The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

panthera

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Incorrect. There is no evidence of the existence of God. That's a fact, but rather a different one to what you are asserting.

i was hardly serious that it is a scientific fact.hence the .

:rolleyes:

Soul Winner

panthera wrote: »

Fascism
noun
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

That's what he said. To surpress the imposition of another view. I rest my case.

panthera

i stand corrected sam vines is indeed a fascist.you got me there.;)

Soul Winner

panthera wrote: »

i stand corrected sam vines is indeed a fascist.you got me there.;)

I disagree, his name is Sam Vimes not Sam Vines

Sam Vimes

Telling someone that they can live their life in peace and do whatever they want as long as they afford me the same courtesy......is fascism
I'm not actually imposing my views on someone in this case, I'm merely expressing a desire that they don't impose their views on me and if they don't, I will reciprocate by not imposing my views on them

Also, as you point out, religious morality contains more specific rules than mine and God makes them binding. Does that mean he's a fascist?
And if a religious person feels justified in imposing religious morality on people, after all it's binding from God so why wouldn't they, does that mean they are fascists?

Congrats on godwinning the thread btw

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it is so inbuilt into us then why do so many of us fail to adhere to it on a daily basis?

Define "so many of us" The percentage of humans who are actually violent to other humans on a regular basis is tiny compared to the over all population.

Compare being a bus with 50 humans and being on a bus with 50 lions and then wonder whether or not evolution has build the golden rule into us or not :rolleyes:

By the way evolution explains very well why we have this instinct but why it doesn't work perfectly all the time in everyone. Christianity fudges that question spectacularly. Christians would be better off saying they don't know rather than going into the convoluted illogical mess that is The Fall.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Compare being a bus with 50 humans and being on a bus with 50 lions and then wonder whether or not evolution has build the golden rule into us or not :rolleyes:

Especially if the lions didn't buy tickets. They'll do anything to avoid the fine

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Telling someone that they can live their life in peace and do whatever they want as long as they afford me the same courtesy......is fascism
I'm not actually imposing my views on someone in this case, I'm merely expressing a desire that they don't impose their views on me and if they don't, I will reciprocate by not imposing my views on them

Also, as you point out, religious morality contains more specific rules than mine and God makes them binding. Does that mean he's a fascist?
And if a religious person feels justified in imposing religious morality on people, after all it's binding from God so why wouldn't they, does that mean they are fascists?

Congrats on godwinning the thread btw

Now I stand corrected. I actually agree with you on this one. Nobody should be allowed to impose their views on anyone else. I was confusing impose on with to express, so sorry about my inference that your statement embodied such a detestable ideology as fascism. OK old buddy old pal

God doesn't even impose His way on anyone. Jesus said I set before two ways, the way of life and the way of death. We choose.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

...God doesn't even impose His way on anyone. Jesus said I set before two ways, the way of life and the way of death. We choose.

I fail to see how that lacks any kind of imposition.

the way of life I take to mean follow God's instructions and you're fine.

the way of death I take to mean damnation by the same God.

Not much of a choice or is there a third option I'm not aware of? I mean how is it any different from "follow me or else"?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "so many of us" The percentage of humans who are actually violent to other humans on a regular basis is tiny compared to the over all population.

The golden rule is not just that we don't do unto others what we wouldn't have done unto us, it also embodies the idea that we do - in the positive - unto others what we would have done unto us. Now as J C quite rightly pointed out, we don't want done unto us what some people would want done unto them unless the spirit of God is dwelling in them. So if there is no God then I think the safer bet is to err on the side of caution and stick with the idea of simply not doing unto others what we wouldn't have done unto us. So under atheism the latter rather than the former should be the way to go.

Wicknight wrote: »

Compare being a bus with 50 humans and being on a bus with 50 lions and then wonder whether or not evolution has build the golden rule into us or not

That is my point though. If its so built into us then why don't we instinctively do positives unto others that we would have done to us? I put my hand up, I don't instinctively do positives unto others that I would have done unto me. I do what I would regard as good deeds sometime but it doesn't flow out of me in the way that millions of years of evolving would produce. Get my point?

Wicknight wrote: »

By the way evolution explains very well why we have this instinct but why it doesn't work perfectly all the time in everyone. Christianity fudges that question spectacularly. Christians would be better off saying they don't know rather than going into the convoluted illogical mess that is The Fall.

Lets leave the fall out of this for a minute and concentrate on how - if evolution is true - why this selfless trait is not flowing out of everybody as it should be considering what the millions of years of evolution would suggest?

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I fail to see how that lacks any kind of imposition.

the way of life I take to mean follow God's instructions and you're fine.

the way of death I take to mean damnation by the same God.

Not much of a choice or is there a third option I'm not aware of? I mean how is it any different from "follow me or else"?

Well if we were talking in simple human terms then I would agree with you but as we are talking about the source of all life, to freely choose not to go His way is pretty dumb to be honest. It would be worse if He forced you to go His way wouldn't it? Or would you rather He created your very own little reality so that you could be happy? Or would you just prefer that He simply left you alone? NEWSFLASH: The way of death IS God leaving you alone.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "so many of us" The percentage of humans who are actually violent to other humans on a regular basis is tiny compared to the over all population.

Compare being a bus with 50 humans and being on a bus with 50 lions and then wonder whether or not evolution has build the golden rule into us or not :rolleyes:

By the way evolution explains very well why we have this instinct but why it doesn't work perfectly all the time in everyone. Christianity fudges that question spectacularly. Christians would be better off saying they don't know rather than going into the convoluted illogical mess that is The Fall.

Yes! Morals vary as any other trait. I suspect we'd find that values, such as the value of life, would fall into a Gaussian distribution in the population, rather like IQ. Most people value other human lives close to the mean (probably less than they value their own lives but more than they value their pets), at one tail a few value other lives above all other things, and at the other tail a few see little value in the lives of other humans. We just need a meaningful way to measure values...

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

The golden rule is not just that we don't do unto others what we wouldn't have done unto us, it also embodies the idea that we do - in the positive - unto others what we would have done unto us. Now as J C quite rightly pointed out, we don't want done unto us what some people would want done unto them unless the spirit of God is dwelling in them. So if there is no God then I think the safer bet is to err on the side of caution and stick with the idea of simply not doing unto others what we wouldn't have done unto us. So under atheism the latter rather than the former should be the way to go.

You could ask them if they want you to do the thing you're doing surely?

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is my point though. If its so built into us then why don't we instinctively do positives unto others that we would have done to us? I put my hand up, I don't instinctively do positives unto others that I would have done unto me. I do what I would regard as good deeds sometime but it doesn't flow out of me in the way that millions of years of evolving would produce. Get my point?

Yes. Your point is that neither evolutionary morality nor religious morality irresistibly compel you to go out of your way to do good. I would argue that since religious morality is supposed to be perfect and you don't always follow it, you're not actually following it at all but are following your evolved sense of right and wrong just like everyone else

Soul Winner wrote: »

Lets leave the fall out of this for a minute and concentrate on how - if evolution is true - why this selfless trait is not flowing out of everybody as it should be considering what the millions of years of evolution would suggest?

It's flowing out of most people at most times unless something compels them to do wrong such as desperation or poverty. As intelligent beings we are able to overrule our instincts when it is required. You would see it as god giving us free will.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if we were talking in simple human terms then I would agree with you but as we are talking about the source of all life, to freely choose not to go His way is pretty dumb to be honest. It would be worse if He forced you to go His way wouldn't it? Or would you rather He created your very own little reality so that you could be happy? Or would you just prefer that He simply left you alone? NEWSFLASH: The way of death IS God leaving you alone.

It would be pretty silly if you had proof that the bible was influenced by the source of all life. Unfortunately for yourself, your book is just one of thousands which contain contradictory instructions but make the same claim as yours.

And even if we do assume God was involved in the bible, it could be a test to see who is intelligent enough to be able to overrule the immoral things he deliberately put in the bible to test people's goodness

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or would you rather He created your very own little reality so that you could be happy?

As opposed to this reality where, apparently, if you don't accept god you will spend an eternity in hell?

Soul Winner

Not ignoring posts. Have to dash out but will reply later.

bus77

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "so many of us" The percentage of humans who are actually violent to other humans on a regular basis is tiny compared to the over all population.

Compare being a bus with 50 humans and being on a bus with 50 lions and then wonder whether or not evolution has build the golden rule into us or not :rolleyes:

By the way evolution explains very well why we have this instinct but why it doesn't work perfectly all the time in everyone.

I just don't see where your going with this at all. While I agree in some way that there is a certain 'decorum' that is there with us when all is well, like sitting on a bus. I just don't get why you would bring another species into it as an example of a difference in standards.

Firstly, the lions might be grand with each other on the bus, just like humans. But, of course, what your saying is if a human went on the bus he'd be dead, yeah probably. But what about a cow on a bus with 50 humans? Tell him we are nice humans with golden rules built into us as the bus drives by Supermacs.

The golden rule, the silver rule in Christianity, is followed by a lot of people if you expand it out. It's followed by racists; they wish to be treated as a single group and treat others accordingly. It's followed by me sometimes, in ways too numerous to list.

The golden rule is amoral, and that's why everyone can follow it.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if we were talking in simple human terms then I would agree with you but as we are talking about the source of all life, to freely choose not to go His way is pretty dumb to be honest.

As I said by your description there is no choice.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It would be worse if He forced you to go His way wouldn't it?

By your definition does he says go my way or die.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or would you rather He created your very own little reality so that you could be happy?

Why not? The "source of all life" and that which has unlimited power could do whatever he wanted so yes I would rather.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or would you just prefer that He simply left you alone? NEWSFLASH: The way of death IS God leaving you alone.

Well from my perspective something that does not exist can neither bother me nor leave me alone.

Sam Vimes

bus77 wrote: »

The golden rule is amoral, and that's why everyone can follow it.

Eh? It's considered the central moral rule in dozens of religions

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if we were talking in simple human terms then I would agree with you but as we are talking about the source of all life, to freely choose not to go His way is pretty dumb to be honest.

You must feel pretty stupid for not bowing to Allah. Or Vishnu. Or Zenu. Or Gaia. Or Ymir. Or Osiris. Or any of the rest.

Sam Vimes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You must feel pretty stupid for not bowing to Allah. Or Vishnu. Or Zenu. Or Gaia. Or Ymir. Or Osiris. Or any of the rest.

Qur'an wrote:

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost all spiritual good. (Koran 3:85)

And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers. (Koran 48:13)

Uh oh :P

bus77

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh? It's considered the central moral rule in dozens of religions

Well, the debate seems to be revolving around if we are inherently 'good' or inherently 'bad'. All I'm saying is the 'silver rule' is silent and non-judgemental on this. People, and God, are.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The golden rule is not just that we don't do unto others what we wouldn't have done unto us, it also embodies the idea that we do - in the positive - unto others what we would have done unto us. Now as J C quite rightly pointed out, we don't want done unto us what some people would want done unto them unless the spirit of God is dwelling in them.

Come again

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is my point though. If its so built into us then why don't we instinctively do positives unto others that we would have done to us?

Most of do.

The problem you have is that you are taking it to ridiculous extremes. When was the last time I sold my house and gave the money to a homeless person! Ha, obviously there is no evolved morality :rolleyes:

I pay taxes to fund social welfare programs because I want to help people when they are sick or out of work. I want this because I have been sick and out of work and I know it sucks. The idea of others suffering displeases me so I am more than happy to pay my taxes to help them.

If someone falls over on the street you will get 5 or 6 people rush over to help them up. They do this instinctively.

Or to put it more simple if I see you eating a muffin I want I don't walk over and stab you.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I don't instinctively do positives unto others that I would have done unto me.

I find that difficult to believe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Lets leave the fall out of this for a minute and concentrate on how - if evolution is true - why this selfless trait is not flowing out of everybody as it should be considering what the millions of years of evolution would suggest?

The golden rule is not a selfless trait. That could be where you are getting confused. The golden rule does not say suffer so others can flourish. The golden rule is a unwritten contract between us based on the emotion of empathy.

We have evolved the mental ability to imagine how others feel that is translated by our emotional systems into how we feel. If we believe something we have done makes someone feel bad we feel bad. If something we do makes someone feel good we feel good.

We try to verbalise this with ideas such as the golden rule but really we don't have to, it is built into us and forms the basis of nearly all human morality.

gaynorvader

bus77 wrote: »

The golden rule is amoral, and that's why everyone can follow it.

I don't like the implications of this, could you please expand a bit? It sounds to me like you are saying that a person who doesn't believe in a deity is unable to follow a moral rule.

Sam Vimes

bus77 wrote: »

Well, the debate seems to be revolving around if we are inherently 'good' or inherently 'bad'. All I'm saying is the 'silver rule' is silent and non-judgemental on this. People, and God, are.

I'm still not following....

smokingman

Wicknight wrote: »

The golden rule is not a selfless trait. That could be where you are getting confused. The golden rule does not say suffer so others can flourish. The golden rule is a unwritten contract between us based on the emotion of empathy.

It's already well proven that apes show empathy, we're not "special" in that regard.

gaynorvader

smokingman wrote: »

It's already well proven that apes show empathy, we're not "special" in that regard.

Awesome! What was your point though?

smokingman

gaynorvader wrote: »

Awesome! What was your point though?

My point being that you don't need a religion to be inherently good.

gaynorvader

smokingman wrote: »

My point being that you don't need a religion to be inherently good.

Ah, I see, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing or trying to make another point entirely!

smokingman

gaynorvader wrote: »

Ah, I see, thank you. I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing or trying to make another point entirely!

I apologise for the confusion good sir. Hang on, I'm an atheist, I shouldn't be nice should I