Yeah, things have cleared up from earlier. I keep telling everyone at least
we've got firewood from the tree that crashed through the storage shed and the
fence. ^^ I also think the weather is not going to be as bad for some time.
*intently stares at the radar* Thank you for checking up on me. I
think its been awhile since I've seen or heard from you as well. How is life?
Things going well for you?
Hey Alex, had to delete my previous entry so you could see this one. I'm not so
good at the moment so I have not been online in a while.
How have things been with you? Life's been rather unpleasant on my side and I'd
rather leave it at that. The world's been getting more and more
"unstable" and I'm contemplating the possibilities of a post
apocalyptic world and whether I should join the rebels, communists or
fascists.
Quote by alexjohnc3Just in case you
didn't see my message, I wanted to know if you could send me a link to an
article that you think does a good job at explaining why homosexuality is
immoral.
I don't think you mind me not replying to your other post as you said, "I
replied to you because you asked for it here ... I don't have any other
particular reason." I don't think the discussion was going anywhere and
since you don't seem to have much of an interest in me replying, I'm not going
to bother, unless you actually want me to.
Good timing, for I was just working on an article that explains it, I'll post it
on the Group Guestbook. Comments on my guestbook are welcome as usual.
Quote by alexjohnc3Hi royaldarkness. I
saw some of your comments on the forum thought you might want to join the MT-Atheists group. Although you
consider yourself a Buddhist, you don't have to identify with atheism to be a
member.
Hey there thanks for inviting me
I'd love to join, but it's just that I won't be very active in MT
merged: 10-09-2007 ~ 02:10pm
Quote by alexjohnc3
You can join, even if you're not very active. Feel free to if you want,
otherwise feel free not to. :P
BTW, I really like your profile page. It looks very good.
^^
So sorry for the late reply!
I decided to join the group after all, once again thanks for inviting me
^^
And thanks for the compliment, credit goes to my friend enchantressinthedark
Quote by melymayHeyo I
noticed that you added me to your friend list ^_^ I'm happy you did, adding you
back ASAP :3
Thanks! ^_^
Also, I really liked your banner for the MT-Environmentalists group. I'd
definitely vote for it, but yothsothgoth's is really good too (and a bit more
relevant) so I can't decide.
Good to know that you like it I'm
completely fine with whoever you choose. Whether it's my banner or one of
yothsothgoth's, just pick the one that you think is best for the group ^_^
Quote by alexjohnc3Our posts are kind
of long and so I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep replying to each
other while talking about like eight different topics. Is there any one thing
you want to talk about specifically? I'll post what I had replied to so far,
just so you don't think you wasted your time replying to me only for me to ask
we try to shorten the discussion:
I replied to you because you asked for it here:
Quote by alexjohnc3
Edit: If or when you respond, can we can we continue this in each other's
guestbook? I don't want to stop other members of this group from posting here by
accident.
I don't have any other particular reason.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I wasn't talking about natural selection, but I'll try my best to address that
based on my very limited knowledge of evolution later.
My point was that just because many cultures share similar values, such as honor
and integrity, does not imply there is an absolute morality and thus a God who
acts as the "law maker." Humans, being very similar creatures, are
bound to have similar views on morality. If a civilization is to survive, it
needs many people who are have a predisposition towards altruism. There are many
people who see nothing wrong with stealing, lying, killing, etc., but if a
society has too many of those people and they become too powerful, the society
will crumble.
...
"As for what you said about natural selection, those groups full of animals
that self-sacrifice are going to be the ones to survive as opposed to groups
full of self-serving animals who act in ways that are not beneficial for the
group and instead hinder the groups' survival as a whole. The self-serving
animals, I would imagine, would be much less likely to even form groups in the
first place and those animals who live in groups are much more likely to survive
than those who do not as they can protect each
other."
Self-serving individuals can actually form groups. The only difference is that
they abandon them when they no longer benefit from it. (they are self-serving
afterall. similar to betrayal)Take for example a herd of wild Cows. When a lion
chases them, now what happens to the self-sacrificial Cow which stays behind to
protect a calf while to other (self serving) cows run for their lives? He likely
gets eaten.
And if the self sacrificial people do not live to reproduce, then natural
selection has worked against them, not for them. Richard Dawkins' book "The
Selfish Gene" doesn't have 'selfish' in its title for nothing.
It is expected that the moral law (or altruism) tends to preserve civilisation,
since God has the best interests of his creation at heart. C S Lewis never did
say he proved that the moral law proves God's existance. (although he did give
reason like why he it probably isn't an instinct and so on) However he did
believe that God is the most reasonable explanation for its existance.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Note, however, that many civilizations have drastically different views on
morality, which C.S. Lewis completely ignores in the first chapter (though he
may have attempted to address it later on). Nowadays, many people have strong
egalitarian views on ethnicity, sex, nationality, belief, etc. That isn't
exactly a natural tendency of humans, who have a much stronger tendency to be
intolerant of whatever qualities others have that they don't have or have a
variation of (e.g., Protestants and Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland).
These drastically different views on morality, such as human sacrifice and
slavery, suggests relative morality, not absolute. Even if all views on morality
were similar, it could mean those views on morality are what is needed for a
society to exist.
I'll rather you be more specific, but I will say that cilivilizations largely
have the same idea of morailty. Why do I say so? Let take human sacrifice for
example. (since you used it) The societies that did have human sacrifices didn't
do so because they thought that it was good in itself, but because they thought
that pleasing a god was a good thing. Let's also take slavery. The slave dealers
did not tolerate slavery because they thought it was a good thing. They
tolerated it only because they benefited from it.
It's quite obvious to me that there's more to the "Protestants and
Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland" than mere variation of moral values
you mention. Imo it's a rather myopic and shallow view of the war you
have.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Um... okay. What does "dying spiritually" mean
exactly?
In Christianity spiritual death occurs via seperation from God. Man after Adam
could no longer communicate with God directly. In many Christian circles it is
said that the most painful thing for Jesus during the crucifixtion was not
physical but spiritual.
"And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli,
lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My
God, why have You forsaken me?" - Matthew 27:46
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't see what's wrong with using the word "illogical." Punishing
someone when there is no gain in doing so for either party is illogical and only
leads to unnecessary hatred and suffering. The only justification for "an
eye for an eye" is as a deterrent to crime in the first place. If someone
knows they're going to be beaten up if they beat someone else up, they're
unlikely to do it. If people were genuinely empathetic beings, that would be
unnecessary and they would be able to relate to each other easily, preventing
them from causing each other to suffer. This not being the case, punishments are
the easiest deterrents to crime a society can use and has thus become a core
part of many societies, even if people, such as yourself, don't realize why
punishment is useful.
Techincally, speaking, I've said nothing illogical about God, just that you
disagree with me and somehow like to use the word "illogical" on
people whom you disagree with. I think you've actually answered for yourself as
to what punishment is good for. Perhaps you can expain to me what you mean by
genuinely empathetic. (you mean all our empathy is fake?) Does it include
empathy for the pain of rocks, trees, and flying squirrels? Technically
speaking, you don't feel any different whether a million people are killed in
the room next to you or a rock was detonated at the same location so long as you
don't know of it. (maybe you should consider my linking everyone's pain sensors
to each other and mind reading for all suggestion) Anyway some people do gripe
about being too sensitive: http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/personalgrowth/articlelhj.aspx?cp-documentid=5292179
Quote by Persocom01
Not really my point. My point was that the evidence for God's existence could be
obvious, but we would not be able to understand the evidence because God, being
out creator, could prevent us from doing so. We could create an artificially
intelligent robot that, when it saw a television, it would not believe
televisions exist as it would be unable to comprehend the evidence, even though
it is right in front of it since its creators do not will it. The same could be
the case for God. God could not want us to see the evidence supporting his
existence, even if its right in front of us. Not something like the complexity
of the world, but something more obvious like the example I gave with the
television. That could be why we aren't able to understand God's reasoning, as
God has purposefully limited our ability to reason in order to prevent us from
coming to the conclusion that it exists through
reasoning.
What point about the evidence for God's existance is not understandable? God did
will that everyone know of him:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is
clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them." - Romans
1:18-19
In fact, God pretty much says that you, and everyone else, already knows him
(which is consistent with scientific findings) and Atheists and people who claim
not to know God are suppressing the truth.
I haven't posted this on MT-Atheists before, (although I planned to do so at one
point) but besides the design, there is also what is known as the Trancendental
argument for God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
To better comprehend it, try the following experiment - Going onto a stage in
front of a live audience of 1000 people, and shouting through the microphone the
following:
1. "Thank God of my reason and intelligence!"
2. "Thank the fortuitous arragement of molecules in my brain for my reason
and intelligence!"
After which tell me which one made you feel more like a fool. Since, we write so
very long replies, I'll spilt the other part from this one until we are
satisfied with discussing this.
Quote by alexjohnc3Have you been
reading Pharyngula or something? You've posted two articles that I originally
read about there. o.o
Though it could just be a coincidence.
Actually I don't remember where I got them exactly, but now that you mention a
site and I looked there... it looks familiar. ^^ Its probably that place exactly
or some place that had a link from it. I click on links to links to links and
end up not remembering what I was looking for to begin with.
Quote by yothsothgothOh, I just saw
this: Scientists
will soon create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from
this... good and bad... though which will prevail?
Quote by alexjohnc3
I can't explain in detail, since I'm neither a biologist nor have I read too
much on how humans make decisions involving morality. My point was, however,
that he doesn't consider that the commonality of human morals throughout
different cultures can also be explained by the fact that we're all human beings
and thus have many similar traits that would allow for cultures with similar,
but not the same, morals and views to develop.
CS Lewis does explain why he thinks that morality is not a trait that arises
from physical factors. Take honor and integrity for example. The most beneficial
choice for the person offered 20 thousand for his car but has promised to sell
it for 10 thousand, is of course to sell it for 20 thousand. However the moral
law rebels against that idea. Similarly when a person is drowning, and you're
not the best of swimmers, the most beneficial choice would be to let him drown.
Yet the moral law tells you to risk your life (at no gain whatsoever) to save
the person. Risking death is hardly a trait that natural selection is likely to
select for. In fact, the moral law more often makes the opposite true - it makes
a person's death more likely, his material resources smaller than it could have
been, (because he doesn't cheat) or even lowers his chances for landing a mate.
(because he doesn't lie about himself or go all out to propagate)
Quote by alexjohnc3
I think I remember reading God said to Adam and Eve that they would die if they
ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Instead of dying as their
punishment, they were kicked out of the Garden of
Eden.
They did die. Both physically, and being seperated from God, spiritually.
(although I'm more inclined to think that God refered to the latter) God didn't
say when they would die either, nor did he say "I will kill you".
(considering humans naturally die spiritually after being seperated from
God)
Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not saying that keeping promises is illogical, but that the action God
promised in itself was illogical. If I promised someone I would kill someone for
them, it would be illogical to carry out that promise and doing so wouldn't
reflect my honor nor my integrity, as is the case
here.
Again I think you're misusing the word illogical. What you probably mean is that
it's unreasonable to you. I'll overlook that, considering it's just a language
error. If you talk about mathematics/logic, God's law states:
1 life = 1 life
1 tooth = 1 tooth
1 eye = 1 eye
Now it fits the laws of mathematics perfectly. Letting someone off scott free is
hardly logical to me.
If you promised that you'll kill someone for somebody, and not do it, then you
have done evil by breaking your promise. I'm not saying that you should have
gone ahead and killed the person, for breaking your promise is the lesser of the
two evils. However, what God has promised is justice, and justice is good. He
did not promise to do evil, but to do good. Now before we lose sight of it
altogether, let's go back to the issue of Jesus' death. Jesus died to satisfy
the justice of God. And God did not do evil by forcing him to die. Jesus died
willingly as it is written:
"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I might
take it again. No one takes it from Me,
but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I
have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment from My
Father." - John 10:17-18
Quote by alexjohnc3
To give another example, we could create an artificially intelligent robot, but
program it to believe we don't exist. Even though it is an intelligent life
form, it will ignore how obvious it is that we created it, even if it can see
us. The same could be true for humans. Even if God's existence is obvious, we
could have been created to ignore the most obvious facts that prove his
existence.
Humans innately believe in God, as far as I know. I heard that studies on
children who were never taught that God is the creator found that these children
still answered "God" when asked who created the universe. This article
goes so far as to say:
Atheism, as far as I know, is scientifically an unatural religion (belief
system) that isn't innate in human beings, but rationalised in some way
later.
Quote by alexjohnc3
In the end, the problem with assuming that we're like that robot who cannot
comprehend its creator or understand it's reasoning is that we may not actually
have a creator or our creator may not be God. Using the same logic, we could say
2 + 2 actually equals 5 because we could have been created to believe that 2 + 2
equals 4. Such claims are worthless because we can only rely on our own
reasoning, even if that means we won't be able to find truth. Based on what we
do know and what we have observed, our reasoning is the best tool for finding
truth and judging reality. If God purposely limited our ability to reason, we
can't do anything about that. I actually have a tendency to half believe we do
have a creator, but the idea that the Christian god is our creator seems
obviously wrong to me.
If I created a robot that was dumber than me, I wouldn't say that I've
"purposely limited" its ability to reason. And I think "cannot
comprehend" is different from "cannot fully comprehend". (which
is my position) I did not say we cannot understand ANYTHING that God does. I
just said we can't understand EVERYTHING. (which would be the case if my
hypothesis is true) Yes I do think that reason and common sense is the best tool
to judge reality with.
Quote by alexjohnc3
One of the reasons I reject the view that there is an entity that created us at
all is that it's only based on human ignorance. If we don't know how rain falls,
we assume it's was the work of a supernatural entity. If we see a volcano
explode, we assume the same thing. Finally, if we observe the complexity of the
world, we'll once again assume the same thing. In the first two cases, we know
that isn't the case, but many people have believed that to be the case for
thousands of years. In the last case, it's much harder to study than the first
two, but, based on what we do know about the Universe currently, the scientific
explanations seem to make this yet another case of human bias resulting from our
ignorance causing us to become convinced of a false belief once
again.
I think that's where you're wrong. I did not assume that it was the work of
intelligence, (what you call a supernatural deity) but rather deduced it from
the current laws of science along with reason. I know a clock ticks without the
intervention of an intelligence, but I do know that it was created by one. (I
think you overgeneralized about the rain and volcanoes) I reject Atheism because
it's based on ignorance. Just because we don't know how it could have been the
work of intelligence, you assume that it was not. Of course it's impossible to
prove which way it is for sure currently, but based on what we do know about the
universe at present, the most obvious and reasonable explanation would be that
it was the work of an intelligence.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Just think about how reasonable it would be to assume that God caused a volcano
to erupt, when you don't know any other way it could have happened. If
scientists discovered how volcanoes actually erupted and a group of people had
held a tradition of trying to appease God. Regardless of the scientific
explanation, they would continue to hold their belief because it was a tradition
and, if belief was widespread enough, this new scientific idea would be fought
against in favor of the traditional views.
Just how reasonable would it be to assume that a computer made itself, or a
watch self assembled, just because you don't know the designer. Of course,
unless God personally reveals himself to each and every one of us, many would
continue to hold on to their own beliefs. There have been plenty of Godless men
in the past, (despite a lack of the theory of evolution - I don't see how other
sciences have an impact on the belief in God - unless you're refering to the
belief in imaginary Atlas, Zues or Thor) as it is written:
"saying to a tree, You are my
father; and to a stone, You gave me birth. For they have turned their
back to Me, and not their face; but in the time of their trouble they will say,
Arise and save us!" - Jeremiah 2:27
The underlined verses describe the people in denial of God. You are right,
however, if you meant that most people believed in God on way or another. (it's
still true today, actually, despite evolution) This could be due to the fact
that no human society has ever survived more than 3 generations without a
religious foundation (I think Atheists are naturally selected against, for a
variety of reasons, from lower levels of co-operation and reproductive success
to mental fortitude) :
Quote by Persocom01
Um, but the other passage you posted specifically says "you shall give life
for life, eye for eye..." not God. From every source I've ever seen, Jesus
was advocating a pretty advanced view for his time, that revenge for the sake of
revenge is worthless and that forgiveness is more important than revenge.
There's also a good saying, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world
blind."
Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it:
"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have
not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and
the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the
Law until all is fulfilled." - Matthew 5:17-18
What Jesus said was of course true. That we should not take revenge. But that is
not because vengence is bad. (for vengence and justice are two sides of the same
coin) It's just because there really isn't a point considering God will judge
everyone anyway, whether in life (through the court of law) or in death. The
passage from the old testament states the law, but it doesn't not do so in
reference to how an individual should behave.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Yeah and the Christian god sentencing people to eternal damnation for not
worshiping him isn't frivolous?
And God made Mary pregnant, which is sort of like adultery. =P
I think it make sense for God to destroy a rebellious creation.
"And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every
tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the
fire." - Matthew 3:10
God sent Jesus in the most holy way possible, born of a virgin and without sex.
It's nothing like the adultery of the greek gods like Gaea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28mythology%29
(slept with her son no less)
Quote by alexjohnc3
You don't accept the fact that a larger number of Christians believe in God as
kind and forgiving, rather than vengeful than back when believing that was
beneficial to society? That's basically all I said there, but I also added that
it would explain why that belief was was so popular than and has now weakened,
even though the texts haven't changed much, if at all. That's one weakness of
written religions, they can't evolve with society's changing needs anymore as
religions kept alive through oral traditions can.
I'll like to see your proof of that assertion. You might as well ask the
"large majority of Christians" if they believe in the book of
Revelation. (where unbelievers are judged and pretty much annihilated) And what
makes you think I don't see God as kind and forgiving? There is no need for the
truth to "evolve". If a rose were a rose 100 years ago it would still
be a rose today. (or does it evolve into a sunflower?) What do you want? Jesus
to be born in a hotel and John the prophet to be a rock star? Society's needs
have stayed the same really with regards to God.
I don't recall God wanting to be "popular". If you read the chapter in
John MacArthur's Hard
to Believe entitled "Truth in a Privy Pot" (a pot used to collect
shit) you'll have a sense on just how God wanted to convey his message - no
frills, with just the bare essentials and his power. Just look as his choice of
birthplace and disciples. (tax collector, a rebel, fishermen...) Plus what
better way to be popular than tell others they must be willing to die for
him?
"And Nathanael said to him, Can
there be any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come
and see." - John 1:46
Quote by alexjohnc3
Evolution isn't an "atheist thing". It's a matter of science and
atheists mostly accept it for two reasons. The first reason it that they don't
have a scripture to tell them something else, so they don't have to reconcile
their beliefs with it. The second reason is it provides an explanation for
something we had originally attributed to a supernatural entity. Just as an
atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation for how rain falls, an
atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation of the evolution of
life on Earth. In both cases because they don't have a belief in God to prevent
them from forming beliefs based on new knowledge rather than their own
ignorance. There are other reasons of course, such as the fact that Creationists
have driven some of the atheists in our little community to take some sort of
weird, almost religious pride in evolution. It's kind of weird, seriously.
o_o
I can understand liking evolution for its explanatory powers, but that's not why
some people like it so much. It's because they're driven to be the opposite of
their "opponents," so they lose sight of the fact that evolution could
be wrong; and they don't accept it on its merits, but because it's what the
Creationists tell them they believe and that what they believe is against
God.
I don't think evolution is really a matter of science, for as far as I know the
evidence for it is as a rope of sand. The real reason I think it's accepted is
really the second you have mentioned (I've told you before too if I recall
right) - that it does without God. Not because it is feasible, but because It
takes God out. I don't think that most Atheists really accept evolution because
of it's own merits, (some just because they're anti-christian, see also
ex-christian.net, while many others appear to have a rather shallow
understanding of evolution) but instead because it fits snugly into their own
world view, and is parroted by the media and some scientists. A quote attributed
to GK Chesterton (I believe it's been altered although it retains the original
meaning) goes: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in
nothing -- they believe in anything."
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't really see how that article shows flies have freewill. It seemed to
neglect the fact that there are both internal and external factors that
contribute to a fly's actions, not just external ones. Maybe I'm missing
something, but I wanted to go to sleep a few hours ago and it's about 1:00 a.m.,
so I might not be thinking straight, especially since I didn't sleep much
yesterday either. ^^;
The study suggests that free-will it exists, as the researchers removed external
factors in the experiment. (as well as they knew how) I don't know what internal
factors you think might have an impact but hey, it's evidence, not conclusive
proof.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Oh, I see what you mean now. What I was saying was that if humans were more
intelligent and thus better able to understand that others feel same things they
feel, there wouldn't be things like torture. Even if humans couldn't perfectly
associate with each other, just enough for us to be at the same level as those
humans who have exemplary abilities to feel empathy for others would be
nice.
That really the same as empathy and isn't intelligence is it not? I think even
dog can sense people's feelings. And I think we know perfectly well that a
person being tortured is suffering, but has it occured to you that torture
exists because some people WANT to inflict pain on another person.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I recall reading about people who have been born without the ability to feel
empathy. I don't remember where, but then again, I don't remember where I've
read most of the things I've read. If you want to, feel free to look for
yourself, but I'm not having much luck finding any examples right
now.
I think there are people born blind or people born without the sense of pain
too, but it's really an exception rather than the norm, caused by the continual
degeneration of the world, so I don't see how it helps your point. If I were
arguing that people aren't given good enough eyes I wouldn't point to a blind
person.
Quote by alexjohnc3
That human empathy is so easily defeated by training does say a lot about how
weak it is.
I don't see why you seem to have the need to blame everything and anything
except the person whom you think lacks empathy. I also wonder what training you
are refering to. (I was refering to a lack of training in my post, so I wonder
what training you're refering to here?)
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't believe a lack of empathy is the root cause of suffering, I believe that
a lack of empathy is a reason why humans are often willing to inflict suffering
on each other for their own benefit.
I think it's just a symptom of sin, just as flies and a bad smell don't cause
garbage, but are rather a symptom of it.
Quote by alexjohnc3
(Sorry for all the random line breaks above...)
I finished Ouran recently and when I finish an anime or while I'm in the middle
of it, I tend to think it's the best thing I've ever seen. For example, I loved
Pita Ten when I was watching it. Now, I don't really like it much at all. I
still love Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu because the anime was more unique and
interesting than most, I've been reading the light novels every now and then
online (if you're interested, they can be found here: http://www.baka-tsuki.net/project/index.php?title=Suzumiya_Haruhi
), and the ending didn't make me feel like it was missing something, unlike
Ouran's ending and most other animes, which feel like they end way too
abruptly.
Random picture for you: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/alexjohnc3/anime/haruhi/haruhiString.png
www.newgrounds.com If you haven't been
here, its a wonderland... if you ignore the ads, its an awesome site. They have
many different comics and just videos.
My recommendations: Xombie Series - This one is
the second movie though (you might have to go to James Farr's site to get
the first movie) and Brackenwood
Series This Series is pretty good... I liked the "Prowlies at the
River" the best so far...
http://www.angryalien.com/ is a good
flash movie site. Not really a comic, just amusing 30-second movie parody site
(with bunnies) for bordom late at night.
I hope you enjoy these... they were the ones that came to mind right now. I'll
let you know if I think of any others later. Have a wonderful night.
Quote by alexjohnc3
My dad has Mere Christianity, which I
read some of about a year and a half ago. After reading a few pages I had to
stop because the claims he was making were based on horrible logic and it pained
me to read it without being able to question him about his claims, at least from
what I remember. (Update: Before I posted this response I read some of the book
again (near the beginning of it) and, though his claims weren't exactly logical,
they weren't horribly off either. I'm talking about his claims involving
"Right" and "Wrong." Just because different civilizations
had some similar views on morality, such as killing being bad, that doesn't mean
there is an absolute morality. He doesn't take biological factors into account,
for example.)
I recall that he did take some physical factors into account in his chapeter,
"some objections". Anyway, explain to me in detail what the biological
factors he did not take into account are.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that because logic is rigid that if God
created logic God is also rigid, even when being rigid means acting illogically.
Also, God created humans and humans aren't rigid, so God might not be rigid
either. There's more to base this on too since we were supposedly created in
God's image. Hm, maybe that's why He has so many sadistic tendencies in the
Bible.
I think you're misusing the word logic here. There is nothing
"illogical" about keeping a promise. If I promised to sell a car for
10 thousand dollars and got an offer for 20 thousand dollars, there's nothing
"illogical" about keeping my promise to sell it for 10 thousand. In
fact, it's known as honor and integrity. And if you follow CS Lewis' argument,
we all know that keeping one's word is 'good'. If I say I will arrive at 1pm. By
the moral law we all know that that is the time I ought to arrive at. Even I'm
held up for valid reason, I will still apologise when I arrive late. God then,
being the author of this law, will not break his promises simply
because:
1. He has perfect honor and intergity.
2. He, unlike us, has no valid reason to break his promises because he happens
to be omnipotent and omniscient. (arguable there are limits to his abilities but
that's another matter)
Quote by alexjohnc3
When I said, "whether you like it or not," I meant that, even if you
dislike the fact that God unnecessarily sacrificing Jesus' life makes no sense,
that has no impact on the fact that it doesn't make any sense and wasn't
necessary.
Well, 0.9999... + 0.9999... = 2, remember? =P
It makes sense, that is why I don't see the need for "whether you like it
or not". And of course 0.9999... = 1 so 0.9999... + 0.9999... = 1 + 1 = 2.
I don't really see you point although I can tell you're trying to be a wise
guy.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not sure how you can say God created these things or logic itself. According
to you, God created logic, but, do you seriously believe that even if God
actually exists that it's possible He could have made the logic such that if you
get one object and another object, then you put them next to each other, you'd
have three objects? Logic can't be "created." While I do agree that it
is possible, since we, as humans, don't
know enough to say anything with absolute certainty, it seems really, really
unlikely.
Considering that I think God is probably extradimensional, the science behind
this I won't explain now (nor do I know all of it) but it does mean follow that
he can never be completely comprehended by lower dimensional beings like us.For
a rough idea about this perspective see also the novel flatland: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_dimension
However it really just boils down to even if you can't comprehend how it is
possible doesn't mean it really isn't. Afterall, God did create the universe.
Now I won't pretend to know how matter and energy can be created from
nothing.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Jesus (also God) said:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I
tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also." -Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)
It shows that you do not understand the context behind Jesus' words if you're
quoting that passage.
"For we know Him who has said, "Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord."
And again, "The Lord shall judge His people." - Hebrews 10:30
The reason you do not resist an evil person is simply because you trust God to
take revenge for you.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not sure Zeus, Thor, or Poseidon have much in common with the FSM other than
they probably all like pasta, but that's also true for the Christian god,
a.k.a., the One True God (TM).
They were all frivolous, that's what they have in common. (adultery by god? not
to mention sibling rivary and whatnot political nonsense, plus the ramen) That
is not true for the Chrsitian God.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I would say that God is more stupid than stubborn for not changing His mind when
doing so would be beneficial. I'm not saying God "should be this" or
"should be that," however. I have a basic idea of what the people were
like in general around the time the belief system involving that "God"
was developing, so I'm not surprised that God is so stupid. Back then, a God who
would help people win wars and would punish nonbelievers, enemies, and thieves
to keep order was a good thing. Now, not so much, and that's why belief in that
God has weakened, besides the fact that God doesn't actually do any of that,
whether that's because God doesn't exist or just doesn't feel like it. You can't
change the texts, but you can choose to ignore the parts you know are illogical,
as people have done for thousands of years, though not necessarily because
they're illogical.
You're just stating what you believe, (without being specific, even about the
ignore parts thing) nothing to address here.
Quote by alexjohnc3
You've probably read a lot about God's nature. I think that because you're
making an argument I don't see very often (i.e., that the real God is this way
and other views about God that make Him seem empathetic or more plausible aren't
about the real God since they aren't necessarily backed with scripture as
strongly, if at all). All views about the Christian god are based on how you
interpret the scriptures or what you read or hear about God, including yours.
The only way that you can find what God is really like is using the reason He
blessed you with, not just mindlessly accepting Biblical text as fact because
you've been told the Bible is infallible. Catholics have also historically been
told the Pope is infallible and eventually that view was rejected (mostly) as
has the view the Bible is infallible (again, mostly). You don't need to believe
something just because your environment has told you to believe it if the belief
itself isn't reasonable, although humans have that tendency.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of
God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than
that of blindfolded fear." That view isn't based on the Bible, but the view
that our creator has given us reason to allow us to see the truth, so we should
use that reason to do just that.
I've already said before that I find Christianity to be the most reasonable
religion. (aka belief system) More reasonable than Scientific Materialism. (even
if you ignore the occasional interllectual evasiveness) And it best explains the
world we live in today. Plus, I believe that there is real power behind
Christianity, power that can be seen at work.
Most Atheists don't seem to know what they believe in. (besides evolution) And I
find many of their common core beliefs difficult to believe. (one for example,
is the belief that we - aka our sense of self - are illusionary: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-3,00.html
) I believe we should trust our God-given common sense and reason, if you can't
even trust that, then I don't know what you trust as your basis for
truth.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Pet dogs? Huh? Are you referencing something in my original post (which I don't
recall where I posted, so I can't really check)? I'm not sure what your point is
from just my quote.
You seemed to have the idea that intelligence has a negative co-relation with
suffering.
Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't recall saying anything about being perfectly empathetic, but there are
instances where people lack the ability to feel empathy at all even and have
gone around killing others. In fact, humans by their nature aren't nearly
empathetic enough. I'm not saying humans should be basically one entity, but
that when you have people torturing, or willing to torture, each other, for
example, something is very wrong. Since this is an anime forum, I might as well
relate it to an anime. If you've seen any of Elfen Lied, you should know what I
mean when I say humans, under far too many conditions, can easily not feel
empathy for others.
People aren't born apathetic. More often than not we choose to ignore the
predicament of others. (sometimes for a good reason, since some people use
sympathy to decieve others) Army training does not include a course on
"feel the pain of your enemy" for a good reason.
I don't like too bloody animes because it makes me cringe. I didn't watch Elfen
Lied for that reason.
Unless everyone is perfectly empathtic, there will still be room for someone to
complain about the level of people's empathy. (since you believe that empathy -
a lack of it - is the root cause of suffering for some reason) Just like unless
messages are sent instantly, some people will still complain about the speed of
email. I on the other hand, see a lack of empathy as a symptom, not a cause.
It's a symptom of sin.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Speaking of anime, two animes you might want to watch if you haven't already are
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu and Ouran High School Host Club, the latter of which
I just finished recently. Both are two of my favorites, especially Suzumiya
Haruhi no Yuutsu. Haruhi FTW. =D
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu was pretty good. (especially the way they arranged it
to end with the climax of the show) Ouran High School Host Club was funny but
not worth rewatching. As you can see it gets long even with addressing just half
a post. You might get the idea why I don't do it often.
Thanks for including me in your friends list. I consider it an honour. Here's an
interesting fact for you I just thought up. We all know Galileo was Catholic
right? But while he was doing his studies claiming the world was round, he
apparently believed that Religion should be seperated from science: One may be a
Catholic and a free thinker at the same time.
But then again, I'll bet he probably only stated that to prevent himself from
being burnt on the stake by the Inquisition. In those days, you'd better believe
in God for fear of the Inquisitors!
Thanks for attending another course on my rambling,
Quote by alexjohnc3I was trying to
make a point. He was talking about how we've done horrible things, like eating
forbidden apples and not all worshiping God, and because of that we have to
suffer eternal damnation. Based on that view, I'd have to say it's God that
deserves the punishing, not us.
The part that actually annoyed me was this: "Science is better when proving
things on medicine and whatever else isnt related to God."
I usually try to have good faith in people and assume either I'm just ignorant
or their just ignorant, but I think he might just be stupid, not ignorant. I
don't know that for sure yet though.
Oh, he's definitely more than just ignorant. Otherwise he wouldn't be so blindly
faithful.
And ever since I read the bible myself, I also that that god is a sadistic
freak...a horrible character in a horribly written story.
Reply Part 1 (due to length and considerations for average attention span, I'll
break it up into 2, the other part I hope to do, but it often takes long, and
I'm unfortunately a very unreliable person.)
Quote by alexjohnc3
That's a nice way to get out of trying to justify any action, or inaction, of
God. Just assert that God created the laws of logic, so any action God takes
must therefore be necessary and logical. Too bad it's intellectually dishonest.
If God decided to kill and torture every human being, it would be necessary and
"lawful" according to you.
You're mistaken about what I was saying. I did not say:
1. God created the laws of logic.
2. Therefore what God does is logical.
But rather:
1. The laws of logic are rigid.
2. Therefore God who created them is also rigid.
I made a deduction about the nature of God though an observation of the physical
laws that he created, and not a deduction on the nature of God's actions from an
assumption about God. The book Mere
Christianity by CS Lewis also uses this argument.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Still, your post didn't address what I said at all, though I didn't expect it
to. Forgiving people's sins instead of sacrificing Jesus and then forgiving
their sins makes no sense, whether you like it or not. It's perfect for trying
to create a new, less repressive religion out of an old one, but it doesn't
really make any sense and saying that God is stubborn to the point of which it
allows completely unnecessary suffering doesn't justify its
actions.
It makes perfect sense that the God who created the physical laws of
conservation also demands the same for the moral law. (I don't see why you had
the "whether you like it or not" in your statement, I'll say the same
to you) 1+1=2 all the time, everytime, and it is never even the slightest
decimal place smaller or greater. God said:
"And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe." - Exodus 21:23-25
And what he says will come to pass, to the smallest detail. He does not bat an
eyelid to any transgression.
And before you start about how stubborn God is, let me remind you that we're
talking about the Christian God. And the Christian God is one that is always
'stubbornly' faithful to his promises. There is no use arguing about how God
should be this and God should be that. If you want to do so, then go ahead and
discuss how good Thor, Poseidon or Zues if you want, but you're not talking
about the Christian God (the real God whose nature is seen in the physical laws)
any longer, but an imaginary Flying Spaghetti Monster clone.
Quote by alexjohnc3
That wouldn't be necessary if humans were more intelligent and empathetic. That
doesn't seem to be too outrageous to me.
1. I think pet dogs can show love just fine. I don't see what intelligence has
to do with it.
2. I believe empathy is a choice. (see also free will argument here: http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/guestbook/?name=mt-atheists&page=17
page might change as posts grow in volume) People can be pretty empathetic, and
a significant number of them cry just by watching a sad movie. I believe it is a
choice however, whether to harder or soften one's heart.
And how can we be made perfectly empathetic, while still retaining free will,
might I ask? I'll suggest:
a. Linking all our pain sensors to each other's brains telepathically.
b. Making everyone capable of reading everyone else's minds all the time, every
time.
If it hasn't hit you yet, probably the only way we can be perfectly empathetic
is pretty much if we were like part of a single body. (which is possibly what
God intends to do with Christians in the body of Christ, and, if true, makes it
alot more obvious why he's so particular about choosing who comprises this
body)
The original plan, was:
a. We stay individuals but we just obey what God tells us to do.
Which, failed, unfortunately.
Other notes: Please refain from giving poorly thought out responses. Responses
like: Make fuel less flammable. (in a gas tanker explosion) Or make aircraft
lighter than air. (when one crashes due to engine failure) Such responses are
easy to give, look alright on the surface, but are lacking in depth to the point
where I feel sick of doing the thinking for you.
Quote by alexjohnc3The god you believe
in, based on your own holy book, is a sadistic
freak.
Thank you. Sounds like you're finally beginning to break against this guy.
There's no use trying to get through to him, dense as he is. Might as well send
him to the Time Cube =P.
Hello. I see that you added me to your friendslist. I decided to add you
too. You seem to be a very intellectual person. I really do enjoy reading your
posts. Oh, thanks again for the Firefox help when I was making the layout for
the Atheists group. I'm
new to the whole layout thing and I'm very glad that you guys let me do it. I
love the extra experience with the codes. Now, I'm to the point where I don't
even need the notes in the code, I just see the code and know what is. Thanks
again for adding me to your friendslist. I look forward to reading more of your
interesting posts. Have a wonderful day.
Its nice talking/debating with you ... from reading your posts i can see some of
your stand on things, especially about religion! ^_^
Yes, kingray100 does get a little tooooo hyped up about this topic, and it does
become a form of entertainment sometimes because he gets so 'animated'. I hope
you don't take it that all 'christians' are like that. Obviously on both sides
of the coin, you have extremes of people hahaha
One of the hardest questions asked about Christianity is 'if God were so loving,
why are people dying/getting hurt etc?' and 'Why doesn't God just show himself?'
i was posting to marsfish14, because of his question on God giving us free will
but knowing whats going to happen but doesnt stop us kinda thing, that, i also
wonder as well!
Curiously enough, humans are very inquisitive beings who want all their
questions answered within their own logic, am i right? So if it doesnt fit our
own logic, it must be wrong. Some questions are never going to be answered, as a
child i realized that when my parents told me No! we did not get an explanation,
it was just a No! [sometimes they may have explained it but did we really care
about the explanation?] (especially when it came to lollies and toys ) Why
is that?
There are many things which are beyond our knowledge, some things are never
going to be answered, and why? i think we are not ready for the answers. Its not
that we are not intellectual enough, but can we really handle the truth? would
we even listen to the truth? Even if the 10 plagues of egypt came upon us...
wouldn't people just explain it away?
http://www.titane.ca/igod/
Here's an advanced AI programmed to chat with you. Have fun.
Yeah, things have cleared up from earlier. I keep telling everyone at least we've got firewood from the tree that crashed through the storage shed and the fence. ^^ I also think the weather is not going to be as bad for some time. *intently stares at the radar* Thank you for checking up on me.
I
think its been awhile since I've seen or heard from you as well. How is life?
Things going well for you?
Has my recent absence concerned you so? LOL! I'm doing fine I've just been busy. I'm grateful for your concern. What about you?
Hey Alex, had to delete my previous entry so you could see this one. I'm not so good at the moment so I have not been online in a while.
How have things been with you? Life's been rather unpleasant on my side and I'd rather leave it at that. The world's been getting more and more "unstable" and I'm contemplating the possibilities of a post apocalyptic world and whether I should join the rebels, communists or fascists.
Sulibres.
Hey alexjohnc3, remember me?
Maybe not. Well, I just wanted to say hi...
Good timing, for I was just working on an article that explains it, I'll post it on the Group Guestbook. Comments on my guestbook are welcome as usual.
Hey there thanks for inviting me
I'd love to join, but it's just that I won't be very active in MT
merged: 10-09-2007 ~ 02:10pm
So sorry for the late reply!
I decided to join the group after all, once again thanks for inviting me ^^
And thanks for the compliment, credit goes to my friend enchantressinthedark
Heyo
I noticed that you added me to your friend list ^_^ I'm happy you
did, adding you back ASAP :3
merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 03:50am
Good to know that you like it
I'm
completely fine with whoever you choose. Whether it's my banner or one of
yothsothgoth's, just pick the one that you think is best for the group ^_^
Dunno...
what is hypocritical?
reply part 1/3
I replied to you because you asked for it here:
I don't have any other particular reason.
Self-serving individuals can actually form groups. The only difference is that they abandon them when they no longer benefit from it. (they are self-serving afterall. similar to betrayal)Take for example a herd of wild Cows. When a lion chases them, now what happens to the self-sacrificial Cow which stays behind to protect a calf while to other (self serving) cows run for their lives? He likely gets eaten.
Evolution requires 3 things:
1. Inheritable mutation
2. Selection
3. Reproduction
And if the self sacrificial people do not live to reproduce, then natural selection has worked against them, not for them. Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" doesn't have 'selfish' in its title for nothing.
It is expected that the moral law (or altruism) tends to preserve civilisation, since God has the best interests of his creation at heart. C S Lewis never did say he proved that the moral law proves God's existance. (although he did give reason like why he it probably isn't an instinct and so on) However he did believe that God is the most reasonable explanation for its existance.
I'll rather you be more specific, but I will say that cilivilizations largely have the same idea of morailty. Why do I say so? Let take human sacrifice for example. (since you used it) The societies that did have human sacrifices didn't do so because they thought that it was good in itself, but because they thought that pleasing a god was a good thing. Let's also take slavery. The slave dealers did not tolerate slavery because they thought it was a good thing. They tolerated it only because they benefited from it.
It's quite obvious to me that there's more to the "Protestants and Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland" than mere variation of moral values you mention. Imo it's a rather myopic and shallow view of the war you have.
In Christianity spiritual death occurs via seperation from God. Man after Adam could no longer communicate with God directly. In many Christian circles it is said that the most painful thing for Jesus during the crucifixtion was not physical but spiritual.
"And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" - Matthew 27:46
On the proper use of logic: http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2006/12/observing_god.php (2nd paragraph)
Techincally, speaking, I've said nothing illogical about God, just that you disagree with me and somehow like to use the word "illogical" on people whom you disagree with. I think you've actually answered for yourself as to what punishment is good for. Perhaps you can expain to me what you mean by genuinely empathetic. (you mean all our empathy is fake?) Does it include empathy for the pain of rocks, trees, and flying squirrels? Technically speaking, you don't feel any different whether a million people are killed in the room next to you or a rock was detonated at the same location so long as you don't know of it. (maybe you should consider my linking everyone's pain sensors to each other and mind reading for all suggestion) Anyway some people do gripe about being too sensitive: http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/personalgrowth/articlelhj.aspx?cp-documentid=5292179
What point about the evidence for God's existance is not understandable? God did will that everyone know of him:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them." - Romans 1:18-19
In fact, God pretty much says that you, and everyone else, already knows him (which is consistent with scientific findings) and Atheists and people who claim not to know God are suppressing the truth.
I haven't posted this on MT-Atheists before, (although I planned to do so at one point) but besides the design, there is also what is known as the Trancendental argument for God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God To better comprehend it, try the following experiment - Going onto a stage in front of a live audience of 1000 people, and shouting through the microphone the following:
1. "Thank God of my reason and intelligence!"
2. "Thank the fortuitous arragement of molecules in my brain for my reason and intelligence!"
After which tell me which one made you feel more like a fool. Since, we write so very long replies, I'll spilt the other part from this one until we are satisfied with discussing this.
You are welcome
Edit: you should say your crap at once instead of editing all that shit
and learn how to type english right
Actually I don't remember where I got them exactly, but now that you mention a site and I looked there... it looks familiar. ^^ Its probably that place exactly or some place that had a link from it. I click on links to links to links and end up not remembering what I was looking for to begin with.
merged: 08-22-2007 ~ 01:38pm
I am now. Very good site btw. ^^
Wow, check it out... when I voted, Atheists were at 71%.
woah...
CS Lewis does explain why he thinks that morality is not a trait that arises from physical factors. Take honor and integrity for example. The most beneficial choice for the person offered 20 thousand for his car but has promised to sell it for 10 thousand, is of course to sell it for 20 thousand. However the moral law rebels against that idea. Similarly when a person is drowning, and you're not the best of swimmers, the most beneficial choice would be to let him drown. Yet the moral law tells you to risk your life (at no gain whatsoever) to save the person. Risking death is hardly a trait that natural selection is likely to select for. In fact, the moral law more often makes the opposite true - it makes a person's death more likely, his material resources smaller than it could have been, (because he doesn't cheat) or even lowers his chances for landing a mate. (because he doesn't lie about himself or go all out to propagate)
They did die. Both physically, and being seperated from God, spiritually. (although I'm more inclined to think that God refered to the latter) God didn't say when they would die either, nor did he say "I will kill you". (considering humans naturally die spiritually after being seperated from God)
Again I think you're misusing the word illogical. What you probably mean is that it's unreasonable to you. I'll overlook that, considering it's just a language error. If you talk about mathematics/logic, God's law states:
1 life = 1 life
1 tooth = 1 tooth
1 eye = 1 eye
Now it fits the laws of mathematics perfectly. Letting someone off scott free is hardly logical to me.
If you promised that you'll kill someone for somebody, and not do it, then you have done evil by breaking your promise. I'm not saying that you should have gone ahead and killed the person, for breaking your promise is the lesser of the two evils. However, what God has promised is justice, and justice is good. He did not promise to do evil, but to do good. Now before we lose sight of it altogether, let's go back to the issue of Jesus' death. Jesus died to satisfy the justice of God. And God did not do evil by forcing him to die. Jesus died willingly as it is written:
"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I might take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment from My Father." - John 10:17-18
Humans innately believe in God, as far as I know. I heard that studies on children who were never taught that God is the creator found that these children still answered "God" when asked who created the universe. This article goes so far as to say:
"What can be made of atheists, then? If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe." - Evolution and Religion http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=11&ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Atheism, as far as I know, is scientifically an unatural religion (belief system) that isn't innate in human beings, but rationalised in some way later.
If I created a robot that was dumber than me, I wouldn't say that I've "purposely limited" its ability to reason. And I think "cannot comprehend" is different from "cannot fully comprehend". (which is my position) I did not say we cannot understand ANYTHING that God does. I just said we can't understand EVERYTHING. (which would be the case if my hypothesis is true) Yes I do think that reason and common sense is the best tool to judge reality with.
I think that's where you're wrong. I did not assume that it was the work of intelligence, (what you call a supernatural deity) but rather deduced it from the current laws of science along with reason. I know a clock ticks without the intervention of an intelligence, but I do know that it was created by one. (I think you overgeneralized about the rain and volcanoes) I reject Atheism because it's based on ignorance. Just because we don't know how it could have been the work of intelligence, you assume that it was not. Of course it's impossible to prove which way it is for sure currently, but based on what we do know about the universe at present, the most obvious and reasonable explanation would be that it was the work of an intelligence.
Just how reasonable would it be to assume that a computer made itself, or a watch self assembled, just because you don't know the designer. Of course, unless God personally reveals himself to each and every one of us, many would continue to hold on to their own beliefs. There have been plenty of Godless men in the past, (despite a lack of the theory of evolution - I don't see how other sciences have an impact on the belief in God - unless you're refering to the belief in imaginary Atlas, Zues or Thor) as it is written:
"saying to a tree, You are my father; and to a stone, You gave me birth. For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face; but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us!" - Jeremiah 2:27
The underlined verses describe the people in denial of God. You are right, however, if you meant that most people believed in God on way or another. (it's still true today, actually, despite evolution) This could be due to the fact that no human society has ever survived more than 3 generations without a religious foundation (I think Atheists are naturally selected against, for a variety of reasons, from lower levels of co-operation and reproductive success to mental fortitude) :
"I started looking at history, and I wondered why no society ever survived more than three generations without a religious foundation as its raison d'etre," - Evolution and Religion http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it:
"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." - Matthew 5:17-18
What Jesus said was of course true. That we should not take revenge. But that is not because vengence is bad. (for vengence and justice are two sides of the same coin) It's just because there really isn't a point considering God will judge everyone anyway, whether in life (through the court of law) or in death. The passage from the old testament states the law, but it doesn't not do so in reference to how an individual should behave.
I think it make sense for God to destroy a rebellious creation.
"And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." - Matthew 3:10
God sent Jesus in the most holy way possible, born of a virgin and without sex. It's nothing like the adultery of the greek gods like Gaea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28mythology%29 (slept with her son no less)
I'll like to see your proof of that assertion. You might as well ask the "large majority of Christians" if they believe in the book of Revelation. (where unbelievers are judged and pretty much annihilated) And what makes you think I don't see God as kind and forgiving? There is no need for the truth to "evolve". If a rose were a rose 100 years ago it would still be a rose today. (or does it evolve into a sunflower?) What do you want? Jesus to be born in a hotel and John the prophet to be a rock star? Society's needs have stayed the same really with regards to God.
I don't recall God wanting to be "popular". If you read the chapter in John MacArthur's Hard to Believe entitled "Truth in a Privy Pot" (a pot used to collect shit) you'll have a sense on just how God wanted to convey his message - no frills, with just the bare essentials and his power. Just look as his choice of birthplace and disciples. (tax collector, a rebel, fishermen...) Plus what better way to be popular than tell others they must be willing to die for him?
"And Nathanael said to him, Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see." - John 1:46
I don't think evolution is really a matter of science, for as far as I know the evidence for it is as a rope of sand. The real reason I think it's accepted is really the second you have mentioned (I've told you before too if I recall right) - that it does without God. Not because it is feasible, but because It takes God out. I don't think that most Atheists really accept evolution because of it's own merits, (some just because they're anti-christian, see also ex-christian.net, while many others appear to have a rather shallow understanding of evolution) but instead because it fits snugly into their own world view, and is parroted by the media and some scientists. A quote attributed to GK Chesterton (I believe it's been altered although it retains the original meaning) goes: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
The study suggests that free-will it exists, as the researchers removed external factors in the experiment. (as well as they knew how) I don't know what internal factors you think might have an impact but hey, it's evidence, not conclusive proof.
"These strategies in flies appear to arise spontaneously and do not result from outside cues." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/?GT1=9951
That really the same as empathy and isn't intelligence is it not? I think even dog can sense people's feelings. And I think we know perfectly well that a person being tortured is suffering, but has it occured to you that torture exists because some people WANT to inflict pain on another person.
I think there are people born blind or people born without the sense of pain too, but it's really an exception rather than the norm, caused by the continual degeneration of the world, so I don't see how it helps your point. If I were arguing that people aren't given good enough eyes I wouldn't point to a blind person.
I don't see why you seem to have the need to blame everything and anything except the person whom you think lacks empathy. I also wonder what training you are refering to. (I was refering to a lack of training in my post, so I wonder what training you're refering to here?)
I think it's just a symptom of sin, just as flies and a bad smell don't cause garbage, but are rather a symptom of it.
Pani Poni Dash isn't a bad anime either, although I feel sorry for the rabbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pani_Poni_Dash
Another xkcd fan. ^^ Wonderful. I even have clip of his on my page here on MT. I love that comic.
merged: 08-13-2007 ~ 11:50am
Some days I feel like this: http://xkcd.com/169/ ...and the velociraptor ones with math makes me laugh too.
I also used to like http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=970825 . The link takes you to the first one.
http://hellsing.comicgenesis.com/d/20030608.html . This link is for a Hellsing anime/fangroup comic. Its kinda cute if you've seen the series.
www.newgrounds.com If you haven't been here, its a wonderland... if you ignore the ads, its an awesome site. They have many different comics and just videos.
My recommendations: Xombie Series - This one is the second movie though (you might have to go to James Farr's site to get the first movie) and Brackenwood Series This Series is pretty good... I liked the "Prowlies at the River" the best so far...
http://www.angryalien.com/ is a good flash movie site. Not really a comic, just amusing 30-second movie parody site (with bunnies) for bordom late at night.
I hope you enjoy these... they were the ones that came to mind right now. I'll let you know if I think of any others later. Have a wonderful night.
hehe...apology accepted.Hope you change your mind for the better.:)
I recall that he did take some physical factors into account in his chapeter, "some objections". Anyway, explain to me in detail what the biological factors he did not take into account are.
I think you're misusing the word logic here. There is nothing "illogical" about keeping a promise. If I promised to sell a car for 10 thousand dollars and got an offer for 20 thousand dollars, there's nothing "illogical" about keeping my promise to sell it for 10 thousand. In fact, it's known as honor and integrity. And if you follow CS Lewis' argument, we all know that keeping one's word is 'good'. If I say I will arrive at 1pm. By the moral law we all know that that is the time I ought to arrive at. Even I'm held up for valid reason, I will still apologise when I arrive late. God then, being the author of this law, will not break his promises simply because:
1. He has perfect honor and intergity.
2. He, unlike us, has no valid reason to break his promises because he happens to be omnipotent and omniscient. (arguable there are limits to his abilities but that's another matter)
It makes sense, that is why I don't see the need for "whether you like it or not". And of course 0.9999... = 1 so 0.9999... + 0.9999... = 1 + 1 = 2. I don't really see you point although I can tell you're trying to be a wise guy.
Considering that I think God is probably extradimensional, the science behind this I won't explain now (nor do I know all of it) but it does mean follow that he can never be completely comprehended by lower dimensional beings like us.For a rough idea about this perspective see also the novel flatland: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_dimension
However it really just boils down to even if you can't comprehend how it is possible doesn't mean it really isn't. Afterall, God did create the universe. Now I won't pretend to know how matter and energy can be created from nothing.
It shows that you do not understand the context behind Jesus' words if you're quoting that passage.
"For we know Him who has said, "Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord." And again, "The Lord shall judge His people." - Hebrews 10:30
The reason you do not resist an evil person is simply because you trust God to take revenge for you.
They were all frivolous, that's what they have in common. (adultery by god? not to mention sibling rivary and whatnot political nonsense, plus the ramen) That is not true for the Chrsitian God.
You're just stating what you believe, (without being specific, even about the ignore parts thing) nothing to address here.
I've already said before that I find Christianity to be the most reasonable religion. (aka belief system) More reasonable than Scientific Materialism. (even if you ignore the occasional interllectual evasiveness) And it best explains the world we live in today. Plus, I believe that there is real power behind Christianity, power that can be seen at work.
Most Atheists don't seem to know what they believe in. (besides evolution) And I find many of their common core beliefs difficult to believe. (one for example, is the belief that we - aka our sense of self - are illusionary: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-3,00.html ) I believe we should trust our God-given common sense and reason, if you can't even trust that, then I don't know what you trust as your basis for truth.
other views on consciousness: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060858834/103-2386546-9549463?ie=UTF8&tag=accessresearc-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0060858834
evidence for free-will: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/?GT1=9951
You seemed to have the idea that intelligence has a negative co-relation with suffering.
People aren't born apathetic. More often than not we choose to ignore the predicament of others. (sometimes for a good reason, since some people use sympathy to decieve others) Army training does not include a course on "feel the pain of your enemy" for a good reason.
I don't like too bloody animes because it makes me cringe. I didn't watch Elfen Lied for that reason.
Unless everyone is perfectly empathtic, there will still be room for someone to complain about the level of people's empathy. (since you believe that empathy - a lack of it - is the root cause of suffering for some reason) Just like unless messages are sent instantly, some people will still complain about the speed of email. I on the other hand, see a lack of empathy as a symptom, not a cause. It's a symptom of sin.
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu was pretty good. (especially the way they arranged it to end with the climax of the show) Ouran High School Host Club was funny but not worth rewatching. As you can see it gets long even with addressing just half a post. You might get the idea why I don't do it often.
Dear alexjohnc3,
Thanks for including me in your friends list. I consider it an honour. Here's an interesting fact for you I just thought up. We all know Galileo was Catholic right? But while he was doing his studies claiming the world was round, he apparently believed that Religion should be seperated from science: One may be a Catholic and a free thinker at the same time.
But then again, I'll bet he probably only stated that to prevent himself from being burnt on the stake by the Inquisition. In those days, you'd better believe in God for fear of the Inquisitors!
Thanks for attending another course on my rambling,
Sulibres
Oh, he's definitely more than just ignorant. Otherwise he wouldn't be so blindly faithful.
And ever since I read the bible myself, I also that that god is a sadistic freak...a horrible character in a horribly written story.
Reply Part 1 (due to length and considerations for average attention span, I'll break it up into 2, the other part I hope to do, but it often takes long, and I'm unfortunately a very unreliable person.)
You're mistaken about what I was saying. I did not say:
1. God created the laws of logic.
2. Therefore what God does is logical.
But rather:
1. The laws of logic are rigid.
2. Therefore God who created them is also rigid.
I made a deduction about the nature of God though an observation of the physical laws that he created, and not a deduction on the nature of God's actions from an assumption about God. The book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis also uses this argument.
It makes perfect sense that the God who created the physical laws of conservation also demands the same for the moral law. (I don't see why you had the "whether you like it or not" in your statement, I'll say the same to you) 1+1=2 all the time, everytime, and it is never even the slightest decimal place smaller or greater. God said:
"And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." - Exodus 21:23-25
And what he says will come to pass, to the smallest detail. He does not bat an eyelid to any transgression.
And before you start about how stubborn God is, let me remind you that we're talking about the Christian God. And the Christian God is one that is always 'stubbornly' faithful to his promises. There is no use arguing about how God should be this and God should be that. If you want to do so, then go ahead and discuss how good Thor, Poseidon or Zues if you want, but you're not talking about the Christian God (the real God whose nature is seen in the physical laws) any longer, but an imaginary Flying Spaghetti Monster clone.
1. I think pet dogs can show love just fine. I don't see what intelligence has to do with it.
2. I believe empathy is a choice. (see also free will argument here: http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/guestbook/?name=mt-atheists&page=17 page might change as posts grow in volume) People can be pretty empathetic, and a significant number of them cry just by watching a sad movie. I believe it is a choice however, whether to harder or soften one's heart.
And how can we be made perfectly empathetic, while still retaining free will, might I ask? I'll suggest:
a. Linking all our pain sensors to each other's brains telepathically.
b. Making everyone capable of reading everyone else's minds all the time, every time.
If it hasn't hit you yet, probably the only way we can be perfectly empathetic is pretty much if we were like part of a single body. (which is possibly what God intends to do with Christians in the body of Christ, and, if true, makes it alot more obvious why he's so particular about choosing who comprises this body)
The original plan, was:
a. We stay individuals but we just obey what God tells us to do.
Which, failed, unfortunately.
Other notes: Please refain from giving poorly thought out responses. Responses like: Make fuel less flammable. (in a gas tanker explosion) Or make aircraft lighter than air. (when one crashes due to engine failure) Such responses are easy to give, look alright on the surface, but are lacking in depth to the point where I feel sick of doing the thinking for you.
Thank you.
Hello.
I see that you added me to your friendslist. I decided to add you
too. You seem to be a very intellectual person. I really do enjoy reading your
posts. Oh, thanks again for the Firefox help when I was making the layout for
the Atheists group. 
I'm
new to the whole layout thing and I'm very glad that you guys let me do it. I
love the extra experience with the codes. Now, I'm to the point where I don't
even need the notes in the code, I just see the code and know what is. 
Thanks
again for adding me to your friendslist. I look forward to reading more of your
interesting posts. Have a wonderful day. 
Hey alexjohnc3!
Its nice talking/debating with you ... from reading your posts i can see some of your stand on things, especially about religion! ^_^
Yes, kingray100 does get a little tooooo hyped up about this topic, and it does become a form of entertainment sometimes because he gets so 'animated'. I hope you don't take it that all 'christians' are like that. Obviously on both sides of the coin, you have extremes of people hahaha
One of the hardest questions asked about Christianity is 'if God were so loving, why are people dying/getting hurt etc?' and 'Why doesn't God just show himself?' i was posting to marsfish14, because of his question on God giving us free will but knowing whats going to happen but doesnt stop us kinda thing, that, i also wonder as well!
Curiously enough, humans are very inquisitive beings who want all their questions answered within their own logic, am i right? So if it doesnt fit our own logic, it must be wrong. Some questions are never going to be answered, as a child i realized that when my parents told me No! we did not get an explanation, it was just a No! [sometimes they may have explained it but did we really care about the explanation?] (especially when it came to lollies and toys
) Why
is that?
There are many things which are beyond our knowledge, some things are never going to be answered, and why? i think we are not ready for the answers. Its not that we are not intellectual enough, but can we really handle the truth? would we even listen to the truth? Even if the 10 plagues of egypt came upon us... wouldn't people just explain it away?
Anyway, i hope to chat to you soon...
Mr. Slave: "Jesus Christ"
LOL!