Atheistic forms of morality

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Ramo


Logic is actually incredibly simple, and consists of exactly one rule: contradiction is invalid. It does not consist of the selected list of bald assertions certified by Jerry Falwell. Logic is also an abstract system and is not dependent on the physical world. Your argument would make at least a little bit of sense (but not really) if you used something that is (like physics).

The existence of an ultimate being, or God, is an equally simple assertion. The redemption of Christ on the cross party is readily ascertainable off the simple self aware understanding of every man that he is flawed and that these flaws of his own making require the forgiveness of a creator. These are quite simple concepts that every human being can sense are true at a deep level, but yet suppresses. The ideas of mistake/sin and forgiveness thereof are fundamental to our nature as human beings and ultimately fundamental to our interior awareness of God.

The evidence of God is certainly sufficient for belief. But beyond that, every man knows God is true interiorly because God informs everything, including us. It is as basic to our existence as logic, even though unbelievers suppress this knowledge. Its like someone who has a damaged relationship suppressing his feelings. Human beings are in a natural state of rebellion against God and suppress their awareness of Him (original sin).

For example you boldly assert your position as if you were sure of yourself, but I posit that interiorly you are thinking even now (but what if it is true, it might be true). You are trying to suppress this as much as possible but it is there. In fact, not only is that there, but inside you are thinking God makes alot more sense than the despairing view of reality you have now. Our salvation or damnation is dependent on whether we fulfill the challenge of faith that Christ calls us all to.

[Berzerker]

I accept intelligent design. Old earth intelligent design is actually my position. The word of God declares that a day to God can be as an aeon to us.

I believe it says a day to God is like 1,000 years to us, which, "logically" means God is mortal. Lets see, 120 years x 365 days = 43,800 days or a 43,800,000 year old deity. Hmm...he wasn't around for an old Earth. He wasn't even around for the dinosaurs.

Guess what else the Bible says and doesn't say... Heaven and Earth in Genesis dont refer to the universe or even this planet. Earth is the word God gave to the dry land that appeared from under the waters below the firmament
- the seas - and Heaven is the word God gave to the firmament which separated the waters below from the waters above, i.e., this is a story about our little corner of the universe.

[Elok]

Good news, Philosophiser. Well, good and bad.

I've been talking your ideas over with my long-distance GF, who was raised by a Calvinist mother. Together we looked up presuppositionalism, and we're impressed by your adherence to it.

We had supposed it a paradox, that you could make incredibly simplistic beliefs unintelligibly complex without altering their meaning or resorting to sociologist-like jargon. But I'm danged if you didn't pull it off. Atheists are quite logically consistent, but they're always a little logically inconsistent, and you make it sound sensible without retreating an inch.

I was planning to simply honor you with an anglicization of "Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf," but I didn't know how. Then I decided that, as a graduate of some Ivy League school, you are qualified to become:

A Doctor of Quantum Theology!

Or at least I thought so. But she says your stuff isn't original enough to merit a doctorate, she heard it plenty growing up and that's why she's no longer a calvinist. So you'll have to be an honorary Bachelor of Quantum Theology. Applause!

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I believe it says a day to God is like 1,000 years to us, which, "logically" means God is mortal. Lets see, 120 years x 365 days = 43,800 days or a 43,800,000 year old deity. Hmm...he wasn't around for an old Earth. He wasn't even around for the dinosaurs.

Guess what else the Bible says and doesn't say... Heaven and Earth in Genesis dont refer to the universe or even this planet. Earth is the word God gave to the dry land that appeared from under the waters below the firmament
- the seas - and Heaven is the word God gave to the firmament which separated the waters below from the waters above, i.e., this is a story about our little corner of the universe.

Berzerker- Look at the context of 2 Peter 3:8. He's saying that a day with God is a vast amount of time compared to us. He says "a day with the LORD is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". In other words, God dwells where time has little meaning, and when God speaks to us in terms of days it bears little relation to time as we mere creatures perceive it. A thousand years to God may seem like only one day to us, or perhaps the opposite- a day to God may seem like a thousand years (or however long) to us.

Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the heavens (space/time) as well as the earth (the planet we live on) so it would make sense that God pays especial attention to land and our own atmosphere. The Bible is a message to mankind, not to outer space.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok
Good news, Philosophiser. Well, good and bad.

I've been talking your ideas over with my long-distance GF, who was raised by a Calvinist mother. Together we looked up presuppositionalism, and we're impressed by your adherence to it.

We had supposed it a paradox, that you could make incredibly simplistic beliefs unintelligibly complex without altering their meaning or resorting to sociologist-like jargon. But I'm danged if you didn't pull it off. Atheists are quite logically consistent, but they're always a little logically inconsistent, and you make it sound sensible without retreating an inch.

I was planning to simply honor you with an anglicization of "Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf," but I didn't know how. Then I decided that, as a graduate of some Ivy League school, you are qualified to become:

A Doctor of Quantum Theology!

Or at least I thought so. But she says your stuff isn't original enough to merit a doctorate, she heard it plenty growing up and that's why she's no longer a calvinist. So you'll have to be an honorary Bachelor of Quantum Theology. Applause!

Thanks for the honor. Christ is the foundation of all wisdom, peace, knowledge, and truth.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah, God didn't create the waters - tehom/tiamat the watery dragon. The Earth in its "void" phase was covered by the waters, and the spirit or breath of God moved over the deep (ocean) and the result was dry land appearing as the waters receded into "Seas" bound by God. Btw, the term or concept of "creation" is used very loosely in Genesis. We have evidence of this from how we're originally told God created Earth but when we get to the actual story of creation, God caused the waters to gather into seas and this allowed the land to appear. And God placed the firmament (Heaven) between us and other waters,

Whats interesting about this story is how widespread it is with enough variation to echo great antiquity. The "land" somehow appears from under the all-encompassing ocean... in North America the creator sends an animal to dive below and bring mud back and that is used to create the land.

Even more interesting is that this story is geologically sound. Researchers believe the Earth was struck about 4 billion years ago by something big, almost big enough to destroy it. Of course, who knows how big the Earth was before it got hit or where it was in the solar system but a collision like that may have triggered plate tectonics which built the continents - and the Earth rose above the waters.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh yeah, God didn't create the waters - tehom/tiamat the watery dragon. The Earth in its "void" phase was covered by the waters, and the spirit or breath of God moved over the deep (ocean) and the result was dry land appearing as the waters receded into "Seas" bound by God. Btw, the term or concept of "creation" is used very loosely in Genesis. We have evidence of this from how we're originally told God created Earth but when we get to the actual story of creation, God caused the waters to gather into seas and this allowed the land to appear. And God placed the firmament (Heaven) between us and other waters,

Whats interesting about this story is how widespread it is with enough variation to echo great antiquity. The "land" somehow appears from under the all-encompassing ocean... in North America the creator sends an animal to dive below and bring mud back and that is used to create the land.

Even more interesting is that this story is geologically sound. Researchers believe the Earth was struck about 4 billion years ago by something big, almost big enough to destroy it. Of course, who knows how big the Earth was before it got hit or where it was in the solar system but a collision like that may have triggered plate tectonics which built the continents - and the Earth rose above the waters.

Berzerker,

Good points. And yes its highly possible. When God says "create" it doesn't necessarily mean created out of thin air. You can manipulate what already exists to create something new. I have no problem positing some evolution, but I also have no problem positing that God intervened at various stages of the process where it seems less plausible evolution could have "filled the gap". Wings and feathers for example are minutely and specifically structured for flight and the idea that evolution would have created it in such a short space of time is stretched. But these are all the usual irreducible complexity arguments. Also the evolution of sex and the evolution of butterfly/caterpillars are highly problematic areas- not to say of the many other areas.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Not sure when self-conscious individuality enters the picture, but if the group predates morality it doesn't help much in this debate...Simply claiming we are social beings does not prove we get our morality from the group.

The fact we are social beings means that our morality exists for the purpose of protecting this set up- the group. The group inculcates its members- it trains them in the behavior it finds helpful to itself.

I think you over-estimate how many people viewed it as moral, but since you say the vast majority say its moral, where did slavery's opponents get their morality? You didn't answer my question: if the group says slavery is moral, would you disagree? If so, clearly you did not get your morality from the group.

The opponents of slavery argued their opposition of the practice based on new ideolgies that challanged the conception of what behavior was bestf or the group to follow.

As I said, humans can think up a lot of new things- this is the gift of intellect. So individuals can imagine new behaviors and create reasons why the group should follow them. But the change is slow, as these new behaviors have to infiltrate the group and gain adherents. The group remains paramount thought, as one individual's moral actions are meaningless unless they gain further acceptence. If people opposed to slavery simply abstained form slavery themselves, slavery would still be around. Only by trying to put peer pressure and train new people can this new moral movement make any change. It remains therefore a social situation.

[Flip McWho]

The evidence of God is certainly sufficient for belief.

What evidence? Besides the inner truth sort of course.


And going back to your earlier statements about ... ahh stuff it i'll quote:

Your argument refutes itself because a bee is an incredibly complex creature, not a simple one; nor is the behavior of a bee simple. Your argument is order (bee is orderly)-randomness (some random bee movements but within the confines of its biological directives)- order (bee colony). Well of course you can get order out of a little bit of randomness if you start with order to begin with!

Umm no. For starters. If something that was orderly becomes random, there can be no order left within there. Randomness negates order. Though order out of randomness is perfectly legit. Think of like two bits of hose in close proximity in a section of the ocean that eventually touch and start something.
Everything is simple if it is broken down into enough parts. For example, the human body is an incredibly complex system. But then you break it down, like taking a leg, and find out that taken apart is all relatively simple.

Another thing, God seems to be an answer to why. God believers can easily accept certain facts (such as evolution) about the world (though some can't) that'll fit in with their whole God thing. When you boil that down it appears that God itself has very little to do with the sciences, if God can be reconciled with science then God obviously doesn't really matter to the sciences, except as a creator. And thats where we get to the why. God exists because people want a solution to the "why does all this exist" and God, a creator is the easiest answer.

Berzerker, in the Gospel of John Jesus declares to the people that His name is "I AM"; and that "before Abraham was, I AM". I AM is the name of God, which was revealed to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus. Also, the entire crucifixion of Christ would be worthless if He were not God, since the value of his blood would be that of one man, whereas His redemption is only of infinite worth if He was also completely God. Finally, Christ forgave sins, healed, and read minds, and also described Himself coming back to judge the living and the dead- all attributes of God.

Concerning the crucifixion: you're saying that assuming that everything is true in the first place. You're assuming that we needed Christ to die on the cross for our sins thus Christs cruicifixion. Remove this assumption and you remove that "proof".
We can all forgive sins, we can all heal (some better than others, given degree of knowledge) and we can all read minds to some extent, and we can all describe ourselves to be coming back to judge everybody. I suppose we can't all change our names to "I AM", though, that would be awefully confusing. Oh well, we're almost God.

[Flip McWho]

Berzerkers been raising some good points too. I always get the feeling when I read the Bible that I'm reading up on some peoples history, specifically not mine.

Thats another thing with God and proof of its existence. The only practical measure of Gods qualities comes from the Holy Book of that religion. The Holy Book of course is no real proof of God itself, because it's entirely circular. Peoples testimonies is the other one. And well theres so many people believing in all these other ones, that well either they're all true, or equally likely to be false. The argument that the world being so means there must be a god is alright. However that just shows that there could be a god, not a god that has blah blah qualities.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


What evidence? Besides the inner truth sort of course.


And going back to your earlier statements about ... ahh stuff it i'll quote:







Umm no. For starters. If something that was orderly becomes random, there can be no order left within there. Randomness negates order. Though order out of randomness is perfectly legit. Think of like two bits of hose in close proximity in a section of the ocean that eventually touch and start something.
Everything is simple if it is broken down into enough parts. For example, the human body is an incredibly complex system. But then you break it down, like taking a leg, and find out that taken apart is all relatively simple.

Another thing, God seems to be an answer to why. God believers can easily accept certain facts (such as evolution) about the world (though some can't) that'll fit in with their whole God thing. When you boil that down it appears that God itself has very little to do with the sciences, if God can be reconciled with science then God obviously doesn't really matter to the sciences, except as a creator. And thats where we get to the why. God exists because people want a solution to the "why does all this exist" and God, a creator is the easiest answer.


Concerning the crucifixion: you're saying that assuming that everything is true in the first place. You're assuming that we needed Christ to die on the cross for our sins thus Christs cruicifixion. Remove this assumption and you remove that "proof".
We can all forgive sins, we can all heal (some better than others, given degree of knowledge) and we can all read minds to some extent, and we can all describe ourselves to be coming back to judge everybody. I suppose we can't all change our names to "I AM", though, that would be awefully confusing. Oh well, we're almost God.

Flip your reasoning away the existence of God is really totally vain and futile. You are only fighting against yourself. You haven't disproven anything, only asserted a private opinion- ie "God exists because we want to explain things." God exists because He exists, and we want to explain things because He exists. Thats MY explanation. And even your conscience will say to you that my explanation is more at peace with who you are. And yes I agree- randomness generally negates order (esp when you start with randomness!)

The question is whether you will choose to reason God's thoughts after Him, or whether you will try to liberate your mind as satan desired Adam do, and reason in rebellion to the foundation of the universe- the cornerstone- Christ Jesus.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Berzerkers been raising some good points too. I always get the feeling when I read the Bible that I'm reading up on some peoples history, specifically not mine.

Thats another thing with God and proof of its existence. The only practical measure of Gods qualities comes from the Holy Book of that religion. The Holy Book of course is no real proof of God itself, because it's entirely circular. Peoples testimonies is the other one. And well theres so many people believing in all these other ones, that well either they're all true, or equally likely to be false. The argument that the world being so means there must be a god is alright. However that just shows that there could be a god, not a god that has blah blah qualities.

True but look at the universe. We have children who are born disabled and sickly in Africa for example, without a hope in the world. There are three explanations for this misery- God is evil, there is no God, or God allows evil to bring about the greater good (which is the conquest of evil and the proclamation of His Own Glory which is the greatest good since God is the highest value). Only the third resonates with you, even if you are suppressing it. The other two options will produce nothing in you except confusion, guilt, aimlessness, and anguish. Also, it makes no sense because you inherently understand good as ultimate perfection and the ideal way, which could only be true if there is a source to that goodness, which itself must only be good.

Now does that mean that all atheists have a guilt or depression complex? No- because what they are doing is they are practically denying their own atheism. They claim to be atheists in theory, but practically they forget they are atheists for most of their day and act as if things really matter and have meaning. This is the most common inconsistency among the infidel.

[Berzerker]

Berzerker- Look at the context of 2 Peter 3:8. He's saying that a day with God is a vast amount of time compared to us. He says "a day with the LORD is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". In other words, God dwells where time has little meaning, and when God speaks to us in terms of days it bears little relation to time as we mere creatures perceive it.

I disagree, time was very important to ancient peoples and their deities. A thousand years as one day is a statement about time, not the absence of time. For example, the Sumerian "sar" was referred to as a "divine year" or year of God and it = 3,600 of our years. This word eventually showed up as the term for king or monarch in Rome and later Russia. Isn't Peter in the NT? I was thinking of an OT verse that says essentially the same thing.

A thousand years to God may seem like only one day to us, or perhaps the opposite- a day to God may seem like a thousand years (or however long) to us.

Peter says a day with God is like 1,000 years to us. He's comparing time frames between entities with vastly different time frames.

Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the heavens (space/time) as well as the earth (the planet we live on) so it would make sense that God pays especial attention to land and our own atmosphere. The Bible is a message to mankind, not to outer space.

Where does Genesis claim God created this planet? Or space/time? Or the universe? The Bible is very clear on this, God defined "Earth" as the dry land and "Heaven" is the name for the firmament separating the waters below (and later the dry land) from the waters above. The Bible goes out of the way to make it clear the waters were not created by God and that the waters preceded both "Heaven" and "Earth".

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I disagree, time was very important to ancient peoples and their deities. A thousand years as one day is a statement about time, not the absence of time. For example, the Sumerian "sar" was referred to as a "divine year" or year of God and it = 3,600 of our years. This word eventually showed up as the term for king or monarch in Rome and later Russia. Isn't Peter in the NT? I was thinking of an OT verse that says essentially the same thing.



Peter says a day with God is like 1,000 years to us. He's comparing time frames between entities with vastly different time frames.



Where does Genesis claim God created this planet? Or space/time? Or the universe? The Bible is very clear on this, God defined "Earth" as the dry land and "Heaven" is the name for the firmament separating the waters below (and later the dry land) from the waters above. The Bible goes out of the way to make it clear the waters were not created by God and that the waters preceded both "Heaven" and "Earth".

Your own presuppositions colour your approach to the text. Your belief about ancient people valuing time for example- that may be true on one level but ancient people also highly valued dreams, which to our perception often portray a timelessness and you are creating inconsistencies that don't prove anything for you because they can be explained away by my own reasons. If Peter were not talking about timelessness, there would be no reason for him to say that 1000 years with God is as a mere day to us, *and then, say that one day to God is as 1000 years to us.* The text itself clearly promotes timelessness, or relativity.

Finally, I'm not sure what you are driving about when it comes to the water. Nowhere does the Bible say the water is eternal, and Genesis 1:2 connects it heavily with "the earth".

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


True but look at the universe. We have children who are born disabled and sickly in Africa for example, without a hope in the world. There are three explanations for this misery- God is evil, there is no God, or God allows evil to bring about the greater good (which is the conquest of evil and the proclamation of His Own Glory which is the greatest good since God is the highest value). Only the third resonates with you, even if you are suppressing it. The other two options will produce nothing in you except confusion, guilt, aimlessness, and anguish. Also, it makes no sense because you inherently understand good as ultimate perfection and the ideal way, which could only be true if there is a source to that goodness, which itself must only be good.

Now does that mean that all atheists have a guilt or depression complex? No- because what they are doing is they are practically denying their own atheism. They claim to be atheists in theory, but practically they forget they are atheists for most of their day and act as if things really matter and have meaning. This is the most common inconsistency among the infidel.

You've conveniently left out the fourth, most obvious option: There is a God, but he's not really all that concerned with micromanaginging African births.