Evidence for God from Science

Can you tell me what teachings do you have knowledge about. I sure hope, it is better then Wikipedia. But even if you have knowledge, what perspective did you learn it from. e.g we had an atheist here who said she'll introduce their children about major religions and of course atheism and let them make their own minds. Sure, sounds all good huh? But what she obviously didn't care to say was that she will always tell her children, this is Christianity, its all a big pile of hoaxes, stacked on top of each other, screw it all cuz there ain't no God. See you may have knowledge about it, but from what perspective? were you studying it (assuming that you did) for a better understanding in its context or looking to pick out stories that you can find fault with. Best is to go unbiased. That means you give equal weight to all statements your's and ours. This means that when you read the story of Jonah and the fish that swallowed him, you don't laugh your head off but try to see possibilities, rational thoughts, cuz believe me, we are not all idiots, worshipping unicorns here. If you're in it for learning, best open up to at least a level where you give a fair shot to it or else you are wasting our time.

The whole sinning, not accepting Jesus, go to Hell deal. That's about on line, eh? I don't think I've ever wikipedia'd Hell, just what I was taught in Church as a kid and what is common knowledge in the Bible Belt of the U.S. I learned from Church, use to be Christian I suppose you can say, until I began to think for myself. I don't know if I'd teach my kid about religions, I mean I wouldn't teach him about eastern ones so I don't know why Western ones would be any different. I figure that is something for him/her to decide when they have the ability to think about the subject objectively on their own, that seems to be the best way to get the most unbiased opinion you could hope for.

And you guys do seem fairly intelligent. I don't personally care for all the philosophical argumentation, I've always been a very logical person and my profession kind of argues this kind of thought process so anything that doesn't have cold hard facts backing it up sounds like nonsense to me. I'm doing my best to understand yours and everyone else's reasoning here but it is much different than what I'm use to.

Subjective ethics is a problem, isn't it? what is good? define good? in Nazi Germany, it was good to kill a non-Aryan, one who didn't belong to master German race. Most of them had no guilt. If good is just what you perceive it to be, then it is unstable. The Aztec believed it good to have human sacrifices. It was a good in their society. If you had been born in Aztec, to you it would have been perfectly fine or normal to have human sacrifices, cuz that is what you would have been taught and it would not be in conflict of your own conscience. In Hinduism, burning a widow with her husband is considered good, it is called the ritual of "sati". In Islam, one can kill his wife on account of suspicion of her cheating him, without proof, and it would be considered a proud act.

Subjective ethics are a problem, but so are ill-concieved and outdated ancient ones. First of all, most of the Nazis didn't give much thought to the good they were doing from a good and evil sense, they had goals and those goals too priority. Being a good person was not on their mind. Same with Stalin, I have a ton of study in Soviet history and Stalin wasn't working for the betterment of man, he was working for the betterment of himself. It wasn't the same moral code or thought process I talk about. I mean even in Christianity there is a ton of stuff that we omit today as if it doesn't exist, but the Bible says to kill homosexuals does it not? At least with my own subjective code I seek not to harm others, that seems already better than any moral code and religion offers from step number 1.

So don't give me that, I believe in goodness, thing. What goodness? Unless it is defined and unchanging on philosophical bases and not just circumstances, it is not good. Where do you get that? Obviously not atheism, since I know what great morals they have penned down.

Atheist and nihilist are not synonymous. Unlike religion, you can't categorize all atheist under one philosophical way of thinking or one moral code, it is subjective and up to the person to make decisions for how he thinks he should live life. I decide what goodness is by how I want others to treat me.

Religion is a not just a concept, it is a system, and so is atheism. we have our morals jotted down, our system works on that, it is regardless if I go against it, since it can convict me always. But when stalin butchered millions and razed some 42000 churches to the ground, he never had tinge of a guilt. Why do you think that was? because he was doing something good, It certainly seemed good to him. I mean we are not talking about the guy who kills and then goes to confession. We are talking about the guy, who kills and think he has done right, good, a service to society. But in this case this guy is an atheist. Now please tell me, on what grounds do you have a case against him? That he is killing millions? No, that doesn't matter to him, that is the bad in his world. He doesn't share your definition of good.

Atheism is not a system. It has no morals jotted down. No one speaks for all Atheist. Not Richard Dawkins, not any website, no one. My case against Stalin is simple, he was a human in a position that allowed him to do many things and his moral code was centered around the greatest happiness for everyone. He didn't mind hurting others, obviously, and cared only for himself instead of others. That is deplorable, but in the grand scheme of things there is no force that says "That is wrong". Just me and others like me to say it, and that's enough.

Please Ken, convince me, lets for a moment think that I am an atheist (I'm a ex-atheist anyway) and I think religious people are a danger to society. I am in power, I'm the head of a state, you are fellow atheist and you think Im doing wrong. CONVINCE ME.

I'm sure you will love this conversation between us. lets play roles. Lets see how you can show me that your definition of good is better then mine. since you think I am wrong. Even if I refuse to agree, you can still show me where the obvious flaw in me lies.

Ex atheist like I'm atheist or ex atheist like babies are atheist? Anyways, if you were doing wrong and I thought you were I'd just show you that your actions hurt others. That you wouldn't want this done to you if you were on the other end of the spectrum. Now what is wrong and right? That's subjective, but there are basic tenants, like doing onto others, that everyone can acknowledge and follow if they so wish and it is easy to see that you don't need a bogey man to scare you into being a good person.

What if you were an atheist who adopted the moral code of Christianity without accepting Jesus? You did everything else that was Christian accept for actually believing in God. Would that not make you a good person?

Why would God condemn you? Good question. Do you consider yourself a good person?

Yes, I do, for the most part. I slip up sometimes and act like a jerk, but for the most part I try to stay on the right track and at the end of the day I can safely say no one is being affected negatively by my existence. Can you say the same?

KenV wrote:... First of all, lets try to be a bit more civil and less insulting please. I do not have any interest in someone who is going to speak to me like a child or try to belittle me about something that has no relevance to this conversation at all.

Sorry, I wasn't insulting you! You misread, or misunderstood, or I didn't express myself appropriately. Since you are no longer refering to Pascal's Wager, I'll let it be. There are many good arguments an atheist can use when debating Christians, and Pascal's Wager isn't one of them.

FL

KenV wrote:
The whole sinning, not accepting Jesus, go to Hell deal. That's about on line, eh? I don't think I've ever wikipedia'd Hell, just what I was taught in Church as a kid and what is common knowledge in the Bible Belt of the U.S. I learned from Church, use to be Christian I suppose you can say, until I began to think for myself.

Could you offer some verses and references in which you are coming to these interpretations/conclusions? I believe a more open-minded look at the Bible will shed some light on this issue for you.

And you guys do seem fairly intelligent. I don't personally care for all the philosophical argumentation, I've always been a very logical person and my profession kind of argues this kind of thought process so anything that doesn't have cold hard facts backing it up sounds like nonsense to me. I'm doing my best to understand yours and everyone else's reasoning here but it is much different than what I'm use to.

What should be the basis of our argumentation? How do you determine what is cold hard facts? Is it safe to assume you prefer the basis of argumentation be a naturalistic one? I personally haven't found a sufficient answer for how we gather knowledge and "think about subjects objectively" on our own from a naturalistic point of view. Have you?

Subjective ethics are a problem, but so are ill-concieved and outdated ancient ones. First of all, most of the Nazis didn't give much thought to the good they were doing from a good and evil sense, they had goals and those goals too priority. Being a good person was not on their mind.

Source please. I need cold hard facts.

Same with Stalin, I have a ton of study in Soviet history and Stalin wasn't working for the betterment of man, he was working for the betterment of himself. It wasn't the same moral code or thought process I talk about. I mean even in Christianity there is a ton of stuff that we omit today as if it doesn't exist, but the Bible says to kill homosexuals does it not?

Again, I'm sorry if I have missed something in my readings so far. Do you have a reference in the Bible or a specific passage where you are interpreting in this way?

At least with my own subjective code I seek not to harm others, that seems already better than any moral code and religion offers from step number 1.

Who says that "code" seems better? Ken, (my name is Ken too btw, nice to meet ya ) I think you just made a philosophical exclamation. I have no cold hard facts as to what seems better. Shall we argue on a philosophical basis then?

Atheist and nihilist are not synonymous. Unlike religion, you can't categorize all atheist under one philosophical way of thinking or one moral code, it is subjective and up to the person to make decisions for how he thinks he should live life. I decide what goodness is by how I want others to treat me.

Atheism is not a system. It has no morals jotted down. No one speaks for all Atheist. Not Richard Dawkins, not any website, no one. My case against Stalin is simple, he was a human in a position that allowed him to do many things and his moral code was centered around the greatest happiness for everyone. He didn't mind hurting others, obviously, and cared only for himself instead of others. That is deplorable, but in the grand scheme of things there is no force that says "That is wrong". Just me and others like me to say it, and that's enough.

Ex atheist like I'm atheist or ex atheist like babies are atheist? Anyways, if you were doing wrong and I thought you were I'd just show you that your actions hurt others. That you wouldn't want this done to you if you were on the other end of the spectrum. Now what is wrong and right? That's subjective, but there are basic tenants, like doing onto others, that everyone can acknowledge and follow if they so wish and it is easy to see that you don't need a bogey man to scare you into being a good person.

What if you were an atheist who adopted the moral code of Christianity without accepting Jesus? You did everything else that was Christian accept for actually believing in God. Would that not make you a good person?

So much ad hominem here I just need to on these passages.

Yes, I do, for the most part. I slip up sometimes and act like a jerk, but for the most part I try to stay on the right track and at the end of the day I can safely say no one is being affected negatively by my existence. Can you say the same?

Does it really matter what you "say" to yourself at the end of the day. Or what really IS?

God Bless Ken.

I learned from Church, use to be Christian I suppose you can say, until I began to think for myself.

Whoa, you used to be a Christian? you knew Christ? If you knew Christ, how did you unknow Him? Could it be that you participated in a religious process, and thus thought of yourself as a Christian? But, you never were what the Bible requires for a beleiver. It is prejudicial and arbitrary to say, unitl you began to think for yourself. Christianity is not an imposed ideology regardless of what some narrow minded bible belt church may have imposed on you. The Bible existed long before they did. I live in Tennessee. I rebelled against the church to 'free my mind.' Are you telling me that none of us here think for ourselves? Could your perception of genuine Christianity be badly warped because of your upbringing?

What if you were an atheist who adopted the moral code of Christianity without accepting Jesus? You did everything else that was Christian accept for actually believing in God. Would that not make you a good person

Good according to what?
Jesus didn't come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people live.

I mean even in Christianity there is a ton of stuff that we omit today as if it doesn't exist, but the Bible says to kill homosexuals does it not?

The Bible has many harsh punishments for those within the Theocracy of Israel. Why is it wrong? How do you judge a moral system as bad, good or better?
You can't examine the punishments of Israel Levitical law outside of its context. If you are sincere in knowing why, then there is some great literature.

And your comments on Stalin offer nothing. Why is the 'betterment of man,' inherently better than Stalin's selfish motive. He had plenty of support.

At least with my own subjective code I seek not to harm others, that seems already better than any moral code and religion offers from step number 1.

Prove it? Better? You are smuggling in objective morality to promote subjective. Who cares what things 'seem' like. Maybe to someone else, might is right seems better. Who are you to force your 'better' moral code on anyone. That is plain arrogance. Your code is subjective. That means it is you. Who do you think you are to determine 'better?'

Do you consider yourself a good person?

KenV wrote: I mean even in Christianity there is a ton of stuff that we omit today as if it doesn't exist, but the Bible says to kill homosexuals does it not?

jlay wrote:The Bible has many harsh punishments for those within the Theocracy of Israel. Why is it wrong? How do you judge a moral system as bad, good or better?
You can't examine the punishments of Israel Levitical law outside of its context. If you are sincere in knowing why, then there is some great literature.

Ah I see where he got this now. I gotta go read up on this in its full context.
But I DO know that The Word is living and active. You can't take one passage and ignore the rest of the message your creator has unveiled to you. I used to do this all the time when I was a child. My parent's called it selective listening and childish.

KenV wrote:Excuse me if this is the wrong forum, it is a splinter from my other post about the meta universe and God.

So in the other thread we were talking about my inability to come to a logical conclusion supporting the existence of God. However, in the case that I'm wrong, I wonder why others believe I should be punished for eternity? Some believe the punishment will be simply not knowing God, others think it's a bit more horrific and painful than that. But why?

I was created by God, presumably, to be a very rational, logically driven individual. Should I/Will I be punished for simply not coming to the right conclusion? It has nothing to do with how good of a person I am or how I decide to live my life... but simply that I was too unintelligent/philosophically void to come to the right conclusion. Does that make sense?

Also, if God is all-powerful, surely he is above time, right? If he is above time, he knows everything that will happen, he knows that I will be an atheist and condemned to hell before I even exist. I have had people tell me "He chooses not to know" or "He gives you choices and doesn't know which you'll pick", but I refuse those answers. I refuse them on the basis that there is no way in the world anyone could know that he would make the decision not to know something, if that was even possible, as far as I know it doesn't say anything about this at all in the Bible.

So what are your thoughts on this? Am I condemned to a fiery grave because at the age of 17 I made the wrong move of deciding only to believe what makes the most sense to me, do I share the fate of the average rapist and murderer for my intellectual faults?

KenV,

A true dye in the wool atheist would not be concerned about heaven or ever worry about hell due to the dictates of their-own revelatory wisdom, nor would they be mesmerized by any notion of the afterlife either spent in punishment or bliss as you appear to be. So I’ll ask a few questions based on your own words above…maybe help you? understand???

How important is coming to a right conclusion?

It was a matter of life and death for the Apollo 13 astronauts for Mission Control to come to the right conclusions. If they came to the wrong conclusions, what then?

If there is no God, accountability, afterlife – so what is the big deal if anyone makes the wrong conclusion? Who cares and you answered your own argument concerning punishment. Rather bleak isn’t it?

What makes you so concerned about you facing eternal recompense, when as a dye in the wool atheist, such atheist logically would have no personal concern about such matters – so what is your true motive in asking as you have?

And one last thing - How do you personally define sin, KenV, not how religion defines it but to you, personally - what is sin?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:KenV

How important is coming to a right conclusion?

It was a matter of life and death for the Apollo 13 astronauts for Mission Control to come to the right conclusions. If they came to the wrong conclusions, what then?

If there is no God, accountability, afterlife – so what is the big deal if anyone makes the wrong conclusion? Who cares and you answered your own argument concerning punishment. Rather bleak isn’t it?

What makes you so concerned about you facing eternal recompense, when as a dye in the wool atheist, such atheist logically would have no personal concern about such matters – so what is your true motive in asking as you have?

And one last thing - How do you personally define sin, KenV, not how religion defines it but to you, personally - what is sin?

Great questions, B.W.

Ken wrote,
Anyways, if you were doing wrong and I thought you were I'd just show you that your actions hurt others.

First of all, most of the Nazis didn't give much thought to the good they were doing from a good and evil sense, they had goals and those goals too priority. Being a good person was not on their mind. Same with Stalin, I have a ton of study in Soviet history and Stalin wasn't working for the betterment of man, he was working for the betterment of himself.

Their goals were obviously good to peruse, in their minds and that is why they chose to pursue them in the first place Ken. I had a ton of study on soviet history too and I differ from you. They wanted a godless utopia and for that they murdered millions of people. Don't be naive on purpose.

I didn't think you'd back out so easily.

But what if (like stalin) I do not think it is wrong at all. what if I tell you that getting rid of all these people will create new jobs for our own people who are dying of hunger and unemployment. It is in the line of duty that I am willing to make a perfect society, so that unity could prevail. Prove me wrong. You say (like a good hearted atheist) that I would not want this to be done to me. Well I am pretty confident that I will never be in a position like this, so no, this can never happen to me. And as you so greatly put in one of your posts. The ant and you does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So lets just say that these millions of religious people are the same, ants, its not my fault they come and die under your shoes.

Prove, how I am wrong, without smuggling in objective morality, Ken.

Unlike religion, you can't categorize all atheist under one philosophical way of thinking or one moral code, it is subjective and up to the person to make decisions for how he thinks he should live life. I decide what goodness is by how I want others to treat me.

WOW, those words speak for them selves. That is exactly what I am saying. Someone thought exactly like you, only he was Stalin and your no good excuse of a system could not even condemn it, bcuz of what. You had nothing jotted down. It was an atheist's own decision what his goodness is; and that plus some arrogance, is all that is needed to be the crack head of an atheist regime.

btw...you can't categorise all religion in the same slot either.

Atheism is not a system. It has no morals jotted down. No one speaks for all Atheist.

That is why they do what they want to do. This is your inherent flaw. your good is just your convenience, nothing else. You are not accountable, you're an atheist. You weren't doing good or bad, simply your duty. That is quite lame for an answer, Ken.

My case against Stalin is simple, he was a human in a position that allowed him to do many things and his moral code was centered around the greatest happiness for everyone. He didn't mind hurting others, obviously, and cared only for himself instead of others. That is deplorable, but in the grand scheme of things there is no force that says "That is wrong". Just me and others like me to say it, and that's enough.

That is the idiocity of this belief. Rape, is wrong in any grand scheme of things. Stalin was an atheist human with no morals and no guilt and hell, to top that, no moral system by which he could be even held accountable. That is how absurd and self contradictory your system becomes.

You can't declare a statement and then not accept its implications, ken.


****EDITED MY POST

neo-x wrote:

Ken wrote,
Anyways, if you were doing wrong and I thought you were I'd just show you that your actions hurt others.

I didn't think you'd back out so easily.

But what if (like stalin) I do not think it is wrong at all. what if I tell you that getting rid of all these people will create new jobs for our own people who are dying of hunger and unemployment. It is in the line of duty that I am willing to make a perfect society, so that unity could prevail. Prove me wrong. You say (like a good hearted atheist) that I would not want this to be done to me. Well I am pretty confident that I will never be in a position like this, so no, this can never happen to me. And as you so greatly put in one of your posts. The ant and you does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So lets just say that these millions of religious people are the same, ants, its not my fault they come and die under your shoes.

neo-x wrote:Prove, how I am wrong, without smuggling in objective morality, Ken.

He can't

He can't

He's desperatley trying to, though.

neo-x wrote:

He can't

He's desperatley trying to, though.

Full marks for effort, eh?

DannyM » Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:28 pm

neo-x wrote:
He can't


He's desperatley trying to, though.


Full marks for effort, eh?

we're generous

It baffles me when someone says "I decide what goodness is"

neo-x wrote:It baffles me when someone says "I decide what goodness is"

Yep, there's that standard ...

DannyM on Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:37 pm

neo-x wrote:
It baffles me when someone says "I decide what goodness is"

Yep, there's that standard ...

It's like, I decide who my father is.... .....