Debate: Good vs. Evil!!!!!

[benny314bob]

The title was just for fun, but I am sure that because I am an atheist some pious Christians will label this challenge as such. Any ways, to the point:

1. What arguments do you think justify your belief in the Biblical God?

2. Why do you think the Bible is the best, or at least a good, source of morality?

Thank you for your time

 

[Solidlyhere]

A title which doesn't state the topic is mis-leading (but you call it Fun).

"2. Why do you think the Bible is the best, or at least a good, source of morality?"

I would ask you: What book do YOU consider a good source of morality?

I am a Christian.
I don't know if I consider the Bible as a source of my morality.
I look at it as a source of Faith.
Faith helps me look at Life as a Game. If I play it well, I get a good Afterlife.


"1. What arguments do you think justify your belief in the Biblical God?"

I don't have any arguments; I just have Faith in the existence of God.
It's not about right-or-wrong; it is just what I feel in my heart.

I feel God living in my heart sometimes.
Who knows? Maybe it isn't God living in my heart.
But, I will clarify it soon after I die.

 

[elman]

1. What arguments do you think justify your belief in the Biblical God?

It seems more reasonable to me that I have been created rather than accidently the product of chemicals bumping together.

2. Why do you think the Bible is the best, or at least a good, source of morality?

The Bible confirms the knowledge we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others. This atitude does not seem to be the reasonable result of survival of the fittist and indicates to me that we are born with a spark that makes us different from the other animals and is a clue as to the reason we exist.

 

[The Nihilist]

The Bible confirms the knowledge we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others. This atitude does not seem to be the reasonable result of survival of the fittist and indicates to me that we are born with a spark that makes us different from the other animals and is a clue as to the reason we exist.

See the trick that Elman has pulled here? He has labelled those who disagree with him as morally and mentally defective. Also, his arguments are unsubstantiated, and he misspelled attitude and fittest.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
The Bible confirms the knowledge we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others. This atitude does not seem to be the reasonable result of survival of the fittist and indicates to me that we are born with a spark that makes us different from the other animals and is a clue as to the reason we exist.

See the trick that Elman has pulled here? He has labelled those who disagree with him as morally and mentally defective. Also, his arguments are unsubstantiated, and he misspelled attitude and fittest.

See the trick in this response. It did not respond to what I said except to correct the spelling.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Happy early birthday!

 

[garida]

1. What arguments do you think justify your belief in the Biblical God?

A. When I was religious my beliefs were founded on the philosophical concept of a Governing Force in the Universe. In particular the fact that the chemical processes to create the initial lifeforms have never been duplicated was important, although I'm not sure what difference that means to me now.

2. Why do you think the Bible is the best, or at least a good, source of morality?

A. I actually think the Bible is potentially a very bad source of morality. Because it was written over hundreds of years by nearly as many people, you can find a passage to justify almost any action. Theoretically, I would probably have to take words spoken directly by God or Jesus as a core part of my belief, words written by prophets or apostles with a grain of salt, and the Book of Leviticus would be thrown out altogether, and it probably wouldn't be the only one.

 

[benny314bob]

I am quite surprised...some truly thought-provoking answers.

SolidlyHere--You seem to be a doubting Thomas in the closet.

You say, "I don't know if I consider the Bible as a source of my morality.I look at it as a source of Faith.
Faith helps me look at Life as a Game. If I play it well, I get a good Afterlife".

Quite poetic indeed, but it seems the Bible does in fact mandate that you follow its moral guidelines in order to, as you put it, win the game.

Second, you stated that you were uncertain if God was in your heart. I'm assuming by God in your heart you mean the "Holy Spirit". The Bible is quite clear that doubting the Holy spirit is the only unforgiveable sin. (See Luke 12:10)
I am Glad, of course, that you do not interpret the Bible literally, but the problem with your viewpoint is that it is both logically and theologically consistent.

Elman--The creation argument in all of it's varying forms is invariably weak. First, you say that it is more reasonable--and therefore, more simplistic--to believe that you were created. According to this light, all things in existence must have a creator. But, using your logic, the creator must have a creator, and that creator also must have creator, etc. The creation argument extends itself ad infitum, and therefore makes the problem infinitely more complex; it is scarcely a solution. If you argue that the creator has always existed, then why can't the chemical processes that bring about life have always existed? Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of unintelligent design: still born children, children with deformities, mental retardation etc. Was God just simply drunk at the wheel when he created these poor souls? Third, even if the creation argument were true it would not indicate that the Bible (or for that matter any other religous text or creed) is true; all it would indicate is that there is a creator. Zeus, Allah, Aliens, etc. could all be the creator.

I very much agree with your assesment of Human nature: "we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others." However, I do not agree that the Bible confirms that assesment in anyway. First, The doctrine of original sin states that we are all born evil sinners and that we can only be moral by following the ethics prescribed in the Bible. Second, the Bible does not define morality in terms of human suffering as you or I do. According to the Bible all people of other religions should be killed, rape victims should be killed, anyone who violates the 10 commandements should be killed, slavery is perfectly o.k. as long as you don't injure your slaves teeth and eyes when you decide to beat them, etc.

 

[benny314bob]

Solidlyhere-- I forgot to answer your first question "what do you think is a good source of morality"

I think morality can only be defined temporally--that is, it must be based in terms of actual human or animal suffering. Think about it: there is a reason why we do not have moral obligations to rocks, and why we have a greater moral responsibility to humans than to trees. That is because humans and animals have the capacity to feel pain and experience happiness. What constitutes happiness and pain is, to be sure, debatable. Short term pain can lead to long term happiness, and long term pain can be caused by short term happiness. Kant and Mill deal with this problem in different ways. As for myself, I believe the solution is a little of both Kant and Mill.

 

[Solidlyhere]

Well, bennybob, you are a newbie.
I guess you haven't read many of my Posts yet.

This Thread is more technical than asking about belief.

You say: "it seems the Bible does in fact mandate that you follow its moral guidelines in order to, as you put it, win the game."
Would you point out the Scripture that states that?

"The Bible is quite clear that doubting the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin. (See Luke 12:10)"
I have read this Verse several times over the years, and DOUBTING the Holy Spirit is not a sin. In fact, nearly every Christian has doubts at least once in his Life.
Please try to make your Bible-based criticisms make sense.
And, I was not speaking about the Holy Spirit anyway, I was referring to Jesus Christ.

Then you told me: "the problem with your viewpoint is that it is both logically and theologically consistent."
Isn't this a good thing?

"I think morality can only be defined temporally--that is, it must be based in terms of actual human or animal suffering."
I totally disagree with this.
I think: Most of morality has little to do with other people, it is inside of my mind (and my conscience).
You can believe whatever you want, though.

And, I consider this a slur on me: "SolidlyHere--You seem to be a doubting Thomas in the closet."
So, welcome to the Forum.

 

[quatona]

See the trick in this response. It did not respond to what I said except to correct the spelling.

While I agree that picking upon spelling mistakes doesn´t help furthering a discussion, I think that your frustration with this part made you miss the actual argument the poster made. I myself have criticized your "argument from insanity" several times:

 

[elman]

While I agree that picking upon spelling mistakes doesn´t help furthering a discussion, I think that your frustration with this part made you miss the actual argument the poster made. I myself have criticized your "argument from insanity" several times:

OK I will try to address the point of the poster: "See the trick that Elman has pulled here? He has labelled those who disagree with him as morally and mentally defective. Also, his arguments are unsubstantiated, and he misspelled attitude and fittest."
I was saying that people who believe it is good to hurt others are mentally defective. That is not the same thing as saying all who disagree with me on anything are mentally defective. It is saying perhaps that since most of humanity agrees with me that hurting others is bad and loving others is good, it is normal for us, that is humanity as a group, to see those who think torturing people for the fun of it, is a good thing to do, and most of us see that kind of thought pattern as being abnormal. The posters statment is not a legimate discussion point, by the way, in response to what I said.
"The Bible confirms the knowledge we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others. This atitude does not seem to be the reasonable result of survival of the fittist and indicates to me that we are born with a spark that makes us different from the other animals and is a clue as to the reason we exist. "

 

[quatona]

I was saying that people who believe it is good to hurt others are mentally defective.

A lot of people who are far from being considered mentally defective believe that it is good to hurt others (for some perceived greater good). Wars are such a form of organized mutual hurting, and everybody feels completely justified and good in pursuing their goals by hurting others that way.

That is not the same thing as saying all who disagree with me on anything are mentally defective.

I guess that´s exactly why the poster didn´t say "on anything".

 

[elman]

=quatona;35781385]A lot of people who are far from being considered mentally defective believe that it is good to hurt others (for some perceived greater good). Wars are such a form of organized mutual hurting, and everybody feels completely justified and good in pursuing their goals by hurting others that way.

Yes and a surgeon hurts you to heal you and that is not someone who hurts for the enjoyment of it and not what I was talking about. I did not say for some perceived greatere good.

 

[quatona]

Yes and a surgeon hurts you to heal you and that is not someone who hurts for the enjoyment of it and not what I was talking about.

What you said was:
"The Bible confirms the knowledge we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others." (emphasis added)
There was no qualification to "hurting" and no mentioning of enjoyment.

I did not say for some perceived greatere good.

Not explicitly, but if you make qualification to your initial general claim "hurting others is bad" (e.g. a surgeon hurts, but only to heal you) you are implicitly applying this concept.

 

[elman]

What you said was:
"The Bible confirms the knowledge we are all born with unless we are morrally or mentally defective, that good is loving others and bad is hurting others." (emphasis added)
There was no qualification to "hurting" and no mentioning of enjoyment.


Not explicitly, but if you make qualification to your initial general claim "hurting others is bad" (e.g. a surgeon hurts, but only to heal you) you are implicitly applying this concept.

OK the statment was too broad.

 

[quatona]

OK the statment was too broad.

Happy belated birthday, elman!
Those fancy balloons in your posts make you look at least 50 years younger than you are.