A Challenge for Believers in God.

reply to post by kinglizard




I think I was getting a little woozy when I made that post.

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by kinglizard

 

Without religion evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things, but for good people to do evil things that takes religion.

Nice.

Hitchens dictated words to that affect in his debate with Tony Blair; quoting Stephen Weinberg:-

"As the great physicist Stephen Weinberg has aptly put it, in the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you'll need religion."

Originally posted by bogomil
is egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy, and that's only a for-the-duration answer until we find something better or grow out of the need for it.

If that is what you are really trying to do then why are you going around trying to debunk every religious thread you can? Moreover, who really needs what your talking about?

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by kinglizard

 

Without religion evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things, but for good people to do evil things that takes religion.

Nice.

Hitchens dictated words to that affect in his debate with Tony Blair; quoting Stephen Weinberg:-

"As the great physicist Stephen Weinberg has aptly put it, in the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you'll need religion."

That's not a true statement. You don't need religion in order to wicked. Besides, if a person is really that good they would never commit such an act with or without religion.

In that case, your question would have no right or wrong response. In fact, there is no correct answer. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

I am a Christian along with one third of the entire world. To be christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Therefore, the one third of the world does not include religions that recognize God, but not Jesus as the Messiah.

As a "believer" I feel that my personal morality is derived from my firm belief in the Lord. I was raised in church and have read the bible many times in my lifetime. I have also taken two theology courses, humanities, and many history courses in order to receive my BA. With saying this, I could watch you commit an act that I would consider to be amoral, yet you may consider your action to be moral.

My definition of moral behavior consists of:

1.) Placing no other god or idol or carved image before my God. I am a creationist, and I worship the one that I know created us all. (I am already assuming that you believe in something else, and that's your belief, but a theory is an educated guess that I am not interested in debating on.)

2.) In order to keep my set of moral standards, I keep the sabbath day holy and attend church. This gives me a weekly reminder that I should place others before myself. I should always act out of love and not out of hatred. At the end of the week I think that all "believers" and "nonbelievers" have had their fill of ups and downs from life. As a "believer" I need that spiritual uplift to maintain my own personal definition of moral behavior. I am in a position where many look to me for guidance, and my actions directly influence the future leaders of America. Therefore, keeping the Sabbath Holy is directly linked to my own moral behavior.

3.) To commit murder, adultery, steal or lie are obvious indications of behavior that is amoral. "Believer" or "Nonbeliever" these things are wrong, and are therefore not moral.

4.) I also feel that it is wrong to covet your neighbor's wife. Every affair that has occurred in all of history began with one person desiring someone else's husband/wife. It is human nature to want what you cannot have. Eventually what you desire, you will want to obtain. It's stealing something that isn't yours.

Moral behavior has many definitions. It is more than the ten commandments. You must have love and good will to be moral. This is easy when it comes to family, but moral people are able to show love and good will towards strangers. It’s raining and an elderly woman has a flat tire on the side of the road. A moral person would show good will towards this stranger.

You must be able to reason in order to be moral. In order to be moral, you must be able to distinguish right and wrong. In many situations this takes reasoning. If you found a hundred dollar bill in a parking lot you would most likely reason with yourself on whether or not to turn it in or keep it.

You must have compassion and empathy. This, in turn, requires an ability to empathize with others — an ability to be able to imagine what it's like to be them, even if only briefly.

Also morality cannot exist without justice, mercy and honesty.

With this in depth definition, “believer” and “nonbelievers” both fall short of being moral all the time. Therefore, I must admit that you and I were both wrong. Neither “believers” nor “unbelievers” are moral. Instead, we are both capable of making the choice to act in a moral fashion.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
is egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy, and that's only a for-the-duration answer until we find something better or grow out of the need for it.

If that is what you are really trying to do then why are you going around trying to debunk every religious thread you can? Moreover, who really needs what your talking about?

As strange as it may sound, such societal considerations (as on democracy) is my main motivation for being here, and even stranger ..... it contains an aspect of the unavoidable epistemological perspective, which it would do ideologers good to become familiarized with: "How do we settle for a common version of 'reality'? ".

If you consider my posts from a broad sample, you'll probably notice, that my 'debunking' intensity has a common denominator. Individuals with attitudes of: "From my perspective" or "it's my opinion" .....in other words without absolutes they throw at people with missionary zeal, are seldom put through a wringer.

It's the invading missionaries I oppose strongly, because their message usually is a form of fascistic ideology: Monopoly and elitistic rule.

As to the value of my presence here: Are you the spokesperson of every reader of this forum? It DOES on occasion happen, that someone gives me a positive feedback.


But you never answered on which 'absolutes' I spread.

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


I don't know, if this post is addressed to me, but I'll answer on the assumption, that it is.

You wrote:

["In that case, your question would have no right or wrong response. In fact, there is no correct answer. Morality is in the eye of the beholder."]

Not meant condescending, but I have noticed, that it is difficult for individuals with 'absolute' leanings to understand how any degree of 'relativity' can function at all. The 'absolute'-adherers often go to some length to 'prove', that relativism = nihilistic anarchy. As I've said regularly, it's a question of mindsets. Some need order, some can stand alone better.

Quote: ["I am a Christian along with one third of the entire world."]

Which is a source for constant observations from non-believers. This third of the world is made up of half active 'christians' and half 'passive' (only nominal) christians. Furthermore 'christians' have argued with other 'christians' on the trademark 'christian' since day one.

"A third of the world" is only a cosmetic statistics directed at non-belivers.

Quote: ["As a "believer" I feel that my personal morality is derived from my firm belief in the Lord."]

A completely personal, subjective, legitimate position, which I hope no-one tries to interfere with at a practical level. Naturally expecting you to give others the same right.

Quote: ["You must be able to reason in order to be moral. In order to be moral, you must be able to distinguish right and wrong. In many situations this takes reasoning. If you found a hundred dollar bill in a parking lot you would most likely reason with yourself on whether or not to turn it in or keep it.

You must have compassion and empathy. This, in turn, requires an ability to empathize with others — an ability to be able to imagine what it's like to be them, even if only briefly.

Also morality cannot exist without justice, mercy and honesty."]

It seems to me, that you use the CONCEPT 'moral' as synonymous with APPLIED 'moral'. These two are not identical. A moral system can actually be very brutal, but still be a moral system.

Quote: ["With this in depth definition, “believer” and “nonbelievers” both fall short of being moral all the time."]

They fall short of the expectations of YOUR 'absolute' conceptual and applied moral.

PS I should be the last to give advices on PC-handling (being close to imbecile on the subject myself), but at every post, there is a 'button' at the top right corner saying "REPLY-TO". Press that before pasting yout text, and your post will be addressed to the specific post-author.

reply to post by bogomil


I’m assuming that you agree that “believers” and “nonbelievers” are not exclusively moral human beings. We are all sinners at heart. We all pick and choose in which circumstance we would like to act upon our own personal morals. Therefore, where are you proposing that a “nonbelievers” moral would be derived from? Maybe you should have defined morals in your original question. If you are asking a Christian if a “nonbeliever” can be moral, then the answer is no. If you are asking a “nonbeliever” if a “nonbeliever” can be moral then the answer is yes. The answer varies, because our definitions of the term moral are different.

I smell the relativist fallacy a brewin...

Originally posted by bogomil
It's the invading missionaries I oppose strongly, because their message usually is a form of fascistic ideology: Monopoly and elitistic rule.

And what's make your message any better? Like I told someone else, all you bring to the table is denial with no evidence to support what you are saying but theory.

Originally posted by bogomilBut you never answered on which 'absolutes' I spread.

edit on 8-7-2011 by bogomil because: syntax and clarification

I guess these aren't absolutes "egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy" to you. You might want to study the definition of these words in greater detail and then ask yourself if your really this kind of person. If you really are then why are spending time trying to debunk the faith of others. I guess you really think your treating others equally.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

. . .If you really are then why are spending time trying to debunk the faith of others.

People have a right to their faith as long as they keep it to themselves. Once it is forced onto others, it becomes an issue.
Some faiths are destructive and harm people.
There was a profit motive and you can look it up, the largest slaveholder was a Catholic order of monks in Brazil.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

. . .If you really are then why are spending time trying to debunk the faith of others.

People have a right to their faith as long as they keep it to themselves. Once it is forced onto others, it becomes an issue.
Some faiths are destructive and harm people.
There was a profit motive and you can look it up, the largest slaveholder was a Catholic order of monks in Brazil.

edit on 9-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with that comment. Please explain in greater detail.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
Bogomill apparently is not logged in right now to answer your reply.
I'm sure he would have a better answer than mine.
I'm just throwing in my view about the general subject of how a person could be a humanitarian with high ideals, and at the same time critical of religions.
The crusades is a favorite example of many to make that point. You could also think of the burning of the Library of Alexandria as another. Not humanitarian ventures but prompted by someones idea of faith.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

Bogomill apparently is not logged in right now to answer your reply.
I'm sure he would have a better answer than mine.
I'm just throwing in my view about the general subject of how a person could be a humanitarian with high ideals, and at the same time critical of religions.
The crusades is a favorite example of many to make that point. You could also think of the burning of the Library of Alexandria as another. Not humanitarian ventures but prompted by someones idea of faith.

edit on 9-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Sorry for the delay, but the Shuttle footage is keeping me clued. Anyway, allow me to backtrack a little. I posted my comments based on this quote from

Originally posted by bogomil
The only thing I'm aware of supporting strongly is egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy, and that's only a for-the-duration answer until we find something better or grow out of the need for it.

The only point I'm trying to make is that if he felt so strongly about that then he should not be debating with people of faith, but people of politics. Because by definition what he claims to support is all about equality. In other words, the freedom to believe in what one chooses, regardless of evidence.

I think he should post his comments in the political sections instead. Then maybe what he is saying would make alot more sense. Now I probably shouldn't say this but by his own definition (his user name) one can clearly see what he wants others to believe in.

"Bog·o·mil

noun /ˈbägəmil/
Bogomils, plural

A member of a heretical medieval Balkan sect professing a modified form of Manichaeism."

I'll be nice by not defining what it means with 2 l's.

The truth is, the only agenda for atheist is to try and debunk something that they don't even believe in. They would love for religion to die and that all jump on their fan wagon. To bad such a thing will never happen. Even if the world did come to peace and equality, people would just give credit to God for such a feat, no one else.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

A member of a heretical medieval Balkan sect professing a modified form of Manichaeism."

You probably missed his post on the "two gods" thread where he explains that it comes from these people who came up with a certain aspect of physics and it was an inside joke with his colleagues , or something. He seems to be knowledgeable on religion but I haven't noticed him promoting a particular brand.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

A member of a heretical medieval Balkan sect professing a modified form of Manichaeism."

You probably missed his post on the "two gods" thread where he explains that it comes from these people who came up with a certain aspect of physics and it was an inside joke with his colleagues , or something. He seems to be knowledgeable on religion but I haven't noticed him promoting a particular brand.

edit on 9-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No offense, but I have no desire to challenge other believers on such a issue, unless I'm mistaken by this "Bible Scholar of Revelation Beware of the Beast".

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

No offense, but I have no desire to challenge other believers on such a issue, unless I'm mistaken by this "Bible Scholar of Revelation Beware of the Beast".

I don't know if there is an issue, as in between the two of us. I was just thinking that there was some sort of explanation for Bogomill's posts other than attacking faith in general. We have to realize that there are humans involved and there are lots of problems with people and not everyone professing faith have such good intentions. Martin Luther made complaints about things and had no intention of destroying the church. Well at least not early on, anyway. I think everyone should keep a critical eye open on all the different messages being pushed from every direction. If you do not want to get into a debate with another believer, that's fine you don't have to. You may want to call me on something if you see me making a mistake and I don't mind constructive criticism.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


ummmm.... prayer.

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


You wrote:

["I’m assuming that you agree that “believers” and “nonbelievers” are not exclusively moral human beings. We are all sinners at heart."]

I can assume, that believers and non-believers can vary considerably in their morality (both conceptual and applied). But you can keep your OWN assuming on "we're all sinners" as YOUR assumption. I don't accept such mythological postulates as 'truth'.

Quote: ["Therefore, where are you proposing that a “nonbelievers” moral would be derived from?"]

Pragmatism ofcourse. But I guess, you want a more specific answer. Please indicate a direction, but also please abstain from giving me double-bind questions. I'm not impressionable to such maneuvers.

Quote: ["Maybe you should have defined morals in your original question."]

As a concept or as applied?

Quote: ["If you are asking a Christian if a “nonbeliever” can be moral, then the answer is no."]

Are you sure, that you're not talking about 'true christians' (i.e. those agreeing with YOU) now. I've had some close christian fundamentalist friends, with full reciprocial trust and respect of each others moral. I'm afraid, that you make up arguments of purely propagandistic nature.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["And what's make your message any better? Like I told someone else, all you bring to the table is denial with no evidence to support what you are saying but theory."]

We do have a handful of democratic societies, well on their way towards the democratic ideals I propose. In any case 'gnostic' theist argument needs proof' Not disproofs.

Quote: ["I guess these aren't absolutes "egalitarian, secular, liberal democracy" to you. You might want to study the definition of these words in greater detail...."]

I suggest, you drop the ........ contest of insinuated incompetence. I have a sufficient knowledge of the subjects, I take up.

Quote continued: ["..........in greater detail and then ask yourself if your really this kind of person. If you really are then why are spending time trying to debunk the faith of others. I guess you really think your treating others equally."]

You don't need a halo to support democracy, and when you've gone full circle via epistemology, the pragmatic answers of democracy actually become THE answers to: "How to relate to a reality-search".

The common fascist-ideology method of silencing or murdering oppostion isn't very good.