U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2011, 03:25 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,434,542 times
Reputation: 106

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Would you be willing to elaborate on why this does not represent arbitrary and capricious behavior, without resorting to an a priori assumption that God's actions are by definition good?
Sure, I'm willing to elaborate. BTW, I don't believe that God is good due to some a priori assumption. I believe it to be revealed as such in scripture and therefore logical to accept as true...and no, this doesn't mean that I'm applying circular reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
excerpt<One example of this is the contrast between the story of Moses and Jonah. In the case of Jonah, God sends a prophet in his name to condemn the city, and then makes a liar of his own prophet, in order to show mercy to a repentant people. The same god, in the story of Moses, artificially forces Pharaoh to 'harden his heart', in order that he can heap repeated punishment on a repentant man. The only way to reconcile this behavior is the old canard, "God's ways are higher than our ways" or "We'll understand when we get to heaven".>excerpt
My understanding is that Jonah was sent to warn the people of Nineveh to repent or face destruction. When they repented, God withheld the destruction order. How would this equate to God making a liar out of his own prophet?

In the case of Pharaoh, God determined to hand him over to his own evil desires. Pharaoh chose to harden his heart and God determined to go the Burger King route and allow him to have it his way.

I also do happen to believe what scripture informs us about God's ways being higher than ours. If God is truly the God that is described, it only makes sense.

I don't know whether or not we will eventually understand all things that are currently a mystery when we get to heaven. As far as I know, the Bible states no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
My point was not about death, but about killing. Based of your position above murder is never wrong, because God ordained someone's death and by killing them, you are merely acting as God's instrument. This directly contradicts the 10 commandments.
With respect to us humans, there is a distinct difference between killing and murder. The Bible confirms that there indeed is "a time to kill." Murder is always and absolutely wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
My point was that God commanded the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Would it be right for the US to indiscriminately butcher the entire population of Baghdad? Is it morally right for God to command his people to do the same thing? This appears to be a giant intrusion of relativity, namely that certain behaviors are wrong unless God says they are right in a particular instance. This in itself makes a morality of this sort non-absolute.
If God commands it, then God is simply exercising his sovereign will with respect to the decision about WHEN and HOW to end the life of certain group of people. As stated, everyone dies. Does that logically mean that God murders everyone?

If we, as a nation, take it upon ourselves to arbitrarily butcher the inhabitants of a city, it would be wrong and would equate to nothing less than mass murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Logically there is NOT a difference. Rape happens when a woman is forced in any way. These women and girls were kidnapped, and forced into 'Marriages' that are little better than slavery by a foreign nation. They didn't get a choice. A couple years ago there was a high profile case where a man and his wife had abducted a girl and kept her in a shed for 16 years, fathering a child on her. This is almost exactly what the bible is describing, except in the biblical example the girl would have never been set free and her family would have been killed before she was taken captive. If you honestly want to justify this sort of behavior, then while you may be a consistent moral absolutist, you are also a very frighting person. I would rather believe you to be inconsistent in your beliefs than the alternative.
Honestly, I think you're making a totally absurd equation here. I suppose we must probably agree to disagree on this.

Do you have any other supposed Biblical examples of God commanding people to commit rape?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Again, I understand your point, but I did not choose examples that were clearly condemned by God. The first two can be quibbled about. They were not specifically commanded by God, but were praised as acts of heroism in scripture, which is supposed to be inspired.

Elijah is pretty clear. The prophets were how God spoke to the people. Elijah ordered the murder of at least 450 people. The assumption is that this was sanctioned by God.
Yes, that's your assumption. Why should it be my assumption? Was Elijah acting under the impulse of the Holy Spirit? Did God audibly give him the command? You tell me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
If this is not what you believe, could you clarify this? Was Elijah morally correct in his killing of 450 people? Is he guilty of 450 counts of murder, or incitement to commit murder?
My opinion is that he most probably was acting under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God. In other words, God, in his sovereignty determined the HOW and the WHEN with respect to ending the life span of the prophets of baal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I do distinguish between death and murder, and am not arguing that all death is murder to be laid at the feet of God. I am arguing that God should be held responsible if he commands someone to kill someone else. I also believe that if God allows his people, specifically prophets whom he holds to a very high standard, to misrepresent him or to kill in his name without censure, then he is also responsible.
Again, if everyone dies, and God sovereignly predetermines our life spans, the only questions left would have to do with HOW. Logically, God cannot murder anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Ultimately, I don't base my judgments on what someone else believes. Other people are not required to share my morality. I will however base my moral judgments of their actions on my moral outlook. Everyone does this, including you. The difference is I do not have the arrogance to believe that my moral outlook is the unimpeachable pinnacle of morality, handed down from heaven, unchanging and eternal. The best we as human beings can do is to try to come to some common understanding that allows us to function with others who hold differing views with a minimum of violence. Sometimes conflict is unavoidable, most of the time it is not.
If God exists, and the Bible is true, how would it be "arrogant" to merely ascent to what it is that is true? If the Bible asserts Christianity as true, in what way would it be "arrogant" for anyone to merely echo what the Bible asserts? Truth is by definition exclusory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I am not referring to how people live their lives, I am referring to the fact that most proponents of revealed absolute morality seem to interpret morality as any thing but absolute when it conflicts with some other portion of their dogma. There is no internal consistency.
...and in what way would such inconsistencies negate the EXISTENCE of an objective moral prohibition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Don't need 'em. In Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which is supposed to be God's law, directly revealed from God to Moses, it demands death by stoning for a disobedient child. Either God approved of this as a morally appropriate response to disobedience, God said it but didn't mean it, or Moses lied. If God's morality is tied to his nature, which is unchanging, then if it was morally acceptable then, it is acceptable now. Maybe not commanded, since Christians believe themselves freed form the law, but still morally acceptable.
This doesn't exclude the possibility that God gave the command knowing that people would exercise their limited freewill by ignoring the edict. Still, even if the edict were carried out, we're right back to what I've already explained with respect to God's sovereignty in determining the life span of his creatures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I do understand the idea that the bible records much that it does not condone. I am not trying to say otherwise. But God specifically details laws pertaining to the taking and keeping of slaves all throughout Deuteronomy and Leviticus. If God did not approve of slavery, why did he not forbid it, in the same way he forbid murder or idolatry? This is not the mere recording of something that is evil, this is supposed to be God's literal instruction on what is proper and right, and slavery is very specifically and clearly permitted.
Why does God allow ANY evil? If there is no God, how does one go about determining anything to be evil?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
The same thing here. There are instructons in Deuteronomy on how to manage inheritance in a multi-wife household. There are also no restrictions on current marital status when forcing captured female slaves to become wives, i.e. no mention that only single guys have this option. If this was immoral, why would God specifically make provisions for it?
Again, why does God allow for any evil? Why should we be so arrogant as to presume that God owes us an explanation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I would be interested in hearing from you why the moral principles embodies in the OT law are not still applicable to NT Christians. I do understand that Christians are freed from the law, because Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the requirements of the law. It is the principles that I am interested in, not the specific implementations of the laws themselves.
The short answer has to do with the situation where gentiles were becoming converts to Christianity and the debate over whether or not the Hebrew Laws should be applied. Christians are therefore logically not required to hold to all the laws contained in the Pentateuch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
My point is that those two statements are so nebulous as to allow almost any behavior to be qualified as moral. I guess it excludes atheists and polytheists on the basis of the first commandment, but if I strictly interpret it, the Spanish Inquisition was moral, because they could claim to have met the first requirement, and if they believe that they were saving one's immortal soul by forcing a confession through torture, they are actually doing the highest service possible to their fellow man. I don't think you mean this, but unless there is more to it than just these two commandments, this is where you get.
From my perspective, it simply means that they we're beguiled into thinking that they were savings souls. In actuality, their conduct was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I am not sure where you are going with this, as my contention was that modern Christian doctrine condemns these actions (with which you agreed), not that Christians are being asked to condemn them.

Regardless, my point is that polygamy is not condemned in scripture, with possibly the exception of the requirement that a deacon have only one wife. Yet even though it is clearly biblical, modern Christianity condemns any non-monogamous relationship...
Jesus states that from the beginning God's plan was one man and one woman. This strikes me as a prohibition against polygamy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
...As far as homosexuality, in Leviticus 20:13 God laid out the death penalty for homosexuality. I do understand that there is no command in the NT for Christians to support violence against homosexuals. This was never my contention.

My point was that the modern Christian position of both polygamy and homosexuality as morally wrong cannot be derived from the two commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might and love your neighbor as yourself. If these are the ultimate statement of morality, then it appears that neither of these would be morally wrong. Only if you add in not only the rest of scripture, but historical interpretations of that scripture, can you build the modern Christian interpretation of morality.
If you love God and your wife you will not engage in polygamy. If you love God and your neighbor you will not condemn your neighbor for committing sinful acts (homosexuality) realizing of course that we are all sinners. As well, if we love God, we will do everything we can to avoid such behavior and discourage others from engaging in such behavior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2011, 06:26 PM
 
56 posts, read 89,838 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Gaa gaa goo goo...
Is that all you've got?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 09:18 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,253,561 times
Reputation: 1317
tigetmax24,
These posts are getting a bit unwieldy, so I am going to try to condense and consolidate a bit in my response. If you feel like I have taken something out of context or missed something important that you were saying, please speak up. I don't want to unintentionally struggle with a strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Sure, I'm willing to elaborate. BTW, I don't believe that God is good due to some a priori assumption. I believe it to be revealed as such in scripture and therefore logical to accept as true...and no, this doesn't mean that I'm applying circular reasoning.
To believe scripture, you first must believe that it is inspired by God. This means that it says exactly what God wants it to say. Second, you have to believe in the goodness of God. You are trusting that He did not lie to you in the Bible. In order to use the Bible to prove God's innate goodness you must trust that the Bible is not a lie, which presumes God's goodness. You can't assume what you are trying to prove.

My point here is that without some other assumption, regardless of the basis, you cannot reconcile God's actions as recorded in scripture. This is precisely what makes Christianity a faith. At some point you just have to accept a set of assumptions with no real evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
My understanding is that Jonah was sent to warn the people of Nineveh to repent or face destruction. When they repented, God withheld the destruction order. How would this equate to God making a liar out of his own prophet?

In the case of Pharaoh, God determined to hand him over to his own evil desires. Pharaoh chose to harden his heart and God determined to go the Burger King route and allow him to have it his way.
I understand this is a traditional interpretation of these stories, at least for certain schools of theology, but it is not supported by the text.

Jonah 1:1-2
1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
Jonah 3:1-4
1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.” 3 Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.”

Nowhere in the text is Jonah commanded to preach repentance, only judgment. In fact Jonah is angry that God made a liar of him. God changed his mind and Jonah resented it.

If we move to Moses and Pharaoh...

Exodus 9:12
12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.
Exodus 10:1-2,16-20,27
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.”
16 Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. 17 Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me.”
18 Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the LORD. 19 And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea.[b] Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt. 20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go.

Exodus 14:8
8 The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly. 9

In several of these places, your inerrant word of God states that Pharaoh repented and recognized his sin, and God intentionally forced him out of repentance just so he could display his strength.

In one instance God is willing to suspend his judgment, even though he did not call for repentance, and in the other God intentionally tortured a nation, killing innocent children to flex his muscles. If this is not capricious and arbitrary, I don't know what is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
With respect to us humans, there is a distinct difference between killing and murder. The Bible confirms that there indeed is "a time to kill." Murder is always and absolutely wrong.
Does the bible define exactly when killing is murder and when it is not? Where can I find this distinction in scripture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Honestly, I think you're making a totally absurd equation here. I suppose we must probably agree to disagree on this.
To be honest, I would love to get further into this one, but I think it is going to have to be in a separate post. This one is getting unmanageably big. This is actually one of the things that frighten me the most about Christians being involved in any public policy. The fact that you could excuse this behavior with a straight face and a clear conscience is truly terrifying. This is why one of my major complaints about religion is that is makes good people endorse and practice horrific behavior. If you are willing to dig into this further, let me know and I'll start a new thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Yes, that's your assumption. Why should it be my assumption? Was Elijah acting under the impulse of the Holy Spirit? Did God audibly give him the command? You tell me.

My opinion is that he most probably was acting under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God. In other words, God, in his sovereignty determined the HOW and the WHEN with respect to ending the life span of the prophets of baal.
So God made Elijah a murderer, but its ok because God said to... Is there any way to objectively validate these claims? For instance, you don't want to assume the Inquisition was initiated by the Holy Spirit, even though the practitioners would have claimed to be doing the will of God? What I was taught was that if someone claims that God told them to do something that was inconsistent with the moral principles in the Bible, it was not the Holy Spirit. However you have admitted that murder is not inconsistent with God's morality, so how does one know which murders are right and which are wrong? Worse yet, it appears that you want to say that I have to trust your judgment about which murders are Godly and which are not, since as a non-Christian, the Holy Spirit will not speak to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
This doesn't exclude the possibility that God gave the command knowing that people would exercise their limited freewill by ignoring the edict. Still, even if the edict were carried out, we're right back to what I've already explained with respect to God's sovereignty in determining the life span of his creatures.
This goes back to the original issue of assuming God is good. Would a good God command an immoral behavior, even if he knew people would disobey him? That comes awfully close to lying. Are Christians supposed to follow the moral principle of the law, namely that disobedience is a heinous crime worthy of death, or not?

You have kind of a repeated theme here regarding death and evil. I am not attempting to address the "problem of evil", that is an entirely separate issue. I am not concerned with why a good God allows evil to exist. I am also not concerned with God's sovereignty, merely his consistency.

I am concerned with why a good God, when giving divine instruction to his people on how to live morally, does not prohibit things that the modern Church believes to be immoral. Not only does he not prohibit them, he actively makes provision for them. Either God was personally endorsing behavior He condemned, the law was not given by God, God's standard of morality changed or modern Christianity is wrong to believe that these actions are immoral. Which is it?

I also don't dispute that in your worldview God has absolute authority over who lives and who dies. If God wanted to strike down an entire nation, or certain competitor's prophets, so be it. But by committing these acts through people, whom he has commanded NOT to do these things, He destroys the absolute nature of the morality He is imposing. Morality is no longer absolute, but subject to the whim of an unquestionable dictator. The 10 commandments should say, "Thou shalt not murder, unless I tell you to." Which seems not very absolute to me...


Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Christians are therefore logically not required to hold to all the laws contained in the Pentateuch.
I understand what you are saying about the law. My point is just because the Mosiac Law is not in force for Christians, the principles behind those laws concerning what is moral and immoral behavior should still hold true. I understand that there appears to be no great moral truth behind the command not to boil a kid in its mothers milk, but the prohibitions against homosexuality appear to be interpreted as representation of an underlying moral principle: homosexuality is wrong. My contention is that if God's morality is absolute, all the underlying principles expressed in the Mosaic Law must still hold. This is why modern Christianity does not believe homosexuals must be executed, but that homosexuality is still morally wrong.

The last piece of your post circles back to the 2 commandment idea again. My contention is still that without extra support, those two commandments cannot be used as an absolute morality that condemns polygamy or homosexuality. The reason is that without specifying exactly which concept of God you are to love (which requires the entire Bible, and generally a mountain of commentaries to boot...) there is nothing related to either of these issues. There are members of the Metro Community Church, practitioners of Islam, and Mormons who may fulfill these two commandments as written, and yet you would still condemn the as being outside of Gods absolute moral law. This goes back to my contention that even if there is an absolute revealed morality, it certainly cannot be logically inferred from only the two commands that Jesus mentioned.

Lastly I want to address this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
If God exists, and the Bible is true, how would it be "arrogant" to merely ascent to what it is that is true?
If the existence of God and the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible were to be objectively, logically, and empirically proven, then it would not be arrogant to assert its truth.
Until such proof exists, it is arrogant to assume that your one specific understanding of one specific denomination of one specific religion is the absolute truth, and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

On a side note, would it be possible to split this into a couple of discussions? These posts are huge. Maybe we could split the discussion into something like these:
"Does Christianity define a logically consistent absolute morality?"
"Can an objective morality be defined by 'love the Lord your God.. and love your neighbor as yourself', and what would it look like?"
"Can a good God command evil actions and still be considered good?"
"Can a non-believer understand Christian morality, or must he simply take Christian's word about what is moral or not?"
Just trying to control the massive post sizes...

NoCapo

Last edited by NoCapo; 10-23-2011 at 09:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 10:59 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,733,662 times
Reputation: 1770
First, in regards to the varying cosmological models. As I've said, I don't know which, if any, of the theories of cosmology are true. There are some that posit an infinite universe, and some that don't. I'm only discussing ones which include the Big Bang, which seems fairly well established at this point.

So I admit I was a bit puzzled when you said things like:
Quote:
Is there ANY scientific reason to presume the universe has always existed? Is there ANY logical reason to presume that the universe has always existed?
And now when you say:
Quote:
Without doubt, there is consensus as it concerns the universe having a beginning. Also, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirms that it will eventually have an end. Contingent. Beginning and ending. Sorry, this just doesn't seem to square with the notion of an eternally existing universe.
Obviously there is not a consensus. While the cyclical theory is new, (at least this version of it,) there are well respected scientist in leading institutions who maintain it is correct. It is growing in support.

To me there obviously are scientific reasons to presume the universe always existed, and logical reasons as well. I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that was well understood. At any rate, neither I nor Hawking's nor anyone else has certain proof regarding which is the correct model, and I personally don't have a belief about which is correct.

From your writings, you claim to be able to read my mind and have determined I am not keeping an open mind on the subject. Even after I explained that I don't know which of the models is correct, you demanded more reasons to explain why I don't think the universe must have had a begining. Do you want me to explain to you what the Cyclical model is? Surely, you can google that on your own. Do you want me to describe the underlying basis for why we believe the Big Bang and the Big Crunch is possible? Surely you can google that as well.

I'm going to completely honest with you here. I don't plan on spending the time and effort necessary to reduce the logic behind the Cyclical model to a log post for you. If you want to know more, you are going to have to do some of the heavy lifting yourself. If you have a reason to believe the cyclical model, published in both science and nature magazine, is unreasonable, then lay out your reasoning for me. Because I don't plan on waisting the time explaining the theories to you.


To the First Cause argument. There is no logical reason to believe that the necessity of a "cause" is determined by our ability to observe a phenomena. Whether or not you describe it as an "effect," it either exists or it doesn't exist. Things that exist either require a cause or they don't, and that is not dependent on our ability to observe them.

Accordingly, unless you can demonstrate the logic behind requiring causes for things that exist that we can observe, but not for things that exist that we can not observe, I maintain the position that the first cause and the universe are on equal footing. Either both required a primary cause, (making the argument incoherent) or neither required a primary cause, (making the primary cause unnecessary.) A special pleading based on observability has no basis in logic.


To your Nazi Example, and I'm running out of time here:
As stated previously, I am a weak rule based utilitarian, not an act based utilitarian. Accordingly, as logic would tell you, that would not be considered moral.

Theist Morality:

Recall, this is what we agreed to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
BASIC theism: Monotheism and belief that this God has communicated a moral code. The purposeful PRACTICAL APPLICATION of this code in decision making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
IF GOD exists, and IF GOD has communicated a moral code, then, logically, we have established the existence of moral absolutes.

The only way I see that this can be logically refuted is for you to make the case that belief in the existence of God and the Ten Commandments is unreasonable. Why should anyone believe that God doesn't exist and that the Ten Commandments did not come from God?
But now it appears you are retreating from that position:

Quote:
There is a distinct difference between a rule and a principle. Principles will always apply in all circumstances while rules may or may not apply in some instances. The objective law, as it applies to principles, always applies at all times.
From your discussion with NoCapo, you no longer claim to believe that the 10 commandments are moral absolutes.


So do you still claim the 10 commandments morally absolute commands or not?

If the answer is no, not all of the 10 commandments are moral absolutes, then by your own definition you have failed. You explicitly listed them as part of God's moral code, and now you are admitting that they are not all moral absolutes.

If it is yes, the 10 commandments are absolute, then I would like further explaination of which principles are absolute, which are not, and why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,733,662 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
My intention was to limit this to BASIC monotheism. Common elements in my view would basically encompass the Ten Commandments as a fixed common code of moral absolutes.

Perhaps if I present my view of the definition of moral relativity it might help to clarify things. Moral relativity would fall into line with the those who deny the existence of absolute truth and morality. In other words, that truth and morality are reduced to personal preference. Hence the saying: 'What's true and moral for you, is true and moral for you and whats true and moral for me is true and moral for me.' Relativity denies the existence of any a priori absolutes.

Basic theism does not deny the existence of moral absolutes. I would suggest that it does quite the opposite.



I just want to be sure I'm following you. Have you abondon the position that the 10 Commandments are a fixed common code of moral absolutes?

If so, by your definitions of the words, I think that part of the discussion is concluded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2011, 07:38 PM
 
68 posts, read 93,260 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
What evidence, arguments, data or reasons are there to support the idea of atheism?

Is atheism logically coherent?
Since there has never been any logically verifiable proof that any of the gods actually exist, I would have to say that atheism is quite logically coherent, theism is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 04:18 AM
 
39,213 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTRhodes View Post
Since there has never been any logically verifiable proof that any of the gods actually exist, I would have to say that atheism is quite logically coherent, theism is not.
I think that sums it up. Atheism is simply logically justified by not believing in a god until such good evidence is presented that it would be illogical not to believe. This theists have utterly failed to do this and can only make their case by demanding that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove or disprove something. Logically it isn't and therefore the atheist position is logically sound.

The theist position on the other hand claims that 'god' is not only feasible and credible but is a pretty proven fact; since if it wasn't, believing in it, praying to it and worshipping it is not only illogical but pretty idiotic.

This is so simple a logical position that I can only wonder why theists insist on banging away at this 'logic' argument. I am sure it is based on 'Faith' and this idea that 'god' it be taken as a valid belief which doubters and skeptics need to disprove (beyond any possible doubt, rather than 'reasonable' as it usually turns out) in order to make it a logically valid stance.

With such a logically false starting position, any rational debate with theists is doomed. Even if they argue according to the rules of logical debate, which none that I can recall do, even those who I consider 'reasonable' theists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 04:39 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,812,220 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Quote:
The theist position on the other hand claims that 'god' is not only feasible and credible but is a pretty proven fact; since if it wasn't, believing in it, praying to it and worshipping it is not only illogical but pretty idiotic.
Be that as it may, logic is not all important.
If it was I would then have to agree with Hitler that exterminating all the (German) Jews to create more 'Lebensraum' would be the perfect logical solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 06:08 AM
 
39,213 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA Be that as it may, logic is not all important.
If it was I would then have to agree with Hitler that exterminating all the (German) Jews to create more 'Lebensraum' would be the perfect logical solution.
You are right. Logic and indeed science is a mental tool used to ensure that the information and data we get are reliable and soundly - based (Nazi aryan theory and the 'eternal jew' rubbish were not). That's all it does. I don't believe it can ever replace human preferences such as art, music, compassion, love, altruism and curiosity which we deem to be 'positive'. That's not to say that logic and science can't be used to address questions and find out where these preferences come from and indeed, should be. But the positive human preferences override, every time, because the moral and social and perhaps instinctive concensus is that we think they should.

All I say is that using any of that as support for god- theory is not logical, scientific or valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 07:58 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,812,220 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Quote:
All I say is that using any of that as support for god- theory is not logical, scientific or valid.
The same could be said of art; that art is illogical, unscientific and invalid.
But I get what you're saying.

FYI I believe that only commercial art is supported by (economic) logic.
Then again, I don't consider commercial art as true art.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top