KnightWhoSaysNi

Well, it also had to do with the fact that he trumpets and attempts to defend young earth creationist pseudoscience. YEC is so intellectually bankrupt with so many deceits and fallacies that it really makes Christian apologetics look bad.

Atheism itself, no, but humanism, yes. While you may dispute that, this touches on that Achille's heal I mentioned briefly at Tweb. You may try to use the Bible as a basis of moral authority, but whose interpretation of it? Yours? Doesn't the fact that the Church has split and divided so many times indicate that theological "truth" can be just as subjective as you claim morality would be for non-theists? You may assert, using the Bible, to a CR that he/she is evil for wanting to build a society in the future where he can stone prostitutes. "Jesus fulfilled the OT law" you'd say. But a CR would reply, "yes, but only sacrificial and dietary laws -- all the moral laws, like the 10 Commandments and the various OT prescribed punishments, still apply" and the CR may claim that it is actually 'evil' to not want to fulfill God's will for a CR theocracy. As I said at Tweb, God doesn't seem to want to show up in person to settle theological disputes among Christians. It's left to ordinary fallible human beings to come up with morality, or in your case "what God wants."

On the side, I might add that I really find it somewhat unsettling that the line between CR's and evangelical Christians is a very, very thin one. One step away even. CR's and EC's (Calvinists, at least) pretty much agree theologically, but with the sole exception of what Jesus meant when he "fulfilled the Law."

Yes, that's a good point. I would like to hope that I can retain a moral character if I was put in a situation where I suffered oppression from others. Kind of like how you see people respond to various injustices they experience: you can become a terrorist bent on revenge or become a social activist and seek reconciliation (a bin Laden vs. a Gandhi). If you will, I guess you can call it a faith in humanity and myself. I can choose to be moral based on the consequences it brings. As an example, if Yasser Arafat or Hamas, for instance, chose to be more like Gandhi, then I don't think things would be so nasty between Israelis and Palestinians.

Hired Gun

I'm just doing what an obsessive personality does best :-)
Thank you.



Why would you say that you would be morally obligated to help the child? Would your reasons be logical or intellectual or would they be based on emotionalism and irrational self-projection of fear?

Tens of thousands of children die every year from starvation, disease and unsanitary living conditions. Some of these children live right here in America. One needn't even be brave to save the lives of these children; all they need do is to take the financial sacrifice upon themselves to set up an efficient transportation system and begin supplying these children with the means to meet their needs.

The more money one would donate, the more lives could be saved. Yet society seems to overlook the non-action of its members who could be saving lives, but who choose not to. People will shake their heads in disgust when they read about people who walk right past a homicide in the making, but they rarely are that critical of people who donate nothing to hunger organizations.

If we don't feel morally compelled to make grand financial sacrifices, knowing that these sacrifices can and do make a difference in the lives of innocent children, why should we feel morally compelled to physically prevent a death that is taking place in front of us? A poor starving kid who is about to get hit by a train is no more deserving of our attention than one who starves to death before he gets hit. Not saving a child from immediate danger only becomes despicable when we think about the emotionlessness of the person who would not take action. We illogically assume that a child in danger should ignite the emotions, the adrenalin and the urge to intervene in every human being. There is no logical reason to label those who( for whatever reason, be it biochemical or a learned decreased sensitivity to death) do not take action to prevent such a death as immoral.

If there is no logical reason for us to label men, who don't take action in preventing the death of innocents, as immoral, then what logical reason can you give for labeling a god, who doesn't intervene to prevent these same deaths, as immoral?



If our earthly life is the only life that we will ever experience, I would be in complete agreement with your opinion that the God who created such a life is evil. But when we examine the Christian God within the context of the book that describes Him, we learn that there is a higher purpose and a plan, which involves an afterlife, that isn't always made obvious to us. For the sake of argument, suppose that we live in an impoverished world where there is only one affluent country that dominates all the rest. This country demands that you send its leader 5 children, whom he intends to abuse and torture, or he will nuke your country, causing the deaths of over half of its population. Is it immoral of you to sacrifice five children for the sake of thousands?

According to God, who would be in the position to know with certainty that an afterlife does exist, humans are not to fear that which can destroy the body but to fear that which can destroy both body and soul. In other words, God, who provides an afterlife existence for his earthly creations, doesn't view death in the same manner as men who aren't sure that such an afterlife exists. God doesn't see physical death as harmful, but men really can't say the same thing with confidence, and so they feel compelled to intervene. But God does recognize the fate of those whose souls have been corrupted by evil and sets up the only workable plan of salvation by which souls can be saved.

And, so, some individuals will have their physical lives cut short by those who use their free will to go against God's will, but this is intended for the greater good for the salvation of souls. The ramifications of having free will play a significant part in the plan of salvation. God doesn't interfere with the free will of the child molestor, nor does he interfere with the free will of one who would interfere with the molestor's free will.

I would argue that God only amplifies the will that is already present in an individual's mind, and that He doesn't completely overturn it (for example, with Saul).

No, I wouldn't equate the taking of a life as the ultimate robbery of free will, because free will continues in the after-life (Satan allegedly used his free will against God's in heaven).

I think that God can and does intervene in some situations, but that He does so in such a way that won't interfere with salvation's plan.

A.S.A. Jones

Nikolai

I hate to derail this thread, but this statement I cannot pass without commenting:
Sagan:boohoo: :banghead: Lacking profound thought? He is one of the clearest and most scientific thinker in recent times...

And on another part of this discussion, the fact that you were an athest at one time.

The main reason why I don't see you as an ex-atheist, or at least find your behavior highly unusual, is not the choice of religion over non-religion but which religion you did choose. I mean if I pretend I have no knowledge of morals and ethics and come up with the delema you found yourself in, I would choose say Budhism or some really liberal protestant sect. Maybe even a wishy-washy neo-Pagan New Agey religion. See, from your writing I assume you are in one of the conservative Christian churches.

And another thing, after picking my religion I would continue to not care what others believe. Yet, you write articles about preaching/debating

Cipher Girl

Hi Hired Gun

Must be a slow weekend for you. I certainly would not be able to keep up with as many posts as you are.

Yes it is. But a better one than some future promise of an afterlife. Even if there was a cost associated with doing the right thing, I would still do it. I am poorer for it but happier.

It doesn't matter to me the motivation for someone doing good. I don't care why a person is moral, it's their own choice. Just like it does not bother me that you behave in a moral manner because you feel that you are commanded to. But they shouldn't assume the moral high ground.

What happens when someone feels that they are commanded to do something society has determined is immoral? Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind. Currently your interpetation of the bible is in synch with what the current society has determined is moral. What happens if it should not be? I don't think I would like to live next door to you if that should happen.


Palsms 137:8-9
8) O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9) he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

How do you interpet this Hired Gun? Isn't the writer asking god to kill the babies of his captors? How is this moral? Would it be better to ask god to kill his captors and then be freed?

Hired Gun

I've read his books. My opinion is different than yours.



I see. Your *reason* for not believing that I was an atheist, for 20 years, boils down to 'No real atheist would ever have an opinion different than mine. Therefore, if an atheist were to start believing in God (which he couldn't ever possibly, because in my opinion he can't), he would never ever choose Christianity, because in my opinion, Christianity would be the worstest.'

Well, now. That's hardly a logical reason for disbelieving my conversion.



How dare I do something that you wouldn't? That's rather amusing. What are you doing in this forum criticizing my choice to believe in Christianity? If you didn't really care what others believe, a religious debate forum is a strange place in which to spend your time.

A.S.A. Jones

PS ~ Hang on, Korihor, I'll answer your post before evening.

WinAce

Sigh. Divine Command Theory just won't die, it seems. You'd think the rear-kicking it received in Plato's Euthyphro would finally set in to the collective mind after 50,000,000 gazillion years or so.

Nowhere357

There are thousands of Christians sects, each making the same claim.

What reason do you have to elevate your opinion above all others?

Jinto

The game of life is the game the atheists play. The game your God invented is the game of submission to God... and frankly, it's a game that even if he existed I would not play. For the philosophy of your God is that somehow whether something is pleasing to Him is more important than the lives of millions. I refuse to play that idiotic game... and who the hell is He to tell me what game I shall and shall not play? Imagine if the inventor of poker tried to make it illegal to play blackjack... we'd laugh him out of the courtroom, and for good reason.

And what's so important about winning the game of poker? Your God's game is not the objective basis of morality.

Ah... so rather than making us so that we do good things, he makes us so that we do bad things and then gets angry at us when we do bad things... this reminds me of a parent who raises their child by repeatedly beating them whenever they should irk or irritate them (the parents), and then acts all shocked and upset when the child acts violently. Hello... what did he expect?

Hired Gun

The issue of moral content does not have to come into play. It matters not if morality is arbitrary or reasoned. What does matter is that it is relative and has no absolute or objective quality of standard, and if it is relative, picking the morals by which to govern a society will always involve a fallacy of logic in making that determination.

I have never presented the Divine Command Theory! I am not arguing for the foundation of morals; I am arguing for the basis on which we establish laws that reflect those morals. Therefore, the Euthyphro Dilemma never is a point of contention with my arguments. However, if I were to argue DCT, I would probably lean a-this-a-way...http://www.theism.net/article/29

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

Expressing outrage doesn't constitute refutation of our original argument, which was about why God's issuance of morality would carry more weight over any issuance by man. I don't respond to emotional outbursts and so I have no further comment regarding your post.