I don't see a problem with continuing to calling myself a Canadian Kiwi =(, being white or otherwise. In fact, I don't see a reason for any differentiation at all.
Haha. If you look up Microsoft or Sony, she gives rather generic lines. You look up Nintendo, however, and she starts talking about Halo and handles an Xbox controller and such o.O
One last moment clarrification...
When I asked "if God doesn't exist, why put value into a moral system?" I had meant to ponder "why or how are we capable of such systems, if the rest of the animal kingdom is without such mechanisms?" rather than to offend.
Thanks for the link, Mord.
The concept I personaly have come to ascribe to regarding the source of secular ethics comes from the previously mentioned idea of General Revelation. When God created us (however long ago that was), he created us with the ability to reason and to chose. At the same time, he has revealed certain truths to everyone, which included a sense of moral and ethics. You don't have to believe in God to reason that it is useful not to go and commit murder, or to rape and steal. You don't need to put faith in Jesus to understand what is right or wrong. I am not saying that without Christianity or any other religion people would be devoid of such tools. God existed from the beggining and long before Christianity started or Egypt had anything more than a nomadic clan in it. Religion is not the source of morals and ethics. God is that source of morals and ethics. Religion, regardless of which one it is, is based off these basic concepts and ideas that God provided for us. If that makes any sense.
I don't think if there was no God/Hell/Punishment that "everyone would be raping dogs and killing willy-nilly". Nor do I secretly desire to do evil but think "Oh, shit! God exists, so I better not". I would be more than willing to accept something like Utilitarianism (or some other secular ethics system) if I became convinced God doesn't actually exist.
I simply believe that if God didn't exist, we would be no different than the animals. We would be incapable of understanding right and wrong, would be without a justice system and would be completly unaware of personal consequence to our actions or to anyone else. I view humanity as incapable of anything more than what animals are capable of, without God. Obviously, if God doesn't exist, then this concept is absolutely wrong and my understanding of the capability of humanity is also quite off-base.
But again, I don't secretly desire to do wrong but chose not to in fear of retribution. Nor do I think that those who don't practice religion are without morals and ethics. Instead, I believe God has given everybody this ability, this tool, per say, so that we could protect ourselves from ourselves. And if God doesn't exist, I'm wrong.
You misunderstand. I was not insulted by your attacking of Christianity. After all, I invited such comments... more on that in a moment.
Instead I found offence to the gross assumptions you made about me. "I don't like talking to believers in the Bible because their mind is already made" was one of them. People use that as an excuse not to hold a conversation, but it just sounds stupid. If you're open minded, give the other the benefit of the doubt. And if your going to be just as stubborn, don't go accusing someone else of the same problem.
Back to that one question I had made that seemed to get you so upset. When I asked the question "if there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?" I was honestly asking with an open minded question. I'm not trying to preach, I'm not trying to win you over to my own way of thought. I'm simply asking questions I have. ...Questions that so many times people refuse to give an answer for. A lot of you did though, and thats great. Stuff for me to think about.
And rushmc, those are two quotes I can agree strongly with :)
You seem to have taken great strides to insult me, Chyren.
Anyway, if that is the way you feel, then so be it. You make some very wrong assumptions about me and my understandings... but I can accept this, considering we do not know each other.
I am honestly interested in what others believe, including your own insight... It is why I asked for it. My mind is not and was not made up about the Bible. I have many concerns about it, myself. And the references you made in that last post are interesting. I'll be doing a lot of Wikipedia research with those, thanks.
Sorry nipperr, I missed your comment. Your question is a little off, I think.
I'm not providing evidence for God for the same reason I am not asking him to disprove God. I am asking for evidence towards behavior in animals that would reflect ethics and morality. If you like, I can go find evidence for ethics and morality in humans, but I think thats already evident enough.
Thanks rushmc. It would be helpful if you elaborated on the quotes, though. What are you trying to convey? You use them like I might quote scripture. And on that note, I find as much credibility in those people's understanding of life as you might find in anything I might quote from the Bible or Christian leaders I am fond of.
But they do prompt critical thinking, which is good... but if you could go further and help explain them, that would be better.
I meant to emphasize the use of the word "seemingly" in my previous post. Not sure if that was clear or not. But yea, again, if you have evidence, I would like to see it =D
Seemingly. If you can provide evidence for such behavior in animals, that would be neat. I personaly haven't come across much that suggests they do, however. So if you have examples that elborate say your thought about codified behavior in dogs or something similer, that would be useful.
Chyren, I've heard the argument before. The first thing that comes to my head is the concept of General Revelation (link in case your not familier with it).
The argument is that God did in fact impart ethics and morals to everyone and He is responsible for it. I'll be honest, I am not 100% versed in the whole theory behind it, but its something I just recently started looking into.
If ethics and morals derive from group survival tactics, why are animals seemingly without such tools?
(carried on from my last comment)
...which brings me back to my statement. If there is no basis for morality, then I do not see why it would be "rude", as Penn coined.
If there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?
Bertrand Russell's quote makes sense. Religious extremism has been proven through history, and very much so in modern times, to be a bad thing. Edward O. Wilson's comment can be just as readily applied to the next gen console wars and the flame wars you read on Joystiq. Even without spiritual belief, there will always be disagreements. I don't see any evidence for Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's quote. H. L. Mencken's comment doesn't say anything. I can parrot the same words back with the same conviction against atheism. I really like Jonathan Wallace's statement. Ritual is something that needn't be practiced with Jesus. Penn Jillette's words parellel my own thoughts... same with Peter W. Huber's. And again, your quote from T. H. Huxley is also good. Finnaly, your quote from W.K. Clifford makes a lot of sense too.
"Test everything. Hold on to is good."
1 Thess. 5:21
I agree that blind faith, without reasoning is useless. But these quotes do not tell me belief is wrong. They tell me unreasoned and unbased belief is. And I have no belief ritual is unrequired for salvation, either.
My belief and relationship with Jesus is no longer based on "what I learned in Sunday school". It is through experience and study that I have come to believe what I do today. And if there is no God? If we're here simply "'cause", then I don't see any basis for morality. The animals certaintly are free from such restraints.
Interesting post, schark. The whole concept of the website is kind of neat.
"Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."
That is probably his strongest argument, I think. Or the one that hit me the most. And to be honest, I struggle with the whole human suffering thing as well. But there is another thing that kind of seems strange to me. He finds it would be "rude to ask the invisible for more". Rude in what way? If God doesn't exist, that just makes him crazy, not rude. He mentions he is fortunate. Would it not be much more rude to just be completely without thanks?
I can appreciate atheism. There are many things that suggest God isn't really there. But to place a negative moral bearing on someone who does believe in God is offensive to me, personaly.
I agree with your Nickdanger. Although I would point out that something like this makes it hard to accept the Bible. I disagree it disproves God, but the site seems to accomplish what it is trying to do in the sense of creating a very large amount of doubt.
I don't see a problem with continuing to calling myself a Canadian Kiwi =(, being white or otherwise. In fact, I don't see a reason for any differentiation at all.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
In "Guess the logo"
Funnnn
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
In "What if Google had an attitude and wanted to waste your time?"
Haha. If you look up Microsoft or Sony, she gives rather generic lines. You look up Nintendo, however, and she starts talking about Halo and handles an Xbox controller and such o.O
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
In "There Is No God"
Oh, actually, one thing. Any examples of punishment within these systems, as well?
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Haha, I've got no related arguments/questions against that, really, other than splitting hairs. This is all very interesting, thanks for your input.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
One last moment clarrification... When I asked "if God doesn't exist, why put value into a moral system?" I had meant to ponder "why or how are we capable of such systems, if the rest of the animal kingdom is without such mechanisms?" rather than to offend.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Thanks for the link, Mord. The concept I personaly have come to ascribe to regarding the source of secular ethics comes from the previously mentioned idea of General Revelation. When God created us (however long ago that was), he created us with the ability to reason and to chose. At the same time, he has revealed certain truths to everyone, which included a sense of moral and ethics. You don't have to believe in God to reason that it is useful not to go and commit murder, or to rape and steal. You don't need to put faith in Jesus to understand what is right or wrong. I am not saying that without Christianity or any other religion people would be devoid of such tools. God existed from the beggining and long before Christianity started or Egypt had anything more than a nomadic clan in it. Religion is not the source of morals and ethics. God is that source of morals and ethics. Religion, regardless of which one it is, is based off these basic concepts and ideas that God provided for us. If that makes any sense. I don't think if there was no God/Hell/Punishment that "everyone would be raping dogs and killing willy-nilly". Nor do I secretly desire to do evil but think "Oh, shit! God exists, so I better not". I would be more than willing to accept something like Utilitarianism (or some other secular ethics system) if I became convinced God doesn't actually exist. I simply believe that if God didn't exist, we would be no different than the animals. We would be incapable of understanding right and wrong, would be without a justice system and would be completly unaware of personal consequence to our actions or to anyone else. I view humanity as incapable of anything more than what animals are capable of, without God. Obviously, if God doesn't exist, then this concept is absolutely wrong and my understanding of the capability of humanity is also quite off-base. But again, I don't secretly desire to do wrong but chose not to in fear of retribution. Nor do I think that those who don't practice religion are without morals and ethics. Instead, I believe God has given everybody this ability, this tool, per say, so that we could protect ourselves from ourselves. And if God doesn't exist, I'm wrong.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
You misunderstand. I was not insulted by your attacking of Christianity. After all, I invited such comments... more on that in a moment. Instead I found offence to the gross assumptions you made about me. "I don't like talking to believers in the Bible because their mind is already made" was one of them. People use that as an excuse not to hold a conversation, but it just sounds stupid. If you're open minded, give the other the benefit of the doubt. And if your going to be just as stubborn, don't go accusing someone else of the same problem. Back to that one question I had made that seemed to get you so upset. When I asked the question "if there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?" I was honestly asking with an open minded question. I'm not trying to preach, I'm not trying to win you over to my own way of thought. I'm simply asking questions I have. ...Questions that so many times people refuse to give an answer for. A lot of you did though, and thats great. Stuff for me to think about. And rushmc, those are two quotes I can agree strongly with :)
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
You seem to have taken great strides to insult me, Chyren. Anyway, if that is the way you feel, then so be it. You make some very wrong assumptions about me and my understandings... but I can accept this, considering we do not know each other. I am honestly interested in what others believe, including your own insight... It is why I asked for it. My mind is not and was not made up about the Bible. I have many concerns about it, myself. And the references you made in that last post are interesting. I'll be doing a lot of Wikipedia research with those, thanks.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Sorry nipperr, I missed your comment. Your question is a little off, I think. I'm not providing evidence for God for the same reason I am not asking him to disprove God. I am asking for evidence towards behavior in animals that would reflect ethics and morality. If you like, I can go find evidence for ethics and morality in humans, but I think thats already evident enough.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Thanks rushmc. It would be helpful if you elaborated on the quotes, though. What are you trying to convey? You use them like I might quote scripture. And on that note, I find as much credibility in those people's understanding of life as you might find in anything I might quote from the Bible or Christian leaders I am fond of. But they do prompt critical thinking, which is good... but if you could go further and help explain them, that would be better.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
I meant to emphasize the use of the word "seemingly" in my previous post. Not sure if that was clear or not. But yea, again, if you have evidence, I would like to see it =D
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Seemingly. If you can provide evidence for such behavior in animals, that would be neat. I personaly haven't come across much that suggests they do, however. So if you have examples that elborate say your thought about codified behavior in dogs or something similer, that would be useful.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Chyren, I've heard the argument before. The first thing that comes to my head is the concept of General Revelation (link in case your not familier with it). The argument is that God did in fact impart ethics and morals to everyone and He is responsible for it. I'll be honest, I am not 100% versed in the whole theory behind it, but its something I just recently started looking into. If ethics and morals derive from group survival tactics, why are animals seemingly without such tools?
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
(carried on from my last comment) ...which brings me back to my statement. If there is no basis for morality, then I do not see why it would be "rude", as Penn coined. If there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Bertrand Russell's quote makes sense. Religious extremism has been proven through history, and very much so in modern times, to be a bad thing. Edward O. Wilson's comment can be just as readily applied to the next gen console wars and the flame wars you read on Joystiq. Even without spiritual belief, there will always be disagreements. I don't see any evidence for Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's quote. H. L. Mencken's comment doesn't say anything. I can parrot the same words back with the same conviction against atheism. I really like Jonathan Wallace's statement. Ritual is something that needn't be practiced with Jesus. Penn Jillette's words parellel my own thoughts... same with Peter W. Huber's. And again, your quote from T. H. Huxley is also good. Finnaly, your quote from W.K. Clifford makes a lot of sense too. "Test everything. Hold on to is good." 1 Thess. 5:21 I agree that blind faith, without reasoning is useless. But these quotes do not tell me belief is wrong. They tell me unreasoned and unbased belief is. And I have no belief ritual is unrequired for salvation, either. My belief and relationship with Jesus is no longer based on "what I learned in Sunday school". It is through experience and study that I have come to believe what I do today. And if there is no God? If we're here simply "'cause", then I don't see any basis for morality. The animals certaintly are free from such restraints.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
Interesting post, schark. The whole concept of the website is kind of neat. "Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future." That is probably his strongest argument, I think. Or the one that hit me the most. And to be honest, I struggle with the whole human suffering thing as well. But there is another thing that kind of seems strange to me. He finds it would be "rude to ask the invisible for more". Rude in what way? If God doesn't exist, that just makes him crazy, not rude. He mentions he is fortunate. Would it not be much more rude to just be completely without thanks? I can appreciate atheism. There are many things that suggest God isn't really there. But to place a negative moral bearing on someone who does believe in God is offensive to me, personaly.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
In "God is Imaginary."
Uggh, typo. your = you,
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
I agree with your Nickdanger. Although I would point out that something like this makes it hard to accept the Bible. I disagree it disproves God, but the site seems to accomplish what it is trying to do in the sense of creating a very large amount of doubt.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
In "The Little Girl Giant"
...I have seen only a few rare things more creepy than what I just witnessed here... T'was most excellent.
posted by Ritz 17 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)