Cipher Girl

Yes cave, I agree that we are getting off-topic here. You are merely repeating you earlier statements somewhat differently. The ameoba example I mentioned earlier is still valid. The children ameoba are the equal to the parent ameoba. Why wouldn't this be any different for a deity? Simply stating it ain't so isn't enough. Why?
and
So, a deist version of God. He simply rolls the dice at the start of the universe and sits back and sees what happens, letting random chance work. To get back on topic. So nothing would be good or evil according to this type of god, only the result of chance.
Personally, I think all judgements of good or evil are subjective judgements each individual person makes on their own in a random universe.
Also if god creates people with the freedom to choose good or evil, then why do some choose one or the other?Are they made that way? Do their life experiences contribute? Also one person's evil is another person's good.

Fiach

Agreed. There is a movement toward a kinder, juster Christianity. More and more people are modifying the harsh nightmarish Augustinianism. It is effective in Europe (apart from N.Ireland) but Atheism/Agnosticism is growing to majorities in may European nations. I have heard (rumour) that even in America the home of modern fundamentalism, it is no longer growing and numbers are actually decreasing. I appreciate American opinons on this.

Fiach

7thangel

Your welcome. I guess that guy is really you. Just a guess.

Honestly, I am ignorant of that CP mindset you are talking about. I am not aware of its doctrines, and also of any group.

Your right. Though I do not believe there are only 7,000.

Yes it did not happen yet. And your not a theists, what does make your argument valid?

No you don’t understand it. That is why you do not have the sense of it.

You maybe talking about me, surely not of John.

Oh-oh, now he knows.

What do the CPist believe. I am truly ignorant of it.

True, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men. Men need to learn more than they already knew.

Of course. Anyway, what does H. F. mean? High Frequency? I don’t get it.

Wow, the bible seems to agree with the atheist’s point of view about good and evil. And now they complain about God’s preferences.

Well, your guess is not as good as mine, really. I guess you have to give me any website of CPist for my information.

You are very welcome.

It is a mockery to God if his words will not be fulfilled. Try to thwart the prophecy that only few will be save so you will win. Help me preach the gospel, please.

There are Calvinists who believe that they are saved because they have pleased God. I do not believe that concept. As far as my belief goes, I do not even consider myself worthy, nor have the nerve to say that I have pleased God. Rather, God is pleased according to his purpose in Christ that he made me a part of Christ as inheritor of eternal life, and to receive all other blessings. I am not arrogant, not self-righteous, just a bullshit. But God loved me despite me being a bullshit, and now He changed me to receive glory.

As I expected. Are these pictures your children’s? Like father, like sons. Ooops, is/are there girl/s?

the_cave

Because they can't create the parent amoeba. But it created them.
It kind of depends on what you mean by "equal", I'll admit.

Similar to a Deist god, sure, you're right. But this god could still somehow in contact with creation, in the way that the 2D surface of a ball is in contact with the 3D air surrounding it.

No, I'd disagree. Lots of things could still be good. Freedom itself could still be good, even if some of its results turn out to be bad

Ok. I disagree, but you have a right to think so.

Hey, I don't exactly know why people choose one thing or another, even without god! But regardless, I don't think anyone is "made" evil. Life experiences contribute to some degree, sure, but not entirely.

Ok, but I can't help but add that just because two people disagree about what's good and what's evil doesn't mean one of them isn't wrong. They might also not be talking about moral absolutes--I do think there are relative good & evils, but I also believe that there are moral absolutes. But that would be a debate about relativism vs. moral absolutes!

Fiach

Ok, but I can't help but add that just because two people disagree about what's good and what's evil doesn't mean one of them isn't wrong. They might also not be talking about moral absolutes--I do think there are relative good & evils, but I also believe that there are moral absolutes. But that would be a debate about relativism vs. moral absolutes!

I also do think that there are moral and immoral absolutes, species specific and molded by evolution. I am an Atheistic Evolutionist. I think that morality is genetically and neurobehaviourally programmed into our brains. It is more effectively programmed in some (good people) than others (bad people). Yet we all have an intuitive "knowledge" that murder apart from killing in self/family defence is wrong. We know that theft is wrong. We know that killing any baby is wrong now as it was in the time of Deuteronomy (when God ordered it.) We know that spousal abuse, rape, deprivation of freedom (slavery), lying, and robbery are wrong and always wrong.

Christian Bible believers think that killing babies was alright if God ordered it, alright if God killed the babies (Egypt and Noah's Flood), inflicting plagues on innocent people for what their Pharaoh did, killing men/women/children/babies for erecting a golden calf (changing religion.) All of those things were moral in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament. Now only the most dodgy or insane Fundamentalists would insist that it is still alright to kill the babies of infidels. Thus Judeo-Christian morality is very relative. It is not moral or immoral on any objective basis but purely the whim of God who can change his mind.

Christian moral relativeness is seen in the high Christian crime rate, and murder rates compared to Atheists. That is because they fail to see robery or murder as wrong because of the harm done to fellow humans. It is only wrong by fiat from God if God is in the mood. And by saying a few magic words you can erase any responsibilty for evil acts, as long as you believe and are born again. Some fundies have to be born again several times per year. That adds further to the proposition that Christian Morality is relative, what might be called "situational ethics."

Fiach

Cipher Girl

Hi cave
But they can create children ameobas just like themselves, an equal power. Are you saying that god would have the power to create his parent? A supergod, which in turn can create a super-supergod, which in turn... Well you get my drift?
Huh? 2D surface of a ball? A circle is 2D and a ball is 3D. Both the ball and the air exist in 3 dimensions. You can model a 2D circle with a 2D slice of air in the computer (2D CFD). And you can model a 3D volume of air with a 3D object(3D CFD), but how would a 2D surface (BTW which cannot exist in real life) interact with a 3D volume of air? It makes no logical sense.
If environmental influences aren't the only reason one may commit an evil act, what are the others? Heretity is one, which would imply a person was born with the propensity to select an evil action over a good one. Hence, created that way if you believe that god creates all. What would be some other causes?
Fiach had a good reply to this. But I was refering to actions which may hurt no one (homosexuality, premarital sex, masturbation, etc ... funny how these are mainly sexual) but people will disagree whether or not these actions are good or evil. One person will say "Oh those two had sex and they aren't married. Oh the horror!! Lets stone them." And another person will say "What's the problem?" Both of these attitudes exist in the world today.
A person's judgement of good and evil to their own or another's action seems mainly to be influenced by their culture and society. But ever so often someone will have a more compassionate moral code which may be adopted by the people in a society. Also, as a society becomes more educated, it becomes easier for its population to see the benefits to a mutually decided upon moral code over one autocratically imposed on the citizenry by theocrats.
This leads to the question "Why is the OT god's actions considered "good" in their day and "evil" today? Is it because the moral code of modern society has evolved to a more compassionate form? What does this say about where morals come from? From society or from the deity? If morals come from the deity, has the deity evolved to a more higher form? If the deity evolved, then this would imply the deity had to learn to be good. Kinda like a small child, time to give up the temper tantrums.
I hope this isn't out of scope for this thread.

Fiach

Fiach had a good reply to this. But I was refering to actions which may hurt no one (homosexuality, premarital sex, masturbation, etc ... funny how these are mainly sexual) but people will disagree whether or not these actions are good or evil. One person will say "Oh those two had sex and they aren't married. Oh the horror!! Lets stone them." And another person will say "What's the problem?" Both of these attitudes exist in the world today.

When I discussed moral issues, I was discussion bad actions that are clearly harmful, such as murder, rape, theft, lying, abuse. But there are some actions that are morally neutral but specific religions have legislated them to be immoral. Examles are "not to eat meat on Friday," "not to eat pork", "not to masturbate," "not to fornicate," "homosexuality," and "not to cuss."

Those actions are not intuitively immoral. We have no hardwired inhibitions on those. Those have been imposed by religions with bizarre obsessions. In many Christians there is a perverse pre-occupation with sexuality. Sexuality is just a reproductive and bonding biological process. It is neither immoral nor necessarily harmful.

Fornication among teens has been occurring since Lucy died by the lake in East Africa. It is so common that it is not obviously harmful. Masturbation is definitly not harmful and may relieve stress. Homosexuality is per se morally neutral. It is usually not harmful, and not of necessity harmful. Unfortunately it can be medically harmful in the transmission of certain diseases like Herpes, Syphilis, and HIV. But that is more an issue that a person with one of those diseases who engages in sex without informing the partner, then that is immoral. In the case of an HIV patient doing that it should be considered attempted murder.

There are other acts Christians consider immoratl, the worst of all Christian sins is for someone to not believe in their god. My life is that of a typical workaholic. I don't have the time to seriously sin. My wife and I have been married ** years since university days. Neither of us have cheated. I have never stolen anything. I never tell a serious lie, (maybe exaggerates things in typical Celtic fashion.) I have never killed anyone as far as I know. I fired my rifle in the Army but don't know if I hit anythiing. But Fundies will assign me to hell for not believing in their God or that Jesus is a God. That is not a moral action, belief or unbelief, but a form of authoritarian mind control in which the oppressors and bigots are the ones who are immoral.

Fiach

Albert Cipriani

Dear Fiach,
You assert:
To believe this, you must believe that some actions have no consequences. But all actions, by definition, have consequences. Ergo, all actions are good or bad.

You are free to define good anyway you want, as fostering life, as fostering pleasure, as fostering the death and pain of what’s bad. But you are not free to dismiss an action’s consequences, which, by the way, like light waves or pond ripples, theoretically extend eternally.

An action whose consequences are bad does not necessarily make the actor bad (i.e., immoral). For the actor to achieve the same status of his act, the actor must have acted consciously and knowledgeably. Ergo, your bad act of disbelieving in my God may not be an immoral act on your part.

I’m here to make it so. If through me your invincible ignorance is breeched, and you persist in your unbelief (through pride, dishonesty, attachment to sin etc.) then and only then does your bad unbelief make you a bad person. Consider yourself warned. Reading me may be dangerous to your moral culpability. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

winstonjen

But what about actions that have an equal amount of good and bad consequences? Wouldn't that be neutral?

Fiach

But suppose what you call invincible ignorance is processed by my brain as impeccable logic. Suppose I honestly and sincerely searched for God, tried to forge my own belief in god, but as hard as I tried I could not make it happen. I could lie to friends, but not to my own brain. I am still open to any ideas that would be convincing to have me believe. Whether you believe me or not, I would love to believe. I would love to think that I had an afterlife as I grow older and nearer to deat. I would love to think that I could call Jesus into my brain and heart, be saved, and have an afterlife in Paradise. Who would not want that scenario? But like no matter how hard I try, I can never hit as many home runs as Ken Griffey Jr. Suppose 400 home runs was required for salvation, it would be the same as my brain being unable to process faith belief.

But if you find something really convincing, tell me. I do want to know. I am not optimistic. I am not necessarily happy that I live in a natural selection universe, will die, and there is no evidence of an afterlife. I hope that I am wrong.

Fiach