If you know “fear” then IMHO you have never experienced God’s Love, for it dispels all fear. Jesus said that. Jesus also said to not judge, to forgive, to love even your enemies. Jesus said He did not judge man. You do not believe this, it is evident.
Love
Leroy
Amazing! How about a clue- He didn’t have to put the freaking tree there! No overriding wills there. The obvious fact is that god made Adam and Eve knowing full and well that they would not resist the temptation. He knew full and well that by putting a tree there, creating the snake, allowing the snake into the Garden, and allowing the snake to tempt them, they would fall for it. And thus doom billions of souls that didn’t ask to be born to a fiery eternity.
An Omniscient God is always so. You cant say he knows everything at one point, and then nothing at another. He knew what he was doing when he created man, knew what hell would be used for when he created it, and knew exactly what was going to happen in all his creation. There is NO FUGGING EXPERIMENT! He KNEW it before he created it.
God is a tyrant, and those that believe the god of the bible are selectivly ignoring what you don’t want to contemplate. Your god, if he exists is evil, manipulative, and all around paradoxial in nature. He creates mankind for the sole purpous of worshiping him, that alone says everything. All the rest is just icing on his list of crimes.
Of course I should put this disclaimer : I don’t believe in the god of the bible, Torah, or any god or diety. Nor do I believe in heaven or hell. If I did, I sure as hell would prefer the hell than to worship that… thing. Of course all you see is “blah blah blah, give me a bible verse, blah blah blah”.
And quote the late comedian Bill Hicks:
"Eternal suffering awaits anyone
who questions God's infinite love."“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” – Luke 12:4-5
Epimetheus, or anyone really, I am curious where the Bible says God is omniscient? I have searched the Bible for that word and it isn’t there. Could it be that somewhere along the line someone added that little piece into the pie to impress more people? The reason I ask is your entire problem seems to revolve around the idea that God knows everything, all possible outcomes, and that for some reason knowing the outcome in some way reduces our ability to choose freely. Consider:
a. God is not omniscient. If this is the case then the
experiment’s value is beyond question. The arguments
about God being intentionally cruel don’t apply.
b. God is omniscient. If this is the case, does it negate the
value of the choice you make. This is the old
fate/destiny/predetermination argument, and it is a circular
one. As far as I know, there is no solution to it.
As to your “the religion you believe in is random” argument, when you boil down most religions to their core beliefs about moral code and how to conduct your life, there are amazing similarities between them.
MEBuckner, yes, the theist uses god to push the logic chain one step back, but it is a step past where the atheist gets. Whether it is a necessary step or not depends on you whether you believe it is. It is the true leap of faith.
Further, if you accept the premise that there is an absolute right, you have already accepted the existance of “God”, you just haven’t defined it as god yet. If you don’t accept an absolute right then anything you come up with will be completely arbitrary since everything that anyone comes up with will have equal validity. Without an absolute objective right personal choice dictates and “might makes right” rules.
“I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” – Isaiah 46:10
“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” – Psalms 139:15-16
“Man’s days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed.” – Job 14:15
“God understands the way to it and he alone knows where it dwells, for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.” – Job 28:23-24
I don’t accept that the only choices are Absolute Truth and “completely arbitrary”. We can try to work things out with our imperfect knowledge. I have immediate subjective knowledge of myself, and of what it’s like to be hurt, oppressed, subjected to injustice, etc. Barring solipsism, I have every reason to believe other humans are persons like myself, and also feel pain, grief, fear, and so on. From that, I can reasonably accept something like the Golden Rule, or more generally a principle of empathy.
Apolgies to H4E for losing my temper.
I tend to agree with the ‘arbitrary’ bit. Morals are all relative.
But they are not simply personal choices.
Humans are social animals, they live in groups, therefore some form of ‘getting along with others’ is only human.
‘Being nice to other people’ wasn’t inveted by christianity nor by any of the other ‘modern’ religions. It is a mechanism that makes living in groups possible in the first place. It has been around long before homo sapiens became human.
MEBuckner -
So from your biological studies you conclude that you should loving your neighbor as yourself? I seem to recall a passage like that from the bible somewhere about Matthew 22.36-40 
As nice as that is, I don’t think you can get anything more arbitrary. Do you treat others as you would like to be treated today or how you wanted to be treated yesterday. What if I don’t want to be treated like you? Do you ignore my wishes and treat me like you want to be treated anyway? If both you and I are interacting with a third party, how do we treat him, like you want to be treated or I want to be treated?
Before I accept a general rule of empathy I would need to know more about what exactly you mean by it. I am assuming that this is closer to the treat everyone as they want to be treated, and if so it has its own problems. Not the least of which is the fact that the way Hitler wanted to be treated doesn’t fit the way I would have wanted to treat him.
The point I am making is unless there is some completely objective moral scale it is impossible to determine whether any action is moral, immoral or amoral since there is nothing to measure the action against. Even given the relatively few moral systems we have today, it can be hard to determine that in many cases. If all of these systems gain equal weight then the moral code is reduced to rationalization.
Case in point - if instead of using pain/fear as the guiding emotions why not use joy/happiness. They are equally valid and equally universal. However what happens when one of my actions contributes to my happiness and your pain? How do I judge the act?
If there is no absolute right you are left generalizing. “Treat others as I think I/they want to be treated”, or “I think this is the moral choice”. The problem becomes everyone will think something different and without an objective scale you cannot determine which is actually right. This makes any decision arbitrary since each person judging the action may have a completely different view. The entire notion of right and wrong is based on the assumption that there is in fact a right and wrong in the absolute sense. If you reject the entire idea then the notion of “right” becomes obsolete since you now have to ask the question “right for who using what scale”.
Latro -
Being social doesn’t mean being moral. Take a look at any culture where the strongest was in charge. Is it necessarily a moral or even stable group dynamic. For most of history, getting along with others entailed either subjugating large numbers of people or being subjugated by someone yourself. Being nice to others was usually restricted to family members or close personal friends. All living in a group requires is someone strong enough to hold the group together, either by force or through some other means.
The reason personal choice comes to dictate moral thinking in a system where there is no absolute right is because nobody sees themselves as evil/wrong unless they are forced too. Hitler thought he was in the right, and a lot of people at the time agreed with him. I personally think he was wrong, but why is my judgment correct where all of those supporting him are incorrect. It isn’t because of the weight of history or the fact that more people agree with me than disagree with me. It is because there IS an absolute moral scale and when his actions are held up to it they are found lacking. Without this scale any action will be rationalized and accepted as good for the group in one way or another.
Almighty appears in the King James version 57 times. Dictonary.com Defines Almighty as having absolute power. Unlimited in power, omnipotent, and all-powerful. That seems to imply to me that he has the full power to convey omniscience upon himself if he doesn’t already have it.
Omnipotent appears in the king james version, in Revelations 19:6.
John 18:4
From this site I gather this:
These are just the obvious references, I am sure a hardcore bible scholar can dig up verses that imply without saying outright.
Oh, found this as well.
2 Samuel 14:20
“To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.”
The problem with this argument is that God is not a human being. He created us, He designed the operating parameters. So it’s reasonable that when He tells us to do things they’ll be to our benefit. IOW, because He created us He knows what is best for us.
But you’re assuming a higher moral standard than God Himself. If He is the standard, then there is no one to hold him accountable to, whereas a human has a higher standard to be held accountable to.
If God created the universe and everything in it, then presumably He understands everything in it better than we do. In addition, human beings are infallible, but God is infallible. He knows what He’s doing.
Bad things happen to good people because of sin entering the world. In Job, God made the point that we cannot even concieve of everything from God’s perspective. There are things going on that we don’t even know about, and without full information we are unable to judge what’s going on.
Do I need to quote the 10 Commandments? I’ll quote the one that relates to your infanticide example"
That would seem to just about cover it. Notice how this would not include killing in self-defense, nor war (perhaps). It would seem to preclude infanticide. Many Christians oppose abortion at any stage of pregnancy because they either believe the zygote/embryo/fetus to be a human being or believe that because it is impossible to know whether or not a zygote is a human it should be protected as if it were unequivocally human. However, truly this is another debate.
An unfortunate side-effect of being a sinner.
Isn’t a standard consistent by definition? If not, please enlighten me.
And thus were formed the basics of human justice. I agree with you in a human context. I have no problem with laws based on this sort of reasoning, in fact I think laws should be based on this sort of reasoning. But all this stuff about God determining morality etc. is how my personal morality is determined. I will not obey a law that contradicts my personal morality (in which case I can either move out or agitate for change) but if laws coincide with or are neutral in regards to my personal code of ethics, in most cases I couldn’t care less how they were derived. If this isn’t too clear, I can try to clarify in a later post.
Because we didn’t design the operating system, as it were. Implicit in theism (at least the theism I’m arguing for) is the idea that God is trying to help us while preserving our freedom of choice. Therefore it would make sense to accept the moral standards He sets forth because He’s trying to help us. Of course you can make up your own moral standards and abide by them. But you have no guarantee that the moral system you create will help us.
Implicit in the theist position, as I said above, is that God knows what is best for us and will help us if we accept it, whereas with a human I have no such assurances. In addition, as you said above, athiest morality is just as arbitrary as you percieve theist morality to be. If you can create a moral system that says you won’t kill people and cut them up, more power to you, but you’ll still have to randomly declare different things axiomatic (“I support human dignity”, “People should not be eaten”, etc.) In the end I don’t think either of us can truly justify our morality without resorting to axioms at some point.
Just to reiterate, I’m not saying that MEBuckner has any obligation to follow God or to conform to His morality. As I said in previous posts, it’s his choice whether or not to believe in God’s existence. What I am doing is giving a basis for my own morality.
Yes, the Ten Commandemnts say “Do not murder”, which would seem to preclude infanticide. But then we have 1 Samuel 15:2-3:
This is not the only place in the Bible where infanticide and genocide are not only permitted but ordered, allegedly by the direct command of God. You may say that the Commandments don’t apply the same way in war. But your universal objective moral standard is starting to look pretty situational. It’s not just the difference between peacetime civilian actions and the actions of the whole state or community during war. These days, military commanders are often held morally culpable for failing to take action to protect civilians from unintentional harm as the result of military actions. A military commander or political leader who gave the order to exterminate every man, woman and child in a country, with explicit orders to be sure to leave no survivors, would be universally reviled as a monstrous murderer and perpetrator of crimes against humanity.
Are we wrong to have changed the moral standards for how we wage warfare from the Biblical standards? (The Bible doesn’t always say to kill everyone; only certain groups are singled out for absolute genocide. More general rules for warfare are found in Deuteronomy 20:10-15: “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.” This is still pretty far from modern ethical standards of conduct in war. The “nations nearby” are subject to complete annihilation. ) Or perhaps our standards for warfare–don’t kill prisoners of war, don’t exterminate civilian populations, don’t enslave the women and children afterwards–are just cultural quirks and not moral principles at all, like eating with a knife and fork instead of chopsticks?
There are also ethical standards on which the Bible seems pretty consistent, but those standards have simply been abandoned. In the Bible the worship of “false gods” is not a matter of individual conscience; it’s not even just an individual moral failing, but a capital crime. For much of the history of Christianity Christians dutifully followed that ethical principle; heresy or blasphemy were considered to be the rightful province of the state, and followers of non-Christian religions were not permitted to seek to entice Christians to follow their “false gods” in states under Christian rule. Now, almost all Christians seem to regard the rules as having changed, and don’t believe that it would be right or just to pass laws mandating the death penalty for those who “entice others into idolatry” and encouraging people to inform on their own families for spreading false religion.
**His4Ever wrote:
There’s no such think as the mythology of Satan. Myth has nothing to do with it. God, in His word, says he’s a real being, an angel. Accept it or not, he is not a myth. That’s just what he wants you to think.**
Alright, then, where’s the evidence? Cite, please?
Sorry, no, quotations for the Christian Bible don’t count. I want to see or be pointed to the INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE evidence of the existence of this Being, not verses from your holy book.
Show us the evidence for this Being or retract that statement!
**MEBuckner wrote:
As always, the theist accuses the atheist of having an arbitrary basis of morality.**
I agree with your post, except for one point; not all theists believe this. This is mainly a Christian viewpoint. Certainly all Christians are theists but not all theists are Christian!
Get real. He’s not visible to us, he’s of the spiritual word therefore I can’t show him to you or prove he exists. Look at the evil in the world and people who’ve been demon possessed. And yes the Bible does count because I happen to believe God wrote it, therefore it tells the truth about the spiritual world and the beings in it. If you don’t want to believe he exists, hey fine. Doesn’t change a thing.
Would that you would so do.
So why believe?
Evil is an attribute (adjective), not an entity (noun).
As to looking at someone who’s been demon possessed: I’m game for it. Show me one person, a real person, with real bona fides, who is actually demon possessed. Of course, this will require more than the person saying, “Hey, I was possessed!” Show me the demon. Prove to me the demon itself exists.
Actually, it doesn’t as proof in the sense that Logic uses the word proof.
Seems to me like Freyr asked you to show evidence. He did not say jack about not wanting to believe one way or the other–he said, quite clearly, that he’d like you to provide evidence for your assertion “There’s no such think [sic] as the mythology of Satan.” You made the assertion–YOU prove it with valid, verifiable evidence.
Quite right. It doesn’t change the facts:
[ul][li]You are completely unfamiliar with debating skills.[/li][li]You are not really all that familiar with the tome you worship as though it is a deity itself.[/li]When asked to prove your statements, you run for cover and don’t provide any proof whatsoever.[/ul]
I’m confused, Monty.
Don’t you also agree that the devil and God exist?
But we can’t “prove” it visibly.
I don’t really get the concept of angels.
Wasn’t there supposed to be ONE god and only one?
Now we suddenly have a whole bunch of lesser-gods; angels, demons and one super angel, Satan, ranking as medium-god.
The way i understand it:
One God
lots of angels-some good,some bad
Yes; however, my version of deity is decidedly different than H4E’s warped and twisted demon.
Another thing is that I don’t delude myself into thinking my belief about the matter of deity is proof of same.