MoFo's Religion

Nevermind. I'm not going to get a response. I should know better than to reason with someone who takes theological lessions from George Carlin.

thats why we can never fully understand God and his will.Our minds are to simple to understand.

__________________
"Aim high, it costs no more to shoot at eagles then it does to shoot at skunks"

Well, I suppose that's possible...but I don't believe that, personally.

well i do its in the BIBLE

Is it? Indulge me.

First of all, I shouldn't have tried to have that conversation when I was as tired as I was last night. With my head reasonably clear, I realize that logic makes up much of my morality, but not most. A great deal of it is comprised of instinct, (which I mentioned before, and which does include emotions) and experience (which I neglected to mention). I believe that most theists get much of their morals the same way. For example, I think your experience, logic and instincts tell you that torturing someone for 3 days straight with thumbscrews is worse than working on the Sabbath. Don't you see the paradox in believing that, and also
believing that the Ten Commandments are the ten most important morals? Which Commandment says you shouldn't torture people? What about rape or child molestation? If I am going to be asked to defend my morals, I think it only fair that you should be asked to defend yours.



I'm not exactly sure why I care, or why I should. I don't think I need to.



Again, why do I need to know exactly why I care? You believe in a god, so all of your beliefs and cares are justified? Just because you have reason to believe in a god (giving you purpose and explanations) doesn't in the slightest show that that god really exists. Someone could easily write a book about a flying elephant god to give us a reason to have our morals; would the followers of that book have a better explanation for morals than those who believe our morals mostly come from experience, logic and instincts? I think they don't, and that you don't either. You have an explanation that you except. Others find that explanation to be rather silly, and no good explanation for morals at all.



I think a good question is why SHOULD I fight it? Whether I fully understand why I believe something or not, why should I go against my morals or beliefs just because I don't believe in your particular deity?

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

Oooh, I'm liking this reply. But I've gotta jet. I'll be back in an hour or two to keep this train movin'.

I believe sin is sin.. The ten commandments were given to us by God to base things off of you know. anyways in my belief those terrorists that caused 911 are no worse then the kid who stole a cookie from the jar.
I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but thats the way it is.

I had a mistake in there that I am now going to edit. It completely changed the meaning of an entire sentence. Sorry about that.

Sure now try to correct yourself

So you don't believe in mortal vs. venal sin?

In terms of the whole "free will" issue, I like this description of God:

"He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."

__________________
You were a demon and a lawyer? Wow. Insert joke here."

Raz, I'd like to ask you the same kind of question I have asked Commish (Yoda): Do you believe that coveting your neighbor's possesions is worse than taking a knife and cutting off someone's fingers, torturing them for hours and hours? If so, I think that is pretty sick. If not, how do you explain away the contradition there, since torture or any kind of physical attack other than murder is not mentioned in the ten commandments? Aren't the ten commandments the most important morals? Not working on the Sabbath and not using God's name in vain are more important than not molesting children?

what the heck did u say.

your a teacher try some english

Come on. You said this:

If you're going to join a debate on religion and make statements like that, then you should know a bit more about the subject.

If you were being sarcastic, I apologize, but I don't think you were.

And I too must go. I'll catch this thread later.

I just didn't understand what you were saying is all

Don't mean to double post, but to say no they aren't the most important they were the laws in like biblical times.and something to base the rules off of. Greatfully we are not under the law anymore we are under grace.

to answer your question no i don't think torturing or stabbing someone is worse then stealing, i think it is basically the same thing. my sin is no worse then theres

Ok. My argument is only for those who believe that the Ten Commandments are the most important laws. I find it very strange and SCARY that some people actually think longing for someone's property is worse than raping someone.

It's my opinion that some sins are worse than others, yes. I don't have a Sin-O-Meter to tell me how the various sins stack up, but no, I don't think the Ten Commandments are necessarily the ten worst things you can do.

You're right, you don't need to. There's no logical reason (that I can see, at least) for you to exert any real effort towards improving the comfort of your "loved ones" after you pass away. But I'll bet you will. I'm asking you why.

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. You're looking at things from the belief that nothing is true. I'm making my arguments using YOUR beliefs. I'm putting myself in your head. In your head, you have no self-benefitting reason to care. So, if you can realize this (I think you obviously do), then logically, you should fight the impulses and instincts and do things to benefit yourself instead.

No, my belief in God doesn't show that He exists...I've never claimed such a thing, nor will I. However, under my beliefs, caring makes sense. Under yours, it doesn't. I'm making this argument under the assumption that what you say is true.

Now I'm just about certain that there's been a miscommunication.

I've been trying to put aside our beliefs. I haven't been arguing with you about your atheistic beliefs in this thread. I've been saying that, since YOU think it is true, shouldn't you do so-and-so?

Put another way: you may think my belief in God is silly, but ASSUMING my belief in God is correct, then my behavior becomes rational, doesn't it? Well, assuming your beliefs are correct, your behavior is irrational.

No, not my particular deity: any deity. There's a difference.

You should fight it because, unless you're a very rare sort of human being (in many, many ways), you put yourself through a significant amount of trouble, toil, and pain for the benefit of others...that effort could be used to benefit you.

Certainly eloquent...but I don't agree. Call me cray-zay (and I know ya'll will. ), but I think God has left an indelible watermark on each of us, that only very few deny the existence of.

I find it scary as well...but I think it's important to get past the nutbags. Associating Pat Buchanon with Christianity as a whole is no better than picturing Satan as Jon Lovitz in a red jumpsuit with a pitchfork, and then laughing the entire concept off as being ridiculous.

Ok. I thought for sure you had told me in our other debate that you thought they were the top ten morals.



For the same reason you do, because I care about them. I may not completely understand the human nature and emotions that make me care, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't act on them.


And you are misrepresenting my beliefs. I care. Whether I completely understand why or not, I see absolutely no reason to go against my caring. You keep insisting that I do, but I don't.


I see no reason to fight my morals. They usually make sense to me, and even when they don't, I realize that they come from human nature. You think that human nature comes from a god, while I think it comes from evolution. You have given me absolutely no reason to fight my morals, whether they come from human nature or not. I do not WANT to commit murder. I do not WANT to steal. I do not WANT to hurt people. So I don't. Pretty simple. You have a hard time accepting that these morals can make sense without a god. I don't.


Under your beliefs, and under any belief that has some kind of supreme being. So if someone believes in the boogey man, it makes sense to be scared of her closet. Despite what you say, that DOESN'T make sense, whether it is a boogey man, or a god.


Yes you have. You are basically saying that there is no good reason for atheists to follow their morals; they should just go around and do what ever benefits them: lying, cheating, stealing, as long as they don't get caught. And you are also saying that the reason most atheists don't is because a god gave us our morals. Until you prove that your god exists, your "God-given" morality will have no more legitimacy than any other kind of morality, including someone who believes in some flying unicorn as the supreme being. Just because you believe in the referee of the universe, doesn't make the referee-given morality makes sense, because you can believe in ANYTHING, including a 400 foot tall toad that tells us we should all cut off our heads before the year 2009. How can you sit there and act like you aren't claiming your sense of morality is better than other kinds? You obviously are.


And the behavior of following the giant toad becomes rational too. Believing in Leprechauns is rational if you believe in them. I need a good reason to believe in leprechauns; once I find them, then I will think believing in leprechauns is rational. Same with your god.



You have not demonstrated why I would think my morals are irrational.

But I believe that I care about them for a very specific reason. You don't know why you do, and see no particular personal benefit to it. So, if what I believe is true, my behavior makes perfect sense. If what you believe is true, yours does not. That's what I'm saying.

I don't quite understand why your policy is "give into the instinct or impulse simply because it's there." You deny other impulses on logical grounds, don't you? So, if you find no logical basis for acts of kindness...then why bother? Why should these impulses be any different?

You may not WANT to simply because resisting instinct is not always the easiest thing. How can you not see the pointlessness in caring about things only because you've been born that way? Shouldn't you do the things that reason and logic dictate you do?

Example: logic dictates that I ought to eat healthy food. I don't, always, but I still acknowledge that there's no truly good reason for me not too. Well, every single day, you do something that doesn't benefit you at all...in fact, it's something that hurts you in a way, because it requires some work or effort of you, and only benefits someone else, who you may or may not ever see again.

I think you're trying to argue something different here: I'm not debating the merits of your beliefs just yet. I'm debating the logic under which you should operate if your beliefs are true.

You've misunderstood. You're mistaking an argument on what you OUGHT to believe for an argument on what you actually believe. I'm not arguing for the existence of God with you right now. You seem to think I am.

And no, I'm not saying there's no good reason for Atheists to follow their morals...I'm saying there's no good reason for Atheists to HAVE morals, for the most part. At least, not from THEIR point of view. I'm glad they have moral beliefs anyway...but logically, from their point of view, they shouldn't. Right and wrong don't exist.

I'm not claiming to have any special legitimacy. I'm only arguing for the existence of SOME kind of God, anyway.

What exactly is the point of this? Yes I believe my morality is correct. If I didn't believe it was correct, why would I believe it? You have your own morals, too, and if you thought you saw someone with BETTER morals, you would adopt them.

So yes, of course I believe my sense of morality is generally correct. I'm sure I have holes and flaws, but I think the basics morals I follow are the correct ones. I wouldn't really follow them otherwise, now would I? So, I ask you two things:

1 - What gave you the impression I was denying that I believe what I follow?

2 - What exactly is the problem with this, seeing as how anyone in their right mind believes that their method is the one to use, seeing as how they themselves use it?

The rest of that paragraph was just re-hashed. I don't know why you feel the need to excessively bleat things akin to "you can't prove it." Isn't that obvious? If either of us had any proof, we wouldn't be talking about this. So let's stick to the things that matter.

That's exactly right...if you saw a Leprechaun, all the people who believed in them would suddenly be seen as rational, instead of irrational. You don't need to believe in God to argue logistically as if He existed, though...and I certainly don't need to become an Atheist to argue about the logistics involved there.

If you want to argue about the existence of God, you know I'll be more than happy to...but that's not what we've been discussing so far. My argument has been that ASSUMING you are correct, and I am wrong, you ought to act a certain way. It's a "suppose you're right" kinda thing. It's assuming for the sake of argument. I don't understand why you're getting caught up elsewhere.

I think I most definitely have. I see no logical reason for you to care about what happens to your family after you die. I don't believe you've given one either. Your basic reply has been "I care because I do." But that gets us nowhere: we already know why you care...either God, or evolution, most likely. The question is not why you care, but why you continue to care even when you have failed to produce a logical reason for caring.

Now, I imagine at this point you might think to yourself that caring is not logical. And you're right. But seeing as how emotion is really a chemical reaction, and nothing more, why aren't you trying to rise above this individual weakness?

Moving along to a slightly related subject, I have to wonder: what does an Atheist tell his or her spouse? How would it feel if you told them you love them, knowing full well that all that REALLY meant was that some chemicals inside your body had mixed in a certain way, or that this supposed "love" was largely hormonal?

Furthermore, can you look at a child (YOUR child, if you have one), and truly say to yourself that if someone were to harm them, it would only be wrong by opinion?

As I'm sure you've noticed, this is what I keep coming back to: right and wrong. I find it amazing that those who disbelieve in God, still follow many of His moral standards. As far as I'm concerned, that's the key to this. Regardless of the time you're born into, or the circumstances you're raised in, you've got that Moral Law...that watermark...embedded inside you.

While we're on the subject of all this, why not dive into another pool of thought? How do you think the Universe began?