Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[BradCube]

brad I must admit I'm worried for the charred remains of your arguments againt natural morality from biological psychology when cat gets home.

Ha ha, me too! I'm feeling the ice crack beneath my feat

 

[BradCube]

Thought, I would just make a new post instead of trying to join all your existing comments back together Katie

We're at the point now, where we are so far beyond the original point of the discussion that I don't know what I am arguing about. In fact I think I'm probably actually agreeing with you on some points. BOS always encourages a rebuttal even when it doesn't make sense to do so - so I'll stop now, before I begin to sound like a moron.

For the record, I don't think we actually have very good proofs surrounding objective morality apart from our own intuitions (which are fallible to say the least). Nevertheless, its these intuitions that cause me to continually re-examine whether or not objective morality is possible.

Hopefully I've made some headway in explaining why under subjective morality, "good" deeds don't really hold all that much weight in my opinion. At the very least, I hope my position on the matter, makes a lot more sense then when I first posted it.

Friends4eva?

 

[katie tully]

http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year1/psy128animal_behaviour/animbeha.htm

FISH ELICIT FEELINGS!

 

[katie tully]

no i highlighted the fallacy in his argument; one could argue in the exact same way that evolution is false because it devalues the human worthiness, and there are countless examples in religion where this is indeed the case. until brad presents evidence of a divinely inspired moral law, it is just an opinion and impossible to rebuttal.

what exactly do you suggest i contribute to the discussion which is of value? if he is of the belief atheists are "less moral" than so be it, i'm just pointing out that a conclusion to "therefore this implies the christian god exists" (let alone just for a god to exist) is incoherent.

I suggest you contribute something other than what you've contributed for the last 5 pages.

You're smart dude, emytaylor shits us off something chronic, and the best way to deal with her is to rebut her every time.

Know she is wrong sure as shit halps me sleep at night


NO YOU!

/emytaylor response

 

[BradCube]

no i highlighted the fallacy in his argument; one could argue in the exact same way that evolution is false because it devalues the human worthiness, and there are countless examples in religion where this is indeed the case.

Aha, be careful though as I was not arguing that human worthlessness makes it false. I was arguing that under this view, moral sentiments are worthless. It could very well be that human morality is worthless, but it is this which so many atheists seem to struggle with here.

what exactly do you suggest i contribute to the discussion which is of value? if he is of the belief atheists are "less moral" than so be it, i'm just pointing out that a conclusion to "therefore this implies the christian god exists" (let alone just for a god to exist) is incoherent.

I hope I'm not being too picky here Sam. Just wanted to clarify that I don't think atheists are less moral. Only that under their beliefs, morality has a very different definition and value system. Also, I think that without definitive proof of objective morality, then the jump to Gods existence from that is also incoherent.

 

[Kwayera]

But why do I empathize and feel sorry for anyone else but myself under an evolutionary system of morality? Does a fish feel sorry for another fish when it is caught?

Despite the fact that I distinctly remember spending at least three pages in this thread explaining that we have a "system of morality" that is indeed an evolutionary one, I'll summarise here (and oversimplifying, I know):

- Our empathy, as you call it, is an 'evolved' version of non-genetic altruism (observed in higher order primates, canids, etc), which itself is an evolved version of genetic altruism prevalent in many other intelligent animal species.
- Empathy may not always increase individual fitness (in the Darwinian sense of the word), as it generally can incur a genetic cost, but it increases overall generational fitness, and thus is passed down generationally.
- Morality, which I would call the evolved version of empathy, may also be a consequence of our, well, heightened consciousness (hard to explain further).

It is entirely possible, if not probably, that our almost universal "system of morality" in its most basic form has indeed evolved from the altruism already present in the wider animal kingdom. No mysticism of spirituality needed or necessary.


Thank you, and goodnight.

 

[KFunk]

Where is KFunk

Howdy Katie - I was in Melbourne for a conference of sorts.

How can there be so such thing as good deeds? OF COURSE THERE ARE. ATHEISTS DO NOT LIVE IN THIS FANTASY WORLD WHERE GOOD AND BAD ARE MERELY FIGMENTS OF OUR IMAGINATION.

Well, I do. Though it is of course incorrect to assert that all atheists share my brand of moral nihilism.

Under the atheist view, these acts are worthless. At best they satisfy some personally conjured up sense of morality.

This strikes me as a strange kind of statement to make. I think it is because the concept of 'worth' itself is morally charged. The acts of an atheist are worthwhile from within their respective moral framework (whether they view it as objectively valid or not). I'm not sure that it matters much if their acts fail to be worthwhile with respect to a religious moral framework given that their position requires that they deny the existence of any god-dependent morality (they are atheists, after all).

Once it is seen that 'worth' is value-dependent I think your claim looses much of its force.

But why do I empathize and feel sorry for anyone else but myself under an evolutionary system of morality? Does a fish feel sorry for another fish when it is caught?

Probably not? Arguments for the evolutionary development of morality generally apply to creatures with a more sophisticated social structure (though if anyone knows otherwise please correct me on this).

 

[Enteebee]

But I think morality is also derived from the desire for self preservation as well as from empathy.... Assume everyone felt no empathy and was intent only on maximising self interest.

Empathy is derived from the desire for self preservation. Without feeling cares for other people I sincerely doubt you would bother with any (apparently altruistic) acts at all, yet people all around the world do so, never really expecting they'll get anything back in return from it or that they themselves could rationally find themselves in the same situation.

 

[emytaylor164]

But by asking other people, you're accepting another persons interpretation of the verses. Not your own.

It seems pretty clear to me that faith without deeds is worthless, so it's safe to assume that good deeds are necessary for acceptence into heaven.

If you disagree with this, are you agreeing that it's possible to get into heaven as a Christian without ever demonstrating tangible acts of faith?

I was asking other people for assistance, my own interpretation happens to be the same, after growing as a christian.

When i say that good works are worthless i mean to get into heaven with.
I think they are good to do on earth for the following reasons:
-for atheists or non-christians- to simply help people, they are good on earth but no merit to get into heaven
- For christians
- to show Gods glory to people on earth
- to demonstrate your faith
- to be a faithful witness

I think that christians should do good works but not to get into heaven, as the bible tells us that entry into heaven is not based on deeds, but by faith in christ Jesus.

 

[Slidey]

I was asking other people for assistance, my own interpretation happens to be the same, after growing as a christian.

When i say that good works are worthless i mean to get into heaven with.
I think they are good to do on earth for the following reasons:
-for atheists or non-christians- to simply help people, they are good on earth but no merit to get into heaven
- For christians
- to show Gods glory to people on earth
- to demonstrate your faith
- to be a faithful witness

I think that christians should do good works but not to get into heaven, as the bible tells us that entry into heaven is not based on deeds, but by faith in christ Jesus.

Leave this thread. If somebody really must 'defend' Christianity, let it be somebody who doesn't make it look barbaric and retarded, such as BradCube.

 

[JaredR]

Now I don't see the point in posting in this thread but reading last night I came across the below text and immediately thought of this place and as such decided to share it.

Of course, one cannot offer scientific proof that G-d exists, or that it was through His will that the world was created, or that He is concerned with the perfection of that which he created. But neither can it be proven that He does not exist. The use of rational methods to "prove" or "disprove" G-d's existence, after the fashion of the medieval scholastics, may appeal to some. Since the dawn of modern philosophy, however, these proofs have been seriously questioned. Contemporary arguments pro and con are equally futile. That is why the acceptance of G-d's existence is a metter of faith (emunah)...He is infinite and man is finite. Not only is man finite physically, but his perceptual and intellectual abilities are also finite. If G-d were part of the framework of man's five physical senses, such a "G-d" would have to be someone or something more restricted than the omnipotent, the omniprescent Spiritual Being in whom we express our faith. Such a G-d would indeed not be the one, universal G-d at all, but yet another of many deities to whom men over the centuries ascribed supernatural powers and to whom they paid allegiance.....


Let it be said that the rejection of G-d's existence ought to strain man's rational credibility even more. We must then assume that the functioning of the world under the sort of mathematical precision that we can only today fully begin to appreciate is a result of coincidence, and that the intricate coordinate functioning of life, from the very lowest forms to man himself is a matter of chance.....

In our time Aetheism seems "sophisticated" and timely. So did the worship of Baal in its time.

Source: To Be A Jew, Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin.

 

[katie tully]

Why the hell do you censor the word God?

 

[emytaylor164]

Leave this thread. If somebody really must 'defend' Christianity, let it be somebody who doesn't make it look barbaric and retarded, such as BradCube.

i am only saying what i believe as a christian, i dont think i am making it look barbaric and retarded at all.

I believe Christianity is the best thing in the world.

 

[Enteebee]

Why the hell do you censor the word God?

Someone knows jack-shit about jews.

 

[emytaylor164]

Why the hell do you censor the word God?

I think that is because jews will not say the word God completely because they believe it is blashemy ( i could be wrong)

 

[katie tully]

Someone knows jack-shit about jews.

yeah, for lack of care

 

[emytaylor164]

yeah, for lack of care

and you go off at me because i find science boring i think it is more important to know about world religions then about science

 

[katie tully]

I think that is because jews will not say the word God completely because they believe it is blashemy ( i could be wrong)

i see.

 

[JaredR]

To respect the sanctity of His name it is often not recorded anywhere where it can be descretated, defamed or deleted. Only a small portion of Jewish people do this.

The general concern with writing G-d in its true form is that it might be erased, defaced by being crossed out or scribbled upon, torn, thrown in the trash, or ravaged in some other way. Writing G-d instead of God communicates the writer’s idea effectively, but since G-d is incomplete, there is no risk of defacement.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-jews-write-g-d-instead-of-god.htm

 

[katie tully]

and you go off at me because i find science boring i think it is more important to know about world religions then about science

no.
correction.
i know about christianity. i know about science.


if this thread was suddenly about debating the merits of jews, i'd go and learn me some jew

wait... what you just said then was incredibly dumb