Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

They are, I'm just wondering why they feel they should be.

1. They want to be
2. They are told to be
3. People in general are inclined to be

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Say hello to the peaceful Pirahã people of the Amazon. In fact, the previously Christian linguist Daniel Everett spent years breaking the language barrier with the Pirahã and having learned their ways ultimately became an atheist when he tried to explain religion to them and they ultimately made him question everything he thought he knew about it and morality.

I recommend you listen to his astonishing story. Just start at chapter 6 at the following video:

http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge#fullprogram

Thanks for the links. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article:

While the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god they do believe in spirits and that they can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.[5] Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.

This does not seem to me like a purely godless society, especially since they believe in spirits ("one of the beings that lives above the clouds") that clearly supposedly have supernatural powers. Moreover, when Everett initially came into contact with this society, he was a Christian. And in order for him to ascertain that they did not believe in a supreme spirit or god, I find it hard to believe that he did not ever reference the Christian God.

Moreover, their history is transmitted only through "living memory" according to the Wikipedia article. That means there is no way to go back and see through records how their morality developed or whether it was ever influenced by a belief in "divine beings."

By "purely godless society," I mean a pristine society that has NEVER held any belief in any divine beings and NEVER been in contact with anyone who held such beliefs.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Sure. I can say I was raised very well by my mother. She is a catholic. She certainly did not raise me as one. My religious history only goes as far as being christened when I was a baby (beyond my control), and going to church twice a year (christmas and easter). I still do it, certainly, but I do it because it makes my mum happy. My mum however has tried to put a lot a couple of catholic beliefs into my upbringing. Mainly the no sex before marriage thing (which failed miserably, oh yeah), but I suppose this makes sence because she was raised by nuns.. so.

She knows I don't believe in God. She also has become a lot less religious. What was the influence? My muslim father. He is a devout Muslim.

My mum essentially said, be good to everyone regardless of who they are. That is pretty much what stuck with me. It most certainly isn't a moral view that originated with Christianity or the belief in God.

I went to a catholic school, and that was pretty much when I started to become a lot less of a God believer. Seeing how some of the more religious church goers at my school were complete cunts. Ironically enough, my school was named after St Thomas More, who burnt people at the stake for translating the bible from Latin to English. What a saint.

Anyway, realizing that the bible was full of lies, I was pretty much done with religion. Outside of the basic "No killing, no stealing, no raping etc" all my other morals have been attributed by my last 6 or so years of existence. This includes the elimination of my homophobia completely (thanks catholic school -_-), and certainly more respect and equality to nature and environment. Oh and the best one is realizing that we're a tiny rock in the universe, so the idea that God is giving us special treatment is one of the most arrogant things humans could possibly come up with.

You illustrated my point: your morality has been influenced by Judeo-Christian laws and values, whether positively or negatively.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Of course I do. It's my book. He should have asked; I'd've let him borrow it. And there are a million different reasons atheists have for their actions, none of which have to do with faith in a higher power. Utilitarianism, for one. Epicureansim. Buddhism. Etc. Myself, I live by treating others civilly, and doing things I would want other people to do. The Golden Rule, as it's sometimes called. So, in your example on the island, I'd say, "Listen, homeboy. Dude. You gotta open up some communication. We're on an island, all we got is each other. Let's keep it civil, yeah?"

And how precisely would you explain morality before Christianity (or Judaism, depending on how you look at it)? Or, for that matter, the morality of Eastern schools of thought that were around for centuries before the Jesus was a twinkle in God's eye?

Do you really only behave morally because of your view of God? If you knew for a fact he didn't exist, would you go out and murder and rape and kick little old ladies?

I would hope not.

In fact, I'd say Christianity is based on the idea that what you do in this life doesn't matter. The entry to heaven is not based on good deeds; the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as the Savior and God incarnate. Since this life is so fleeting and meaningless compared to the afterlife, why bother being a good person (since it's harder to do a lot of the time)?

What is the point of morality in Christianity?

Spoiler

Never read The Will To God. Haven't delved into Nietzsche yet, honestly, but I will someday. Seems like an interesting read, at the very least.

I explain morality before Judaism by saying that morality comes from the one place from which it has always come: God. I believe that God has placed a basic sense of what is right and what is wrong in every human being. You can ridicule that if you want, but it's what I believe.

If I knew for a fact that God didn't exist, I would have to alter my behavior accordingly and live according to my own will and instincts. Considering I have no desire to murder, rape, or kick old ladies, I think I'm okay in that respect.

The point of morality in Christianity is obedience to God. And if you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, then you will progressively be conformed to his image. That is the Christian doctrine known as "sanctification." Since Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient and never sinned, he is the ultimate standard for Christian behavior.

 

[jdogmoney]

So you don't live according to your own will and instincts now? Why not?

 

[BocoDragon]

I don't believe in a God or God-given morality!

I'm free! I can do whatever I please! Rape, murder, theft... anything I want!

Now I would rape but the main thing for me is that I'd feel really bad about doing it. For some reason I care about others' feelings very strongly. I also don't want to get caught by a father, boyfriend, police. I guess I won't rape.

I'd steal but I don't want to get caught, again by teh shopkeeper, police, etc, and if my friends find out where I got this stuff, they would probably trust me less, worrying about their own stuff. Too bad, because we were going to share resources, I was going to marry my friend's sister, we were well defended having an alliance of people. I guess I just need to rewards of a society which doesn't think that I'm dishonest. I guess I won't steal.

With all this freedom... I'm back to square one. I act like a moral individual anyway. Because morality is a human trait.. That's why it's celebrated in religion. But religion didn't create it!

 

[LCGeek]

In fact, I'd say Christianity is based on the idea that what you do in this life doesn't matter. The entry to heaven is not based on good deeds; the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as the Savior and God incarnate. Since this life is so fleeting and meaningless compared to the afterlife, why bother being a good person (since it's harder to do a lot of the time)?

Then you have missed some major points. Everything you do here on some level effects what you become when you die. The entry to heaven is both not either among various others. Essentially you bother to be a good person because what you create in life is what is returned to you.

 

[Shanadeus]

I don't believe in a God or God-given morality!

I'm free! I can do whatever I please! Rape, murder, theft... anything I want!

Now I would rape but the main thing for me is that I'd feel really bad about doing it. For some reason I care about others' feelings very strongly. I also don't want to get caught by a father, boyfriend, police. I guess I won't rape.

I'd steal but I don't want to get caught, again by teh shopkeeper, police, etc, and if my friends find out where I got this stuff, they would probably trust me less, worrying about their own stuff. Too bad, because we were going to share resources, I was going to marry my friend's sister, we were well defended having an alliance of people. I guess I just need to rewards of a society which doesn't think that I'm dishonest. I guess I won't steal.

With all this freedom... I'm back to square one. I act like a moral individual anyway. Because morality is a human trait.. That's why it's celebrated in religion. But religion didn't create it!

No, this morality and feelings about right an wrong you're experienced cannot arise from any other source than God.
Because I say so, and Nietzsche.

 

[wayward archer]

It doesn't matter if there are no societies that either have no gods intrinsicly and have not been influenced by societies that have gods, because if man is capable of inventing God then man is capable of inventing morals, it's as simple as that.

For all we know, a smart man came to the conclusion that he didn't want his sheep stolen, his wife raped, or himself killed, so he told other people that the spirits which made it rain and made lightning would come and punish them if they did these things. Maybe this happened many times but failed, and finally an aggressor got struck by lightning, or caught syphilis or something, then people started believing the messenger.

Whatever it was, to think that we can't form ideas like this is ridiculous. We've made up a bunch of stuff that doesn't exist, our imaginations are clearly very powerful, and our reasoning skills plus millenia of observation will eventually deduce that cooperation and treating each other the same as we want to be treated will pay off more than lawlessness.

And for the record, I am not saying this is what actually happened, i'm saying it could have happened, as I see absolutely no reason to believe it is impossible.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

No, this morality and feelings about right an wrong you're experienced cannot arise from any other source than God.
Because I say so, and Nietzsche.

No, Nietzsche said they arose out of the desires of individuals (via their wills to power) to control other individuals.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I've gotta run for a while. I won't be back until later this evening, as I'm home now and need to play with the kids, eat dinner, hang out with my wife, etc. Hopefully I'll be able to make it back and discuss this some more with you all later tonight.

That said, let me just say that I am not attempting to denigrate atheism. I fully respect the religious right of each and every one of you to believe that God does not exist. I'm not here to try to you you are an idiot, I know everything, etc. I believe that people can have civil dialogues about religious matters without devolving into a continuous exchange of insults.

 

[BocoDragon]

I've gotta run for a while. I won't be back until later this evening, as I'm home now and need to play with the kids, eat dinner, hang out with my wife, etc. Hopefully I'll be able to make it back and discuss this some more with you all later tonight.

That said, let me just say that I am not attempting to denigrate atheism. I fully respect the religious right of each and every one of you to believe that God does not exist. I'm not here to try to you you are an idiot, I know everything, etc. I believe that people can have civil dialogues about religious matters without devolving into a continuous exchange of insults.

*bow* That's a good attitude and I agree. Those of us arguing don't disrespect you either, I just want to convince you that everything you believe is wrong just a joke.

 

[LCGeek]

This is why I made this thread.

I'm just surprised it's still civil and going with some good discussion.

 

[ckohler]

Thanks for the links. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article:



This does not seem to me like a purely godless society, especially since they believe in spirits ("one of the beings that lives above the clouds") that clearly supposedly have supernatural powers. Moreover, when Everett initially came into contact with this society, he was a Christian. And in order for him to ascertain that they did not believe in a supreme spirit or god, I find it hard to believe that he did not ever reference the Christian God.

Moreover, their history is transmitted only through "living memory" according to the Wikipedia article. That means there is no way to go back and see through records how their morality developed or whether it was ever influenced by a belief in "divine beings."

By "purely godless society," I mean a pristine society that has NEVER held any belief in any divine beings and NEVER been in contact with anyone who held such beliefs.

Again, I suggest you watch the video. Everett explains beyond a shadow of a doubt how their society functions. The don't really believe in the supernatual, quite the opposite. They are the ultimate, evidence based society. They do not believe in gods, they refuse to believe in such what they call "crooked or bent" ideas.

Secondly, because they keep their view sprcifically of the "now" their society could not function the way it does had the been influeced in the past by religion. Again, the video explains this without question.

 

[jdogmoney]

Then you have missed some major points. Everything you do here on some level effects what you become when you die. The entry to heaven is both not either among various others. Essentially you bother to be a good person because what you create in life is what is returned to you.

Is that so?

 

[Shanadeus]

No, Nietzsche said they arose out of the desires of individuals (via their wills to power) to control other individuals.

I was merely being sarcastic, but I did read up on the will to power idea and found it boring and simplistic - similar in the vein to many of Freud's ideas about the human psyche that aren't supported by a shred of quantifiable, empirical evidence. I must admit that philosophy isn't my strongest forte so I am not gonna start a debate about whether or not Nietzche was onto something or not (like many other ideas about the human mind, he was probably partly right).

I'll just take part of the question game instead.

Let's play the "I'll answer your question if you answer mine" game!

Why do atheists live by moral codes if God is not the basis of morality? Let me give an example to illustrate my question:

Let's say you are an atheist who crash lands on a deserted island. You think you are the lone survivor of the crash, but lo and behold, another gentleman has also survived. You both agree that for safety's sake and ease of living that you should live in same general vicinity, yet you build a shelter for yourself and he builds a shelter for himself. You never establish any sort of rules, laws, etc. Among your belongings that you were able to recover from the crash is your favorite book, Nietzsche's "The Will to Power." Much to your chagrin, one night you are awakened to find that your fellow survivor is attempting to sneak out of your shelter with your book. You ask what he is doing and he is honest and admits to you that he was attempting to steal your book and keep it for himself rather borrowing it.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior? Why or why not?

Sure I have a problem with this individual's behavior, as I value my material belongings and do not want someone else to take them without my knowledge.

And I value my material belongings because I am an great ape with hoarding instincts, and get upset when another great ape try to take an item from me without my knowledge and with what seem to be no intent of reciprocating.

That's how you, me and everyone else work, we are simply great apes with somewhat higher cognitive functions compared to the other great apes.

 

[LCGeek]

Is that so?

Barking up the wrong tree with that I don't defend KJV since I think it's nothing more than rosicrucian BS that is highly misleading to the faithful. I did like your usage of John 14:6 and the comic if anything illustrates how one has to deal with tons of paradoxes on those subjects.

I see christian faith being built through what they experience in this life. I find it highly pointless to take up the mantle of being christian and then give yourself the worst environment to understand such principles.

 

[Dabookerman]

Wtf. Didn't he have an English girlfriend at one point (your mom), who was not a Muslim but a devout Catholic?

It's a long and complicated story that even I don't really want to know about. And my mum's Polish ;p It's one of those things I like to be blissfully ignorant about.

You illustrated my point: your morality has been influenced by Judeo-Christian laws and values, whether positively or negatively.

Ok, I can agree with that to an extent. But then Judeo-Christian laws and values were also influenced by something, and that something was influenced by something, etc etc. But it doesn't begin with God.

 

[crazy monkey]

I'm just surprised it's still civil and going with some good discussion.

because there are couple of people who usually cause problems are out:lol

 

[JGS]

Is that so?

Context is a great thing. In each of the chapters linked not to mention the actual books, both indicate more is needed than simply acknowledging Christ. Accepting Jesus is made up of many other responsibilities that all tie into to being moral people.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Oops, my mistake. I was going on the fly.

The heavens and the earth were created in the beginning, no conflicts there.
The sun and the moon were allowed to show through the expanse of the heavens, whether it be a massive water mass or simply clouds. This is not that unusual of a concept considering even some of the planets in our solar system.
There was clearly daylight and nighttime as brought out in earlier verses.

Not sure what else I'm arguing here so I'll stop.



Again, there is nothing hideously wrong about people not knowing about micro-organisms.

There is no wild inconsistencies. on top of that you still haven't provided what makes you idea so much more appealing. Further, your apparently rhetorical question doesn't note a flaw as much as a misinterpretation (My creative days faux pas excluded).



You are choosing to provide definitions for your explanations and not mine. That seems fair and balanced. The creation days weren't countless and they didn't need to be 24 hours. Nothing suggests they needed to be except your assumptions- the same ones you have for Adam's sin.

That would also mean that your own apparently rhetorical question proves that there was day and night at the time of Earth's creation, meaning it wasn't created first. Again, if all you want to go by is the Genesis account forst chapter, then fine, there is no distinction between number of days. If however, you go by the idea through the Bible incluuding by the same author in the same time frame that God measures time differently, there is plenty of evidence. However, I knw this won't happen.

Dani beat me to the response, but if you want to play the game of what is meant by words, then much of the ancient had a very different conception of the universe than we do. If you think about the earth as a fixed place with a couple of local orbiting bodies, then suddenly the entire account makes a lot of sense. Otherwise you’re just apologizing for the inconsistencies. The universe was around for nearly ten billion years before the Earth even appeared. Within the account, light illuminated the Earth before the sun. In fact, apparently morning and evening didn’t even happen until the second day, even though day and night had already been established. The land wasn’t created until the third day, even though the Earth itself was initially one big rock. Vegetation was created before the sun. Lastly, you say that you missed the part about how birds/sea creatures and land animals were created on separate days, but you don’t explain how this makes any sense. Maybe you don’t understand that birds evolved from reptiles, and many sea creatures evolved from land animals.

Again, it’s obvious that the author was on a completely different wavelength here. He had no conception of the way in which things actually formed. You can either put across some wild and contradictory explanation or say that the author was just guessing.

The length of time can’t be all that obvious if many, if not most, Christians can’t even figure this out. If the author actually meant a length of time, then there would be no need to make a distinction between each day. Once again, he might have said days or years instead. He would not count seven separate days, which just happen to line up into a week. Only in apologetics can seven days somehow equal 13 billion years. So, reasons why it’s a literal seven days: It says day. Christians have always believed it and many still do. It’s treated as a literal flow of events. In its own strange internal logic, it makes sense as days. It forms the basis of our understanding of a week. Reasons against: maybe, based on something different, God might act on a different timescale. Bloody hell…

I'm not the one who is comparing the pros and cons of the two so I'll bypass the debate. I'm saying that whether you view the Bible as a massive fraudulent fraud does not change the fact that abiogenesis is garbage. I can't make it clearer than that unless I bold it.

Right, so you'll just ignore all evidence and make broad, sweeping conclusions based on things that you don't understand.

Exactly, because the condition cannot be found in nature that would simulate a real world scenario where inorganic material becomes amino acids - a billion to one chance if that good. You then have to move on the the equally impossible task of these things becoming something actually living. It's bumpkis.

Do as many experiments as you want and high five yourselves for the "accomplishment". It provides no real evidence of life starting from inorganic matter when man wasn't here to control the experiment.

Except the entire point of these experiments is to simulate the early conditions of Earth.

It's time to move on.

Are your arguments that bad?

 

[The Librarian]

Dani beat me to the response, but if you want to play the game of what is meant by words, then much of the ancient had a very different conception of the universe than we do. If you think about the earth as a fixed place with a couple of local orbiting bodies, then suddenly the entire account makes a lot of sense. Otherwise you’re just apologizing for the inconsistencies. The universe was around for nearly ten billion years before the Earth even appeared. Within the account, light illuminated the Earth before the sun. In fact, apparently morning and evening didn’t even happen until the second day, even though day and night had already been established. The land wasn’t created until the third day, even though the Earth itself was initially one big rock. Vegetation was created before the sun. Lastly, you say that you missed the part about how birds/sea creatures and land animals were created on separate days, but you don’t explain how this makes any sense. Maybe you don’t understand that birds evolved from reptiles, and many sea creatures evolved from land animals.

He also made things in the dark too.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I explain morality before Judaism by saying that morality comes from the one place from which it has always come: God. I believe that God has placed a basic sense of what is right and what is wrong in every human being. You can ridicule that if you want, but it's what I believe.

If I knew for a fact that God didn't exist, I would have to alter my behavior accordingly and live according to my own will and instincts. Considering I have no desire to murder, rape, or kick old ladies, I think I'm okay in that respect.

The point of morality in Christianity is obedience to God. And if you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, then you will progressively be conformed to his image. That is the Christian doctrine known as "sanctification." Since Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient and never sinned, he is the ultimate standard for Christian behavior.

I would turn that around: what does objective morality even mean? What does it mean to be perfectly just? I would say that these are incoherent concepts. Almost any kind of act can be excused as just. God can wipe out whomever he wants. You can say that the holy are not punished, but holiness is irrelevant. Everybody has a slightly different version of what that means. Attempting to appeal to God won't get you anywhere because there is no way to prove what God really wants, and there is no way to judge that morality. If you really observe what people do, then you'd almost think that they have their own ideas of what is right and don't receive instructions from any kind of deity.

Anyway, either God exists or he doesn't. Either God tells us what is moral or we have to make our own morality. What is the purpose of arguing what an atheist would do morally, unless you're arguing that morality cannot exist apart from God?

He also made things in the dark too.

I hope he didn't bump into any doors.

 

[EzLink]

I can't remember if it was DuesTrinitas or JGS that was the Calvinist ITT, but for whoever it was, can you respond to something that none of my Christian mentors have been able to answer for me?

The P in Tulip stands for Perseverance of the Saints (or "once saved always saved")

There is no doubt in my mind that I WAS a Christian, as defined by the Bible, for many years. I loved Jesus, believed in him, tried to obey him, prayed regularly, went to church, and wanted to be a mofoing PASTOR. So without question I was a Christian

I bring this up to my mentors who now tell me to gtf back to Christianity: If Calvinism and TULIP are true, I'm going to heaven anyway still, right? Even if I continue to not believe in God for the rest of my life and die in my current heathen state.

One person said "maybe you weren't a true Christian in the first place." If I WASN'T a Christian in the first place, then there is no fucking hope for me anyway, because I have no clue what I could have done differently.

 

[JGS]

Dani beat me to the response, but if you want to play the game of what is meant by words, then much of the ancient had a very different conception of the universe than we do. If you think about the earth as a fixed place with a couple of local orbiting bodies, then suddenly the entire account makes a lot of sense. Otherwise you’re just apologizing for the inconsistencies. The universe was around for nearly ten billion years before the Earth even appeared. Within the account, light illuminated the Earth before the sun. In fact, apparently morning and evening didn’t even happen until the second day, even though day and night had already been established. The land wasn’t created until the third day, even though the Earth itself was initially one big rock. Vegetation was created before the sun. Lastly, you say that you missed the part about how birds/sea creatures and land animals were created on separate days, but you don’t explain how this makes any sense. Maybe you don’t understand that birds evolved from reptiles, and many sea creatures evolved from land animals.

The same respoinse that I had for microorganisms applies to the universe. It was not necessary for people to understand the universe to believe God created it. The Bible does not dipute the age of the universe or the earth. You are mixing up what is happening during the earth's creation with what was already there.

The context is clearly showing what was happening in relation to the earth. Verse flat out says there was darkness on the surface and this was before the first creative day and after the In the beginning part. You insult the writer's intelligence about the universe but then question why he didn't spend the first 50 chapters explaing things in detail.:lol

Again, it’s obvious that the author was on a completely different wavelength here. He had no conception of the way in which things actually formed. You can either put across some wild and contradictory explanation or say that the author was just guessing.

Base on whose assessment- yours? OK.

The length of time can’t be all that obvious if many, if not most, Christians can’t even figure this out. If the author actually meant a length of time, then there would be no need to make a distinction between each day. Once again, he might have said days or years instead. He would not count seven separate days, which just happen to line up into a week. Only in apologetics can seven days somehow equal 13 billion years. So, reasons why it’s a literal seven days: It says day. Christians have always believed it and many still do. It’s treated as a literal flow of events. In its own strange internal logic, it makes sense as days. It forms the basis of our understanding of a week. Reasons against: maybe, based on something different, God might act on a different timescale. Bloody hell…

This is what it boils down to. You have no idea what most believers believe. There are very few YEC out there. Do you honestly think it's atheists/agnostics that keep the science world in business? It's not.

The 7 days is in relation to getting the earth ready for life and it could easily be the equivalent of eons/epochs unless you ignore the rest of scripture which is probably the 10th time I've said that, so I assume that's what you choose to do.

Right, so you'll just ignore all evidence and make broad, sweeping conclusions based on things that you don't understand.

Are you saying you ready to provide evidence now? Let it wait. I'm already breaking my own rules responding and you've had your chance. Instead you just talking again.

Except the entire point of these experiments is to simulate the early conditions of Earth.


Are your arguments that bad?

Geez, you really don't read do you?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So you don't live according to your own will and instincts now? Why not?

I try to live more according to what I believe God's will for my life to be than according to my own will and instincts. The key is to bring my will into conformity with God's will.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I don't believe in a God or God-given morality!

I'm free! I can do whatever I please! Rape, murder, theft... anything I want!

Now I would rape but the main thing for me is that I'd feel really bad about doing it. For some reason I care about others' feelings very strongly. I also don't want to get caught by a father, boyfriend, police. I guess I won't rape.

I'd steal but I don't want to get caught, again by teh shopkeeper, police, etc, and if my friends find out where I got this stuff, they would probably trust me less, worrying about their own stuff. Too bad, because we were going to share resources, I was going to marry my friend's sister, we were well defended having an alliance of people. I guess I just need to rewards of a society which doesn't think that I'm dishonest. I guess I won't steal.

With all this freedom... I'm back to square one. I act like a moral individual anyway. Because morality is a human trait.. That's why it's celebrated in religion. But religion didn't create it!

My position is that if God didn't exist and God did not create morality, then morality was created by human beings purely for the selfish reason of attempting to control others, not for a utilitarian reason.

 

[JGS]

I can't remember if it was DuesTrinitas or JGS that was the Calvinist ITT, but for whoever it was, can you respond to something that none of my Christian mentors have been able to answer for me?

The P in Tulip stands for Perseverance of the Saints (or "once saved always saved")

There is no doubt in my mind that I WAS a Christian, as defined by the Bible, for many years. I loved Jesus, believed in him, tried to obey him, prayed regularly, went to church, and wanted to be a mofoing PASTOR. So without question I was a Christian

I bring this up to my mentors who now tell me to gtf back to Christianity: If Calvinism and TULIP are true, I'm going to heaven anyway still, right? Even if I continue to not believe in God for the rest of my life and die in my current heathen state.

One person said "maybe you weren't a true Christian in the first place." If I WASN'T a Christian in the first place, then there is no fucking hope for me anyway, because I have no clue what I could have done differently.

I'm not Calvinist, but I think of Christianity as a job you love. You have to work at it and if you start stinking, you're fired (Pun was not intended as I don't think God punishes by hellfire). If you start not liking your job, you quit.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

It doesn't matter if there are no societies that either have no gods intrinsicly and have not been influenced by societies that have gods, because if man is capable of inventing God then man is capable of inventing morals, it's as simple as that.

For all we know, a smart man came to the conclusion that he didn't want his sheep stolen, his wife raped, or himself killed, so he told other people that the spirits which made it rain and made lightning would come and punish them if they did these things. Maybe this happened many times but failed, and finally an aggressor got struck by lightning, or caught syphilis or something, then people started believing the messenger.

Whatever it was, to think that we can't form ideas like this is ridiculous. We've made up a bunch of stuff that doesn't exist, our imaginations are clearly very powerful, and our reasoning skills plus millenia of observation will eventually deduce that cooperation and treating each other the same as we want to be treated will pay off more than lawlessness.

And for the record, I am not saying this is what actually happened, i'm saying it could have happened, as I see absolutely no reason to believe it is impossible.

I think you may be missing the point. In essence, my argument has been all along that if God does not exist, then there is no reason at all for an atheist to behave in a morally acceptable manner. Why? Because all he is doing is conforming to an invented system that was created by individuals who desired to control others. The atheist may believe that he willingly accepts conformity to a societal system of morality for purely utilitarian reasons and I'm not denying that he will get something good out of that. However, it does not change the fact that he is still a slave of a system designed to keep people under the thumbs of those in authority.

 

[The Librarian]

My position is that if God didn't exist and God did not create morality, then morality was created by human beings purely for the selfish reason of attempting to control others, not for a utilitarian reason.

...Or morality could simply be not doing what causes others pain, mental or physical.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Again, I suggest you watch the video. Everett explains beyond a shadow of a doubt how their society functions. The don't really believe in the supernatual, quite the opposite. They are the ultimate, evidence based society. They do not believe in gods, they refuse to believe in such what they call "crooked or bent" ideas.

Secondly, because they keep their view sprcifically of the "now" their society could not function the way it does had the been influeced in the past by religion. Again, the video explains this without question.

Since you think that the video makes the case better, I'll be sure to watch it. I'll let you know in this thread when I have.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I can't remember if it was DuesTrinitas or JGS that was the Calvinist ITT, but for whoever it was, can you respond to something that none of my Christian mentors have been able to answer for me?

The P in Tulip stands for Perseverance of the Saints (or "once saved always saved")

There is no doubt in my mind that I WAS a Christian, as defined by the Bible, for many years. I loved Jesus, believed in him, tried to obey him, prayed regularly, went to church, and wanted to be a mofoing PASTOR. So without question I was a Christian

I bring this up to my mentors who now tell me to gtf back to Christianity: If Calvinism and TULIP are true, I'm going to heaven anyway still, right? Even if I continue to not believe in God for the rest of my life and die in my current heathen state.

One person said "maybe you weren't a true Christian in the first place." If I WASN'T a Christian in the first place, then there is no fucking hope for me anyway, because I have no clue what I could have done differently.

I think it might have been both of us talking about Calvinism. Yes, the P stands for Perseverance of the Saints, the idea that those who are true believers will persevere as true believers until the end of their lives. It entails the idea that someone who truly believes will never be able to abandon his faith.

I've gotta shoot straight with you--I don't exactly know what implications there are for you if that is indeed correct doctrine (and I believe it is). I understand the reasoning behind someone saying that you might not have been a true Christian, but no one is able to judge the heart of a man for certain like that.

Do you mind if I ask what your conversion experience was like? Do you mind sharing it?

 

[Monocle]

No, there is no acceptable behavior. You, as an atheist, do not believe God exists and on the deserted island, you are no longer constrained by what society has defined as acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior.

So, no God, no rules. Now do you have a problem with the individual's behavior? Why or why not?

Rules are necessary for societies to function, not gods. Gods are means to an end, and that end is social stability. Religion, born out of the fundamental human need to control outcomes (for example, to ensure the sun will rise again the next day and our babies will be healthy and our crops will thrive, to ward off plagues and famine, to challenge the terrible permanence of death), was for a considerable time the best system we had—by dint of being the only one—to disseminate the moral prescriptions that held and still hold together civilization.

We must not leap to conclusions. Without cooperation for mutual benefit, individuals are liable to be poorer, less secure, less healthy, and less likely to produce offspring. Destitute all around, really. For this reason, creatures of sufficient intelligence tend naturally to group up and form a social structure, and to discourage behavior that harms the tribe. Indeed, the slightest investigation into the Neolithic Revolution confirms that we humans engineered the tools of our own ascent. Religion didn't serve as the horses of the chariot of human progress, but the wheels. No, the horses were the one thing that separated us from other animals: sapience. Every inch we traveled in the climb toward civilization made good evolutionary sense.

The supernatural aspect of religion is surplus to our current requirements. We don't need superstition because now we have science. We don't need to scare or bribe people into good behavior with tales of divine punishment or reward because now we have humanistic values that originate from the altruistic impulse, which derives from the basic desire for the well-being of oneself and one's family and neighbors. And if that's not profound enough, we have secular philosophy to justify our higher values and to animate our experience of the transcendent in the world and within ourselves—without irrational appeals to the howling dark. We are at last starting to grow up and put away childish things.

 

[wayward archer]

I think you may be missing the point. In essence, my argument has been all along that if God does not exist, then there is no reason at all for an atheist to behave in a morally acceptable manner. Why? Because all he is doing is conforming to an invented system that was created by individuals who desired to control others. The atheist may believe that he willingly accepts conformity to a societal system of morality for purely utilitarian reasons and I'm not denying that he will get something good out of that. However, it does not change the fact that he is still a slave of a system designed to keep people under the thumbs of those in authority.

I'm not missing the point. You say a world without God there is no need to behave morally. I disagree. There are plenty of reasons to act morally, and plenty of reasons to conform to a system which seems to enslave you. First and foremost I think people see that cooperation has long term benefits throughout society, and that this cooperation could easily be the basis of a logic based morality. If you reason your quality of life in the long run will be better than it would be behaving however you want, you might gladly join in such a system.

people may even behave morally for selfish reasons, especially if they've figured out how to exploit the system in place to give them power over others. This is in essence what I think most religions of the world are exactly, a scheme that someone has invented to control someone else.

"I alone can communicate with God therefore you need to listen to me. BTW God says give me 10% of your crops every year."

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Rules are necessary for societies to function, not gods. Gods are means to an end, and that end is social stability. Religion, born out of the fundamental human need to control outcomes (for example, to ensure the sun will rise again the next day and our babies will be healthy and our crops will thrive, to ward off plagues and famine, to challenge the terrible permanence of death), was for a considerable time the best system we had—by dint of being the only one—to disseminate the moral prescriptions that held and still hold together civilization.

We must not leap to conclusions. Without cooperation for mutual benefit, individuals are liable to be poorer, less secure, less healthy, and less likely to produce offspring. Destitute all around, really. For this reason, creatures of sufficient intelligence tend naturally to group up and form a social structure, and to discourage behavior that harms the tribe. Indeed, the slightest investigation into the Neolithic Revolution confirms that we humans engineered the tools of our own ascent. Religion didn't serve as the horses of the chariot of human progress, but the wheels. No, the horses were the one thing that separated us from other animals: sapience. Every inch we traveled in the climb toward civilization made good evolutionary sense.

The supernatural aspect of religion is surplus to our current requirements. We don't need superstition because now we have science. We don't need to scare or bribe people into good behavior with tales of divine punishment or reward because now we have humanistic values that originate from the altruistic impulse, which derives from the basic desire for the well-being of oneself and one's family and neighbors. And if that's not profound enough, we have secular philosophy to justify our higher values and to animate our experience of the transcendent in the world and within ourselves—without irrational appeals to the howling dark. We are at last starting to grow up and put away childish things.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but doesn't altruism or utilitarianism only go so far? There comes a point with every individual, certain circumstances if you will, in which he will act according to his own good rather than the good of others. Can there ever be a perfectly altruistic society? Even from the perspective of pure, naturalistic evolution, I don't think there can be.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I'm not missing the point. You say a world without God there is no need to behave morally. I disagree. There are plenty of reasons to act morally, and plenty of reasons to conform to a system which seems to enslave you. First and foremost I think people see that cooperation has long term benefits throughout society, and that this cooperation could easily be the basis of a logic based morality. If you reason your quality of life in the long run will be better than it would be behaving however you want, you might gladly join in such a system.

people may even behave morally for selfish reasons, especially if they've figured out how to exploit the system in place to give them power over others. This is in essence what I think most religions of the world are exactly, a scheme that someone has invented to control someone else.

"I alone can communicate with God therefore you need to listen to me. BTW God says give me 10% of your crops every year."

Well, I certainly do not deny that people have exploited religion for personal gain. But let me ask for clarification: you would consider that even if morality was designed to control people, that it is a necessary "evil" in order to get people to cooperate with one another in such a way for human beings to thrive?

What do you do then about the people who recognize the system for what it is and choose to rebel against it?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I've gotta go once again, but I will be checking this thread again tomorrow morning. Thanks for the responses, everyone. Post away!

 

[Monocle]

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but doesn't altruism or utilitarianism only go so far? There comes a point with every individual, certain circumstances if you will, in which he will act according to his own good rather than the good of others. Can there ever be a perfectly altruistic society? Even from the perspective of pure, naturalistic evolution, I don't think there can be.

Perfection is the impossible state that only megalomaniacs, mostly but not exclusively religious, dare to claim with their assertions of infallibility. In itself, perfection is a futile goal at best. At worst a hellish one, because a static state with no possibility of improvement is one of infinite tedium.

I wasn't arguing that altruism produces a perfect society. I was arguing that altruism—our naturally occurring instinct to help others—is sufficient to produce a functional, self-sustaining society. No gods required.

 

[Kinitari]

...Or morality could simply be not doing what causes others pain, mental or physical.

Could you break that down further? Thinking on a really basic level, my personal moral compass pointing in the direction that society deems as 'good', have two basic reasons for being 'moral'.

1. Empathy - putting yourself in that persons position, thinking to yourself "I wouldn't want that to happen to me". This doesn't have to be a selfless action, it can be preemptive self preservation, by understanding that what you do harms others, you can more easily avoid negative retaliation.

2. The "good feeling" - I just feel good. When I help someone out, and they thank me profusely, it makes me feel good. Now if I delve deeper into that thought, maybe it can be broken down into more parts. A, I could subconsciously feel as though now I am owed a favour. B, I could subconsciously feel elevated, as though I am now a 'better' person, higher up on some convoluted abstract hierarchy that is ultimately 'self made'.

Sometime I too feel as though there is no such thing as a 'selfless' action, but that's neither here nor there. It would be silly to think that religion had no effect on the morality of most individuals, but it would be equally as silly to assume that it is the sole motivator of today's (and the western societies) standard of moral goodness. Throughout time there have been many many influences on societies morality, and in someones personal lifetime there are many influences on their own personal morality.

 

[JGS]

Rules are necessary for societies to function, not gods. Gods are means to an end, and that end is social stability. Religion, born out of the fundamental human need to control outcomes (for example, to ensure the sun will rise again the next day and our babies will be healthy and our crops will thrive, to ward off plagues and famine, to challenge the terrible permanence of death), was for a considerable time the best system we had—by dint of being the only one—to disseminate the moral prescriptions that held and still hold together civilization.

I wonder how religion creates a fundamental need unless it was natural like eating, sex, & laughter.

I actually think that morality is ingrained in us for the most part. Since the remote tribe ckohler linked to seems to get by on some basic morality, you don't need to learn about God to have them (Although from my POV, that just means God gave them to us, so it's a moot point).

However, I've always wondered why there would be need for duty in a godless society? Why die for a country for example if you don't live to enjoy it's freedoms. Why die for anything for that matter? I can understand if kids are involved, but what if they're not.

I am more than willing to die for someone, but not willing to kill for someone except in extreme circumstances. But my dying is not that big of a deal due to the hopes I have. If I'm wrong, it's not that big of a deal since I wind up as worm food next to the atheist.

So the serious question is this:

What makes an atheist die for something?

EDIT: For the record, I do not think God's backing any country and I would never die for my country unless by force. However, I know many countries use God to recruit or to calm the troops. I would certainly die for people and my beliefs, but not for politics/nationalism.

 

[The Librarian]

Could you break that down further? Thinking on a really basic level, my personal moral compass pointing in the direction that society deems as 'good', have two basic reasons for being 'moral'.

1. Empathy - putting yourself in that persons position, thinking to yourself "I wouldn't want that to happen to me". This doesn't have to be a selfless action, it can be preemptive self preservation, by understanding that what you do harms others, you can more easily avoid negative retaliation.

2. The "good feeling" - I just feel good. When I help someone out, and they thank me profusely, it makes me feel good. Now if I delve deeper into that thought, maybe it can be broken down into more parts. A, I could subconsciously feel as though now I am owed a favour. B, I could subconsciously feel elevated, as though I am now a 'better' person, higher up on some convoluted abstract hierarchy that is ultimately 'self made'.

Sometime I too feel as though there is no such thing as a 'selfless' action, but that's neither here nor there. It would be silly to think that religion had no effect on the morality of most individuals, but it would be equally as silly to assume that it is the sole motivator of today's (and the western societies) standard of moral goodness. Throughout time there have been many many influences on societies morality, and in someones personal lifetime there are many influences on their own personal morality.

You kinda just did it for me.

So the serious question is this:

What makes an atheist die for something?

:|

 

[Mgoblue201]

JGS, I'm not asking why the author didn't explicate. I'm asking why there are inconsistencies. If you actually went through my points one by one, then we could have a discussion here. Why did birds exist before land animals? Why did water exist before land? Etc. It would be great to have these addressed. I don't know how the "there was darkness on the surface" gets by any of these issues.

According to most polls, YEC is a prevalent view, even when looking at the general public at large.

It doesn't matter how many times you mention something else that occurred in another place in the Bible (which you yourself haven't even quoted yet) if the contextual clues from the first chapter of Genesis itself makes it obvious that it is talking about a literal seven days. There has to be a good reason to apply it in this case, and you just haven't mentioned any. At best it is gross negligence on the author's part based on the prior figure of how many people still believe it.

Lastly, your run around on the topic of the origins of life are exaspirating. Either you accept the evidence we have now or don't. But don't claim that there is absolutely nothing.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

I'll name one when you name the one correct religion.

gafism.........you're move :|

 

[JGS]

You kinda just did it for me.


:|

That was a serious question.

I don't know.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

:|

:lol I always find it funny when religious people use that argument. Sadly, I used to be one of those people who made that argument and it never made any sense to me when I made it. I remember believing that without God, man would be completely immoral and evil. Then I started thinking about it and realized that if I needed a god to tell me it's wrong to rape a baby, then the issue isn't about morality, it's about my sick perverted ass not being fit to live.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

That was a serious question.

I don't know.

I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic but seriously doubt there's a man in the sky anymore) but I'll answer your question. I'll die for things that's important to me. Like my mom for instance. Or my children if I had any. It's the same reason a religious person will die for their loved ones or whatever they deem important.

My question to you is why do you need a book/belief structure to tell you what you should or shouldn't die for? Are you incapable of rational thought?

 

[Kinitari]

That was a serious question.

I don't know.

Your assumption is that Atheists function on some sort of robotic level. I don't mean that offensively, it is a common mistake.

I still feel all those things that most religious people feel; love, hate, pride, jealousy - strong strong emotions that might motivate me to act 'irrationally'. A lot of times people who throw their lives away to save another aren't doing it to be religious martyrs, they act and it happens.

But even giving you a cold simplistic robotic Atheist answer. If I was an old man, with many kids and my 'prime' years behind me, and my kids and their kids lives were in danger, and I had to die to save them - well I had contributed enough to society and am now probably a resource burden. My genes are thoroughly distributed in the gene pool - and to preserve them, I have to die - or I'll die alone and cold without any mark left on the world.

 

[The Librarian]

Your assumption is that Atheists function on some sort of robotic level. I don't mean that offensively, it is a common mistake.

I still feel all those things that most religious people feel; love, hate, pride, jealousy - strong strong emotions that might motivate me to act 'irrationally'. A lot of times people who throw their lives away to save another aren't doing it to be religious martyrs, they act and it happens.

I don't know which is more depressing: the fact that you have to spell that out for some people, or that there are people who exist for you to spell that out to.

 

[EzLink]

Do you mind if I ask what your conversion experience was like? Do you mind sharing it?

Sure. I was raised in a Christian household (but not a super strict one) so I had been going to church most of my life. I had always considered myself a Christian until age 15. At that point, I started to question everything (much as I'm doing now, the difference being I'm coming to different conclusions at this point). For a while I was incredibly concerned with all of the questions and seeming inconsistencies. I even considered myself athiest for a few short lived days :lol I eventually got really into apologetics and that convinced me that the Bible was indeed the inspired word of god. I was a mediocre Christian at best, until a few years later when I REALLY got into it. I got very serious about my faith. It was the most important thing in my life for sure. I was praying not because I felt like I had to, but because I wanted to know god more. I wanted to read the bible not because I felt like it was just the christian thing to do, but because I loved studying and absorbing gods knowledge. I would always be worried sick over my friends that were nonnies (that's a word I made up btw :lol) and I would do my best to be a good example of the love of christ.

I eventually decided that I was called to be a pastor (again, lawl :lol). I applied to Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and while waiting to hear back from them I was doing everything I could to work on my sins and learn more and more about what the bible taught.

And that was that. A new semester of college started, I got busy, and I stopped reading my bible and praying so regularly. And eventually, gradually, I ended up to where I am now.

So when i say I'm certain I was a Christian as how it was defined in the Bible, I really mean that.

It almost gives me some comfort. I'm certain the Bible teaches perseverance of the saints, and I'm certain that I was once a saint, meaning there is no way I'd be going to hell if the bible is true. Except for the fact that I view God as either nonexistant or an asshole now, which wouldn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL for allowing me to get into heaven, but hey, tons of other stuff in the bible doesn't make sense to me either

 

[Dude Abides]

I think you may be missing the point. In essence, my argument has been all along that if God does not exist, then there is no reason at all for an atheist to behave in a morally acceptable manner. Why? Because all he is doing is conforming to an invented system that was created by individuals who desired to control others. The atheist may believe that he willingly accepts conformity to a societal system of morality for purely utilitarian reasons and I'm not denying that he will get something good out of that. However, it does not change the fact that he is still a slave of a system designed to keep people under the thumbs of those in authority.

As opposed to a slave of an invisible deity? What's the difference? The basis of your morality is "God said so." That's not morality. That's a child obeying a parent's command.