Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it helps, I sometimes thing of god, not as a supernatural being, but simply as an earthly dictator, running a totalitarian country prompted only by his need for adulation and absolute control. Even down to his subjects' thoughts.
But that is an erroneous interpretation and depiction. God is a parent and we are children . . . not subjects or slaves or pets. We are supposed to grow into adulthood with the capability to direct our own behavior and attitudes. The whole worship and adulation thing is of human origin and bogus.
Quote:
if we don't follow our innate sense of what is right or wrong - we fail ourselves totally - it's our only reliable guide to morality and integrity at the end of the day. And It comes from within us, and not from a vague somewhere on high...
Brian.
It seems that there really is no disagreement except for the attribution to the Source of this innate sense of right and wrong . . . your indifferent and impersonal Nature (God) or an (also probably perfectly natural and not supernatural) Intelligent Creator (God).
I don't see how murder is not wrong, even if God does it. I guess all the district attorneys in the country are megalomaniacs.
The point is that these atrocities in the bible are evidence against an all-loving god, which the bible also professes that he is.
In order to make that claim, or disavow the claim, of an all-loving God we need to understand what we are talking about by all loving. You have to start with God (albeit you disbelieve in His existence) and not man as the center of the universe. So tell me, how would you define all-loving?
Troop,
Yes, I'm aware of the forum I am in and that I did so intentionally. And I haven't regreted one minute of the time I have spent thinking about posts like yours and others that are very challenging to my worldview; getting to the bottom of issues and trying to understand things from a point of view different from my own.
Maybe you could expand on this statement... I am using that which is innately given to us free of deities and celestial harbingers to argue against the morality of this "perfect" God...
How could something like morality be innate? If you say 'given' to us, are you not implying a giver?
I may seem to be double minded in my explainations of morality. I have thought that I have sounded double minded, anyway, and I want to give a mroe complete explaination of what I mean. I do believe morality is innate in humans; that it is a sort of written code on the heart, or the conscience. But because of the disjointed relationship man now has with God, he sets aside this standard if and when he pleases, to suit his own purposes at any given time. Or in fewer words, we are free to transgress this innate law, which accounts for the depravity and lostness of the world. In extreme circumstances, we see a complete devoid of conscience, which is very dangerous.
I don't see how the atheistic worldview adequately explains the human experience. You base your judgments of what is right on intellect, reason, survival of the species, and what the majority deems as being good (let me know if there are other things you base your moral judgments on, this is just what I have heard fomr this forum). But some of the smartest people are the vilest, survival of the species may explain the pragmatic use of morality, but it also explains eugenics and holocaust, and we have seen the results of defining morality given into the hands of the majority. Why would we think the future of humans would be differnent than the past in regards of morality. Human depravity is one of the most vehemently scorned topics, but also the most empirically verifiable. We think things might be getting better depsite all evidence to the contrary. The century after God 'died' became the bloodiest century in recorded history.
I know this is not enough in itself to validate a belief in God - just because of the consequences of living without him. That thinking is an opiate for the masses, I think. What I am saying is, there is doubt on either side of this topic (theism, atheism) and taken together with the historicity of the bible, the holes in the explanatory power of naturalistic evolution, the claims of christ, the reality of human suffering, the semi-trancendence of man and the moral law within, I believe it is enough to give the idea of the christian God a serious look.
In response to your last paragraph, I think it would be wise to not discredit other's for speaking with certainty based on belief when you are forced, by nature of your worldview, to do the same.
I don't see anything in this person's quote about primitive interpretations. I guess if you consider the bible primitive, which I do. All you have to do is read the bible to find that "God" is a vengeful, unjust, prejudice, violent deity. Just because some parts of the bible say he is good and kind does not make the other parts not exist.
Did you just say the bible is not the word of god?
And I totally agree that if some parts say he is "a vengeful, unjust, prejudice, violent deity" and other parts "say he is good and kind" it "does not make the other parts not exist." Thank you for backing up my point that the bible is contradictory.
In order to make that claim, or disavow the claim, of an all-loving God we need to understand what we are talking about by all loving. You have to start with God (albeit you disbelieve in His existence) and not man as the center of the universe. So tell me, how would you define all-loving?
Well I may not be able to exactly define "all-loving" but I don't see how it can be wrong to rule out 'murderous, vengeful, prejudiced and violent' as part of that definition.
Maybe you could expand on this statement... I am using that which is innately given to us free of deities and celestial harbingers to argue against the morality of this "perfect" God...
How could something like morality be innate? If you say 'given' to us, are you not implying a giver?
No, I am not referring to a "giver" when I speak of innate. I am talking about the fact that what we perceive as moral actions, or the way we interact with our fellow human beings is the way that our species has survived and will hopefully continue to survive. What I am more or less referring to is what we might consider moral reciprocity. The "you scratch my back, I'll shave yours" mentality, if you will. One of the things that made Jane Goodall so famous aside from her utter devotion to her work in studying apes, was shedding light on the fact that they do use a form of moral reciprocity to help one another. They also clearly feel sadness at the death of relatives and "loved ones" and they're very often seen picking bugs off one another's fur. These forms of actions and emotions may perhaps be somewhat primitive to all of the vast encounters we humans can come up with to morally reciprocate but it shows that there is an evolutionary drive in some species to help one another out.
So, by "giver" I am referring more to our genetic predispositions as individuals as well as a species rather than I am some sort of "law-giver" that exists in the supernatural world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant
I do believe morality is innate in humans; that it is a sort of written code on the heart, or the conscience. But because of the disjointed relationship man now has with God, he sets aside this standard if and when he pleases, to suit his own purposes at any given time. Or in fewer words, we are free to transgress this innate law, which accounts for the depravity and lostness of the world. In extreme circumstances, we see a complete devoid of conscience, which is very dangerous.
Right, but here's the problem: You believe that this moral code is an innate sense of morals given to us by a God. I couldn't quite possibly imagine that as I don't believe there is a God that exists anyway. Furthermore, I have to say, that it's almost downright irritating when some people insinuate that I or anyone else would not know whether it was right or wrong to murder someone if there were no such thing as God. I find that to be an entirely unfair accusation and although I know you don't mean it that way, the jest is that God gives morals and without them we wouldn't know morals if they struck us in the face - up to and including murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant
I don't see how the atheistic worldview adequately explains the human experience. You base your judgments of what is right on intellect, reason, survival of the species, and what the majority deems as being good (let me know if there are other things you base your moral judgments on, this is just what I have heard fomr this forum).
A couple of points. There is no "Atheistic Worldview". I don't have a set of codes with other Atheists that dictates what we all find to be moral or immoral. Some Atheists have problems with certain things while others do not. Some Atheists may commit crimes, others may not, but I can't honestly say that there's some sort of "worldview" that predicates what we all should find as morally right or wrong.
Therefore, it is up to each individual to make those decisions based on their life experiences and interactions with others to determine what they think is right and wrong. Will some people stray from what most consider to be moral? Sure. They most certainly will. They're human beings. I think that any person - whether they be Atheist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc... is capable of bad things as well as good things.
However, what I think most Atheists are absolutely sick and tired of is that religion offers a way to allow people to inject those decisions of morality that any Atheist makes and then say that they believe this is what their God wants. That's where I have a major disconnect with belief in God. Because if we dive into the realm of saying that there is a divine law-giver, that your opinion on that law-giver cannot be questioned and must be respected, then it paves the way for people to say "This is what my God wants of me!" and no matter how ridiculous and stupid things get, there is some sort of societal rule that says "You can't question that."
Well, I think that's ridiculous. I think religion and God should be questioned for that very reason. People want so badly to shift the blame from themselves and put their judgments and predilections of what sin is on some sort of unfalsifiable being that it voids any real logic.
Case in point:
Several weeks ago, on the Christianity forum, there was a thread talking about Harry Potter books and whether or not they were sinful. I fully suspect that if there is indeed a God out there somewhere that he/she could absolutely care less as to whether or not someone reads a book about a child witch. The mere notion to say that this is a "sin" is absolutely absurd beyond belief. Yet, for one reason or another, some people have been goaded through some twisted implications of their scripture to believe that Harry Potter is somehow implicated in the works of Satan.
But, you can't question it. You can't call them stupid or foolish because that's what they believe - and that's preposterous!
Rather, what it seems like to me, is that some people don't like Harry Potter for whatever reason. Maybe they thought the books sucked, maybe they just don't like magic... Who knows? But, ultimately, what they ended up doing is they took their dislike for whatever concept it was and they then applied it to their God and said "My God thinks that reading Harry Potter is a sin" and they say it with such matter-of-fact certainty as if they absolutely know for a fact that Harry Potter is some sort of Satanic figurehead. Do you see how absurd this gets?
But, that's a mild example. Earlier this week, there was another thread asking whether or not God started wildfires in California due to the gay marriage vote. I would really like to know... Is that a God worthy of worship? Really? Is that really something people would want to worship? Because I just don't see it.
What I have been trying to get at this whole time is that if the concept of God is that he/she is inherently "good" than who is determining what good or bad is? If we say something is "good" how do we know that it's "good" in the eyes of whatever God we believe in? What I feel is that we don't know at all. It's ridiculous to say we know.
Furthermore, what I can't stand is people who take a book written two-thousand years ago and apply it to modern day society and claim that it has all of the answers. Well, I don't ever remember reading the Bible and hearing about evolution, stem-cell research, gay marriage, Harry Potter, sex toys or any other modern day thing that people have called "sinful".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant
But some of the smartest people are the vilest, survival of the species may explain the pragmatic use of morality, but it also explains eugenics and holocaust, and we have seen the results of defining morality given into the hands of the majority. Why would we think the future of humans would be differnent than the past in regards of morality.
I agree that some of the smartest people can be some of the vilest. I also agree that Social Darwinism does not work in any context whatsoever. I sincerely hope you are not implying that I think Social Darwinism is a valid method of determining right and wrong.
As far as humans being different than the past. By and large, you will still have humans that are wonderful, you will have humans that are terrible, and you will have humans that are somewhere in between. But, I think that we are progressing in terms of our humanity despite the fact that there is still so much wrong with the world. The sheer number of well-accredited charity organizations in this world is certainly a sign of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant
Human depravity is one of the most vehemently scorned topics, but also the most empirically verifiable. We think things might be getting better depsite all evidence to the contrary. The century after God 'died' became the bloodiest century in recorded history.
Evidence to the contrary? I don't know... I'm not saying the world is a perfect place because I know that it's not. But, I look at history and I see a lot of things that we certainly don't do anymore and for reasons I am very thankful for. A few hundred years ago, if I said I didn't believe in God, I would probably be killed. A few hundred years ago, if you didn't believe in a Calvinistic, highly irrational and temperamental God, you may very well be punished to grotesque extremes. These things still do happen in some parts of the world (although I haven't heard of a crucifixion happening anywhere) but I would say that by and large there is more humane treatment of people than ever before in history.
Overall, I think that humanity is slowly progressing but it will be a very, very long time, if ever, before we reach a state in which we can all agree that the world is a pretty great place all around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant
I know this is not enough in itself to validate a belief in God - just because of the consequences of living without him. That thinking is an opiate for the masses, I think. What I am saying is, there is doubt on either side of this topic (theism, atheism) and taken together with the historicity of the bible, the holes in the explanatory power of naturalistic evolution, the claims of christ, the reality of human suffering, the semi-trancendence of man and the moral law within, I believe it is enough to give the idea of the christian God a serious look.
The validity of your argument took a serious turn for the worse when you talked about the "claims of the explanatory power of naturalistic evolution." In fact, I think you should do some education on the matter. Might I suggest The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I promise, it is one of the best books on the explanatory power of evolution that has ever hit the shelf.
Aside from that, I think your claims are rather bold to say that this is why I should look at the Christian God and I really hope you're saying this from your point of view and not telling me that these are things I should be taking into consideration. Because the claims of Christ were not much different than several hundred other people both before and after him, the reality of human suffering took place for well over a hundred thousand years before any sort of God allegedly revealed himself to the human race, the semi-transcendence of man does not default to supernaturalism regardless of whatever fanciful notions you may have, the moral law within has a rather good explanation due to the naturalistic powers of evolution, and simply put there is not a single shred of genuine evidence to suggest that a God, much less a very specific God exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tic_constant
In response to your last paragraph, I think it would be wise to not discredit other's for speaking with certainty based on belief when you are forced, by nature of your worldview, to do the same.
Well I may not be able to exactly define "all-loving" but I don't see how it can be wrong to rule out 'murderous, vengeful, prejudiced and violent' as part of that definition.
In another thread I posited that at least one aspect of love is doing what is best for the another person. Or working to give them ultimate joy for as long as possible. What do you think?
God being vengeful? Yes. Absolutely. "Vengence is mine", He says. Is vengence wrong when it is sought for the right reasons?
Murderous is a violation of the human right to life, given by God, the giver of life. It is God's prerogotive to give life and take it because it all belongs to him. It is not a human's to give or take. (This brings up the whole 'murder' in the OT, we can talk about it)
Prejudice means prejudging before you have adequate knowledge of the situation, which in God's case, doesn't exist. He has all knowledge.
Violent. Yes, I agree with that. The person he was the most violent with was his own son.
Is this just semantics? No, I don't think so. It's important to make distinctions like this. Gotta go, talk to you later.
tic
However, what I think most Atheists are absolutely sick and tired of is that religion offers a way to allow people to inject those decisions of morality that any Atheist makes and then say that they believe this is what their God wants. That's where I have a major disconnect with belief in God. Because if we dive into the realm of saying that there is a divine law-giver, that your opinion on that law-giver cannot be questioned and must be respected, then it paves the way for people to say "This is what my God wants of me!" and no matter how ridiculous and stupid things get, there is some sort of societal rule that says "You can't question that."
Well, I think that's ridiculous. I think religion and God should be questioned for that very reason. People want so badly to shift the blame from themselves and put their judgments and predilections of what sin is on some sort of unfalsifiable being that it voids any real logic.
. . .
Because the claims of Christ were not much different than several hundred other people both before and after him, the reality of human suffering took place for well over a hundred thousand years before any sort of God allegedly revealed himself to the human race, the semi-transcendence of man does not default to supernaturalism regardless of whatever fanciful notions you may have, the moral law within has a rather good explanation due to the naturalistic powers of evolution, and simply put there is not a single shred of genuine evidence to suggest that a God, much less a very specific God exists.
Troop . . . thanks for that heartfelt and sincere post (too long to quote it all) . . . it resonates and makes perfect sense. The problem really seems to be in the characteristics each human ascribes to the Source of the laws that govern our universe and the responsibility they believe each individual has.
Your Nature (indifferent and impersonal) is given only tangential ascendance (random mutation) over our physical existence and is only indirectly implicated (survival) in our eventual spiritual development. The myriad (often absurd and ridiculous) personal Gods are given complete transendance over everything . . . especially our spiritual development and fate . . . and unfortunately (as you decry) are used to impose views on others . . . frequently by force if necessary. The fact that such imposition negates the very personal responsibility and acceptance that is supposedly the source of the "salvation" advocated by these would-be dictators . . . is somehow overlooked or considered irrelevant.
In the end . . . there either is (or is not) a purpose for human life and we either successfully achieve it or fail (or there is only oblivion). It doesn't really matter (except to each individual) which situation obtains . . . so trying to impose our individual views on one another is hardly prudent.
why is the universe rule bound at all . . . if its origin was in chaos. Similarly . . . there are innate impulses within us all that can override the social constraints and consequences producing marvelous acts that defy explanation . . . how does such an organism born of indifference and chaos acquire such impulses?
The universe itself is of course bound by the laws of physics which I admit we don't fully grasp. Nevertheless we do see a certain order in nature that is observable and predictable such as the gravitational influence that causes our planet to orbit the sun and the chemical processes that occur at the molecular level and cause such mundane things as rust. However when we start talking about living organisms it becomes even more complex. While it's true that the beginnings of life itself were random and chaotic events a modern human being is the result of a lineage of countless generations that are very far removed from that chaos. Every living organism is the result of the accumulation of small favorable traits that have allowed it to survive while others perished and as a result we see a world that is filled with every conceivable type of plant and animal that has found a niche where it can survive. The incredible abilities of the human mind are no exception and it is the highly evolved functions of the brain that can produce the occasional Mozart or Einstein. I see no obstacle or contradiction in which a chaotic origin many millions of years ago of primitive life has branched out in countless directions and resulted in one particular species, human beings, whose mental and creative abilities are sometimes astounding.
In another thread I posited that at least one aspect of love is doing what is best for the another person. Or working to give them ultimate joy for as long as possible. What do you think?
God being vengeful? Yes. Absolutely. "Vengence is mine", He says. Is vengence wrong when it is sought for the right reasons?
Murderous is a violation of the human right to life, given by God, the giver of life. It is God's prerogotive to give life and take it because it all belongs to him. It is not a human's to give or take. (This brings up the whole 'murder' in the OT, we can talk about it)
Prejudice means prejudging before you have adequate knowledge of the situation, which in God's case, doesn't exist. He has all knowledge.
Violent. Yes, I agree with that. The person he was the most violent with was his own son.
Is this just semantics? No, I don't think so. It's important to make distinctions like this. Gotta go, talk to you later.
tic
If God is vengeful, that means he made mistakes and is trying to rectify them. An omnipotent omniscient God should have foreseen these things and done preventative management. After all, the world is as God made it.
Why does god give life if he's just going to take it away?
Replace "prejudice" with "genocide" in my post. God kills people in the bible simply because they are of certain descent. Why did he create them in the first place? Omniscience and omnipotence means he did it because he wanted to.
Why is violence necessary for an omnipotent being? Because he wants it that way, or else he would change the rules.
Why does God advocate slavery?
Why does God advocate sexism?
Why does God tease people by not giving them rational reasons to believe (e.g. evidence, the basis for why we believe we and the world exist in the first place) and then punish them for not believing? Because he wants to.
Is it loving to create a world that has suffering and blame it on the sufferers?
Is it loving to give your children free will without giving them the ability to deal with free will on a mature level?
God created everything. He made the rules. He created suffering. He caused innocent people to suffer. You say it's for the greater good, well he created the rules. He created the ends and the means to get there. So why do some innocent people have to endure suffering while some terrible people live carefree lives? The only answer is because he wants it that way. Omnipotence means he can make it happen any way he wants. Creating the rules to cause innocent people to suffer, whatever the outcome, is not loving.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
