Red Bull ad offends christians!

[Indeed]

I feel like there's a very fundamental level of fail with the idea that morality must come from religion. The concept of law has been around since the beginning of people, and morality is subjective and malleable. The new testament contains rules that should be applied to slavery, which is something that we consider immoral today. Unless you believe in slavery as an acceptable practice, as Jesus did, then you do not accept the bible as a flawless code of morality.

[Blarg]

is morality whatever god decides it is or is it outside of himself and therefore doesn't have anything to do with him

[Moosey]

Your argument is that conditions enabling consciousness (What you really seem to mean by 'life') are proof of a god. Furthermore, you contend that these conditions are necessarily (In the modal sense) the work of "fine tuning." The contrapositive of the former is "If there is no god, then the conditions enabling consciousness do not exist." This is typically effective in an argument because any denial of the antecedent renders the proposition true. Rendering the antecedent means we could not have this conversation. However, it is easily applicable to any other antecedent. That is, we may attach any other antecedent, for example, that no god exists, and have an argument just as effective.

That they are they result of fine tuning is going to pose problems for you as well. The problem that arises here is intention. How can you derive intention out of the product? Causality does not prove intention. Features (What you used) do not prove intention. The best we can do to derive intentionality from a product is to examine events that gave rise to the product. Yet, we cannot do so because the religious context places the event outside of empirical analysis. That it, it is not a idea we can come to know a posteriori. Consequently, if we do come to know of this, it is a priori. So unless we take 'god' to be a definite description that picks out whatever created the world, opening up the possibility of other gods or natural events to take that title, you have no argument.

Well, I did not mean consciousness, but simply life itself. My argument was, that we are in such a place in the Universe, galaxy, solar system, with the right types of planet/sun/general environment for life to not only be created, but to thrive, and have relative safety. The Earth is unique in this, to out knowledge. We have come across a few other instances in the cosmos where the conditions are somewhat similar, but they never can match what we know to be the "recipe for life". Now, out of this one can assume that intelligent life might eventually emerge, but that's not my argument.

You're using absolutes to an argument in which I asked for only plausibility. I mentioned that it is very plausible, given these facts, that an eternal Creator could be responsible for such conditions. You are correct, though, in saying that these things alone do not show any intention. Again though, all I was getting at was the plausibility for the evidence to point to an eternal Creator, and that such a Creator did do these things, but that argument was not made with intent in mind, and I don't think those evidences on their own provide any sort of intent.

I don't think you realize that I made you pose the counterargument to your own argument.

See what I mean? It's arbitrary that you assign the "true" beginning to 'god' as opposed to the universe unless, as I mentioned earlier, the term is just a definite description.

I don't think you made me do anything like that, but I apparently did not explain my meaning in the most coherent way. The "eternal cause" is not "in" existence, even though it exists. Something that causes something else to be must itself be outside of that thing. The Universe cannot in and of itself be the cause of its own existence. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there is a cause outside of the Universe, which created the Universe, that we call "God".

I've been told that is an incorrect phrasing of Darwinism.

What is the correct phrasing of Darwinism then?

Still, the answer is "yes", there is no problem with that if that's all that biology allowed us to morally accept.

But we know this to be untrue. We inherently know that something like that which I described is wrong. If that kind of Darwinism is true, then things like Love and Hate, and everything inbetween lose their meaning.

[hey]

Oh, and as far as evolution goes, Darwinism, and evolution in general absolutely do not support moral standards. Are you forgetting survival of the fittest? Isn't that one of the main tenets of evolutionism? Based on that, then there is really no problem with a person going up to you, shanking you in the back, and stealing your wallet so he can use your money to sustain his life. He's just doing his best to survive to pass on his genes.

You are retarded, and here's why: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l052.html

Morality IS the fittest.

[Moosey]

I feel like there's a very fundamental level of fail with the idea that morality must come from religion. The concept of law has been around since the beginning of people, and morality is subjective and malleable. The new testament contains rules that should be applied to slavery, which is something that we consider immoral today. Unless you believe in slavery as an acceptable practice, as Jesus did, then you do not accept the bible as a flawless code of morality.

I'm not trying to argue that morality comes from religion, but from God, which is above religion.

It is easy to get the two confused for the same thing, but Law and Morality are not the same. Law is not morality, law is a ruleset by which a society decides what is "moral". Morality is what a human, outside of political ideas and society, knows to be right.


In reference to slavery, you misunderstand what the Bible is talking about. I suggest rereading the New Testament and/or some commentary on it, because it absolutely does not condone slavery, and Jesus does not condone slavery. Just because the Bible describes something, does not mean it is in support of it.

That aside, slavery in that time was more akin to having a job in the present-day. It was generally not a forceful kidnapping and mistreatment of a person or people where you would also make them labor without compensation. There are exceptions, of course, but not in the case you are mentioning. Slavery during this time was much more of an indentured servitude. Slaves were compensated for their work, fed, housed, were often considered members of the household, and generally after a time, they would be released. Many people willingly put themselves into these situations because it was the best way for them to gain a foothold in society, otherwise they would just become beggars. Through their servitude, they were likely learning a trade, earning money, and a good rapport with the local community.

The New Testament verses on "slavery" talk about NOT mistreating those working for you, and to respect them, and for the "slaves" to respect their masters in return. It calls for a mutual respect and kindness.

[Marootsoobutsu]

is morality whatever god decides it is or is it outside of himself and therefore doesn't have anything to do with him

This is an excellent question. C. S. Lewis addresses it somewhat in Mere Christianity, but the short answer is that understanding morality means understanding God. God does not decide morality, but it is not something outside of Himself-- it is an aspect of His nature, and Himself. Morality is what it is not because God has decreed it, but because God is it.

[Yugl]

Well, I did not mean consciousness, but simply life itself. My argument was, that we are in such a place in the Universe, galaxy, solar system, with the right types of planet/sun/general environment for life to not only be created, but to thrive, and have relative safety. The Earth is unique in this, to out knowledge. We have come across a few other instances in the cosmos where the conditions are somewhat similar, but they never can match what we know to be the "recipe for life". Now, out of this one can assume that intelligent life might eventually emerge, but that's not my argument.

Yes, but your concept of that term boils down to consciousness. That is the condition you find the current universe to sustain. Even if I accept your new terms, the argument stands. Missing from your argument is why that is more significant than any other aspects. How is sustainability of creatures any more important than features of other planets? I could easily pick X attribute of another planet and ask why this planet was not graced with X attribute as well.

You're using absolutes to an argument in which I asked for only plausibility. I mentioned that it is very plausible, given these facts, that an eternal Creator could be responsible for such conditions. You are correct, though, in saying that these things alone do not show any intention. Again though, all I was getting at was the plausibility for the evidence to point to an eternal Creator, and that such a Creator did do these things, but that argument was not made with intent in mind, and I don't think those evidences on their own provide any sort of intent.

Your original statement was stronger than plausibility. It was that he revealed himself. Not that the transactions of the world make his existence possible. It was to express a necessary truth (In the modal sense).

I don't think you made me do anything like that, but I apparently did not explain my meaning in the most coherent way. The "eternal cause" is not "in" existence, even though it exists. Something that causes something else to be must itself be outside of that thing. The Universe cannot in and of itself be the cause of its own existence. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there is a cause outside of the Universe, which created the Universe, that we call "God".

If you commit suicide, you cause your own demise. That argument will not stand. Even if we accept the argument, you lend yourself to the argument that some god created your god.

What is the correct phrasing of Darwinism then?

Ask someone in biology; they can give you the accurate view.

But we know this to be untrue. We inherently know that something like that which I described is wrong. If that kind of Darwinism is true, then things like Love and Hate, and everything inbetween lose their meaning.

Nope, I don't. Therefore, quite possible to be true. Also, you don't need morals to describe attributes in line with those terms.

[Jefe]

(...) That argument will not stand. Even if we accept the argument, you lend yourself to the argument that some god created your god.

If something else created a "god" then it was not really a "god" to being w/, right?

Also, last couple of pages: sementricks galore.

[Yugl]

If something else created a "god" then it was not really a "god" to being w/ it, right?

Other religions have multiples. I don't see why not? At any rate, the problem you bring up is resolvable by specifying the type. For example, using the adjective 'christian' in supplement.

[Blarg]

This is an excellent question. C. S. Lewis addresses it somewhat in Mere Christianity, but the short answer is that understanding morality means understanding God. God does not decide morality, but it is not something outside of Himself-- it is an aspect of His nature, and Himself. Morality is what it is not because God has decreed it, but because God is it.

Is that idea explicitly stated in the bible?

If god is morality then has everything he has done been absolute goodness/moral?

[Jefe]

Other religions have multiples. I don't see why not? At any rate, the problem you bring up is resolvable by specifying the type. For example, using the adjective 'christian' in supplement.

I didn't know we were talking about Greek, Norse, or Egyptian etc. mythology, are we?

[Yugl]

I didn't know we were talking about Greek, Norse, or Egyptian etc. mythology, are we?

You don't have to for that counter to work. The counterexample shows that creation of one does not negate its existence as one.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Is that idea explicitly stated in the bible?

If god is morality then has everything he has done been absolute goodness/moral?

In the exact words I used? No. But there are a wide variety of places in the Bible that either imply it or, taken together, add up to the same thing. "God is love" is a good starting point; the Gospels note that the two greatest commandments are "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27, referencing Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18). Other places give details on what Love is, "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (John 15:13). I Corinthians 13 is known as the love chapter, and is quite evocative.

We also have, "Be holy for [sometimes because] I am holy," (I Peter 1:16, Lev. 11:44,45; 19:2) and though this would literally be "Be set aside for a sacred purpose..." the implication is morally perfect. We have, again, a statement of God's nature-- we are to be holy because we are to be like God, and He is holy.

So, what we have, are commands to be like God, we have descriptors of what God's nature is, and we do have a few verses that imply an absoluteness ("God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2) ) to a morality that binds God. Again, while God's power would not change if He violated that stricture-- He can do anything He wants, His nature would fundamentally shift in so doing. If Jesus did not have the power to sin, He could not have been tempted; He was tempted, so it was within His power to sin... it was just also uniquely within His power (perhaps Adam's, as well), not to sin.


The issue is hardly unanimous within the Church today, and most people (at least among those that I have spoken with), find the dilemma either a false one-- that is, just because it creates a circle of reasoning doesn't mean that it can't be true, but that logic is limited in its capacity to explain things-- or one which does not matter: God has said, do this and whether He said it because it is good, or whether it is good because He said it is irrelevant. To that view, all that matters is God said it, and He is worthy of being obeyed (Revelation 4:11).

[Blarg]

So, what we have, are commands to be like God, we have descriptors of what God's nature is, and we do have a few verses that imply an absoluteness ("God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2) ) to a morality that binds God. Again, while God's power would not change if He violated that stricture-- He can do anything He wants, His nature would fundamentally shift in so doing. If Jesus did not have the power to sin, He could not have been tempted; He was tempted, so it was within His power to sin... it was just also uniquely within His power (perhaps Adam's, as well), not to sin.

I'm not sure I understand. He can do anything, sure, but what about the things that he actually did do in the bible. The things that seem quite clearly to not be morally good. Are/were those things morally good. Since he can do anything then he surely would have had another way/better way to do many of those things but he chose to do/say many things that are not good on purpose.

[ronin sparthos]

Show me a person who has done absolutely nothing in their life but act in compassion, charity, activism, love, without every having done anything wrong, and that is a person who will be admitted to Heaven.
One like that existed, his name was Jesus of Nazareth. He was the only such one who has ever existed, and will exist.

Your only example of a completely moral person is Jesus who wasn't even human according to scripture and more importantly you also completely missed my point.

In the Heaven or Hell system what you do on Earth is completely irrelevant so long as you put faith in Jesus and pledge eternal servitude with little to no evidence to back anything up. A murdering psychopath will see heaven over a charitable or tolerant individual solely on the basis of religious faith - the belief in that which cannot be proven.

It is likely that the second person you mentioned would not keep on living such an immoral life after he has accepted Jesus, because out of love and respect for God, and through God's power, he loses the desire to commit such acts.

Is that why the US prisons are packed to the brim with prisoners who profess to be Christians? So long as they continue to profess their faith these individuals are destined for eternal rewards for unleashing unspeakable horrors upon their fellow men whilst those who actually did live charitable and respectful lives will damned simply for not believing the correct faith.

The Bible teaches us that we are all inherently flawed, we all know this, many of us accept that we are not perfect beings, that no matter how hard we try, we can never do *everything* quite right, and often get a lot of things wrong. This is why Jesus came to live as a human, and died for us. God loves us SO much, he doesn't want to be apart from us, but since he is Holy and Good, his very nature is incompatible from being in a relationship with our sinful nature, so he sent his only Son to live the life we should have lived, and died the death we deserve, but since he is God, he can overcome that death sentence. Jesus acts as a go-between from us to the Father. If we believe in his sacrifice and redemptive work, and put our trust in him, he will vouch for us when we go to be judged after all is said and done, and our death sentence is pardoned.

So basically like I said you can be an absolute terrible piece of work on Earth, believe in Jesus and you're basically free of any responsibility once you shuffle off this mortal coil. It was the sin afterall, not the 'true' spirit of the person lurking beneath.

It's a huge loophole in the system and it's been discussed by theologians for centuries but like anything biblical there is no consensus.

That being said, I challenge you to look at the amount of pain and suffering that Christianity, or even religion in general has caused, compared to the pain and suffering Athiestic worldviews and agendas have caused to the world. Religion has had far less of an impact in that regard. Prime example: Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. One of the goals of that horror was to eradicate religion, Jews specifically.

You're kidding right?

If you bothered to study history, the reason the Jews were so loathed by the people of Europe boiled down to Christian doctrine set forth by the Catholic Church which for centuries drilled into the populace that Jews were believers in the old covenant with God, refused Jesus (because he wasn't the messiah) and thus were less than dirt for their open profanity against your belief system.

Large parts of the Spanish Inquisition hinged on doing nothing more than burning Jews for being Jews, torturing Jewish converts based on their clinging to old beliefs and customs, the ever-present idea of forcing people to Christianity by testing faith which drove up fanaticism and led to unspeakable horrors across the European and later American continents. This was all backed up by portions of the Bible coupled with political gameplay and natural fear of unknown innate in most humans.

You also jumped straight to Hitler when Hitler himself was a Christian who believed he was doing the Lord's work by cleansing the world of those who led to Jesus' downfall - the Jews.

tl;dr - Jewish intolerance (leading to that genocide) was bought and paid for by Christian intolerance and backed up by Biblical doctrine.

Joseph Stalin was the atheist I assume you were looking for but really are you going to just ignore the Crusades, the forced conversions of Europeans in Eastern Europe, the mass burnings, witch-hunts, destruction of native cultures and subsequent rape of the New World that occurred in part because of Christian teachings? I guess so.

Like I said before: The reason the world has as many Christians as it does and why we're even here talking about this subject is because Christianity cut a bloody path throughout history to spread it's beliefs and destroyed those who disagreed through financial, social or mortal destruction. I wouldn't say that every convert was forced to believe under pain of death but many of the individuals who profess their faith did not arrive at it through divine inspiration but are merely the descendants of those who had their native beliefs eradicated and/or replaced by Christian doctrine.

[Kaylia]

That being said, I challenge you to look at the amount of pain and suffering that Christianity, or even religion in general has caused, compared to the pain and suffering Athiestic worldviews and agendas have caused to the world. Religion has had far less of an impact in that regard. Prime example: Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. One of the goals of that horror was to eradicate religion, Jews specifically.

That is the most ignorant question I have seen on this board.

First of all. How the fuck do you even quantify this? How do you differentiate the religious component from the greed? How can you say something similar wouldn't have happened without religion.

Secondly, considering how well the Occident did over the last millenium, Christianity influence couldn't have been that bad. Most schools, and hospital were operated by them for a long time, and this is part of the reason why we were able to get ahead..

[Marootsoobutsu]

I'm not sure I understand. He can do anything, sure, but what about the things that he actually did do in the bible. The things that seem quite clearly to not be morally good. Are/were those things morally good. Since he can do anything then he surely would have had another way/better way to do many of those things but he chose to do/say many things that are not good on purpose.

In the first place, you have to consider "quite clearly to not be morally good." By whose morals, or by what understanding of morality? And from what perspective? I know that the analogy is old and tired, but the parent giving their kid a shot, or a doctor performing surgery (particularly pre-anasthesia), seems to be inflicting harm, but is in fact doing what is best for the person concerned. It is a degree of "knowing what is best for you", that you cannot understand because of either limited knowledge or perspective. Yes, it is circular, yes, it is first faith based.

Personally, I have no difficulty with the perspective. Anecdotally, it's hit my life. I went through rape/molestation as a boy. Shit sucks, left me essentially suicidal and severely messed up for a long time. However, who I am now is a product of that, and the circumstances that have led to where I am now, with a wife I love dearly and my children, my faith, and pretty much the rest of my life doesn't happen without essentially the worst thing that I have ever endured, and worse than I think anyone ever *should* (though I readily acknowledge that many people have endured worse). Is it possible that a different chain of events might have led me here? Possibly.

Expanded, a perspective of eternity gives God license that is not afforded humans. The Inquisition was awful, and unconscionable, both because it was laced quite blatantly with ungodly aims and means, but also because it was assuming the mantle of God's perspective when in fact no such perspective is allotted humans. God is privy to the "What ifs?" and any suffering *now* doesn't matter compared to eternity-- either eternal bliss, eternal suffering, or potentially some form of purgatory prior to eternal bliss. In short, judging God based on our moral standards doesn't work, not because God doesn't uphold those standards, but because we lack the perspective to understand whether He does, or doesn't, in fact uphold them.

I grant, readily, that such a perspective is faith justifying the issue. It is accepting that God is good, that He does not do anything that is not good, and that if something He has done appears not good, it is our faulty understanding. I also have faith that eventually I *will* have that understanding, and that my lack of knowing the hows and wherefors now is temporary. It is, perhaps, not a strong evangelically satisfying explanation, and perhaps to a degree begs the question. It definitely bears a strong degree of "the ends justify the means". The difference between God and man, though, is that man can, at best, guess as to whether the ends will accomplish the desired means, and can, at best, guess as to the best means by which to accomplish the best ends. God knows not only the best ends, but the best (perhaps only) means by which to accomplish those ends, and moreover knows that those means will accomplish the ends desired. None of that is a luxury humanity has.

[Churchill]

Guys I heard that all those religions and societies without Jesus and his murderous father had no laws or morals at all.

[Blarg]

In the first place, you have to consider "quite clearly to not be morally good." By whose morals, or by what understanding of morality? And from what perspective? I know that the analogy is old and tired, but the parent giving their kid a shot, or a doctor performing surgery (particularly pre-anasthesia), seems to be inflicting harm, but is in fact doing what is best for the person concerned. It is a degree of "knowing what is best for you", that you cannot understand because of either limited knowledge or perspective. Yes, it is circular, yes, it is first faith based.

Personally, I have no difficulty with the perspective. Anecdotally, it's hit my life. I went through rape/molestation as a boy. Shit sucks, left me essentially suicidal and severely messed up for a long time. However, who I am now is a product of that, and the circumstances that have led to where I am now, with a wife I love dearly and my children, my faith, and pretty much the rest of my life doesn't happen without essentially the worst thing that I have ever endured, and worse than I think anyone ever *should* (though I readily acknowledge that many people have endured worse). Is it possible that a different chain of events might have led me here? Possibly.

Expanded, a perspective of eternity gives God license that is not afforded humans. The Inquisition was awful, and unconscionable, both because it was laced quite blatantly with ungodly aims and means, but also because it was assuming the mantle of God's perspective when in fact no such perspective is allotted humans. God is privy to the "What ifs?" and any suffering *now* doesn't matter compared to eternity-- either eternal bliss, eternal suffering, or potentially some form of purgatory prior to eternal bliss. In short, judging God based on our moral standards doesn't work, not because God doesn't uphold those standards, but because we lack the perspective to understand whether He does, or doesn't, in fact uphold them.

I grant, readily, that such a perspective is faith justifying the issue. It is accepting that God is good, that He does not do anything that is not good, and that if something He has done appears not good, it is our faulty understanding. I also have faith that eventually I *will* have that understanding, and that my lack of knowing the hows and wherefors now is temporary. It is, perhaps, not a strong evangelically satisfying explanation, and perhaps to a degree begs the question. It definitely bears a strong degree of "the ends justify the means". The difference between God and man, though, is that man can, at best, guess as to whether the ends will accomplish the desired means, and can, at best, guess as to the best means by which to accomplish the best ends. God knows not only the best ends, but the best (perhaps only) means by which to accomplish those ends, and moreover knows that those means will accomplish the ends desired. None of that is a luxury humanity has.

So do you believe in a god that can and does intercede in human affairs? Some christians say that god doesn't interfere (free will and all) which explains why those bad things happened but it seems like you don't have that view.

Do you think the inquisition would have been more moral an occurrence (considering what resulted that it was overall good to get the world to some better state) if even 1 less person was tortured during it? Was the number of people tortured and killed the Goldilocks zone of best number of people tortured and killed, 1 more or 1 less killing would have been less moral than what happened?


You also mention suffering being effectively nil compared to eternal suffering so.. my question is if you believe in hell, and who goes there and for what reasons.

[Churchill]

That is the most ignorant question I have seen on this board.

First of all. How the fuck do you even quantify this? How do you differentiate the religious component from the greed? How can you say something similar wouldn't have happened without religion.

Secondly, considering how well the Occident did over the last millenium, Christianity influence couldn't have been that bad. Most schools, and hospital were operated by them for a long time, and this is part of the reason why we were able to get ahead..

Well.

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying, it reads as though he is claiming that Atheists and their doctrines have caused more suffering than religion, whereas your response says that religion is good and whatnot.

But to make your argument to him relevant, I'll will go ahead and say religion is a terrible blight to this earth and has caused more suffering and death in its name than anything else.

You can claim it to be "greed" or "hate" but these are the things religion itself breeds.

A hospitable and a food bank here and there doesn't change the fact that it is designed to control the weak, turn man against his fellow man, and line the pockets of those pulling the strings.

As it is, it has always been.