1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Religious Sanctuary Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by _Darth_Brooks_, May 14, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    I would appreciate no further assumption that I am anyone's sock. I am not.

    As for a handbook on morality... why do you think there needs to be a handbook? Has not evolution and the emergence of social norms and customs ingrained a morality in every society in the world, with or without a "handbook"?

    Here's a quote from Carl Sagan which deals with the starting point of morality from a non-religious mindset...

    If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.
  2. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Mr. Bunny,

    "If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."

    [I fully understand this is only a single quote and not the sum total of whatever material you gleaned this forom. Still, I can only comment on what has been presented as presented.]

    A slight irony, in that your advocating thinking for yourself with the thoughts of another. The difference is that the Christian system s based on determinism through moral choices, and it establishes an unambiguous moral code as a framework; there is a distinct and authoritative right and wrong established. Free thought built on a framework of responsibility and, more importantly, actual accountability. From a creative standpoint, transcendent right of ownership belongs to the Creator as it his creation, thus it is established he has the right to make the rules, just as you have the right to determine who drives your automobile. Such that our free thought is within set perimeters, based more on choices and dichotomies, if you follow. Which is more properly how humanity seems to think. So, it is consistent with the scriptural history of human nature.(Even if you wanted to argue it the was mind that produced the book, then we would be drawn to a peculiarity in evolution that belies a question innately moral in the trends of evolution, which shouldn't occur in a godless universe.)

    Sagan has no authoritative moral positor for dilineating a definitive morality within which we operate. No absolute moral framework. In such a scenario, he can't define objective "good" and "bad" from anything more than the arbitrariness of relativism. Therefore, any morality is only within the realm of opinion, and could actually be something oppressive, that we have no rational means for establishing that it is "wrong".

    For example, In a godless universe, I can say Sagan is wrong( a term that has no meaning anyway),and I'm automatically as valid. So either, way, from either standpoint, I'm correct.

    He also hasn't established a justification of morality or concepts of freedom. He doesn't establish why it is more moral for those in power to serve "us" rather than to serve themselves. He hasn't defined his right and wrong and justified it rationally. From a Darwinian stance, how can Sagan justify the imposition of any 'morality'?

    Christianity endorses the fact God bestowed free will, so on that point there is no conflict. Sagan and christianity endorse free will.

    If, God is who Christianity contends, then Sagan's words don't hold a candle to the intent of free will as bestowed by a Creator.

    Still, he approaches an irrational system in this quote, a system of undefined morality, and public consensus, in which case morality becomes a whim, and inauthentic. That being the case any 'morality' is only in who has the upper hand, undermining all the rest of his premise.
    Therefore, any set or morals has no actual value or sustainable meaning in imposing any restriction.

    And that even strikes against evolution, in that in an atheistic universe, you are trying to insinuate that "good' is the impetus of evolution(while yet being unable to define good), while evolution proper is survival of the fittest, not survival for the common good. You're inadvertantly constructing an arguement for a 'moral' universe. In an atheistic universe "good" and "evil" doesn't matter, and true survival is an illusion when your body stops functioning. In an evolutionary universe an organism seeks it's own self-interest, and even that is ultimately meaningless. There's not even a reason for growth. And evolution
  3. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    I apologize for thinking you were a "sock".

    The only reason being is that you've used a few catch phrases, so to speak, that Dark-Side did.

    My apologies to you both.
  4. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    No problemo.
  5. Chris2

    Chris2 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Oct 11, 1998
    "If a man comes to me and does not hate his father, mother,sister, wife, children and brothers, or even his life, he cannot be my disciple".

    Is this what you call 'morality' and 'ethics'? And isn't this from the same guy who said "honor your mother and father" and "Let no man take asunder marriage"???? Surely hating mother and father would break one of the commandments, which Jesus makes very clear we must keep if we love him? Also, don't the epistles, written by those filled with the "holy spirit" also say "Husbands, love your wives" and so on? Or is this simply a comparison?

    Or was this just a message for those who wanted to follow him during his earthly journey? Seems to me it makes more sense from this perspective, since no doubt the families of the disciples would be a little upset to see their relatives following someone who claimed to be the Messiah, yet who was a pacifist and broke many of the Jewish "rules" of the time. After all, Jesus did not say that family estrangement was necessary for salvation; merely discipleship.

  6. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    "If a man comes to me and does not hate his father, mother,sister, wife, children and brothers, or even his life, he cannot be my disciple".

    That verse is from the Gospel of Luke 14:26, and the word "hate" in the KJV is from the Greek word 'miseo'-from a primary 'misos'(hatred);" to detest. by extens. to love less:.."

    Christ is saying basically to obey the first Commandment, in putting only God first, and in so doing you automatically "Honor your father and mother", even if they don't think so.

    He is giving as strong a warning as possible to those that follow Him what they can expect. And that is sadly often the rejection from even those whom you love and honor the most.

    In my own life I learned exactly what Christ was saying after having become a Christian.
    I didn't grow up in a Christian environment, as I've stated earlier in this forum. Family members weren't pleased with my decision.

    I never stopped loving my mother, but my Christianity was a problem for awhile.

    It was very painful for me, of course, but who was I to follow, my mother or the Lord?

    Allow me to say there were supernatural circumstances involved, such that my life was literally saved by Christ. After such an experience, there was no denying the reality of Jesus, so how could I possibly not believe?

    It's very difficult to experience the miraculous and tell others of it, because many don't believe.

    For me to have denied the truth would have ultimately been to dishonor my mother, even though she wouldn't have understood it at that time.

    When we do right, we honor our loved ones. There is nothing more right than loving the one that is the source of all love.

    It comes with a price.

    The good news is that after years, my mother is seeking Christ, and I know He will answer her just as He answered me. Then will all the pain have been much more than worth the price.

    I can go into greater detail if you need.

    But I wanted to keep this short after so many long posts.

    There are a number of verses that emphasize the need to obey the 1st Commandment. Matthew chapter 10 has some similar verses.

    But part of the truth in this is that we are not worthy to follow Christ, not on or own standard. Thus these verses are also emphasizing the need for grace.

    Who are we more attached to than our parents? Often that causes trouble in life, in the form of a husband or wife that is still holding onto apron strings, so to speak. There is also an element that is a weird sort of bondage stunting emotional growth and maturity.

    The verses you are refering to from the Epistles were Paul's words on marriage. He pointed out for wives to obey their Husbands, and husbands to love their wives.

    The reason, as you've probably seen in marriages, is that two of the primary problems for many couples fall into these two areas. For instance, an adulterous husband is not loving his wife, not trying to keep the romance alive and working on his marraige. Women tend to have authority problems with men, and 'henpeck'; Paul was warning against both of these difficulties, and expressing what to work on to overcome those problems. There is a spiritual depth, but again, I've already made this post probably longer than you want to read.

    Like I said, I can go into far greater depth, delving into the spiritual aspects, if this doesn't satisfactorially clarify.

    The more you love Christ, the more love He gives you to love others. By comparison, you could almost see what you knew of love previously as 'hatred'. The difference is that vast.

  7. Chris2

    Chris2 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Oct 11, 1998
    So in other words, love others than just the ones you're suppossed to love?

    Sounds okay, just needed clarifying.

    BTW regarding prophecy in the news-we can't be sure. Many people have thought that their own times are 'the end times'. We shouldn't let ourselves be concerned with conspiracy theories regarding globalization and microchips....
    remember, no man knows the "day or the hour".
  8. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    On the prophetic front, you are 110% correct when you say no man knows the time.

    We are told that we will be able to recognize the season.

    Certainly, for the first time in history is the capability for the fulfillment of prophecy possible, which is a distinct difference from those who decried,"The End is Near," in the past.

    It is also for the first time in history that the incipient stages for most all of the prophesies have actually begun occuring.

    Keep in mind that Israel wasn't a nation for almost 2,000 years until May, 1948. This event itself in prophecy is the fulcrum around which the rest of the prophecies were to begin the initiation of their fulfillment.

    I don't think it's a coincidence that so many of the other once dormant predicted events are 'just happening' to occur at this particular juncture in world history.

    But I digress. Not sure that I want to enter into eschatology.

    And, as you say, only our Heavenly Father knows precisely.

    As for loving others; absolutely. You cannot but help love others after coming to know Christ. His love is so powerful, and because He loves us so much, you can't help but love Him and as a result love others even if only because He loves them so incredibly much.

    It was only in experiencing His love that I came to even understand what is written in the Holy Bible. It is precisely because of Him that I hold the Holy Bible so dearly, and reap the rewards. There is nothing on this Earth that compares to meeting the Lord, and right after that is the joy of seeing others begin to seek Him. And, the reward of hearing from others about when they finally received confirmation from Him.
    The reality of Jesus Christ is the best kept secret in plain sight in all of history.

  9. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Jun 12, 1999
    so morality must bejustified in relation to something higher in order to be valid? or am i reading this exchange wrong?
  10. Wylding

    Wylding Jedi Master star 5

    Aug 13, 2000
    For the follower of God, there is no morality outside of God. All of the morality that people who don't believe in God exhibit in their daily lives is due to the fact that God still influences their lives in a small way. There will come a time when this grace will be removed.
  11. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Jun 12, 1999
    so all morality is god derived, whether you acknowledge that fact or not?
  12. Chris2

    Chris2 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Oct 11, 1998
    About Israel in prophecy; I've read some of the prophetic books, and it seems to me that they seem to be referring more to a return from a Babylonian exile, which did happen in-between the testaments. Of course, "Babylon" has a double meaning in the bible, so it could also mean return from Roman exile(Babylon being a nickname for Rome in the first century). Interestingly this would also make Rome the Babylon of revelations as well....

    This Newsgroup article illustrates how we err by placing Israel's reunification in prophecy:


  13. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Wylding, you are certainly correct. ;)
  14. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000

    Eschatology exist on a number of levels, definitely, if I take your meaning rightly.

    There is one author, a former Presbyterian minister now a Roman Catholic who wrote one of the most intellectual and spiritual examinations on the subject of Revelation, listing at least four different exegetical purposes expressed in prophecy, pertinently as applied to the book of 'Revelations.'

    I'll try to see if I can locate the precise title if you are interested, although I believe it was called The Lamb's Supper. Unfortunately, the author and title seem a bit illusive at the moment.

    He listed of course that prophecy, outlines the future events, but as well is generally reflective of the past, and the spiritual principles are always applicable to the individuals contemporary spiritual growth and understandings. All prophecy is also revelatory of our understanding of the nature and being of God, as well as an assurance that God is active at all times in world.

    I wish I could remember the specific four exegetic involved as outlined. It was extremely brilliantly written in it's contents presentation.

    Christ has certainly already come in the physical manifestation of deity as the incarnate God-man, and in the guise of the pervasive Holy Spirit in regard to the Salvific specific and active principal, and again into the spiritual and intellectual dimension of the believers heart and ideology. By extension, as Wylding pointed out above, pervasively influentially into the world system at large at least tacitly. And. of course, Christ 'returns' for us at our physical bodies expiration.

    A close Roman Catholic friend also argues the point of Christ returned and present always in the Eucharist in the Communion of the Saints.

    As far as the understandings in the more generalized sense of the second "Second Coming," one of the major prophecies deals with a more overt exposure to the identity of Jesus to the entirety of the world population. Certainly, when that occurs virtually every single individual will have been exposed to Christ temporally and eternally. We know from scripture that Christ has given those who've physically died an opportunity to enter into eternal life.

    This satisfactorily fulfills a requirement of a merciful and judicious God, as well as that it will dually be a necessity in preventing humanity from passing over the cataclysmic brink into annihilation.

    Descriptions in scripture accurately portray what I can't comprehend as anything but a nuclear conflict. And, again, the possibility for such destruction has never before existed in history, while coming onto the scene in the same timeframe as Israel, and the prevalent reoccupation of Jerusalem by the the Jews.

    We've also been told that Israel will be a stumbling block to the world, and that is precisely so at this very moment in an encompassing way that is previously unprecedented, even considering the difficulties the ancient Roman Empire had in that region. And is worth considering that never before in recorded history was there a realistic way for a concept such as the 'mark of the beast' to be an actuality before modern technology.

    Christ said when we see these things begin to come to pass, we would know that his second coming was nigh. That certainly wasn't true of the destruction of Israel in circa AD 40, although prophecy does allude to certain aspects of that destruction.

    It also necessary to realize that while eschatology incorporates spiritual aspects, every prophecy of the Messiah in the O.T. was literally fulfilled exactly as given.

    One gentleman I spoke with once remarked that the events of the apocalypse had already occurred under the ancient Roman Empire. Rather than take on the minutiae and enter into a lengthy discussion, I just asked where and when the Millennial peace on Earth as described had occurred. Silence ensued.

    There are a lot of opinions on Revelation, but as we know the only authoritative version is The Holy Bible, with the rest all being extraneous ancillary conjecture. I've come acr
  15. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000

    Preliminary comments;
    Against the intentions of this thread, I've ended up being compelled to present a defense.

    This is not "the debate", which after finishing my comments addressing your specific challenges, I will present the debate formal.

    It was requested by yourself and another forum member that I present these comments, which I'd written after your initial post, but didn't present feeling it was distracting, from and defeating the purpose of, this thread.

    I hope my view will satify you that there is a basis for my opinions, which you've found so offensive.

    You remind me to some extent of a friend of mine in the middle of a street fight years ago, who loudly exclaimed, "That's illegal and against the rules!" The humor was in that we were on the street, not at the Taekwondo tournament. Know where you are. This isn't a formal debate, and according to my beliefs I do appeal to authority( in more ways than one :) ).

    One of the problems with debate is that often it intrinsically necessitates a 'devils advocate' stance on my part. I've got to say "if there is a God...," then into the premise, and so on and so forth. Yadda, yadda, yadda. ;) Not interested. And the truest victory will occur at the second our bodies expire, and thus any victory I experience is somewhat bittersweet and pointless if you've remained an atheist. And should you win a debate in this forum, your victory would be definitively, truly pyrrhic."What profit it a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul."

    There would also be the likelihood that any victory in a debate on my part might only simply further antagonize you only into a position of hardened obstinacy, having the reverse effect of my intention.

    So, this isn't a debate. Just some simple responses from a simple man trying to make his way in the universe. :)

    I do know from firsthand experiential knowledge that you are wrong. You'll continue to believe as you will. I would suggest that you look at your atheism from the standpoint of pragmatic responsibility; if you are wrong, and you have influenced others into your eternal error, could you sleep at night? Is dogmatism worth that great of a risk?

    Once upon a time, when I was an agnostic, I recognized my responsibility to others in this regard. Unfortunately, I didn't heed my conscience and intellectually decimated a Christian in front of a close personal friend. That friend to this day rejects a God I subsequently came to find out was real, and did so partially upon my words that night. True story, I regret to say.

    On with the show.

    Your use of quotes and comments are preceded by >>>.

    >>>If you were to read the first post in the Non-Religious Sanctuary Thread, you would see that it is not a place to bash religion unopposed. Moreover, you would see that anyone who does post religion-critical matter must be prepared to defend their opinions.

    Well, that's the difference isn't it? I don't have to defend myself in here. My faith is my faith, and while I'm capable of presenting to every man his answer, I suppose, I'd also like to discuss topics such as atheism with other "theists."

    Does bashing religion and bashing religion unopposed really make that much of a difference? Bashing religion is bashing religion in my book. But, it isn't my purpose to "bash" atheism, but to critique it, yet no matter how I express my views this can only seem like semantical jargon on my part.

    >>>This thread, on the other hand, is clearly a place where you can ridicule atheism* safe from scrutiny. Whether the moderators will allow such an exercise is beyond my control, but I certainly will not refrain from posting in here as long as my viewpoints are being attacked.

    I'm not ridiculing atheism, just presenting my observations, and interested in the observations of other theists on this and other diverse subjects by the like-minded.

    Why shouldn't the moderators allow such a discussion? Certainly you are blinded by a double standard. There is a dedicate
  16. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000

    >>>But the marked feature of these "supernatural" experiences is that, as a society becomes more and more advanced, their frequency decreases. Perhaps you could provide just one example of where, as David Hume challenged, the falsehood of the person's testimony would be more miraculous than the event itself.

    Firstly Hume's comment has no real legs, it has no strength, and is endemically the kind of response one gives when shrugging one's shoulders. Some of our giants are actually midgets with loud voices.

    Their frequency decreases? Says who? Where? Your assertion, so the burden of proof is now on you, right? See, I can play this game. :)

    >>>Atheism isn't "atheology," or a science, nor truly scientifically based in that there is no rational way to apply even the modest procedural requirements of The Scientific Method. Logic certainly cannot be applied to disproving God, as has been proven by quite a number of contemporary philosophers.

    >>>Again, vague appeals to authority, and a tacit concession that religion is irrational.

    No, merely a common sense observation. Turnabout being fair play, the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders, by your own criterion, each time you dogmatically propound your atheism.

    I might argue that God is transcendent of the "rational" being that the concept is but a reflective-sliver of the persona of it's benevolent Creator, extended to humanity. Being that God created rational concepts He is superlative to them. Is the painting greater than the mind which conceived it? Doubtful. Thus it is consistent for God to remain in character transcendent to the finites of mere rationalism. All creation is subject to Him, not vice versa...and that is rational.

    Yadda,yadda,yadda. What was it Dooku said to Obi wan?

    >>>And there are many psychological explanations for subscription to theism, too (as well as many aspects of theism that are egotistical and self-centered, such as eternal paradise for the "elect"). Ironically, Freud--an atheist--pinpointed several of them.

    Freud didn't discover anything, but reiterated some observations of human nature that were merely an echo of classically existent content already in the Holy Bible, other religious texts, philosophical treatments, and humanities greatest literature. Kind of presenting an already existing wheel as new. He's another giant that is actually a midget with a loud voice.
    So there is no irony whatsoever. Freud didn't recognize anything new or special in the foibles of human nature. Christianity, and particularly Christ certainly specifically addressed and condemned those very traits.

    Freud was also a coke addict, whose "cure" lasted a lifetime on the couch. Was that a "cure" or a paycheck? No, I'm not attacking the messenger instead of the message. Just pointing out the source. Is he reliable? Freud offered opinions, and thoughts that many of his then contemporary, and today's modern, peers don't subscribe to at all.

    As a friend of mine pointed out in a discussion on Freud,"The problem of course, emerged when I discovered that he not only stripped open women's faces, splaying open their noses to remove their adenoids in order to "cure" their depression, but their uteruses as well...
    "then of course, people with cocaine additions often are compulsive, hence the nasal fixation, and need to maim the noses of others (he himself had a deviated septum due to his drug abuse), and of course sexual impotence is a problem with coke use as well...hence the need to deprive others of their sexual organs.
    "So, perhaps, his "levels" were commensurate with the purity of his powder that week?
    "BTW sigmund freud had a morbid fear of ferns, pretty funny huh?
    woulda been funny to go to yer weekly session and bring him a bouquet of fronds,,whhaaaaahhh haaa haaa haaa!!!"

    The trick in the equation to gaining "paradise" is the determined intentional forsaking of self-centeredness by the "elect," according to Christianity. Which disqualifies true Christianity from the version Freud

  17. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    >>>And perhaps I'm meaning to address those Christians, such as Adolf Hitler, who were responsible for the genocide of millions of human beings, and whose faith directly inspired such actions.

    First, out of a sense of fun, I have to point here that you definitely applied the Straw Man, which you seem to dislike.

    The problem with your logic here is obvious. The Holy Bible has a set ethical guideline, atheism doesn't. Hitler's actions contridicted the Holy Scriptures depiction of Christ, and the doctrines to which Christians are to strive to adhere. Hitler's immoral actions are also described in the Bible in identifying false-Christians. Thusly, according to the authority of the Holy Bible, it can be determined that Adolf Hitler was not a christian, but instead a liar and false Christian.

    Another problem is that there is no ethical guideline or moral handbook dilineating the doctrines of atheists, and no, nor could there be. Therefore, Stalin meets all the criterion for the purest of atheists since there are none to be met, while Hitler met none of the criterion in the Holy Bible to suggest he was actually a follower of the Christian faith. It's a very easy distinction, I hope you recognized it at last.

    And again, you are back to implying the moral lawgiver principal discussed above.

    HITLER, schmitler: I don't care what is said about Adolf Hitler, WW II was not a religious war, but more properly an ideological secular one, just as America has imprinted upon it's dollars, "IN God We Trust", as our motto, Viet Nam certainly wasn't a religous conflict.
    That's called spin-doctoring, and I've no intention of debating absurdities that are actually attempts at making silk purses out of sow's ears.

    >>>It is interesting to note that within this very forum exists another semantical irony, the "non-religious sanctuary," considering that the word sanctuary is definitely and unequivocally religious terminology. I'll get into the history of that word later as well.

    >>>Religion has pervaded and influenced the development of the English language. This does not remove an atheist's right to speak.
    (Note: with all due respect, your post is a joke).

    NOTE: Without any respect at all, this has just made your post a joke. Touche, mon ami. Adoption of the motto "A legend in my own mind" should be considered for embroidery on all of your apparel. :)

    Firstly, the English language was based on far older words, and words were developed for specific usages. Regardless, that was mumbo jumbo because you don't know the actual etymology of the word and it's specific application.

    Secondly, get off your high horse and next time don't set on it backwards. This not about an atheists right to speak, it's about a theists right to speak with other theists without an atheist interrupting. It is properly about the theist having a right to speak.

    But, if were going to breach "rights of freedom of expression" we also have to give a nod to restrictions that provide protection of those rights, containing criterion that prevent 'freedom' from being warped in anarchy and chaos. You don't have the right to give your opinions everywhere, there are limitations so that your right defeat doesn't eliminate someone else's right to expression. In other word's, for example, you can't break and enter your way into my home under the guise of enforcing your right to expression demanding equal time. And if in public you have the right to speech under certain guidelines, which if ignored become harrasment.

    And, in certain situation, implicitly expressions of ones defense of their own freedom of expression over anothers falls into the realm of the Law of Non Contridiction.

    >>>Denying that a God exists merely presupposes the existence of God as a concept. This is like saying "without the existence of magic elves, we cannot say there are no magic elves". It's utterly ridiculous.

    Yes, it is humorous, but then I suggest you don't take my words out of their context and present that I did offer it as humorous
  18. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    _It seems that _Dath _B takes the term "survival of the fittest" to mean something which it doesn't.

    A shark is used as an example. Is that because you can't use bipeds or other advanced intelligence creatures such as dolphins, whales, felines, bunnies, prairie dogs, or canines as an example? Your pathetic little attempt to confuse the issue that morality could have come from non-theistic natural occurences is not missed, mind you.

    Evolution has brought the maternal instinct, pair-bonding for life, hunter-gathering sharing structures, nurturing roles, joining with others of the same species to obtain common goals, and numerous other moral ideas in an effort to produce the greatest possibility for survival of the species.

    Yet you think that making a comment about a mean old shark has proved your point. It doesn't.

    Your question 'where could morality come from if not from God' has been answered... Nature.
  19. Wylding

    Wylding Jedi Master star 5

    Aug 13, 2000
    Your question 'where could morality come from if not from God' has been answered... Nature.

    Ahh but who created nature?
  20. Mister_Bunny

    Mister_Bunny Jedi Youngling star 3

    Apr 5, 2001
    So we agree that is wasn't just the Bible.
  21. Wylding

    Wylding Jedi Master star 5

    Aug 13, 2000
    I'm not sure I understand your sentence, but I agree that God reveals himself in whatever manner is pleasing to Him.
  22. Chris2

    Chris2 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Oct 11, 1998
    <<WW II was not a religious war>>

    Actually, a lot of Hitler's motivation came from his occult beliefs and old German pagan myth. In fact myth was part of his propoganda machine. Although he might have been a Catholic, he was not practicing it.
  23. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    Mr. Bunny,

    For me to go any further would be redundant.

    What I pointed out was the intrinsic way the universe functions, and it entirely bespeaks order.

    I used Darwinism in it's philosophical implications.

    I wrote in a short and concise fashion touching on points only far enough that you would begin to contemplate them.

    I'm not here to write a book.

    Quite simply we know that everything created exhibits the tendencies/characteristics of it's source/forbear.

    The universe is supremely orderly, not chaotic. That bespeaks an order necessary for it's creation. Order is not random.

    Evolution would have to exhibit love for it to exist in us. A strictly material universe could not do that. Again, this points again precisely to a Creator.

    The universe is not infintily old. I could go into arguments inolving Thomas Aquinas 'uncaused cause'.

    Let me close by reiterating the most important thing I said.

    I met Christ.

    I am a living witness that He is real.

    God is necessary. And, the only hope.

    If there were the possibility there is no God, why even value your life?
    It would do no good.

    An atheist said that the only importance of atheism is it's "intellectual honesty."

    I've shown the innate dishonesty in that statement.

    My only obligation was to support my initial statements regarding atheism and morality which I have done.

    Below I'll post the notes for what was going to be rebut to Dark-Side. It is an adequate summation, and precisely supports my first post.

  24. cydonia

    cydonia Jedi Knight star 5

    Jun 6, 2001
    If there were the possibility there is no God, why even value your life?

  25. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Sep 27, 2000
    (Mr. Bunny,
    This is unfinished, and I only added in a quick bit on Sarte just say where I was taking his example.
    This aptly concludes my point that atheism has no morality, which was the topic.)

    For Dark-Side,

    You wanted a debate. Here it is:

    According to the Law Of Non Contridiction( or Law of Contridiction, whichever you prefer to call it)...

    You intrinsically lost your debate back in your very first post. you immediately disqualified yourself just coming in the door it seems.

    There's your debate.

    Of course, I don't expect you to admit it, but let's test your integrity and your philosophical accumen: Do you know why?

    Firstly, I don't have to prove God to overturn the idea of atheist morals. For arguements sake, it may be that both theism and atheism are irrational-but I'm not going to go there, as I really don't think it can go anywhere. Just a fun idea, for the extreme non committalists in the crowd, huh?

    Secondly, your arguement presupposes my lack of ethics by adhering to my ethics, yet you don't conclusively prove this anywhere at all. In fact, nowhere did you begin to address the subject. It's contridictory anyway.

    Thirdly, how can you begin to defend your assertion that atheists are moral when they have no set standard morality?

    You've stated that atheism is not a philosophy, yet you also contested that atheism is moral.

    So, which is it?(However, that contridiction is made.)

    Is it not a philosophy or is it a philosophy with attached moral tenets? You've vacillated on that, which suggests you don't know what you believe.

    If atheism presents no ethical code, then for an adherent of atheism to have morality it is a borrowed morality apart from atheism. Thus, atheism is not moral, and thus it is fair to say from that perspective an atheist proper is not moral.


    Any morality would come from another philosophy.

    Then, there is the contridiction of my using a Straw Man, which you contridictorially did yourself in a couple of assumptive instances.

    First is your version of Straw Man Christianity, which misrepresents Hitler and Christianity.

    A next problem your Straw Man example has is that it is static, while Christianity is developmental morally and morally developmental; whereas atheism is not.

    You assume Christianity is static probably because atheism is philosophically, lifelessly static. To whit, your moral character doesn't improve because of atheism.

    IF, the theist is right, then again an atheist is not possibly philosophically ethical at all. The greatest crime then becomes the attack upon the Holy, a benevolence acting in the transcendentally best interest of humanity.

    Let's look at atheism as presented by one of the Hall of Famer's Jean Paul Sarte.

    Sarte pragmatically understood the difficulty in rationally attempting to deduce, or infuse, morality into atheism.

    His philosophical concept had to deduce that we live in an absurd universe, nevertheless, you try to authenticate yourself by an act of will.

    It doesn't really matter which direction you act as long as you act.
    for example, if you help someone cross the street safely, you have "autheticated" yourself." If you, instead, beat the person over the head, you have "authenticated yourself." The content is unimportant.

    (Here I intended to point out the pertinent details in Sarte signing the Algerian Manifesto, in a very determinently moral stance. Sarte lost his respect from his contemporaries because of those actions, making his whole philosophy a lie. You see he took a moral stance, although his atheistic philosophies were written regarding th impossibility of true ethics in a godless universe.)

    Why would one adhere to atheism? Why would one adhere to Christianity?
    What are the benefits.

    You presented the sole benefit of atheism as "intellectual honesty"/truth.

    That's it. That's all there is. But the problem is your assertion just disqualified your p
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.