No. Certain things make sense to me. Take hurting people. I have compassion and a conscience. I may not completely understand why I have those things, but I understand that I don't want to hurt someone, and if I did, it would make me feel horrible. I don't want to hurt people, so I don't. Yes, some people may want to do something that hurts people, and not care whether someone gets hurt or not, but we have laws to try to keep those kinds of things from happening. I don't feel I need to have a religion to justify my morals, nor do I think you have even slightly proven your case that I have morals because some deity gave them to me.
What I'm trying to say is that you have morals, yet logically, they do you little good. It is in your own interest to defy some of them, isn't it? But you don't. Why? Chemicals? Are you a slave to your instincts? Real morals and atheism do not mix. Atheism is all about a big, fat, gray world. The two go hand in hand.
I think there is a contradiction if you think certain sins are worse than the ones you claim are the top ten. Ok, if burning someone's house down is equivalent to theft, then what about torture or rape? They are not mentioned in the ten commandments, but using God's name in vain is. What is more wrong? Strapping somoene to a chair and torturing them by slowly giving them third degree burns, or yelling "God damnit!" when you almost get into a car wreck? I think it is obvious that the ten commandments is not a top ten list that makes sense.
Not true; why is the person torturing? More information is needed. There is no contradiction whatsoever: I think some sins are worse, but I don't KNOW. You can't put a tag on suffering or evil, so I can't say which is worse with much certainty. I can only guess. IMO, the torture is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain. Some of the Commandments cover a LOT of ground, though.
I don't think morals throughout history have been as similar as you seem to think. However, to the extent that they are similar, I think it mostly comes from almost all humans having similar natural emotions and instincts. Different experiences have caused societies to think a little differently, creating different morals, but many of the morals remained common ground among all or almost all societies because of human nature.
You can even see some morals in other animals. For example, some apes will share things with each other, showing generosity. Some animals even love. When a dog cries because his father died, what is that?
What is that? Well, in my opinion, it's because even animals have emotions...though I've never seen or heard of a dog crying over such a thing. I am glad you mentioned dogs, though: I love the way Lewis likens us to them. We are dogs, and Christ is our master. It works on more levels than is immedietly evident. As such, we dogs can go at each other's throat and mess up constantly, and, as you well know, bite the hand that feeds us...but in the end, we're only fighting the thing that gives us the power to fight in the first place.
I think they are more similar than most people believe. They just think something about some caveman or Egyptian being cruel, and figure that we're light years apart...but I don't believe that's the case at all. I see an undeniable conscience of sorts throughout history. Lewis was dedicated, from what I understand, to research of this sort, and said that the results pointed towards many base morals that were agreed upon throughout history, in much the same way you, despite not believing in any real right or wrong or absolute truth, as it were, will appeal to a person's common sense...not just because you know they probably have some, but because it is deeply engrained in you.
You appeal to a person's goodness every day of your entire life, I'd imagine, even. Constantly...undeniably. You appeal to the sense of fair play we all have. Do you believe this is all only a product of our society? You could not appeal to the same sort of reasonable nature of people hundreds or thousands of years ago?
I don't have much to add to what I've already said about love. I think that brains are complicated and I don't claim to completely understand how love works. I believe right and wrong is opinion, but I can't compare that kind of opinion with vanilla vs. chocolate. While I think that there have probably been, and probably still are, other intelligent races out there, I don't have a good idea of how many, nor do I have an opinion on how many of them are/were humanoid. Is there absolutely nothing beyond our current state of existence? I would have to say no. But is there such a thing as a soul which lives forever? I would also have to say no.
Well, I don't know that it lives forever. Perhaps unreptenant souls will merely be destroyed. I really don't know...but I do doubt that hell is really the literal lake of fire and torture people think of. I think it's much more subtle than that.
I agree that we don't know much of what there is to know out there. To me, that's a sign of intelligence. Of how vast it all is. I've yet to understand how a person can see this level of complexity and conclude that no creature was behind it. If you came across a pile of sticks arranged in a crude circle somewhere, certainly you would assume someone arranged them that way...you wouldn't assume it happened by change...and the life and planet we see now are infinitely more complex and precise and advanced than a pile of sticks.
I think there might be other intelligent races out there as well, BTW.
No offense taken. Certainly I put myself ahead of the world to a certain extent, because I am the one who is responsible for me. But if I were to weigh my overall well-being against the overall well-being of the planet, the scales would tilt in the direction of the planet. I hope that I am the kind of person who would be brave enough to sacrifice his life to save others. I honestly don't know if I am, but I would hope so.
I would hope so as well...but why would you sacrifice your life for many people who can do you no good? If it's not really right or wrong or good or bad to do any of it, why? Is it another instance of being a slave to your instincts?
I believe that prehumans didn't understand certain natural things like lightning, storms, hurricanes, etc., and were fightened of them. They saw that the sun kept them warm and did other miraculous things, and they started to worship the sun as a god. I think that is how religion started. As I indicated before, I believe that the fear of death is the biggest reason why the general belief in gods has continued so strongly for millions of years. There are other big reasons that include: greed; power hunger; wanting to understand EVERYTHING, or follow somoene or something that does; choosing to go along to get along; and wanting to be a part of a big family type group, to make each other feel better about themselves.
Well, there are a few problems with that. For one, Christianity does not offer answers to everything. Not even close! Anyone who says it does is misrepresenting things.
But seriously: why would early man really believe it? Life was terrifying and awful. By your logic, which says that intelligent design is not implied through this world, they wouldn't have had much reason to. Life was BAD. Cruel, and more difficult than we'll likely ever know.
As for the fear of death: as I've said in the past, there's no reason to assume people would invent religion to find a way "around it." There's just as much reason to believe they'd rather not believe in God, because it imposed rules and more difficulties on them.
This subject is bogging down our debate, as is your apparent obsession with atheist morals. I simply feel that it is wrong to teach something subjective like religion so relentlessly that the child is basically forced to have those opinions, and none that contradict them. Some parents do that, while others merely give their opinions that their religion is right, and they don't force that opinion on their children very much (that was what happened with me when I was a child). And there are even those out there who don't try yto influence their kids at all, but give them all kinds of religious texts (as well as non-religious texts on religion), and let their kids decide on their own what they want to have faith in, if anything. That last one is my favorite way of teaching kids about religion.
So, it is not even the singing of Psalms, but rather, the situations in which that is the ONLY way of teaching?
Saying I am obsessed with Atheistic morals is like saying you are obsessed with Christian morals: it is very relevant and more than worth discussing. It's not bogging down the debate any more than your questions about God from every front.
Well, I believe things in degrees, of course, just as you do. If a stranger tells me that she heard the weather was going to be nice today, I will probably believe her to a certain extent, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was lying or mistaken. Am I really sitting here, or am hooked up to some Matrix-like computer? I would say that I am about 99.9999% or so sure that I am really sitting here. I can't be totally 100% sure about anything, but I think it is a huge stretch to say I can't believe in things. I believe I am sitting here, I believe I am debating a Christian, I believe at least billions of things.
So, therefore, you do not demand undeniable proof to believe things...and rightly so. At least, this is the impression I get...and it's what I hope is the truth. My point is simply that it's ridiculous to hold religion to such a remarkably high standard of evidence and proof, when no one holds the majority of their beliefs to such a standard. No one here is claiming undeniable proof of God, and so, no one should be asked to provide it...just as I do not ask you to provide proof contrary to that of God's existence.
You lost me here. Truly live what way?
What you deem to be the correct way: without belief in God.
Seems like quite a hoax to me too.
Understatement of the year. If what you say is true, not only have billions of people toiled for something that doesn't exist, but they've done so with more money and effort than the rest of the world has ever seen. In terms of hoaxes, it is a beach full of sand to the hourglass that is the runner-up. IMO, believing THAT requires faith.
I never said that, and I don't believe it. I believe that humans are much different than other animals, and that we are the only animal that can use our intellilect to control or even disregard our instincts (even though many of us don't control those instincts very well at all). Instincts explain certain things about how our societies have developed, though, and they explain why we still do certain things today.
Well, it seems you are led by your instincts. I've still yet to grasp why it is you care for what you call morals.
Needing a reason to believe that something exists is much different than needing an explanation for things that I don't understand. I accept that there are things I don't understand; I will try like hell to understand them, but I don't need to believe in a religion just so that I can claim to understand it when I will have no proof to support that claim whatsoever.
That's being unreasonable. For one, Christianity is not about people claiming to know all sorts of things. Christianity is about submission! You claim it as being too reliant on Faith...yet you also seem to fault it for providing too many answers, as it were. The fact of the matter is that religion does not throw many answers at us. If anything, most of what you'll read in The Bible will have you saying "duh, I knew that." The teachings are simple, and are things most of us will know of already...though you and I will disagree as to why that is.
I've given you reasons to believe:
- If you don't, you must believe that this is the most embarassingly elaborate hoax of all time, and that billions of people have wasted good portions of their lives on it.
- You must believe that the person known as Jesus Christ, in addition to not being God, was a lunatic.
- You must believe in some other theory of creation...none of which have ever had any more evidence on their side, as far as I can see, than creationism.
- You must believe that your conscience is just an instinct, and that your morals differ not from your favorite TV show.
- You must believe that (and yes, I realize this argument applies to both sides), many, many brilliant minds have disagreed with you.
- You must completely discount its longevity and endurance throughout all human history.
- You must dismiss The Bible as nonsense.
- You must believe that morals, in large part, come from your surroundings, so that you may very well be a cannibalistic murder if your father happened to have been named Hannibal.
- You must believe you are right, and over 95% of the population of this earth is wrong.
- You must believe that all the disturbingly high amount of complexity around you...this planet, your brain (who's complexity you've marveled at), your retena, etc, despite their amazingly precise levels, did not come from any plan or force. They just sort of happened over time.
There is MUCH you must believe if you discredit the existence of God. There is much I must believe in order to believe in Him, too...but please do not make out that you have no reasons for believing. Surely the reasons above, even if not sufficient for you, are noteworthy and undeniably serve as evidence. I get the impression you enjoy reverting to great minds for wisdom...and I do as well. I think that as important as it is for us to figure things out as best we can on our own, it is equally as foolish to do so without the help of those wiser than us.
Closed Thread
