Evidence for God from Science

Turgonian wrote:Ah yes, everyone thinks they can change the world and build Utopia. There are two small Christian political parties (and a big one, but that one's got Muslims and Hindus in it), one reformed, one evangelical; the one tends to be reactionary, the other socialist.

And democracy has been elevated to its own foundation by virtually everyone. The reformed party still holds to theocracy, but the views on that subject within the party are so different that they don't dare explain it, or the whole structure will disintegrate...

True - sounds the same all over!

In your opinion - is there really unity in diversity? Iron mixing with the clay before the beastly idol takes its first step?
-
-
-

As I see it...
This notion of "unity in diversity" is the wishful thinking contained in the current multicultural ethos with its tyranny of political correctness as the glue that is supposed to bind us all together as one.

To my mind, political correctness is pure dishonesty. It is the superficial aquiescence of our minds to some false social construct.
For instance, I must not be so intolerant (use liberal definition) as to speak my true thoughts and feelings as that will upset the apple-cart of society and possibly offend others to whom I should always be nice instead. I am stopped from speaking the truth because it may make someone uncomfortable.
I don't mean that one should assume a licence to go around being unloving of others, that is, showing a lack of consideration for their best interests and no sense of propriety - but there are also times when to tell the truth is the most loving thing to do and dishonesty perpetuates falseness and deception.

So is there unity in diversity?
Not if it is imposed by compulsion or coercion.
Yes, there can be if it is a product of caring love freely given.

There MUST be unity in diversity, and it is the only way to survive.

You can't have all diversity; you must have some kind of unity. However, liberals want to eradicate all diversity (or at least communication between divers people).
In a country (not a State) where the small community matters, there will be much diversity, but there will be unity as well. One country, different people, differently thinking people.

Turgonian wrote:There MUST be unity in diversity, and it is the only way to survive.

You can't have all diversity; you must have some kind of unity. However, liberals want to eradicate all diversity (or at least communication between divers people).
In a country (not a State) where the small community matters, there will be much diversity, but there will be unity as well. One country, different people, differently thinking people.

I think we are just looking at the different sides of exactly the same coin, Turgy.

My post may not have been too clear. I see so much diversity superficially held together by political correctness, by having us suppress honesty and try to be "nice and tolerant" from a false foundation. To have unity in diversity, which is certainly essential, it must be based on truth and real caring love instead.

Quite so.

I dislike political correctness because it smothers (interesting) discussions.

Nietzsche believed the Übermenschen would create their own rules, their own morality. Hitler, Stalin and Mao duly followed his exhortation. I'm not comparing you to any of those murderers, but pointing out what can (and will) happen if morality is made subjective. It's the rule of the fittest, the most powerful. An atheist can still make choices he thinks 'good', or 'moral', or 'self-fulfilling' -- but what's the point, especially if doing 'good' will get you killed instead of being self-fulfilling for you?

Morality is subjective even among Christians. Take the issue of the death penalty for example. Do all Christians agree that taking a persons life for crimes they have committed is moral? Do Christians stand by George W. Bush's war against terror as being moral despite the growing casualties of innocent women and children? (My stand on the death penalty is that it should be imposed in ALL states while I oppose the Bush administration's "war on terror") And in response to the last part of this question, it is a matter of how strongly a person believes in what they stand for that determines the "point". If I believe in something so strongly that dying for the belief would be considered a form of martyrdom then so be it. This would be more self fulfilling then to deny the things I believe in and live. I think a common misconception among Christians is that athiests don't really stand for anything in particular and can be swayed on any issue depending on the benefits (ie. monetary gain, power, influence etc...)

What if this enjoyment consists of immoral actions? Or actions Christians see as immoral, but you don't see the harm of?

So what if it does? There are plenty of things I do that Christians would frown upon but I don't believe to be immoral. I believe sex before marriage is not immoral. I drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and I don't believe those actions are immoral.

You undoubtedly have a great moral strength. (Or not? And if not, why do you think you're the one to determine the rules?)
What do you see as the 'right way'?

Standing in the way of someones intellectual growth would be immoral in my view. Not allowing people to think for themselves is immoral. I believe in the idea of an eye for an eye although it is based largely on circumstance. It is my opinion that circumstance is a major determinant to what is right and what is wrong. Whether or not my views on morality are the right ones is a decision made by observers. I am not so self-righteous to say that my way is the "right way" and all other ways are wrong.

non-affiliated wrote:Morality is subjective even among Christians.

Some issues, maybe; not everything.

non-affiliated wrote:Take the issue of the death penalty for example. Do all Christians agree that taking a persons life for crimes they have committed is moral?

No, but those who don't often use more appeal to emotion than Bible texts.

non-affiliated wrote:Do Christians stand by George W. Bush's war against terror as being moral despite the growing casualties of innocent women and children?

Different people stress different points and see things differently. You can have diverse opinions about this, but within Christian morality, you can't think differently about the great commands: love God above everything else and love your neighbour (at least) as much as yourself. Also, 'Honour thy father and mother', 'Thou shalt not murder', 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' is pretty straightforward too.

non-affiliated wrote:And in response to the last part of this question, it is a matter of how strongly a person believes in what they stand for that determines the "point". If I believe in something so strongly that dying for the belief would be considered a form of martyrdom then so be it. This would be more self fulfilling then to deny the things I believe in and live. I think a common misconception among Christians is that athiests don't really stand for anything in particular and can be swayed on any issue depending on the benefits (ie. monetary gain, power, influence etc...)

I didn't think so about atheists, but my point remains: there is no inherent meaning to life, the only 'meaning' is the one you give it. And because it is completely subjective, morality too is subjective. The basis does not lie in absolute truth, but in yourself. A number of atheists will still act morally, but they cannot appeal to any basis outside of themselves. It's morality without God. Therefore, they must view enforcing morality on others (e.g. through legislation, or even a fair discussion) as something close to a crime. It's the attitude of 'everyone has to decide for himself what's right' which legalized e.g. abortion and which smothered many discussions in 'If you feel that way' or 'Whatever'...

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:What if this enjoyment consists of immoral actions? Or actions Christians see as immoral, but you don't see the harm of?

So what if it does? There are plenty of things I do that Christians would frown upon but I don't believe to be immoral. I believe sex before marriage is not immoral. I drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and I don't believe those actions are immoral.

I don't believe drinking is immoral either. Smoking is a point of debate, but premarital sex is something all Bible-believing Christians (including open-minded ones) would take a stance against. We believe it's wrong. What if it is wrong? You'd probably say everyone has to decide for himself. But I guess you wouldn't say that about rape. Or pedophilia. If that's true, you would forbid certain things to everyone because you feel it's wrong for everyone. Even if other people think differently (and there are people who think differently about pedophilia), you'd still believe it should be outlawed (correct me if I'm wrong).
This shows that opinions of certain people do not decide what is right and wrong. What if those 'certain people' make up the majority in a given nation at a given time? Do they suddenly make premarital sex, or pedophilia, morally right? I don't think so. And I don't believe everyone should decide for himself -- because one position is simply wrong!

non-affiliated wrote:Standing in the way of someones intellectual growth would be immoral in my view. Not allowing people to think for themselves is immoral.

That idea has strong points, although some atheists take it a step too far and try to use it to forbid religious education. But could you defend that view with arguments outside of your own feelings?

non-affiliated wrote:I believe in the idea of an eye for an eye although it is based largely on circumstance. It is my opinion that circumstance is a major determinant to what is right and what is wrong.

Is lying allowed if it gets you out of a difficult situation and doesn't harm anyone else?

non-affiliated wrote:Whether or not my views on morality are the right ones is a decision made by observers. I am not so self-righteous to say that my way is the "right way" and all other ways are wrong.

What observers? Those who agree with you? Those who disagree with you? The majority? Why can other people, and not you, determine whether your views are right?

non-affiliated wrote:Standing in the way of someones intellectual growth would be immoral in my view. Not allowing people to think for themselves is immoral. I believe in the idea of an eye for an eye although it is based largely on circumstance. It is my opinion that circumstance is a major determinant to what is right and what is wrong. Whether or not my views on morality are the right ones is a decision made by observers. I am not so self-righteous to say that my way is the "right way" and all other ways are wrong.

Some would also like to take away any speed limits on the freeways... I don't see how this promotes "intellectual" growth... Laws are made to protect ourselves from killing one another... It's that simple..

I didn't think so about atheists, but my point remains: there is no inherent meaning to life, the only 'meaning' is the one you give it. And because it is completely subjective, morality too is subjective. The basis does not lie in absolute truth, but in yourself.

Atheists and theists alike would agree that "thou shalt not murder" is morally good but isn't this preached in most of the major religions throughout the world? Christianity is certainly not unique in its moral stance. My ideas of morality do have their origins in a Christian upbringing but I could wager that I would still have similar thoughts on morality had I grown up with Buddhist parents.

A number of atheists will still act morally, but they cannot appeal to any basis outside of themselves. It's morality without God. Therefore, they must view enforcing morality on others (e.g. through legislation, or even a fair discussion) as something close to a crime. It's the attitude of 'everyone has to decide for himself what's right' which legalized e.g. abortion and which smothered many discussions in 'If you feel that way' or 'Whatever'...

For a society to exist there must be moral standards. To exist in a society an atheist must accept some of those standards. How strongly an atheist believes in what society believes to be moral is up to the individual. If I choose to disregard all of modern societies ideas of morality then I would not be able to function within it.

Also, as more of a direct answer, it depends on the moral issue in question. Legislation against homosexual marriage I do believe to be close to a crime. If I have a strong moral stance on an issue then of course I would consider legislation against it to be criminal just as a Christian (some not all) would protest legislation to remove God from public schools.

premarital sex is something all Bible-believing Christians (including open-minded ones) would take a stance against. We believe it's wrong. What if it is wrong?

Who decides that it is wrong? Society had once shunned premarital sex but it is becoming widely accepted especially since the institution of marriage has been made a mockery of in the last 30 or so years. Had I been born in a time when premarital sex was socially unacceptable and the divorce rate was less than 50% then my ideas about it would likely be different. Slavery, at some point, had to be considered morally acceptable since Christians and non-Christians alike owned slaves but today society (and common sense) deems slavery to be morally wrong.

This shows that opinions of certain people do not decide what is right and wrong. What if those 'certain people' make up the majority in a given nation at a given time? Do they suddenly make premarital sex, or pedophilia, morally right? I don't think so. And I don't believe everyone should decide for himself -- because one position is simply wrong!

See the issue of slavery. It is obviously wrong but where was Christian morality then? Considering that Christianity was the primary religion of the time in the major western countries how did slavery exist for such a long time? In regards to pedophilia: at what age can an individual have consentual sex? This age differs in many countries and societies. If I consider pedophilia to be sexual relations between two people with an age difference of greater than 3 years is this any less acceptable than to say consentual sex is deemed legitimate at 16 years of age?

That idea has strong points, although some atheists take it a step too far and try to use it to forbid religious education. But could you defend that view with arguments outside of your own feelings?

Atheists that desire to forbid religious education are foolish just as Christians who desire to forbid evolutionary teachings are foolish. Intellectual growth can only be achieved by considering a great number of ideas that are presented on any given argument then determining what ideas hold the most weight according to individual beliefs. For instance, I personally do not fully accept the idea of evolution and I do not completely discount the idea of intelligent design. I have not studied either theory nearly enough to establish a stance one way or the other. I tend to lean one way moreso than another but I am always eager and willing to hear any well thought out argument. That is also the reason why I am posting on this forum. I enjoy intelligent thought about many issues.

Is lying allowed if it gets you out of a difficult situation and doesn't harm anyone else?

Yes, definitely. If there were imposed a new law that stated every person must accept blue as their favorite color or else they face the death penalty would you tell authorities that blue was your favorite color although it was really green? A very stupid example I know but I can come up with many others that are concievable.

What observers? Those who agree with you? Those who disagree with you? The majority? Why can other people, and not you, determine whether your views are right?

I determine my own ideas about morality with help from a variety of sources. These ideas that I develop I believe to be acceptable for me to function in society at a level that I choose. A Christian will see many of my ideas of morality as "wrong" while an atheist may then see my ideas of morality as "right". Whether outside observers (ie. anyone who decides to pass judgement about my morality) view my ideas as right or wrong is based on their own opinions and of little consequence to me.

I forsee the objection to the first few lines of this last paragraph and I would emphasize the fact that there are issues that I stand for more strongly than others. If murdering your first born became a societal norm I would face persecution rather than accept it.

Some would also like to take away any speed limits on the freeways... I don't see how this promotes "intellectual" growth... Laws are made to protect ourselves from killing one another... It's that simple..

See "autobahn" also see http://www.dumblaws.com

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I equated speed limits to hampering intellectual growth but I am often less concise than I should be in expressing my thoughts. Would you bow to a political regime that chose what literature you were allowed to read and made all other literature illegal? Not so simple after all...

non-affiliated wrote:Atheists and theists alike would agree that "thou shalt not murder" is morally good but isn't this preached in most of the major religions throughout the world? Christianity is certainly not unique in its moral stance.

I wasn't talking about uniqueness, but basis. Either morality is objective, or it is subjective. If it's objective, then you can base laws on it. If it's subjective, you can't, and everyone has to decide for himself what is right. Or, more accurately, there is no right and wrong. 'There is no good and evil...there is only power, and those too weak to seek it!'

non-affiliated wrote:For a society to exist there must be moral standards. To exist in a society an atheist must accept some of those standards. How strongly an atheist believes in what society believes to be moral is up to the individual. If I choose to disregard all of modern societies ideas of morality then I would not be able to function within it.

So moral ideas are just conventions? They are no more than mores, or 'habits'?

non-affiliated wrote:Also, as more of a direct answer, it depends on the moral issue in question. Legislation against homosexual marriage I do believe to be close to a crime.

I don't. Before marriage was desacralized and 'made a mockery of' as you say, 'homosexual marriage' was simply a contradiction in terms, and it should become one again.

non-affiliated wrote:Who decides that it is wrong? Society had once shunned premarital sex but it is becoming widely accepted especially since the institution of marriage has been made a mockery of in the last 30 or so years.

See what I mean? Apparently, the majority decides what is good and what is evil. Premarital sex used to be seen as wrong, but now it's seen as right -- and if you think right/wrong depends on social conventions, then it is neither. Slavery used to be seen as right, but now it's seen as wrong -- but only one of those views can be correct, and that view should be articulated in law. They can't both be correct. And they can't both be wrong, or you might as well abolish morality in its entirety.
What if, in a hundred years, our society declares that the prohibition on incest belonged to a bygone age? Would that be right? Would that be right for that time?

non-affiliated wrote:See the issue of slavery. It is obviously wrong but where was Christian morality then? Considering that Christianity was the primary religion of the time in the major western countries how did slavery exist for such a long time?

Greed, and seeing the blacks as lesser beings. At one point, the question arose if blacks did even have a soul. I'm not saying that Christians have always acted morally, but that they have a basis for morality which they can appeal to. On what ground do you reject slavery?

non-affiliated wrote:In regards to pedophilia: at what age can an individual have consentual sex? This age differs in many countries and societies. If I consider pedophilia to be sexual relations between two people with an age difference of greater than 3 years is this any less acceptable than to say consentual sex is deemed legitimate at 16 years of age?

A lot less acceptable, since in that case sexual relations between a man of 44 and a woman of 40 would be considered pedophilia. Age doesn't matter; only marriage does. But there is a political party in our country, commonly referred to as the 'pedo party', which wants to lower that totally arbitrary age to 12, and it is strongly suspected their motives are none too acceptable. Now at one point in time, society may see this as a 'normal expression of sexuality' (just like homosexuality now), but that won't change its wrongness one bit.

non-affiliated wrote:Atheists that desire to forbid religious education are foolish just as Christians who desire to forbid evolutionary teachings are foolish.

Oh yeah, but they're vocal sometimes. Did you know Richard Dawkins is one of them?

non-affiliated wrote:Intellectual growth can only be achieved by considering a great number of ideas that are presented on any given argument then determining what ideas hold the most weight according to individual beliefs. For instance, I personally do not fully accept the idea of evolution and I do not completely discount the idea of intelligent design. I have not studied either theory nearly enough to establish a stance one way or the other. I tend to lean one way moreso than another but I am always eager and willing to hear any well thought out argument. That is also the reason why I am posting on this forum. I enjoy intelligent thought about many issues.

So do I!

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:Is lying allowed if it gets you out of a difficult situation and doesn't harm anyone else?

Yes, definitely. If there were imposed a new law that stated every person must accept blue as their favorite color or else they face the death penalty would you tell authorities that blue was your favorite color although it was really green? A very stupid example I know but I can come up with many others that are concievable.

When it's a life/death matter over something stupid like that, very well. But I can also come up with an example that's more conceivable. At school, a teacher asks a pupil whether he has done his homework. He will get detention if he hasn't. If he says he has, he can get out of the situation without harming the teacher, his fellow pupils or anyone else. So what should he say?

non-affiliated wrote:I determine my own ideas about morality with help from a variety of sources. These ideas that I develop I believe to be acceptable for me to function in society at a level that I choose.

Morality sacrificed on the altar of functionality...
There were many people who functioned in Nazi Germany, by the way.

non-affiliated wrote:A Christian will see many of my ideas of morality as "wrong" while an atheist may then see my ideas of morality as "right". Whether outside observers (ie. anyone who decides to pass judgement about my morality) view my ideas as right or wrong is based on their own opinions and of little consequence to me.

You just said observers determined whether your ideas were right or wrong. In other words, you only determine what is right or wrong for yourself, and you want others to do the same and not push morality. But as to what is really right or wrong, you have no choice but to remain agnostic at best. The only thing you can do is give your opinion and hope someone likes it...
Would you agree with the statement 'You can't legislate morality'?

non-affiliated wrote:I forsee the objection to the first few lines of this last paragraph and I would emphasize the fact that there are issues that I stand for more strongly than others. If murdering your first born became a societal norm I would face persecution rather than accept it.

That's good. Once again: I'm not at all suggesting you are immoral or do not care for morality; my point is that your only basis for morality is yourself, which would mean that everyone has to determine his own morality, which would mean that no moral stance is more or less acceptable than any other. You can't call something absolutely right or wrong; you can only say you agree or disagree with it.
It is therefore impossible for a state to be morally right or wrong; the only thing that matters is whether individuals, with their own ideas about morality, can function there.

Good discussion. Let me throw a wrench in here (for anybody).

What if foreign spies came to hide in your house, and government officials came to your house asking where they were? (OK, so your nation is Godless and the spies were Godly). What do you tell them? (See Joshua 2:1-6).

Judah wrote:My post may not have been too clear. I see so much diversity superficially held together by political correctness, by having us suppress honesty and try to be "nice and tolerant" from a false foundation. To have unity in diversity, which is certainly essential, it must be based on truth and real caring love instead.

From Slecht Nieuws voor het Multi-Culturalisme in Europa! (Bad News for Multiculturalism in Europe!):

Metaposos wrote:The hard truth is that multiculturalism simply doesn't work, and we only have to think back to the dramatic events in the Balkan or look back on the former Soviet Union to see the tragical consequences of that kind of experiments.
A healthier alternative is that which Alain de Benoist describes as 'ethno-pluralism'. Like multiculturalism, ethno-pluralism starts with the complete diversity of cultures and ethnicities in the world. But unlike multiculturalism, ethno-pluralism posits that true diversity is only possible in light of its social and cultural context. After all, peoples are not merely the sum of individual atoms, but totalities which have their own personality (ethnic circumstances, native language, culture), moulded and forged by history.
Arabian culture can only flourish within the Arabian society, like the European cultures can only flourish within the European society. This is a big difference with the multicultural paradigm that different cultures can flourish together within a single society. Arabian and European culture simply cannot flourish side by side within the European society and vice versa. The two cultures have totally different value systems; and especially because the Arabian society is based on Islamitic education while the European society is largely based on Christian education. The two cultures are simply not compatible, that's the reason why they have often been at war with each other (do you remember something they called the Crusades?).

In the debate on diversity, I think that's the way to go.

puritan lad wrote:What if foreign spies came to hide in your house, and government officials came to your house asking where they were? (OK, so your nation is Godless and the spies were Godly). What do you tell them? (See Joshua 2:1-6).

I think deceit is allowed when it saves lives -- when it saves lives worth saving. Fugitive Jews, yes. Bin Laden, no.
Of course this presents a problem when you want to affirm that the Ten Commandments are absolutes. Some thinkers have tried to avoid that by developing a system they called 'graded absolutism', explained in Biblical Situation Ethics or Graded Absolutism.

Turgy, the word is immiscible - Islamic (Arabian) and Western (European) civilizations are simply immiscible.
IMHO

Judah wrote:Turgy, the word is immiscible - Islamic (Arabian) and Western (European) civilizations are simply immiscible.
IMHO

I'm not sure I can agree with this, purely from a civil perspective (if such an animal can exist). While total immiscibility or assimilation may not be possible, it may not be the most desirable outcome either. The two civilizations can certainly cohabitate to a large extent without having the need to assimilate, if (and that's a big IF) they can employ a true separation of church (mosque, temple, whatever) and state.

Two other alternatives are the systems currently in place in both Israel and its neighbor Lebanon. They both claim to be democracies. In the former it is done under the umbrella and tutelage of zionism; the latter in a weird power-sharing formula split down the middle along sectarian lines. They both work but every once in a while the cup of mutual understanding overfloweth (as evident in the recent events).