Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I have never seen an atheist put forward a moral philosophy in the way that Kant would-not on this thread anyway.

I might as well say that I've never seen any religionists state a simple moral philosophy. In a totally atheistic world I'm sure we'd end up with philosophical divisions, albeit godless ones.

CDfm wrote: »

I see loads of evolutionary stuff but nothing about moral issues. Mormans on tea coffeee and coca-cola. Catholics on contraception.

Evolution is rarely used by atheists as the basis of morality. I think most of us can agree that it would make a poor moral framework. The theory serves us as all theories do- to inform us of the truth. You'll find that most of the time when evolution is invoked as morality that this is being done by opponents of evolution (or atheism) to highlight evolution's immorality. That's happening on the creationism thread right now. Whenever he finds himself taking a beating on the scientific front, J C will often switch to attacking the theory of evolution on moral grounds.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly you can rationally chose to enjoy the love and affection of other people, and to avoid unpleasant consequences that might come from not doing so.

I'm sorry, but how do I choose to like something?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But when loving them gives rise to bad consequences, what rationality would require it?

The decision I would make would be dependant on the balance of consequences for myself and others based upon the various values I hold.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only a blindness to reason would make one adhere to love and affection then, if atheism is true.

Why do you think that? Because you can't see a reason why a person would maintain social ties without the threat of Judgement? I think you're revealing more about your own values than anything to do with atheism.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Also, murdering his Armenian neighbours would have given the Turkish citizen the love and affection of many Turks.

When I said that I value the love and affection of others, you understand that what I meant is that they feature highest in a very large set of values, right? I can see we're going to go down the road of the "stark choice" moral questions now. Funny how we never seem to encounter those in real life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would that be less rational than your present value system?

From my perspective yes.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If being selfish brings emotional pain to the atheist, he ought to ask himself why.
I think most do. I certainly do.

The answer is actually very fascinating (hint, it isn't due to an "absence of God" )

I'd be really interested to hear it.

If you have figured out a way of "set aside these feelings" I would be very interested to know. Are you talking about some form of lobotomy?

It has to be worked at, but essentially it is gained by telling oneself a different tale than the one that supports those feelings. Instead of 'Man is made in the image of God and ought to be loved' or some similar dogma, one replaces it with the 'truth' about us being either meaningless bits of matter, or that those we wish to harm are more worthless than we.

It has been proven in many circumstances, from gangsters who murder for a living, to Nazism and Communism exterminating millions for the greater good. The individual who carries out the murder is normally not mentally deranged, so has to justify and condition himself for the on-going task.

How does one stop feeling guilty, or sad, or lonely. If that was possible why would anyone ever feel these emotions? The whole point is that you can't just stop feeling them. That is what emotions mean.

Loneliness is a difficult one, but guilt or sadness are relatively easy to overcome/submerge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If he finds he can't, the evolutionary imprint is too strong, he of course should go with what makes him happy, even if it irrational.
That doesn't make sense. The sentence I mean.

If the goal is to be happy it is rational, rather than irrational, to go with what makes him happy. It is nonsense to claim that trying to be happy for the goal of being happy is irrational if the goal is to be happy.

No, the goal was not happiness, but rationality. So he could be happy, even if he was irrational.

What is the "logic of atheism?"

That there is no objective morality, that nothing matters objectively, that every morality is just an individual's invention.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

I'm sorry, but how do I choose to like something?

I meant you choose to actively like - just as you might choose to date the girl next door because you fancy her. But you might not, if your valued you wife's love more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But when loving them gives rise to bad consequences, what rationality would require it?
The decision I would make would be dependant on the balance of consequences for myself and others based upon the various values I hold.

I'm not talking about your 'values', but about the rationality of holding to them in adverse circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Only a blindness to reason would make one adhere to love and affection then, if atheism is true.
Why do you think that? Because you can't see a reason why a person would maintain social ties without the threat of Judgement? I think you're revealing more about your own values than anything to do with atheism.

Not quite. The love of God and neighbour in the Christian heart is the supreme motivator - but not for the atheist of course. I can't think of one reason he should have a single altruistic motive. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Also, murdering his Armenian neighbours would have given the Turkish citizen the love and affection of many Turks.

When I said that I value the love and affection of others, you understand that what I meant is that they feature highest in a very large set of values, right? I can see we're going to go down the road of the "stark choice" moral questions now. Funny how we never seem to encounter those in real life.

No, no stark choice as far as I can see. We all can have morals regarding many issues. But the atheist still has to give a rational defence for behaving purely selflessly. I've not yet heard it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Would that be less rational than your present value system? From my perspective yes.

But that is purely subjective, right? Not rational. You have no rational objection to the Turk's action, even though it cuts across all you value.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Christian's personal values flow from his belief in God and God's will. Strange if an atheist adopted those values.

No evidence of that at all. You've already demonstrated that you equate personal happiness with material and influential gain.

I don't value those much at all. I was speaking of the atheist, the rational atheist who knows the personality is just a function of chemical reactions, and knows that the pleasures of this life are the only ones that exist.

People's personal values are not a matter of choice. The moral code we adopt is the choice.

I see - the Nazis had no choice about how they thought of the Jews, gypsies and slavs. Their only fault was what they chose to do with them.

The Christian sees it differently: we are responsible for our attitudes. We sin if we do not love our fellowman in our heart. If our hearts are not right before God on any matter, we are to reject that thinking/attitude and replace it with God's thoughts. To hate your neighbour in your heart is to be guilty of his murder even if you never act on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But he is free to do so, if that's what he wants to do. Given his view of reality, he can choose to enjoy life in any manner, or restrict himself to this or that code.

What he cannot do is offer a rational defence for choosing a course that brings him less than his optimum interests - unless it is the defence that he enjoys self-harm.
"Optimum interests" are dependant on personal values. You're making hard work of this Wolfie.

By optimum interests I was not referring his feelings or desires, but where reason would indicate his best interests lay. For example, castaway on a boat and nearing death from starvation, reason tells me that my interests lie in killing and eating my companion. Feelings might tell even the atheist that that would be immoral, and better to die together than that. Would you tell him to die quietly, or to overcome his feelings and act rationally?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Surely the atheist should not get his personal values from feelings of guilt or compassion -
From all emotions. We can choose to try to discard them but what would be the point of that?

Survival, this life being the only one there is. What would be the point of wasting it on the basis of our emotions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
his worldview informs him that these are no more that evolutionary responses and he is able to rise above them and act rationally, not mechanistically.
What evolution teaches us is about what we were and how we have come to be. It should inform us in our decisions, but it compels us to do nothing.

Indeed - it his mind that uses the information about our origins to determine what is the rational course. It certainly cannot be that we should be guided by our emotions.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

I meant you choose to actively like - just as you might choose to date the girl next door because you fancy her. But you might not, if your valued you wife's love more.

I think we're talking at odds a bit here. When I talk about my values, I am talking about the emotional value I attach to things. "Emotion" being and feeling that ultimately drives action. That is not voluntary.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not talking about your 'values', but about the rationality of holding to them in adverse circumstances.

But they can't really be dismissed as such. We may choose one over another though.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not quite. The love of God and neighbour in the Christian heart is the supreme motivator

If love of the neighbour were one of your supreme motivators, why do you claim that this will vanish if you realise God does not exist?

wolfsbane wrote: »

- but not for the atheist of course. I can't think of one reason he should have a single altruistic motive. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Certainly. Firstly I should say that altruism doesn't really exist in the way that you'd like to believe. Even when a religious person acts as if altruistic they tend to do so in the belief that they shall recieve a spiritual reward or avoid some supernatural punishment. "Altruism" (which for our purposes will be any behaviour which benefits another more than it benefits us) typically improves our chances of survival and our happiness and brings many other benefits. It's a rare thing to find a very selfish person who is generally happy with their life. Not impossible of course, since again that depends on many subjective things, but it's a pretty safe bet that a selfish life is unlikely to be a happy one, especially if that behaviour becomes common.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, no stark choice as far as I can see. We all can have morals regarding many issues. But the atheist still has to give a rational defence for behaving purely selflessly. I've not yet heard it.

As I indicated above. "Altruism" benefits us. Really it's just selfishness of another kind, but that's true for everyone.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But that is purely subjective, right? Not rational. You have no rational objection to the Turk's action, even though it cuts across all you value.

Rationally speaking, to kill a person who does not threaten our life is foolish for countless reasons. They may have been of benefit to us at some point due to skills, knowledge or social connections. They may have social connections that would result in reprisals against the killer. The killer's own peers may come to consider the killer as dangerous and mistrust him. Other unaffiliated social groups or individuals may react negatively to the killer's actions.

Ultimately moral decisions will be rational and value based for an atheist. I'm not sure why you insist on focusing on one side of that when they can't really be separated.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:
I don't value those much at all. I was speaking of the atheist, the rational atheist who knows the personality is just a function of chemical reactions, and knows that the pleasures of this life are the only ones that exist.

Even hedonists will have differing valuations for the various elements of life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I see - the Nazis had no choice about how they thought of the Jews, gypsies and slavs. Their only fault was what they chose to do with them.

Fearing that which is different is natural and is not a choice at least initially- we can certainly learn to overcome that of course. Reason can show us that our fear is based on poor assumptions. I suspect there was far more than fear at play during the holocaust. Ultimately the Jews were made to be a target for the fear and frustration that a nation had been feeling for decades. That was exploited rather cynically as a means to control the population.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Christian sees it differently: we are responsible for our attitudes. We sin if we do not love our fellowman in our heart. If our hearts are not right before God on any matter, we are to reject that thinking/attitude and replace it with God's thoughts. To hate your neighbour in your heart is to be guilty of his murder even if you never act on it.

Interesting. I'm not sure you'd get universal acceptance of that from many Christians. We can't be held responsible for what is in our minds, but rather for what we do. That is the basis of law and justice at any rate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

By optimum interests I was not referring his feelings or desires, but where reason would indicate his best interests lay.

And I am trying to tell you that reason alone cannot be used to make that decision. Reason is meaningless without the emotional system of values we each have.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, castaway on a boat and nearing death from starvation, reason tells me that my interests lie in killing and eating my companion. Feelings might tell even the atheist that that would be immoral, and better to die together than that. Would you tell him to die quietly, or to overcome his feelings and act rationally?

Again, it will be a balance of reason and emotion that will bring about a decision. Using reason alone, the castaway will have no motive to live.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Survival, this life being the only one there is. What would be the point of wasting it on the basis of our emotions?

If you discard emotions, what need have you of survival? What love do you have of life? What fear of death? We have emotions for a reason, they are the basis of our survival. They are the only imperatives we ultimately have.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Even hedonists will have differing valuations for the various elements of life.



Fearing that which is different is natural and is not a choice at least initially- we can certainly learn to overcome that of course. Reason can show us that our fear is based on poor assumptions. I suspect there was far more than fear at play during the holocaust. Ultimately the Jews were made to be a target for the fear and frustration that a nation had been feeling for decades. That was exploited rather cynically as a means to control the population.



Interesting. I'm not sure you'd get universal acceptance of that from many Christians. We can't be held responsible for what is in our minds, but rather for what we do. That is the basis of law and justice at any rate.



And I am trying to tell you that reason alone cannot be used to make that decision. Reason is meaningless without the emotional system of values we each have.



Again, it will be a balance of reason and emotion that will bring about a decision. Using reason alone, the castaway will have no motive to live.



If you discard emotions, what need have you of survival? What love do you have of life? What fear of death? We have emotions for a reason, they are the basis of our survival. They are the only imperatives we ultimately have.

Atomic -you are getting all metaphysical.

You always pre-suppose that belief is irrational. I think atheism is irrational. If I read the sports reports in the Sunday Times I believe they happened even if I havent seen the match. I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked because I have read the accounts by survivors,scientists and the aircrew. You ask people not to believe the bible and wonder why they think you are irrational.

Your scientific approach looks for clinical proof. If I have a toothache I know I have a toothache. I dont need a dentist to tell me that.

On the Nazis and Jews. That was what sociologists call the power of the limited good(resourse) -there is only so much to go around and we are taking yours cos there is not enough to go around.Thats what happened. You get enough people thinking that way and you have Rwanda. (My reading of Nazis vs Jews is this plus a need of all despotic governments to eliminate the intelligensia as a potential threat -Pol Pot ,Mao,Stalin, Amin and Khomeni did the same)

Christians faith or fear is a different thing. Its positive and fear doesnt come into it. Doing a bad job reflects badly on yourself so its adopting a "professional" standard to life. If thats done because people have a common belief then thats cool. Being Christian doesnt mean being a doormat or walkover.

If you talk reason alone -thats physiological needs Maslows Pyramid does them nicely. Starting with food shelter and safety- then love sex etc -all the way up to higher affiliation and achievement needs.Then in times of extreme situations of course religion will feature higher up the scale as it is a higher function.The philosophy of religion is very sophisticated.

Now you might say that stoneage man survived on the 3 f's -fishing ,fighting and fornication- and that Gods came in because of fear. But its also true that religion is behind an awful lot of what you call primitive knowledge and formed the core of law making ,education and a whole lot of stuff that is extremly sophisticated. At a basic level you are asking people to discard all of that and for what. Are you out of your tree?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'd be really interested to hear it.

Well evolution my dear boy, evolution. The natural structure of behaviour over many many generations

Evolution explains pretty well why we find the emotional systems in humans. Your religion, unfortunately for you, doesn't. It becomes a jumble of ideas from the perfect creation of man, to the Fall, to God being in our hearts, to God not being in our hearts, to man's desire to sin, to man not desiring to sin etc etc. Basically a convoluted mess. Evolutionary explanation on the other hand nice and simple.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It has to be worked at, but essentially it is gained by telling oneself a different tale than the one that supports those feelings. Instead of 'Man is made in the image of God and ought to be loved' or some similar dogma, one replaces it with the 'truth' about us being either meaningless bits of matter, or that those we wish to harm are more worthless than we.

I'm sorry, what are you suggesting here? That people train themselves to be selfish, that people desensitise themselves to hurting others?

Why would anyone possibly wish to do that. Yes at the end of it you might come out being immune to emotions towards others, has happens to say child soldiers who are forced to do this in wars. But the idea that someone would think "that is what I will do" is crazy. You would despise yourself while you are doing it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It has been proven in many circumstances, from gangsters who murder for a living, to Nazism and Communism exterminating millions for the greater good. The individual who carries out the murder is normally not mentally deranged, so has to justify and condition himself for the on-going task.

But these people aren't happy. In fact if I remember from history class there were high levels of depression and suicide among the the upper levels of the Nazi party.

So again I'm not following why you think it is rational in the pursuit of happiness for someone to do this

wolfsbane wrote: »

Loneliness is a difficult one, but guilt or sadness are relatively easy to overcome/submerge.

I think you will find they aren't, though again I imagine it depends on the person. But again the question is why would someone? Is it not easier, more rational, to simply not do bad things that make one feel guilty?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the goal was not happiness, but rationality. So he could be happy, even if he was irrational.

I don't know what you mean. Rationality has no meaning unless it is applied to something. It is not a goal in of itself. It is a way of approaching a task or problem, not a task or problem in of itself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That there is no objective morality, that nothing matters objectively, that every morality is just an individual's invention.

but that is true either way. if God exists then he has a standard of morality that is as subjective as yours or mine.

you just hold his up as being more authoritive than yours or mine, which again is a subjective assessment.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

It has been proven in many circumstances, from gangsters who murder for a living, to Nazism and Communism exterminating millions for the greater good. The individual who carries out the murder is normally not mentally deranged, so has to justify and condition himself for the on-going task.

It's perhaps worth pointing out here that the only local posters who have attempted to justify widescale slaughter are, well, christians.

Pots. Kettles. The usual.

CDfm

Robinch .I only commented on it as it was already posted it.

My late Grandfather who lived in Wexford at the time said on Germany and the Nazis and Jews that if he knew what was going on the Germans(population) knew.

I dont accept the mentally conditioned theory BTW.

Too subtle for me.Im with Wicknight - it cant be rationalised.

CDfm

Is there a Tao of Dawkins ?

ironingbored

wolfsbane wrote: »

If He is, then my morality is just as relative/subjective as yours.

If He is real, then you are in deep trouble as you are living in opposition to both Him and His laws.

So your "God" is a vindictive, sadistic control freak who craves worship? I would avoid human beings like that nevermind the creator of the universe.

CDfm

ironingbored wrote: »

So your "God" is a vindictive, sadistic control freak who craves worship? I would avoid human beings like that nevermind the creator of the universe.

No He is not.

The whole thing is that man individually and collectively has responsibility for his own situation and thats the policy that man has free will.

Strictly speaking God is non-interventionist.

And the meme/viral idea of a collective morality is a bit too Star Trekie for me.

So how is this virus contracted?That would imply that there is no such thing as free will.Can it be irradicated?

Would that mean that murderers etc are genetic mutations etc?

ironingbored

CDfm wrote: »

Strictly speaking God is non-interventionist.

Yet "He" answers the prayers of millions of believers every day apparently.

So which is it? Is he a benevolent overseer or interventionist ego-driven control freak?

CDfm

ironingbored wrote: »

Yet "He" answers the prayers of millions of believers every day apparently.

So which is it? Is he a benevolent overseer or interventionist ego-driven control freak?

Well he hasnt struck you down with a God believing virus yet.

And I dont see Dawkins out there using his meme given morality and calling the UN a disgrace for failing to help feed the worlds starving millions as Brian Cowan did last week.

wolfsbane

ironingbored said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If He is, then my morality is just as relative/subjective as yours.

If He is real, then you are in deep trouble as you are living in opposition to both Him and His laws.
So your "God" is a vindictive, sadistic control freak who craves worship? I would avoid human beings like that nevermind the creator of the universe.

No, He is holy and almighty and our Creator - so He will punish sin, and deserves our worship.

I take it you also view any government as vindictive, sadistic control freaks, since they too tend to punish evil and demand observance of the law?

Might it not be that you are the one who is depraved in your attitude and conduct?

wolfsbane

CDfm said:

Strictly speaking God is non-interventionist.

How can you have read the Bible and think that? Just of the top of my head:
Ananias, with Sapphira his wifehttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:1-11%20;&version=50;

CDfm

Wolfsbane - I was replying in the context of ironingboreds post 346 etc

Im catholic- but if I looked at it I might in this context - look at Matthew on the temptation of Christ - you do not put the God to the test. Its that simple.Thats the clearest one for me.

So yes He intervenes but at times of His choosing and not ours.

Its a good point you make I think ironingbored and a lot of atheists get it in the wrong order its up to us to prove ourselves worthy of Him and not the other way round.

What do you think?

ironingbored

CDfm wrote: »

And I dont see Dawkins out there using his meme given morality and calling the UN a disgrace for failing to help feed the worlds starving millions as Brian Cowan did last week.

Why did you see fit to mention dawkins again totally out of context? It get really tedious. Again, instead of answering a question or contributing to debate you make a idiotic comment about Dawkins, starving people and Brian Cowen! Thor help us!

ironingbored

wolfsbane wrote: »

:

No, He is holy and almighty and our Creator - so He will punish sin, and deserves our worship.

Any chance he might punish stupidity too? Deserves fawning adulation and praise....Kim Jung Il springs to mind there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I take it you also view any government as vindictive, sadistic control freaks, since they too tend to punish evil and demand observance of the law?

Not any government. Civil law is (usually) a lot more well-thought out and intelligent than the inconsistent ramblings one sees in the bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Might it not be that you are the one who is depraved in your attitude and conduct?

This is quite speculative. Given that you don't know me and most likely will not I feel the above is facetious. Again, a believer surreptitiously attempts to equate anti-theism/atheism with immorality and depravity.

CDfm

ironingbored wrote: »

Why did you see fit to mention dawkins again totally out of context? It get really tedious. Again, instead of answering a question or contributing to debate you make a idiotic comment about Dawkins, starving people and Brian Cowen! Thor help us!

feck i misunderstand moral relativism too

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

It's perhaps worth pointing out here that the only local posters who have attempted to justify widescale slaughter are, well, christians.

Pots. Kettles. The usual.

You presume widescale slaughter can never be justified. But the point remains that those who carry out widescale slaughter need to overcome emotional resistance to it, and they do so by justifying it to themselves(rightly or wrongly).

I'm interested to see some of you claim that emotions are to be regarded on a par with reason when it comes to our actions. That explains a lot of the irrationality coming from the atheists and agnostics here.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, hiding from the cold dark materialist universe under a blanket of emotional morality. :pac:

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

the point remains that those who carry out widescale slaughter need to overcome emotional resistance to it, and they do so by justifying it to themselves(rightly or wrongly).

Yes, and as I pointed out, the only people in this forum who've ever justified widescale slaughter (to themselves anyway), are christians.

Lacking the absolute confidence that a True Believer can have in one of the inerrant ideas that, for example, you carry around, most atheists do not believe that widescale slaughter is justifiable in anything but the most armchair theoretical circumstances, and most find the concept really rather repellent.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm interested to see some of you claim that emotions are to be regarded on a par with reason when it comes to our actions.

Huh?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm interested to see some of you claim that emotions are to be regarded on a par with reason when it comes to our actions. That explains a lot of the irrationality coming from the atheists and agnostics here.

Yes I think that was me? If our emotions are irrelevant to our decision making then what exactly is the point of all that reason? I realise that you guys get your motives and morality from a book, but we atheists have to go back to basics.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and as I pointed out, the only people in this forum who've ever justified widescale slaughter (to themselves anyway), are christians.

Lacking the absolute confidence that a True Believer can have in one of the inerrant ideas that, for example, you carry around, most atheists do not believe that widescale slaughter is justifiable in anything but the most armchair theoretical circumstances, and most find the concept really rather repellent.Huh?

Maybe Robin, because as Christians we accept that it happens and as individuals we accept it. We know that it is wrong and also believe that there are evil people there too.

So we have an acceptance that evil exists and abhor it. That doesnt justify or condone it -its a question of fact and acceptance of fact.

From the bible we can see that even historically people have acted this way and we have a duty to protect ourselves. It also shows up that people as individuals can be caught up in events beyond their control.

So accepting that evil exists and that we dont have the power to change it is a million miles away from condoning it. I may have misread what wolfsbane said but he doesnot appear to condone.

He probably finds it repellant too- he could equally say that for you not to face up to the fact that evil and widespread slaughter exists in this generation as it has throughout the ages and to look at it as armchair theoretical circumstances is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

So each of you from your own perspective acknowlege it is evil but have different ways at arriving at that conclusion.

I would say the bible teaches us that and that atheist thinkers cant supply me with a belief mechanism for that.

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe Robin, because as Christians we accept that it happens and as individuals we accept it. We know that it is wrong and also believe that there are evil people there too.

So we have an acceptance that evil exists and abhor it. That doesnt justify or condone it -its a question of fact and acceptance of fact.

From the bible we can see that even historically people have acted this way and we have a duty to protect ourselves. It also shows up that people as individuals can be caught up in events beyond their control.

So accepting that evil exists and that we dont have the power to change it is a million miles away from condoning it. I may have misread what wolfsbane said but he doesnot appear to condone.

He probably finds it repellant too- he could equally say that for you not to face up to the fact that evil and widespread slaughter exists in this generation as it has throughout the ages and to look at it as armchair theoretical circumstances is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

So each of you from your own perspective acknowlege it is evil but have different ways at arriving at that conclusion.

I would say the bible teaches us that and that atheist thinkers cant supply me with a belief mechanism for that.

Robindch is actually talking about posts which have been made in previous threads, do a search for the genocide thread. In this particular thread, and others if I remember correctly, certain posters have said that it is perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your god.

MrP

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

Robindch is actually talking about posts which have been made in previous threads, do a search for the genocide thread. In this particular thread, and others if I remember correctly, certain posters have said that it is perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your god.

MrP

thanks for clarifying that.

ya cant justify that stuff anyway no chance of that happening he does his own dirty work as he showed Moses and Lot.

11 th Commandment -why buy a dog when you can bark yourself

I think it is written in Romans - Vengence is mine - so by that alone its kind of outabounds in normal circumstances and cant be justified

wolfsbane

ironingbored said:

Any chance he might punish stupidity too? Deserves fawning adulation and praise....Kim Jung Il springs to mind there.

You compare a human sinner with the Almighty God, and think what is right for one must be right for the other. That is indeed stupidity, and will bring its own punishment if persisted in.

Not any government. Civil law is (usually) a lot more well-thought out and intelligent than the inconsistent ramblings one sees in the bible.

So you do believe some governments can justly punish evil and demand observance of the law. It's just that you either misunderstand or despise God's law. You imagine you know better than God.

This is quite speculative. Given that you don't know me and most likely will not I feel the above is facetious. Again, a believer surreptitiously attempts to equate anti-theism/atheism with immorality and depravity.

I didn't think I was being surreptitious. Anti-theism/atheism rationally permit any sort of immorality and depravity.

But that is different from saying that their adherents necessarily do so - for they are just like the rest of us, having consciences that rebuke their immoral and depraved tendencies.

That, not their ideology, is what keeps many atheists from acting out the logic of their beliefs.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes I think that was me? If our emotions are irrelevant to our decision making then what exactly is the point of all that reason? I realise that you guys get your motives and morality from a book, but we atheists have to go back to basics.

Emotions are a very unreliable informant on right and wrong. They may restrain the would-be murderer, but they may just as easily lead him to do the murder. Pity vs contempt; love vs hatred, etc. All emotions.

It is emotions taught by truth that give us strength to do what is right. We determine what is truth by our reasoning faculties. Christians have the advantage of implanted truth, the witness of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. But even we can get tripped up by emotion or a failure to follow the logic of the truth.

My complaint to you atheists is that some of you give emotions - what you concede are merely the result of genetic evolution - the same weight as you do reason. Utterly illogical. The more intellectually honest among you concede the point.