looks at it and says, it's complicated and we don't have the answers, lets look at it more and investigate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No where in the definition of Intelligent Design does it say "the belief that man should not attempt to explain how anything works because it's god's magic and not meant for men to understand." That is a very closed mined notion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's unfair to say that religion in some way stifles learning just because some religions have held science up. The greeks were both religious and superstitious yet they were some of the greatest inventors, thinkers, philosphers, mathematicians, and scientists of their time, and just generally very learned. When Alexander the Great founded Alexandria they built the largest library of knowledge in the ancient world and founded schools and colleges to educate the people, including a medical college where they disected humans to learn how they worked instead of just saying "it's magic, don't mess with it." A lot of factors have contributed to the rise of knowledge and science in our age, it isn't just as simple as "they quit being religious nut jobs and suddenly got smart."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At various times in history most people never left their own villages and traveled, thus they didn't share knowledge at the rapid pace that later cultures spread their knowledge. Also there weren't as many places to go and learn so those who were blessed with intelligence were rarely ever able to put their genius to use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you were the smartest man in history, you wouldn't get far in your brief life span with no education in science to even start from. Imagine learning everything from scratch....even a super genius couldn't get far in a life time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also paper to write messages and books was at one time a luxury, not an abundant resource so it wasn't always easy to spread the knowledge you had gained. Until very recently only the rich could afford to buy many or any books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the last 200 years we were able to start communicating by telegraph which allowed for much more rapid transfer of information and that has progressed to the point where nowadays any information is available to almost anyone and can be transferred from the farthest reaches of the globe in a heart beat. Now if a scientist discovers something it takes only a moment for the news to travel to his fellow scientists across the globe and they can immediately begin working with that information. In the past his works might not have been fully understood and distributed for many years after his death. People like Newton, Gelileo and Kepler were developing theories about how the celestial bodies moved and interacted with one another when maybe only a stones throw from their own homes were countless people who believed with all their hearts that the world was flat, the universe was geocentric and the stars were just hanging on a black background around the end of the universe like flies stuck on flypaper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due to many factors like this science can't help but develop exponentially. Oh and don't ignore the accomplishments of ancient people either, it's not like as if everyone before a few hundred years ago were slobbering club wielding cave men. The Egyptians, Chinese, Mayans, Incas, Manchay, the inhabitants of Malta, Romans, Greeks and other ancient civilizations all built impressive megalithic monuments that required complex geometry to build so that they could stand the tests of time and survive to our day.

[Hannibal]

 

xyrec: this is an example of what I just said: insane and I seem to disagree, though we both read the bible, we read it in different ways. It's impossible to specify one 'true' way to read it, even if not simply because of translating issues, then because of interpretational differences. Heck, Jehovah's witnesses read the bible. They conclude from it that blood contains a person's soul, and thus blood transfusions are transferring your soul - woah, we shouldn't have that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ummmm....slight mistake there. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that blood contains a person's soul. They don't even believe in an immortal soul. The reason for denying blood transfusions has to do with respect of the sanctity of blood.

 

 

 

I wouldn't know - I'm freely translating what I was told by a Jehovah's witness who came to a youth service in my church. It's been a few months, so if I don't recall everything exactly... They used Leviticus to explain it to me:

 

 

 

For the life of a creature is in the blood...

 

 

 

Either way, I'm just saying that Jehovah's witnesses say the bible tells us that we should not transfuse blood, or have birthday parties, and in general not all Christians (by far not all, in fact) would agree with that. While they read the same bible - though in another translation, and they then interpret it differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words: it's not as simple as saying 'the bible is the only thing we need, and we will all believe the same', nor can one say 'there is only one way to read the bible, so everyone who does not read it exactly as I do is a fraud Christian' (I know you didn't say that, I'm just pointing things out :-) )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's true that some parts of the bible arn't explicit in their meaning and thus are up to interpretation but some things are too clear to be up to interpretation. If the bible says "thou shalt not 'blank'!" then it's pretty obvious, we shouldn't do whatever blank is. So is the whole bible up to interpretation? I don't feel so...some people obviously do though because I've already seen people say that they think most of the bible is made up despite it being a very historically accurate book.

 

 

 

Oh sure, I'm not saying everyone can interpret anything any way they like or say that it's 100% fiction, science itself has proved it's definitely not that. What I am saying is that there are often very interesting cases on which the bible is not that clear. It's also unclear how strict one should be about doing everything the bible says - some things are influenced heavily by the culture that was common when the bible was written - I don't see your parents taking you to the city counsel because you don't listen to them, to have you dragged out of the city and stoned to death (this is a rule given in Leviticus, fwiw). These are all rather clear examples (at least, I do hope everyone here agrees that stoning youngsters to death when they disobey their parents is not really a good idea in today's society), but there are others which are not so clear. I'm not going to discuss them - that isn't the point. The point is that while you can't say the bible is 100% fiction and we should ignore it, you can also not say that everything in the bible is true and that we should still live by everything it says (nor that we agree on what it says). The same is true for any religion's guidebook, by the way, so also for Koran or any other religious text. (I must confess I remember little about what religious texts buddhism or hinduism use, but they're bound to have somewhat similar problems)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd give you some more theory about Communication (my study has a subject called Communicative Interaction, we've discussed the subject of interpreting communication - which a book is by default - intensively), but I think I have made my point :).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Despise relegion

 

 

 

Why??

 

 

 

Because it creates narrow minded immature morons who belive they are right about EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whereas you don't think you're right about everything, and of course you believe there's no such thing as a narrow-minded atheist? You're being quite hypocritical in a sense :). And hey, everyone posting here is a priori not narrow-minded, beause they're responding to someone else's post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, one could wallow in their own intellectual superiority, but it's usually good to have a decent discussion at times, to question your own beliefs at least as much as you question others' believes when thinking on your own.

[Mercifull]

Ahhh interesting comments... except human brains ARE evolving

 

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974

[xyrec]

I Despise relegion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because it creates narrow minded immature morons who belive they are right about EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.O Are you seriously attempting to claim that all religion causes people to be narrow minded, immature, and egotistical? Even considering what the likely definition of religion you're referring to, that is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A religion can be any cause, belief, principle of set of principles in which one believes. I think it's pretty safe to say that all people believe in something so if you're right, all of human kind are "narrow minded, immature morons who believe they are right about EVERYTHING."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can garuntee ive lead more of a purpose in my life then you have in yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not trying to respond for blazer but I must say....that is perhaps the most self assuming, supercilous, egotistical, imperious satement i've ever seen. How could you possibly know how someone else you've never even met lives their life and whether or not your life has more of a purpose than theirs. Are you trying to start a flame war so you can see this topic locked or what?

[weezcake]

If there was no god, then why believe in rules? Why believe in order? If there is no god, then there is no right and wrong, because it was god who instilled in us the human nature to make us think "hey, killing someone is wrong".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? Do I have to believe in a God to believe in order? I don't believe in God, but yet I don't go out and say "I'm going to kill that person. Who cares?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Despise relegion

 

 

 

Why??

 

 

 

Because it creates narrow minded immature morons who belive they are right about EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a small percentage of people.. this is true. But not generally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't even know what you're saying mercifull, because you were just an accidental by-product of the evolution of man. All your thoughts are just accidents, all your actions are accidents. Infact, if you don't believe in some sort of supreme being, YOU MEAN NOTHING! When you die, you will be forgotten over the hundreds of years that are yet to take place. Everyone posting in this board will eventually be forgotten. No one means anything to anybody because we're all just accidental by-products of the evolution of a perfect human!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True, we ARE accidents. Evolution is a series of accidents in DNA transcription. Maybe instead of putting a Guanine, the cell might have put an Adenine in its spot. The "proofreading" is extremely quick and accurate, but remember, accidents do happen. The resulting organism will have a "defect", which may or may not be beneficial; accidents = evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But also, you have to remember that the greatest inventions were accidents: dynamite, anesthesia...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are only little specs of dust, compared to the universe. Of course we will be forgotten. We are nothing. We live, we die.

[Astralinre]

 

If there was no god, then why believe in rules? Why believe in order? If there is no god, then there is no right and wrong, because it was god who instilled in us the human nature to make us think "hey, killing someone is wrong".

Morality. I'm a good person. Ive said this many times before but ill say it again. I do good stuff to people, I help out charities and donate a lot of my time and money to help other people. I don't do anything illegal and I'm nice to my friends and family. I don't belive in god yet i'm still more of a christian than most christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being good to other people is about having morals and respect, you dont need "god" to tell you whats right and wrong. You know whats right without being told, or at least I do. You are simply blinded by faith in something which does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the record, look at New Orleans, one of the most right wing religious areas in America. In the time of need and in the time of despair in the superdome people were being stabbed, raped and killed. Horray for god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is something I was going to get to in my post ealier - morality if there is an impersonal beginning. Mercifull, how do you get from molecules to morality, from energy to ethics? If there is an impersonal beginning, the everything is ultimately the same. There is no difference between right and wrong - they're both forms of that impersonal something. There's no difference between you volunteering for a charity and a man in New Orleans robbing and killing another man. Ultimately, both are just matter and energy moving around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if there is a personal beginning, there is a chance that we can distinguish between right and wrong. While an impersonal beginning cannot speak, the personal beginning can speak to us. Because it can speak to us, it can tell us what is right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is also true of the meaning of life. If there is an impersonal beginning, then it is silent on meaning, since it cannot speak. There is no more meaning for a man than there is for atoms. But if there is a personal beginning, it can speak to us and provide meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Weezcake and NewHaiku: I believe that man is personal, whereas matter is not. Of course, if you assume an impersonal beginning, this poses a problem. How can personality come from non-personality? One answer is that man is not personal after all, but all observation and everything we think we know about ourselves contradicts this. The other answer is that personality is simply the result of time plus chance, and randomly arose from the impersonal. This would leave personality completely meaningless.

 

 

 

But if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning, instead of being just a random fluke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sidenote to Mercifull on Science and Religion: I'd argue that modern science (ie. the scientific method, observation and reason, trying to find truth about the world) would not have come about if not for Christianity. The early modern scientists, such as Galileo and Newton, believed that the world was reasonable because it was created by a reasonable God. They believed that the same God had endowed them with reason, which allowed them to observe the world and make accurate, logical conclusions about the world.

[insane]

1. An effect can never outweigh a cause (maybe there's some obscure branch of abstract physics that disproves this, but since I can't understand it - I'll live in ignorance for the moment and proceed - and even if it is true, that it can be disproven, science is showing a contradiction, so either way - my point will stand).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. If thought is nothing but impersonal, unintelligible atoms/electrons (not sure which, probably some other 'ons' :P), then we have no - a. choice b. intelligence c. morality... etc - as unintelligence cannot logically spawn intelligence - unethic spawn ethic, etc, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes? No? Maybe? I was just working off of Astra's post... I probably screwed up his reasoning somewhere in this post though :P

[kaibani]

Well, I don't believe in religion. What am I saying, we all believe in religion. Not believing in religion is religion. Whether you believe in god, or not, you are religous. Whether what form you believe the god takes, it's religion. Religion is merely a belief. A fantasy that you yourself created or believed only to make yourself seem you have a better understanding of the world, or your life.

[NewHaiku]

To Weezcake and NewHaiku: I believe that man is personal, whereas matter is not. Of course, if you assume an impersonal beginning, this poses a problem. How can personality come from non-personality? One answer is that man is not personal after all, but all observation and everything we think we know about ourselves contradicts this. The other answer is that personality is simply the result of time plus chance, and randomly arose from the impersonal. This would leave personality completely meaningless.

 

 

 

But if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning, instead of being just a random fluke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "personality" is. Could you explain?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Your possible answers basically agree with my views. However, I don't see any logical reason why personality can't be meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. I disagree with your wording: "if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning." It seems to imply that you want personality to have meaning. What we want the world to be has no bearing on what the world actually is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, basically, my question is: What specifically leads you to believe that personality (and life in general) has meaning?

[NewHaiku]

Humans are just a collection of atoms. However so is a house. If you saw a house would you assume that it spotaneously came into existence by some process of nature until proven otherwise? I won't even bother going into a discussion about irreducible complexity because it always gets ugly....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would assume that it was created by humans, because humans are known, "proven" creators of houses. When I see a human, I don't assume that human is created by a god, because gods aren't known or proven creators of humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, you are the only human on the Earth at a particular time, and have no knowledge of other humans. You see a house. How would you assume it got there? Chances are you wouldn't assume that it was either naturally constructed or constructed by another human/supernatural force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a complete void, we shouldn't assume that humans were naturally created or created by a supernatural being. However, we aren't in a complete void. We have enough evidence to create scientific theories that explain a way in which humans could have been created naturally. Yet the evidence for the existance of a god remains the same as it was 4000 years ago - simple speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing that's different about a human and a plant is that a plant works as part of the ecosystem and helps keep nature in balance. Humans on the other hand have a long standing track record of upsetting the balance of nature by, for example, hunting for sport instead of just survival and as a result driving animals into extinction. Or deforestation and destruction of natural resources. Compared to all other life on the planet humans are by far the most unnatural of all things in nature. It's like as if humans weren't originally a part of the ecosystem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the theory of evolution, which I'm sure you're familiar with, details how humans went from part of the ecosystem to above it. Anthropolic evidence makes it fairly clear that humans were once part of the ecosystem, and then created tools that upset the balance of nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/threadjack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The forum is really, really slow right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/threadjack

[NewHaiku]

The point is that without a head figure to hand down law of some sort, there is no true right or wrong. If there was no universe, only you, and then you created a universe, you would have the express right to control what goes on in that universe and to say what is right and wrong. However if there is no god and we're all just an accident, right and wrong are up to interpretation and anyone who decides that it's right to kill people can kill people and basically be right since there is no definition of right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there's no reason why that can't be the case. Objective morality doesn't exist, whether or not you believe in a god. This is an argument I've used a few times before. Tell me if you see any holes in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assume for the moment a god exists, and that this god gives humans moral rules to act on. Where do these moral rules come from, and why would a god give them to us? If you believe that God created everything, then morality cannot exist seperatly of God- God has to have created morality. And unless God decided to make set of completely ambiguous rules, morality exists for a practical purpose. This means that morality is not some objective principle of the universe, but rather a set of practical rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that morality is a set of practical rules, only that they were devised by humans and not a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The notion that humans evolved over millions of years is one of the holes in evolutionary theory. Despite there being fossils of untold numbers of animals including ancient primates, there are none of any "missing links" of any kind. There is no fossil evidence present of humans evolving over time, it just isn't there. There are no complete skeletons of ancient humans. They have chunks that arn't enough to prove that they're anything other than a fossil of something that was once alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Natural Selection only favorable evolutionary changes survive to perpetuate and negative changes are weeded out. So any ape-man type creature who would've evolved from ancient apes should've been more capable of surviving yet today we have chimps and gorillas, and then humans, with a huge gulf in between the two. It defies logic that a whole series of ape-men who were perfectly suited to survive in their environment would all be wipe out, yet the higher ape-men and lower apes would somehow survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the theory of evolution, the original ape-men were not a combination of apes and men, but rather a precursor to both. Modern apes and modern men are both superior to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't understand what you mean by "missing links." What do you believe the skeletons of Australopithecines and Homo Erectus are if not mammals between "ape-men" and modern humans?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also if humans have been developing for millions of years then humans should've been just as intelligent as they are now for tens of thousands of years, considering that humans from all of recorded history were just as intelligent as we are now. So if humans have been as intelligent as we are now for many many thousands of years, why have advanced cultures only poped up within the 6000-4000 years?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As is completely observable from written history, advancements in technology increase exponentially rather than multiplicivly. It took thousands of years to go from firemaking to basic farming societies. It took only 50 years to go from the first airplane to the first space expedition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My computer is threatening to freeze, so I'll stop here and make sure I don't lose this. Because that would really suck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I'm not sure how the phrase "alternative living Erectus" came in there. I didn't type it. Maybe it's the work of God...

[Astralinre]

 

To Weezcake and NewHaiku: I believe that man is personal, whereas matter is not. Of course, if you assume an impersonal beginning, this poses a problem. How can personality come from non-personality? One answer is that man is not personal after all, but all observation and everything we think we know about ourselves contradicts this. The other answer is that personality is simply the result of time plus chance, and randomly arose from the impersonal. This would leave personality completely meaningless.

 

 

 

But if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning, instead of being just a random fluke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "personality" is. Could you explain?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Your possible answers basically agree with my views. However, I don't see any logical reason why personality can't be meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. I disagree with your wording: "if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning." It seems to imply that you want personality to have meaning. What we want the world to be has no bearing on what the world actually is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, basically, my question is: What specifically leads you to believe that personality (and life in general) has meaning?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I was simply referring to a person, an individual. When I talk about a personal beginning versus an impersonal beginning, I'm simply talking about a self-existant person creating the universe versus some substance being self-existant. I'm not sure that's worded very well, but I hope I the idea across.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Theoretically, personality can be meaningless. However, no one consistantly holds this argument. Theory should match up with reality, and in reality, people live as if personality has meaning. No matter what people say they believe, they're actions show that they believe personality has meaning. You can raise a child teaching him that people are mearly highly-evolved animals, but he will still treat other children in his class as more important than the ants on the playground. A man might say that murder is no worse than stepping on an ant; but he will still grimace at the thought of murder, while hardly batting an eye at the death of an ant. I realise that this is not proof that personality has meaning, but it is fairly strong evidence. As you said, the way we want the world to be has no bearing on what it actually is. However, what we truly believe the world to be like may offer insight into what it actually is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Of course I want personality to have meaning; I live my life as if it does, for it is impossible not to live that way. :P As I said, humanity's belief that our personality has meaning is not proof that it does, but it is rather convincing evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, I believe in a personal beginning because it is the only beginning which provides meaning for personality and morality. I assume that personality and morality have meaning, for this is what I have seen in life - each and every person lives as if they do have meaning.

[Hannibal]

2. If thought is nothing but impersonal, unintelligible atoms/electrons (not sure which, probably some other 'ons' :P), then we have no - a. choice b. intelligence c. morality... etc - as unintelligence cannot logically spawn intelligence - unethic spawn ethic, etc, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Err, that's not really true.

 

 

 

The human brain works by neurons sending eachother signals. That's just a physical reaction with various chemicals reacting with eachother, forming new stuff and thus transmitting signals. This is not intelligent. However, we call the result of all these neurons together intelligent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another example: My computer knows how to add up/multiply/divide and do some other basic calculations. That's not very intelligent. Yet I can use all those basic calculations to make it do something a bit more interesting, such as displaying a small graphic. Now, using the code I wrote to have my computer display a small graphic, I can make it fill the screen with assorted graphics, creating a normal GUI. Then I can write code for this GUI to work appropriately, all based on the simple things my computer could do from the start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, MS Word spellchecks documents. While it's hardly always correct, it is somewhat intelligent, because it keeps an internal representation of your document, and acts based on the changes you make to that document, or the changes it expects you to make. (This is called a pro-active agent, fwiw) Having both an internal state and the capability of reasoning based on this state makes this agent intelligent. So yes, that means that just about all creatures on this earth have some kind of intelligence, however, most only involve a limited number of subjects. You can't ask a bird to do your math homework, for example. Well, you could, but I'd guess it wouldn't help you too much ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyhow, I'm risking putting too much theory here, but I study Artificial Intelligence at university. The generally supported view is that something has intelligence if that something has an internal state (you can also call it memory or whatever), and is able to reason about this internal state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ergo, even if we are just a collection of atoms, the neurons in our brains still enable us to have an internal state and the ability to reason about it, hence we are intelligent.

[yummy_kids]

 

I think its all a joke and the world would be a better place if no one belived in that stuff.

Oh dear you poor delusion boy / girl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there was no god, then why believe in rules? Why believe in order? If there is no god, then there is no right and wrong, because it was god who instilled in us the human nature to make us think "hey, killing someone is wrong".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could talk heaps more about this but I couldn't be bothered typing more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To sum it all up I believe in God, I'm a christian. :) I think that believing in a "higher being that loves you so much that he gave his only son to die for you" is much better than believing in nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you believe in nothing, you have no purpose in life other than to party hard, screw as many chicks as you can (to ensure your genes is passed on) and then die when you're time is up. Wow, what a bleak outlook... If our kids are being brought up to not believe in a god, no wonder there are more suicides, school shootings, murders and bombings then ever before... Because hey! THERE AREN'T ANY RULES!! :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhh I mean't that without relgion there wouldn't be as many wars. 9/11 wouldn't of happened and alot of other things wouldn't. I would find it harder on your mind to know you killed someone knowing that you just destroyed them and there is no afterlife, but then again thats just me.. other people might just kill knowing they won't go to hell but w/e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go back to your evolution discusion now o.O

[blazer]

You athiests who claim to be good people because you do good things, but then you don't believe in any supreme being are really quite hypocritical of yourselves. Let me explain....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE MORAL LAW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Following much of C. S. Lewis' thought from Mere Christianity, I wish to explain why the moral nature of the universe points to the existence of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the basic outline of my argument:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. There is a universal moral law

 

 

 

2. If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver

 

 

 

3. Therefore, there must be God

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a Universal Moral Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why must there be a universal moral law? One reason is that without it, all moral disagreements would make no sense. We appeal to a universal moral standard all the time. If someone cuts in line at an amusement park, we say, "that's not fair." When a psychotic murderer tortures, rapes, and brutally kills his victims, we say, "that's evil." The fact is that we do not have to explain why these things are considered bad or evil. They are morally wrong, and everyone knows it. If a complete stranger walked into your house and picked up your television and started walking out, more than likely you will get up and say something like, "Hey, stop that! That is my tv." What you are doing in that scenario is appealing to a universal moral law. You assume it is an understood standard for all people to follow a principle of not taking things that are not theirs. If this person responded by saying, "So what?", you would probably think that person was strange or crazy. It would be most strange if someone did not understand certain moral values. This is because we assume there is a universal moral law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another reason why there must be a universal moral law is that all moral judgments would be meaningless. For example, when we say, "The Nazis were wrong to systematically kill the Jews," what do we mean? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If that is so, it does not seem to make much difference what the Nazis do. It would be on par with my difference of opinion regarding chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I do not see any reason to go to war over just my difference of opinion. Or consider the claims against countries who repress women or allow child labor. If there is no universal moral law what do claims against these countries amount to? Without a metaphysical standard, it all amounts to the differences of opinion, but there is no real right or wrong view. In other words, I happen to prefer anti-Nazi morality, and you happen to prefer Nazi morality, but there is no real standard by which we can tell the difference between the two. It is just a matter of opinion. However, it seems clear that is not just a matter of opinion, and this is because we presume there is a universal moral law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Universal Moral Law Means There Must Be a Law Giver

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I have made my point that there is a universal moral law, then the question lingers: how do we account for this moral law? The answer is that there must be a universal moral law Giver. It would be more than just odd if we had this universal moral law without someone to give it. In fact, if a universal moral law just arbitrarily existed on its own (which is unlikely, but we'll just assume it for the sake of argument), then it would seem there is no moral foundation for believing it. Sure, it exists, but that does not explain why it is the right standard to obey. The plain truth is that laws exist, because someone wrote them. What can we know about this universal moral law Giver? Just on the evidence of the moral law, I believe we can deduce (at least) three attributes of the moral law Giver. First, the moral law Giver must be the kind of being that gives moral commands. Otherwise, there would no moral law which we follow. Second, the moral law Giver must be interested in our behavior. Why give rules and laws if there is no interest in how we live? The law Giver must be concerned with how we're living, or else He wouldn't give us guidelines on how to behave. Third, the moral law Giver must be absolutely good. In order to set the absolute standard of what is right and wrong, this law Giver must be qualified to do so. The typical crisis at this point is called the "Euthyphro dilemma" (named after Plato's dialogue that first pointed this out). It seems that we are stuck saying either (a) whatever the moral law Giver wills is right, because He says so or (B) the moral law Giver commands what is right. The dilemma is that (a) suggests the moral law is just the arbitrary whims of the moral law Giver, hence He could have made anything (like rape or murder) morally right, and (B) suggests that there is something higher than the moral law Giver. However, there is a way to escape this dilemma, and that is by saying that the moral law emmanates from the eternal nature of the moral law Giver. In other words, the moral law Giver's inherent nature is good, so what flows from Him will be good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, God Must Exist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the logic it follows that there is a moral law, which came from a moral law Giver who is absolutely good. It is not a far stretch to see that God is the only being who fits the criteria of moral law Giver. Who else is in a position over the universe to give a moral law? Who else would be concerned about the behavior of humans? Who else is eternally and absolutely good? The answer is no one but God alone. To deny God as the moral law Giver is to deny the only reasonable foundation for meaningful morality. Naturally, some have objected to this, and I will explore some of these objections below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could There Be No Moral Law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps we have these moral intuitions, but they are all just our own fancy. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could just cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems there is a moral law. The best explanation for this moral law is that it has come from a moral law Giver who is an absolutely good God. Other explanations fall short to account for the nature of morality. All of these other explanations attempt to reduce morality to something within nature. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, these fail, because the moral law Giver is more like a Mind than something in nature. He could be no more a part of nature than an architect could be identical to the building he designed. Therefore, the moral nature of the universe points to something beyond the universe to the existence of God.

[weezcake]

This discussions has gotten so complicated that it's making my head spin.. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone else?

[blazer]

This discussions has gotten so complicated that it's making my head spin.. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone else?

Ehehe, I'd have to agree with you there. :lol: My last post was a bit... exhausting to read? :P

[DaN]

 

I Despise relegion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because it creates narrow minded immature morons who belive they are right about EVERYTHING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.O Are you seriously attempting to claim that all religion causes people to be narrow minded, immature, and egotistical? Even considering what the likely definition of religion you're referring to, that is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said in the same post that I shouldent assume something yet there you are blatently shoving worlds into my mouth to try and back your own argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DaN wrote:

 

 

 

I can garuntee ive lead more of a purpose in my life then you have in yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not trying to respond for blazer but I mu...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read blazer's post? its ok for him/her to assume but not me?!

 

 

 

Prehaps you should let people speak for themselfs