Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

wolfsbane

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

Correct. Or rather, it was perfectly OK to wipe out a race of people, or slaughter women and children, or wipe out a city on instruction from your God.

God's rule for the present age does not require His people to destroy His enemies. We are to evangelise them all. Those who refuse His call to repentance and faith will be destroyed by Him in the Last Day.

So mass-slaughter would, as Robin says, be only permissable to governments in extremis (WW2, for example). Wilful genocide, never.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

you have never properly explained why it isn't right for one must be right for the other. You just say it isn't, God is God and can do what he likes.

Which effectively makes any moral judgment you make about God nonsense.

You have no idea if God is or is not moral because you have abandoned the idea that humans possess the ability to determine that.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Tempered by reason. I'm not advocating the abandonment of one in favour of the other.

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Funny how many contradictory religions will say pretty much exactly this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Firstly, I do not speak for atheists. They may each speak for themselves. Secondly, we consider emotions to be a product of evolution, sure. But we consider reason to be a product of it also. Why is it illogical to use both if their origins are the same?

More to the point, what good is any reasoned decision if it brings me no emotional satisfaction? Emotions are our personal absolutes, our imperatives. Largely uncontrollable forces which drive our behaviour and our very survival. We should not be slaves to them, but nor can we separate them from our reason. Reason is meaningless without emotion. Emotion may survive without reason, though not without consequences.

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?

I think in the context of this debate - Christians do not have the right to do any such thing.

Strictly speaking - christians should not seek revenge.

Matt Holck

I think emotions help with motivation

CDfm

Matt Holck wrote: »

I think emotions help with motivation

Not really matt - in the context of this part of the argument its a question of fact for christians - you have to put your emotions to oneside.

THen say a government can you can act but only for the common good.

There is very little leeway.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Secondly, we consider emotions to be a product of evolution, sure. But we consider reason to be a product of it also. Why is it illogical to use both if their origins are the same?

I thought you might agree that reason is the thing that separates us from the minerals, vegetables and animals. That is, reason in the sense of our ability to reflect on our existence and to expect our actions to be meaningful.

If you are saying such reflection is no more than a flower's opening to the sun, or a bird's desire to mate, then I see how you cannot see my point.

I think it self-evident that we are more than that, that our reason indicates our spiritual nature. I know an atheist cannot agree, but I thought they would have a high view of reason nevertheless. Your view has certainly been a surprise to me.

More to the point, what good is any reasoned decision if it brings me no emotional satisfaction?

Because it might be the right or most beneficial thing to do. Stopping drug abuse might be emotionally painful, but the best course. Holding down your 4yr old son for the medics to stick needles in him while he screams - a recent experience for my son-in-law, is emotionally painful, but very rational.

Emotions are our personal absolutes, our imperatives.

Wow!

Largely uncontrollable forces which drive our behaviour and our very survival. We should not be slaves to them, but nor can we separate them from our reason. Reason is meaningless without emotion. Emotion may survive without reason, though not without consequences.

Should we reason based on our emotions, or should our emote based on our reasoning? I think rational beings must go with the latter.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

you have never properly explained why it isn't right for one must be right for the other. You just say it isn't, God is God and can do what he likes.

Which effectively makes any moral judgment you make about God nonsense.

You have no idea if God is or is not moral because you have abandoned the idea that humans possess the ability to determine that.

You seem unable to conceive a source of morality, One who defines morality. Or rather, you have become the source of morality and can't accept any other competitors.

But you might agree that a magistrate/judge has a right to fine or imprison an offender, while you and I would be acting immorally if we did so. Scale that up.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem unable to conceive a source of morality, One who defines morality.

Not at all. The problem you have is that by dismissing humans as having no ability to judge God you are also dismissing any ability humans have to determine that God is the source of morality you speak of.

You simply state that he is, which is meaningless because by the logic of your own statements you cannot determine that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you might agree that a magistrate/judge has a right to fine or imprison an offender, while you and I would be acting immorally if we did so. Scale that up.

A judge or magistrate works within the legal system defined by humans.

I therefore, as a human, can judge if a magistrate is or is not acting in a moral fashion.

You claim that I cannot judge that of God because I am a human, not a deity.

The point you (consistently) ignore is that if true this applies equally well to you.

You cannot judge if God is good or evil and therefore cannot determine if he is or is not the source of morality

You can claim he is, but that is simply a declaration on your part. If he isn't you would be none the wiser.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Not at all. The problem you have is that by dismissing humans as having no ability to judge God you are also dismissing any ability humans have to determine that God is the source of morality you speak of.

You simply state that he is, which is meaningless because by the logic of your own statements you cannot determine that.



A judge or magistrate works within the legal system defined by humans.

I therefore, as a human, can judge if a magistrate is or is not acting in a moral fashion.

You claim that I cannot judge that of God because I am a human, not a deity.

The point you (consistently) ignore is that if true this applies equally well to you.

You cannot judge if God is good or evil and therefore cannot determine if he is or is not the source of morality

You can claim he is, but that is simply a declaration on your part. If he isn't you would be none the wiser.

There is a biblical authority on this what is refered to as the "render unto caesar" passages. This is widely held to justify difference between secular and religious authority and their co-existance.

A believer can judge if a law or acts are consistant with their beliefs and has freedom of choice and whether a law is moral or not and whether a law is a good or bad law.. A non believer also has this freedom of choice according to his or her beliefs.A non-believer is bound by secular laws too.


For a judge one would see if he was acting ultra vires and the quality of the judgements is based on facts and presumably his fairness on his interpretation of these facts.You can judge only if the magistrate iss acting within the law and the fairness not morality of the judgements. You can have an opinion on the morality of the law and whether it is just or unjust.

Religious morality is judged with reference to the Bible.

If one reads these passages of the Gospels and its been a while and PDN might clear it up -but you could also view it as an early example in religion or literature to setting up a strawman depending on your beliefs.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Not at all. The problem you have is that by dismissing humans as having no ability to judge God you are also dismissing any ability humans have to determine that God is the source of morality you speak of.

You simply state that he is, which is meaningless because by the logic of your own statements you cannot determine that.

You forget that my determining abilities are not let to their own devices - God has intervened and informed me of His reality, character and morality. He did this by His Spirit and His word.

A judge or magistrate works within the legal system defined by humans.

I therefore, as a human, can judge if a magistrate is or is not acting in a moral fashion.

You claim that I cannot judge that of God because I am a human, not a deity.

The point you (consistently) ignore is that if true this applies equally well to you.

You cannot judge if God is good or evil and therefore cannot determine if he is or is not the source of morality

You can claim he is, but that is simply a declaration on your part. If he isn't you would be none the wiser.

The best you can make of this is that God may be telling me He is moral , but lying. I would therefore have no way of knowing. True.

But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience. And His character I have found to be faithful, merciful and kind to me. That's good enough for me.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

You forget that my determining abilities are not let to their own devices - God has intervened and informed me of His reality, character and morality. He did this by His Spirit and His word.



The best you can make of this is that God may be telling me He is moral , but lying. I would therefore have no way of knowing. True.

But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience. And His character I have found to be faithful, merciful and kind to me. That's good enough for me.

But where does this come into killing people or a race of people or slaughter women and children-surely that cant be justified ?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the morality I see in His system has the ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience.

Yes but that is exactly the point.

If it is possible for you to judge God's morality based on an external standard ("ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience") and conclude that God is good, it is equally possible for someone else to do the same thing and conclude that God isn't good.

My "ring of truth and reality confirmed by experience" tells me that the genocide in the Bible has no justification, certainly not the one put forward in the Bible itself. I conclude that God if he exists is an immoral being.

You inform me that I cannot do that because I am only a lowly human and incapable of judging God to my lowly moral standards. God works on a completely different higher set of standards and it is ridiculous for use to judge him based on my standards.

Then you turn around that you judge him based on your own standards, and surprisingly enough have judged him to be true and good.

Can you see the problem here. You want it both ways. You want to include your standards of morality and ethics when you are looking at God and concluding that he is wonderful and just and good and fair.

But if someone else looks at God and concludes that he is bad and unjust and evil and unfair, you throw your hands up and proclaim that this person has no ability to judge God based on any human level standard.

Trying to have it both ways simply doesn't work. If you are able to judge God I'm able to judge God, we are all able to judge God. The idea that we are only able to judge God if we reach the conclusion that God is wonderful is nonsense.

So can you guys PLEASE stop using that arguement that we lack insight, knowledge or ethical ability to judge God when ever someone on this forum says "You know what, I think that was an immoral thing God did there" Because if we lack it, you lack it also.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Religious morality is judged with reference to the Bible.

True, but more fundamentally a believer has to first judge the Bible as being a source of good morality. Which really means judging God as being a source of good morality.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but more fundamentally a believer has to first judge the Bible as being a source of good morality. Which really means judging God as being a source of good morality.

...which means they have to judge that their own interpretation of their own chosen holybook is a source of good morality.

It's all a bit circular really.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

...which means they have to judge that their own interpretation of their own chosen holybook is a source of good morality.

It's all a bit circular really.

You say this like your own morality is completely immune to Christian morality.

As an aside, the difference, in theory, is that the Christian's morality is there in black and white for all to read, whereas yours is subjective. I think that this is one of the reasons that atheists always do so badly in those 'would you vote for an atheist?' polls. That and they are usually polling religious people

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

...which means they have to judge that their own interpretation of their own chosen holybook is a source of good morality.

It's all a bit circular really.

Exactly

If the God/The Bible is the source of all morality what does one use to judge that the God/The Bible is in fact moral?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, the difference, in theory, is that the Christian's morality is there in black and white for all to read, whereas yours is subjective.

But how does one judge that Christian morality (ie the Bible) is in fact moral?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You say this like your own morality is completely immune to Christian morality.

I tend not to use the word "morality" with reference to how I make my own choices between different course of actions. Too many muddy overtones. "Ethical" is much cleaner, even if it means much the same thing in practice. I also avoid the word "subjective" as its meaning is, well, distinctly subjective.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, the difference, in theory, is that the Christian's morality is there in black and white for all to read, whereas yours is subjective.

The crucial point you have made is that this christian morality exists "in theory" only. To the extent that most (or all?) religious believers who believe they assert a christian morality, believe either that they assert the one right interpretation of many, or the only interpretation. Whereas, in practice, the morality that christians assert is pretty much independent of what's written in the bible. There's so much there, and so much of it is at odds with itself, that one can define whatever morality one wishes, then legitimize it by reference to a book that everybody (at least everybody religious) believes is as close to perfect as they're going to get.

In short, religious morality is personal morality plus intransigence.

As one can see here almost any day, the bible defines a code of conduct as ambiguous as the multiplicity of moral opinions held by the different christians that inhabit this board, from the weird to the dangerous to the honorable.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that this is one of the reasons that atheists always do so badly in those 'would you vote for an atheist?' polls.

Yes, you're quite right, but that's little more than an indication of the success with which religion's endless word-mongering has convinced people that religion alone is good.

Which is an interesting conclusion in itself, since it suggests that people are innately decent, seeking agreed codes of conduct, and not the damaged, immoral creatures that religion tells them they are.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

If the God/The Bible is the source of all morality what does one use to judge that the God/The Bible is in fact moral?

It's the primacy of conscience thing that Ratzinger talks about from time to time (was it sorella who posted a piece about this again yesterday?) I mean, there it is -- out in the open -- you can do what you like, with total authority and still believe yourself possessed of "christian morality".

Can anybody else see this delicious contradiction, or have I been coding too many multithreaded apps?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It's the primacy of conscience thing that Ratzinger talks about from time to time (was it sorella who posted a piece about this again yesterday?) I mean, there it is -- out in the open -- you can do what you like, with total authority and still believe yourself possessed of "christian morality".

Can anybody else see this delicious contradiction, or have I been coding too many multithreaded apps?

I havent seen that one.Can you point me in the right direction.

Perhaps you need a nice cup of tea or has your teapot gone missing?

Ive finally figured out the atheist thing - its does he watch when you know-atheists are soo sensitive :D:D

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Ive finally figured out the atheist thing - its does he watch when you know-atheists are soo sensitive :D:D

You've been drinking, haven't you?

CDfm

atomic -No - not at all - its the OMG thing you hear from atheists.Is this freudian?

Also- I heard a woman with an addict partner use the phrase well "MY Addict" so it made me wonder do extremists do that and talk about my atheist or my believer and do they have support groups.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You've been drinking, haven't you?

this is the one for you Atomic you can say God -it doesnt get any bigger than deicide or is it theicide nowdays

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57527123#post57527123

:D:D

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

I tend not to use the word "morality" with reference to how I make my own choices between different course of actions. Too many muddy overtones. "Ethical" is much cleaner, even if it means much the same thing in practice.

I would also avoid the word relativism. Too french.

I look at morals and ethics differently. Morals define what is right or wrong and are more absolute rules in normal circumstances - as such they are general rules or norms of behavior that apply in normal life.

Ethics is more the interpretation of these rules where you have to balance different priorities both of which may be right.An example might be amputating someones leg against their wishes to save their life.

Take Scott of the Antarctic - when Oates said -I am going out and may be some time- the moral position was clear. If Oates goes out and may be some time he is going to die -this is suicide and is wrong.Morally Scott should have stopped him as allowing someone to self harm is morally wrong.

However, the ethical situation was if Oates stays he will use up our already meager resources we might last another day and even if help does arrive Oates would not survive the return trip. So ethically it could be argued he made the correct choice and left him go as it increased some of the groups chances of survival.

It would have been both morally and ethically wrong to kill Oates to increase the groups chances of survival.

Shakespeare was a fine writer & thinker and I would argue that it is moral to preserve his writings but it is unethical to inflict them on secondary school students as it develops a hatred of both Shakespeare and theater in them.

studiorat

This moral/ethical business has been tested. Various groups were given tests, like for instance, can you kill a person to save 5 people etc.

The tests were performed in many cultures some with religion and some who have no religion. The answers came out pretty much the same between those indoctrinated with a religion and those who had never had any religion or god in their culture.

The conclusion being, fairness, right and wrong etc are inbuilt and are inconsequential of religion.

AtomicHorror

studiorat wrote: »

This moral/ethical business has been tested. Various groups were given tests, like for instance, can you kill a person to save 5 people etc.

The tests were performed in many cultures some with religion and some who have no religion. The answers came out pretty much the same between those indoctrinated with a religion and those who had never had any religion or god in their culture.

The conclusion being, fairness, right and wrong etc are inbuilt and are inconsequential of religion.

It goes even further than that. We've found loads of evidence of these same moral elements built into various simian species right down to small monkeys. Altruism, justice, fairness (There's a wonderful study amusingly called "Monkeys reject unequal pay")... it's all in there. Theory of mind, self awareness- we can even see those in some bird species, which came as a bit of a shock to biologists. Of course culture is in there for many species too. What makes humans unique is that we seem to have coherently combined these features in an unprecedented and complex fashion, but no one feature appears to be unique to us in itself.

CDfm

What may have started as a religius belief could now have become the cultural norm.

Its impossible to do clinical trials in laboratory conditions on humans.

The closest I think you can get is the debate on pregnancy termination how people can argue about the number of days/ weeks with the ease of Aristotle the Greek philosopher or the Romans.

CDfm

Atomichorror - you seem strangely reluctant to go down the deicide road even on a thread.

Could it be you are superstitious:D

Could there be some doubt?

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

But where does this come into killing people or a race of people or slaughter women and children-surely that cant be justified ?

It is only justified where God has commanded it - they are His creatures, so He has the right to deal with them accordingly.

Such a command was only given is the case of the Israelite nation entering and possessing the land. That administration ended with the coming of the Messiah.