snatchbalance

Kent,

1. Deuterotomy 2:30-36 is one example

2. If JC is god, then god is counseling meekness.

3. So, what kind of god advocates slaughter? If you carry out such commands, you are not being meek, just being somewhat brutal, I guess.

sb

snatchbalance

Kent,

1. So, at one point in time animal sacrifice and human slaughter glorified god? JC changed this?

2. So these practices help explain why god created people? God created us so we could slaughter other creatures in his name?

SB

snatchbalance

Kent,

How does one know when to emulate JC, and when not to? Is not JC the ideal to aim for?

SB

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

aurora

Hello all. I have been reading this thread with interest. Unfortunately it has taken me so long to read the thread that every time I find something I want to respond to it was posted several days ago. I am posting now because I?ve reached the end of the thread. However, I am leaving for vacation tomorrow and will not be able to respond to anything again for about a week and a half. With that in mind, here is my post.

First off, I am disappointed that the thread has gone from ?worldviews of atheists? to trying to prove the existence of God. I avoided that thread because it?s not my interest.

I am not a Christian. I have been there, done that, and have decided it?s bs. I have been a student of religion all my life. I have studied Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, Earth based Spirituality and a little bit of Hinduism. I?m really not sure which if any of these labels fit me, or if I even fall into the atheist or agnostic category at this point. If I had to choose a label, I think that I would be closest to Buddhism - that would be the original teachings of Sidartha ? not the deist stuff that?s practiced these days in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism. On the whole however, I feel at this point that whatever my personal beliefs are, that I think organized religion is a very negative thing, as it allows humans to be cruel to each other and feel justified because it?s ?religious?. One of the things I hoped to get out of this thread was some opinions of what label others think might best fit me once my worldview is explained.

I will start out the description of my worldview by saying that parts of this are simply belief without logical support, but rather intuitional support, although the majority are things for which I believe my experience has provided logical proof. However in the sense of brevity I will not go into that here. (I don?t want to type 50+ pages.) I believe that there is one substance in the universe and all things are made from it/come from it, this substance has been referred to by some as ?God?. I believe that all things that we see as ?separate? such as individual people, animals, chairs, rocks, etc. are all made of parts of this substance. The parts equal the whole, however, the whole cannot exist outside of the parts.

I think that as science is coming to understand that we are all made up of chemicals and electrical impulses. As such, if all things are the same (are one) then it would follow that what has been seen as ?God? is also chemicals and electricity. For a long time I believed in deity (although not the cruel being depicted in Christianity) not because I had any ?proof? but because it felt right. Over time, through personal empirical testing, I came to the conclusion that if there is such a thing as deity, then it is not capable of intervening in our lives in any meaningful way, and perhaps is not even sentient in the way that we understand sentience. But after reading some of the things on this list I have come to see that people who believe in deity are simply choosing to ascribe religious significance to electro-chemical impulses. (such as the ?big bang?) And quite frankly, I no longer believe there is such a thing as ?deity? other than as a convenient designation ? a way for humans to relate to their universe.

I do not believe there is some ?purpose? for us to exist. Rather I believe as the existentialists do, that it is up to us to create our own meaning of life? our own reason to live. Some people fill this ?purpose? with God. That?s great if that works for them, but as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, it is not a logically supportable belief.

I believe that if there is such a thing as evil that it would wear the face of those who insist on forcing objective beliefs on all of humanity. Look at the crusades, the inquisition, the murder of the native peoples when the westerners invaded the Americas and other ?un civilized? lands. Often these murders were justified as trying to help people (save their souls), when in fact they were a thinly veiled plot for those in power (Christians) to steal whatever they wanted from whoever they wanted in the name of Christ. They justified these atrocities often by claiming that those who did not follow their Christian doctrines were not humans. I think that in this enlightened age we all agree that they were humans, and as such should have been given human dignity and rights. Objectivism has left quite a bloody trail. I believe that this bloody history points out why objectivism is a really bad and cruel idea.

People who believe in subjectivism, as has been pointed out here, believe in tolerance and acceptance of diversity. They do not try to force their beliefs on others, but rather try to let everyone come to their own conclusion. Christians seem to feel they have the right to force their beliefs on everyone. How do you think they would feel if they were in the minority and they were being forced at gunpoint to change their views? As was said by Dale Carnege, ?a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.? Christianity can force people to pay lip service to it with it?s blood-bath, but it cannot force us to accept it?s lies as truth within our hearts.

The world is not objective. As has been proven by quantum mechanics, there cannot be an entirely objective experiment as when one observes the phenomenon, their participation changes the outcome. I believe that the only healthy way for humans to interact is with a set of subjective morals/values/beliefs. Absolutism/black-n-whiteism is the cause of most of the suffering in the world. Here is an example of why I believe subjectivism is not only an intelligent choice, but a necessary one. I got this from an ethics class in college. We were asked, ?is it morally wrong to lie?? the whole class said that it was. Then we were asked, if a man comes to your door and says he is going to kill your father, and asks if you know where he is, (and you do) do you tell him? Of course everyone said no. But, the professor pointed out, that would be lying, which we had said was wrong. This points out that a subjective interpretation of morals is a good and helpful thing, that by going by absolutes, you would have to tell where your father was or be immoral. I think most of us would agree that keeping quiet about his location would be the moral thing to do.

I have seen here as in other places that when subjective vs. objective comes up, the example of murder is often used. This really sidesteps the issue. I think that most people, no matter what their religion or lack thereof would agree that killing in most circumstances is wrong. I think this belief comes from our survivalist instincts, not from a mandate from some guy in the sky. What I tend to look at are other examples. For instance let?s take the example of sexuality. Kent is arguing objective morality is part of Christianity; yet the different sects of Christianity do not all agree on what that morality is. Some believe that sex should only be done for procreation. Some believe it should only be done in marriage, some don?t think it matters much how you do it, or with whom, and it?s your own personal business. So this claim of Christian objective morals is truly a myth as pointed out by their own varied practices. I personally don?t believe there is anyone outside myself who has the right to tell me what to do with my body and my sexuality or my life for that matter. The law may step in and say there are things that are ok and things that are not, but that is a choice made by society, not deity.

Synaesthesia said: ?Just because there?s nothing but atoms in this object, doesn?t mean that it can?t be a chair. There?s merely quarks and leptons. There?s no actual chairness, just wave functions jiggling away.?

She calls this a fallacy, but actually this is the way I see the world, this is also what the Buddha taught. Everything IS atoms, wave functions, etc. There is no actual chair. Rather our consensual reality agrees that that we all interpret that particular formation of atoms will be called a chair as a convenient designation. This is so that we can relate to each other by agreeing on names for the phenomenon we encounter. (That agreement is what consensual reality is.) The Buddhists say that all of existence is merely a complex causal series of events. I thought the domino example earlier related well to that.

As far as religion goes, one thing I have always admired about the eastern religions is that they present you with well supported, logical arguments as to why their theories are correct. 2+2=4 If you buy into their premises, (the mathematical value of 2) then the conclusion (4) must logically follow. However the big 3 western religions: Christianity/Islam/Judaism try to convince you with ?because God said so?. Sorry, I didn?t buy this argument as a kid when my mom used it, I don?t buy it now. I need a logical explanation. This ?because he said so? thing is really a copout so that you don?t have to use your critical reasoning. It?s great if this faith thing works for you and you believe it because God supposedly said it, but ?because God said so? is in no way shape or form a logical or supportable argument to prove God?s existence or meaningfulness. As was pointed out earlier, it could just as easily be any of us who ?said so? and if enough people believed us, maybe we?d be worshipped feverently by people 2000 years from now.

I believe that we all create our own value systems. We come to these (hopefully) through critical reasoning. How it applies to society is that the majority tends to make the rules. If most of us agree that killing is bad, then the society can be said to believe that killing is morally wrong. This applies to any society regardless of the religion or lack thereof that is practiced by the people in the society. Sure, there may still be some renegades out there who choose to believe differently, but that happens in Christianity and other religions as well. And that?s why humans make laws. It is a way to try to impose an accepted moral code upon society as a way to help us survive as a species. As has been seen, what is considered ?moral? has evolved over time. Slavery is considered by many to be immoral today, while it was accepted as moral by the biblical writers, and by Christians in the south in the beginning of the USA.

That is why I see subjective morality as superior to the concept of objective morality. Over time we as humans can change our ideas, and hopefully towards a more positive outcome for society. With objective morals this could not happen. If slavery was ok in the beginning, it would continue to be ok, because objective morals are those that supposedly are universal and don?t change. I would hate to live in a world where thought and experience were ignored like that.

Now I would like to address a few comments that I have come across in the more recent posts. I am doing this to point out what I see as flaws in the reasoning. I would welcome a discussion of this with the non-Christians, as I have seen that those of you on this list have some very intelligent and insightful comments and ideas. To the Christians, I?ve heard the arguments of Christians many times and until you develop belief in logic outside of God, acceptance of diverse beliefs, and accept that there is more than one acceptable path/lifestyle you have nothing to say that I feel is worth hearing. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I?m tired of those people trying to shove their beliefs down my throat.

Kent said: Christians do not stand in judgment over unbelievers but at the same time they are called to make judgments of right and wrong, good and evil. Would you prefer that Christians keep quiet when they sincerely believe that people are heading for hell? If your doctor found that you had cancer would you want him to tell you?

Yes I would. I really wish the Christians would keep quiet and butt the hell out of other people?s lives. It would make the world a MUCH better place. Please do us a favor and try it. Anyone who tries to tell me that sex is only for procreation can go jump in a lake. Damn frigid, uptight people, they aren?t getting any so they seem to think no one else should either. It?s a dog in the manger thing. They need to realize that the majority of the population of the world is NOT CHRISTIAN. Not only that but many of us in the west who are not Christian are that way because we have studied the religion and found it?s morals and beliefs greatly lacking. All you?re doing is pissing us off and showing yourself to be an intolerant ass.

As for the cancer reference, if you think that sex for reasons other than procreation is a cancer, you?ve really got your values screwed up if you ask me. It is only you who believe that those who don?t agree with you are wrong (so wrong that you call those different from you ?cancer?). I could just as easily say that Christianity is a cancer, and don?t you want to know if you?re killing yourself with false beliefs? However I don?t think that would be appropriate, as I believe we are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. You do your thing, I do my thing, as long as we each allow the other their freedom of choice (remember that free will thing?) then it would be a lot easier for humans to get along.

Kent said: After I was saved I came to realize that all of my thinking before salvation had no foundation without the Christian God. Now, I am not saying that I could not think before and have morals but I could not give them a rational justification.

The point you?re missing here is that this is your personal revelation. It is your personal belief that your thinking was flawed before you had God. I can?t speak for your thinking/reasoning capacity before that time as I didn?t know you then, but I can say that the defenses of Christianity you have presented show a lack of reasoning/logic. Also, I do not believe there needs to be a rational justification for one?s beliefs. (You don?t seem to have one.) The rational justification only comes into the picture when YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE ELSE TO AGREE WITH YOU. Since I don?t believe in forcing my beliefs on others, I don?t feel the need to support my beliefs to anyone except myself. I am satisfied with my conclusions reached through logic and experimentation. You may perform the same steps/experiments I did and come to a different conclusion. That?s ok with me, as I believe in subjectivity and acceptance of difference. As long as you are satisfied with your conclusion, and don?t try to force it on others, more power to you.

Kent says: It is my contention that in order to even deny that God exists you must first presuppose him to make a rational argument.

The key words here are ?it is my contention?. That?s all it is. It?s your personal belief, not a fact - as you seem to be presenting. YOU may need to presuppose him, but I don?t need to. I kept the idea around for a while because I liked it, but when I removed the concept my world was changed very little.

Kent says: But now it is clear to me that we all (like it or not) live in God's world. We think, make decisions, and act on his foundation.

Again, this is YOUR BELIEF, not a fact. The majority of the world would disagree with you, as the majority of the world is not Christian. You believe we live in God?s world. Your belief system supports this conclusion. I believe science has proven otherwise. I have seen scientific proof that we are electro-chemical energy. I have seen that things not only exist outside the Christian framework, but they make a lot more sense when the limitations of Christian dogma have been dropped. This is my belief. I also, as a subjectivist think it?s ok for us to agree to disagree and move on with our lives together in harmony. Too bad you can?t do the same.

Kent says: My point being that I don't think you can really live without an objective moral code.

I?d disagree with you here. We can?t live WITH an objective moral code. At least I can?t, since I disagree with a lot of what is considered ?moral? by Christians (in sexuality issues, nudity issues, acceptance of diversity issues, family construction issues, ownership of other living beings issues, etc.) and if the Christians were in charge of this objective moral code they?d probably kill me or jail me as a sinner and a heretic for disagreeing with them if they could.

Kent says: And I also admit that your "subjective morality" may have been a reality during the reign of Hitler. In fact, he was doing something similar to what I described didn't he. He declared a group of people as being not fit for the rest of the human race and proceeded to dispose of them.

Hrm? so did the Christians during the inquisition and the crusades. Christian morality standards have been pretty subjective if followed throughout history. More blood and death was caused by Christians wiping out people they thought were ?not fit for the rest of the human race? than any other group.

Kent says: I do believe you when you say that you have good moral values. I just do not believe you can rationally justify them.

As of yet, you have not shown how you can rationally justify your belief in God. In fact when asked, your response is "because God said so". This is not in any way shape or form a rational argument. Do not ask others to provide something you are not capable of doing yourself. I have seen quite a few very well thought out and supported arguments showing rational support for the position of the atheists on this list, and you have refused to accept any of them saying, ?where?s your argument?. It?s become clear to several people (as pointed out by recent posts) that you are apparently incapable of accepting as rational or logical anything that does not come from a Christian framework. This is not logical, and shows your lack of understanding of the nature of logic and rational support. The belief that logic only exists in a Christian framework is YOUR BELIEF, not a fact.

Kent says: If we are just bags of chemicals then what is the value difference between a bag we call human and a can of soda pop?

From my point of view, I?d say there?s not a damn bit of difference. The only supposed difference lies in that we believe we are capable of thought and somehow superior to things that we believe are not capable of the same level of thought as we are. Since I see all things as a part of the whole, I believe that the can of soda is just as much a part of the whole as I am. I believe that we cannot exist independently from the inanimate, plant, and animal life around us. It is all a part of the whole. Since I value my universe, and myself I also value all things within it. I try to treat the objects and beings around me with the same reverence, kindness and acceptance I would like to receive in return. I actually think that a lot of the destruction of our environment and our world comes from the mistaken notion that we are somehow separate from it and cannot be harmed by it?s damage or demise.

On a positive note I would like to say that Kent, as much as I disagree with your beliefs and point of view, I appreciate you being considerate and intelligent in presenting it. In my experience this is a rare thing in Christians who try to convince non-Christians to agree with them. However I must again point out that I?ve heard it all before, studied it all before, and found it to be bs. So I wish you?d quit trying to convince us that you?re right and instead focus on understanding points of view different from your own or baring that buzzing off.

Kent Symanzik

Hi snatchbalance,

I think this is driving us back to the issue that someone else brought up. Is the God of the NT the same God of the OT? Christian theism would, of course, answer yes, and I wholly agree. But, I believe it is a legitimate question and I understand how someone could view the bible in this way.

This view is not new. I believe it was Marcion in the second century that promoted a theology of the God of the NT being a different God than of the OT.

God killing people or commanding his followers to kill will be impossible to understand if you do not look at the whole of what the bible teaches. The bible will never make sense if you try to understand it from an atheist worldview. For instance, I do not believe that most atheist consider the whole of humanity to be sinners, only deserving judgement. However, this is a foundational premise of the bible and it will not make sense if you ignore it.

My purpose here is to try to help you understand it to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I will only be able to scratch the surface since my knowledge is so limited. But, hopefully, I can at least begin to answer some of your questions.

Christian theism believes that the bible teaches that when Adam and Eve sinned they plunged the whole human race into a sinful condition. This means that all people are born sinful. This is often referred to as the doctrine of original sin. Why was this so? Simply because God held Adam as the representative of the human race.

After Adam's sin all people only deserve eternal punishment. The only way anyone will escape this judgement is if God intervenes. God did intervene in his Son, Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom for many. Romans 5 is a good place to look to see an explanation for this.

Now to finally get to your question of genocide. After the fall of Adam you see that God immediately chooses some to receive his grace and mercy while leaving others for judgement. This is always hard to take since we always consider everyone innocent. But, this is not the case in God's eyes. Israel was God's chosen people. God in the OT was actively blessing them by showing them grace and mercy while leaving other nations for judgement. Deuteronomy 7 explains why God told Israel to destroy other nations that they encountered. It was so that Israel would not be corrupted by them to follow their idols instead of God.

So, we can see that it is God's purpose to work through this chosen nation to ultimately bring his Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. When Christ came, the door for salvation was opened beyond the nation of Israel and that makes for a stark contrast between the OT and the NT.

Hopefully, I'm providing helpful information here. My only purpose is to help you understand what Christian theism holds. Regardless of whether you think it is good, bad, or just plain ugly.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

My point mainly is that emulating Jesus Christ is not a way to attain salvation. Yes, we are to emulate Jesus Christ but there are some things that we cannot emulate because they can only be done by God. Things like dying for the sins of many on the cross.

Kent

Autonemesis

Kent: what sacrifice? The story says Jesus rose after 3 days. Death did not claim him after all. So there was no sacrifice.

doubtingt

My worldview:

Empiricism and rational inquiry is the only method that allows for the comparative evaluation of ideas against some neutral criteria and allows for theories to evolve and change in direct accordance with changes to our body of observations.

The rational scientific approach must leave room for doubt in any idea, and some questions may scientifically unanswerable for practical reasons.
However, no other approach can provide more certain answers or answer questions that science cannot.

Moral questions have no "answers", because they are questions of subjective preference and not questions of fact. "Is murder wrong?" is no more answerable than "Is vanilla better than chocolate?" We can (and should) decide what we individually and collectively prefer regarding moral issues, but should not delude ourselves in thinking this is the same as an "answer".
Moral systems can and should be based upon internally consistent principles, and this can
only be accomplished via use of rational thought
to determine what the consequences of actions are and how they relate to our professed preferences.

Theism and religion are not simply irrational, they are destructive and inherently in conflict with Enlightment principles of democracy and free thought.

Questions of "meaning" and "purpose" are meaningless when they refer to "life", "the world", or "the universe". Only humans and other sentient being create meaning and have purpose to they actions. You can create your own purpose for your life. However, unless you assume that all events are the will of a human-like mind, then there can be no "greater purpose" to life.

For many theists, their unwillingness to accept responsibility for creating their own purpose is what motivates them to ignore their own rational mind and believe that the universe is guided by a purposeful entity.

Kent Symanzik

Hi Synaesthesia,

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your post. I teach Sunday School and I was a bit behind in preparation so I had to lay low until I got caught up.

I'm not just appealing to the concept of God as in theism in general. I'm appealing to Christian theism which rules out all other religions.

I'm not sure what you mean that nothing can be ruled out? Can you give me an example?

I do not understand you here. Can you give me examples of these type of propositions?

Hmm, I did some reading about this and I did not find the same conclusions that you reached. No one seemed to be using this as an example of two valid logic systems contradicting eachother. Besides that, don't you have to first presuppose the law of non-contradition to even find a contradiction?

But, my understanding of mathematics is so lacking that I cannot understand the whole problem.

Maybe for my sake we should stick with the subject of logic laws rather than mathematics. Or, you will need to be really patient with me.

To say that no other essense of being has not been found is not saying much. Empirical observation will only find things that can be empirically observed.

I'm not familiar with the fallacy of composition. What is chairness in your worldview? Does it exist in the abstract? For that matter what is the number 2? In your worldview, can there be more than just instances of 2. Can you observe a number? Or chairness?

This is basically the problem of universals. In atheistic worldviews there can be nothing more than particulars, right?

My question has been how do you get from atoms banging around to meaning. What makes our bag of chemicals more valuable than a can of pop? I may not be following you. If so, I'm sorry. But, I do not see how you bridge that gap?

It is the fact that you do care about people that causes your worldview to be irrational. You cannot justify how you act. You just do. This is not even faith because it is faith in nothing.

It seems that because of this many atheists fall back on some subjective outlook in the world. But, I have not found how that can be made rational. It seems more like self-deception in that it denies the reality that we are all just bags of chemical reactions.

It seems that you (Synaesthesia) do not hold to a subjective view. Is this the case? If so, are you attempting to find a rational objective atheistic worldview?

Kent

RogerLeeCooke

Actually there *are* multiple varieties of logic nowadays: two-valued, multi-valued, etc. But from the ordinary point of view, we all use the same informal logic. It doesn't require any justification. It is where our reasoning begins. No deductive system can justify within itself its own undefined terms and axioms. Experience will show whether a system gives correct results or not.