Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 08-31-2004, 05:21 AM

Quote:

jtb: Evolution explains WHY my "moral sense" is better than that of the person you're considering: it aids my own survival and that of my children.

How do you know you ought to aid your own survival and that of your children? What if someone doesn't want children? You just have a strong feeling to survive and keep your children safe. Maybe this other person does not have this feeling. Also you have not demonstrated that having these feelings is "better" than not having them. Why is your survival good?

I have already explained this (several times...)

Ultimately, there is no "better". The Universe doesn't care. Evolution, however, fully explains WHY humans develop certain emotional preferences: those that tend to aid their own survival and the survival of the human species. This explains why WE care.

Quote:

jtb: Evolution and social conditioning easily explains this. Men who make a habit of going around raping women will get themselves killed. We evolved as social animals, and being antisocial is NOT a good survival/reproduction strategy.

Ed: But what if they don't get caught and killed, then is it alright?

jtb: For such a genetic predisposition to be truly successful, millions of generations of rapists would have to avoid being caught all the time. The killing of a single rapist (if it happens before he successfully reproduces) will extinguish all his potential descendants, ending his line.

So you think that if we kill all rapists before they have kids then we can eliminate rape from society? How does evolution tell you that you should help preserve human society? To evolution there is nothing special about humans, they are just another animal.

I'm saying that a genetic predisposition to rape wouldn't be a successful gene in human society: even if the congenital rapist managed to avoid getting killed, he would be imprisoned, ostracized, driven out, or whatever.

You haven't addressed the fact that Christian theism doesn't give any additional reasons to behave morally. Why should I care what God wants me to do? What reason is there, except fear of punishment and the benefits of being accepted by society?

Ed · 08-31-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: What does "composed of oughts" mean? According to Christian theologians, God simply HAS a specific "moral character". This doesn't give us a reason to obey God, however.

Ed: It means it is composed of moral principles, ie things that ought to be done. While evolution is not.

jtb: ANY list of laws or moral principles is a list of "things that ought to be done" or "things that ought not to be done". You have still not provided any new reason to actually do, or not do, these things.

The primary reason for a mature Christian to do these things is the love of God. Also for present and future rewards. For unbelievers and young Christians it is often fear of punishment in the present and in the future.

Quote:

Ed: No, we should obey God out of love for Him and also because that is the way to live the most fulfilling life in this temporal universe.

jtb: And we should obey society's rules out of love for our fellow humans and also because that is the way to live the most fulfilling life in this temporal universe: the life that evolution shaped us for.

Ed: But the problem is WHAT society? Nazi society? Soviet society? American society? And what rational objective basis do you have for judging which society is better? Also what life did evolution shape us for?

jtb: Note that Christianity doesn't say whether we should live in a democracy, a monarchy, a totalitarian theocracy, a communist state, or whatever. Apparently, the most "Biblically correct" society is a slave-owning totalitarian theocratic monarchy.

You are right it does not address specifically the structure of government. However it does address church government and many of the founding fathers of US patterned our government on biblical church government. As mentioned in the book of Acts, the leaders were chosen (elected) from among the men of the church to guide the church according to church law, ie a republic except with lifelong terms.

Quote:

jtb:Evolution shaped us, as social animals, to live in ANY society in which there are rules of acceptable behavior which allow us to "get along" with our fellow humans.

How come throughout most of human history in most societies people did not "get along"?

Quote:

jtb: Why should a sociopath CARE that "God created us"? Why does this provide a reason for a sociopath to obey God? It doesn't!

Ed: No, most humans want to live accordiing to what they think is an objectively rational basis in reality irrespective of what society teaches. And only Christian theism provides that.

jtb: Nonsense. Christian theism CLAIMS to provide that. So does virtually every OTHER religion.

But only Christianity has the strong evidence to back it up.

Quote:

Ed: As far as sociopaths, if it can be demontrated that there strong evidence for God then some of them may control their behavior in order not to go to hell.

jtb: We have already covered "fear of punishment", in case you'd forgotten.

The ADDITIONAL reason that Christianity provides is... ?

See above about reality and the other reasons.

dmarker · 08-31-2004, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

But only Christianity has the strong evidence to back it up.

What strong evidence?

lpetrich · 09-01-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

However it does address church government and many of the founding fathers of US patterned our government on biblical church government.

Absolute rubbish. They were more into Polybius, for example, than the Bible.

Quote:

As mentioned in the book of Acts, the leaders were chosen (elected) from among the men of the church ...

More like appointment than like election.

Where are the regularly-elected leaders in the Bible? The legislatures?

Where does the Bible present the Bill of Rights?

Etc.

Quote:

How come throughout most of human history in most societies people did not "get along"?

Getting along? Yes on a small scale, even if often no on a large scale.

Quote:

But only Christianity has the strong evidence to back it up.

Prove that it does not back up any other religion, and prove that it does not back up any Christian sect but yours.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-03-2004, 07:53 AM

Quote:

jtb: ANY list of laws or moral principles is a list of "things that ought to be done" or "things that ought not to be done". You have still not provided any new reason to actually do, or not do, these things.

The primary reason for a mature Christian to do these things is the love of God. Also for present and future rewards. For unbelievers and young Christians it is often fear of punishment in the present and in the future.

Substitute "humanity" for "God", and you have an atheistic equivalent (stemming from the "moral sense" already described).

So, still no new reason.

Ed · 09-08-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

We must give a lot of thanx to Ed for revealing the source of his belief that women are not allowed to teach men:

1 Timothy 2:12

NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

NASB: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

1 Corinthians 14:34

NIV: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

NASB: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

Titus 2:4-5

NIV: Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

NASB: ... so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

Me:

Does that mean that Deborah (Judges 4-5) had no legitimate authority?

Which shows that the Bible is something other than a super-feminist book.

No, sometimes God allows women to step into the leadership gaps left by wimpy men. I.E. he brings good out of sinful situations. I never said that the bible is a super feminist book. Most women detest super-feminists anyway. Like the one I heard quoted today that divorce is a good thing for women so that they can escape their marriages to men.

lpetrich · 09-09-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, sometimes God allows women to step into the leadership gaps left by wimpy men. I.E. he brings good out of sinful situations.

Was there a booming voice coming out of the sky that announced that now is the time for a woman to lead?

Quote:

I never said that the bible is a super feminist book.

It looks as if I had used a phrase that implied to you something other than what I had in mind; "super female-friendly" may be better.

And I really must say that this bboard has been more female-friendly than the Bible -- consider all the female mods and admins it has. And how its female members are treated as full citizens.

And how QueenofSwords has become famous for her Nutwatches and christ-on-a-stick for her Salvation Story. Which she has expanded into a book, tentatively titled Learning to Fly; she is looking for a publisher for it. And if QoS decides to write her autobiography some day...

Quote:

Most women detest super-feminists anyway. Like the one I heard quoted today that divorce is a good thing for women so that they can escape their marriages to men.

I'd like to see the full story of that; I would not be surprised if it was talking about divorce as a way of escaping bad marriages.

Ed · 09-09-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders

Originally Posted by Ed
Actually Christianity does not promise personal happiness.

anders: Quite right; it is all about keeping God happy. Worship Him, cry out how good He is, do as he says - or die, and burn a couple of animals so that He can enjoy the smell of it.

He doesn't need us to keep Him happy. But by living the way He tells us to, we live the most fulfilling life possible. BTW, He no longer requires animal sacrifice.

Ed · 09-12-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: The writer of Exodus plainly did NOT believe that "God allows free will". Exodus contains MANY attempts by God to deny free will to both the Hebrews and the Egyptians. You are failing to grasp the fact that the concept of the "omnimax God" lay centuries in the future: the God of Exodus sought to suppress free will to the best of his limited ability.

Ed: Fraid not, read Ex. 32:26, where Moses asks the people to decide whose side they are on. If God did not allow free will he would not have had Moses ask this question. And Deut. 28 has a multitude of if then statements, such statements are meaningless if we do not have free will.

jtb: It's this sort of response that makes me wonder if you EVER actually read the Bible, Ed. You got that from a Christian apologist and didn't check the context, right?

Nope, I got it from my own research.

Quote:

Exodus 32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

jtb: As I said: the God of Exodus does NOT allow free will. If you choose "the wrong side", he will have you KILLED for it.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 28 lists various blessings that God will bestow if you worship and obey him, and various terrible curses that he will hit you with if you don't (curses that haven't affected ME: further proof that God does not exist). Another blatant attempt to suppress free will.

Why do you ALWAYS quote scriptures that demolish your own position, Ed?

It's got to the stage where I can "have faith" that you will always do this. Even before I check the verse, I think to myself: "Good, Ed is quoting the Bible again!".

Huh? How does that destroy free will? That is what free will is all about, making choices! And if you make the wrong choices you face the consequences. But God never tried to prevent them from making a choice, ie turning them into robots and programming them to choose Him. They had the free will to reject Him and face the consequences of that choice. Those curses only applied to the ancient hebrew theocracy. But if you do disobey God's moral law you will usually face bad consequences in this world, ie if you commit adultery you will probably destroy your marriage and etc.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-13-2004, 02:06 AM

Quote:

jtb: The writer of Exodus plainly did NOT believe that "God allows free will". Exodus contains MANY attempts by God to deny free will to both the Hebrews and the Egyptians. You are failing to grasp the fact that the concept of the "omnimax God" lay centuries in the future: the God of Exodus sought to suppress free will to the best of his limited ability.

Ed: Fraid not, read Ex. 32:26, where Moses asks the people to decide whose side they are on. If God did not allow free will he would not have had Moses ask this question. And Deut. 28 has a multitude of if then statements, such statements are meaningless if we do not have free will.

jtb: It's this sort of response that makes me wonder if you EVER actually read the Bible, Ed. You got that from a Christian apologist and didn't check the context, right?

Nope, I got it from my own research.

Then why didn't you read the following verses? Or did you forget what we were discussing?

As far as I know, there is no Biblical doctrine (at least, no Old Testament doctrine) that God allows free will. As I said before, the God of Exodus sought to suppress free will to the best of his limited ability. And what you gave was an example of that.

Quote:

Huh? How does that destroy free will? That is what free will is all about, making choices! And if you make the wrong choices you face the consequences. But God never tried to prevent them from making a choice, ie turning them into robots and programming them to choose Him. They had the free will to reject Him and face the consequences of that choice. Those curses only applied to the ancient hebrew theocracy. But if you do disobey God's moral law you will usually face bad consequences in this world, ie if you commit adultery you will probably destroy your marriage and etc.

We're not talking about natural consequences, Ed.

If Muslims come to power in a future U.S. government, and start killing anyone who practises Christianity, wouldn't this be a violation of the First Amendment? How can ordering the massacre of those who choose to follow another religion be called "allowing freedom of religion" or "allowing free will"?

God didn't turn everyone into robots because he lacked the power to do so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.