Question time!

[mandyangel]

why do atheists want to change people so bad?

 

[Taleswapper]

It is God's Word that identifies the marks of a genuine Christian, not the Pope or the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. So, when I refer to "Christians," I am not referring only to those within my denomination, or even within evangelical Christianity, but to those who meet the biblical criteria for being a follower of Christ.

I guess that's fair. I've sort of learned to avoid saying "Christians do _____" in that sense because generalizing to that extent always gets on someone's nerves. But, I have to agree that the Pope and other religious leaders have/should have no bearing on whether someone is a true Christian. We tried that in the Dark Ages and it sucked.

I don't think I would want to embrace the emptiness, futility, and meaninglessness of the existence that follows logically from atheism. I would do as all the atheists I know do, and insulate myself from the utter futility of living that atheism entails with comfortable, subjective illusions of meaning - in my case one that includes God

I don't think my existence is futile or empty. I'm very happy knowing what I do. For me, a godless Universe still provides all the wonderment and fulfillment I could want. As I said before in this thread, I came to be at peace with this when I was still young.
All the atheists you know insulate themselves from living what atheism entails? What lifestyle does atheism entail?

As far as I'm aware, except for the right to marry, all the fundamental human rights I'm accorded in Canada are also accorded to any and all homosexuals. The right to marry is not extended to polygamists, or pedophiles who want to marry children, or people who want to marry their sibling or parent. Why should it be extended to homosexuals then? Since homosexuality is not congenital, homosexuals have no more grounds upon which to apply for the right to marry than any of these other aberrant examples.

You're right (aside from pedophiles marrying children, which is the only one among the examples you cited that actually necessarily causes harm). If homosexual marriage is legalized, then it's possible that polygamous and incestuous marriages should be legalized as well unless they cause some significant amount of harm that I'm not aware of.
But the question at hand is, what legitimate reason is there to outlaw same-sex marriage? At least with polygamous marriage, there's a gender inequality issue (although nobody's been prosecuted for it since about 70 years ago), and with incestuous marriage, there's a health concern for the children that may be produced.
Also I don't quite get what you're saying with "homosexuality is not congenital." Are you implying homosexuals choose their sexual orientation?

This can be turned around, can't it? Why should I be forced to adhere to a moral code that is not Judeo-Christian and may, in fact, run quite contrary to what I hold to be moral? If it's not fair to force my biblical ethics and morality on others, isn't it unfair to have unbiblical ethics and morality forced upon me?

The moral code we've prescribed in this country is devised by officials who represent as many of the citizens as possible. As such, the laws serve to uphold the safety and comfort of everyone in this country, not just one particular set. The government can't legislate that you change your moral views, but it can legislate that you be punished if do harm unto others.
To turn it around yet again, I'm sure you would find it incredibly unfair if the Canadian government adopted Islamic Shariah law.
Fundamentally, the problem isn't Shariah law itself, it's with how it was adopted. The people don't have a say in how it is implemented, whereas the people do have a say in what laws are enforced in Canada.
So to answer your question, Judeo-Christian law and secular, Canadian law are not interchangeable because only one is actually written and enforced by people who, for the most part, agree with it and have the power to change it if they don't.

Our desire for the existence & possibility of God is proof in & of itself.

What do you mean? Couldn't I desire the existence and possibility of something completely different instead?

You're agnostic?

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists, so I don't think He does.

why do atheists want to change people so bad?

Edit: I don't really have a huge beef with non-atheists, so I don't think this question applies to me. But I think you're talking about how American atheists seem to usually be activists for change, so I'll answer from that context. If I'm wrong, let me know so I can answer the question you wanted to ask.
From what I understand, the main issue facing atheists in America is the enormous amount of persecution they get from religious folk and the fact that Christianity has a real possibility of affecting the legislature, at which point obviously atheist and non-Christian citizens will lose out. You've got a lot of politicians who want to teach creationism in schools, and who believe God is telling them to run for President, to enact certain policies, etc. There are more than a lot of people saying that the US was based on Christian values, that the founders were all Christian... There was a huge controversy not even a year ago when the Texas school board made these radical changes to history books that sideline Thomas Jefferson, make weird vocabulary changes like "capitalism" to "free-enterprise" because it has a less negative connotation, and put a huge amount of bias in favor of Christian influence. AFAIK, they had almost no justification for doing so, and knew so, but did it anyway.
I'm not an American, so this is not a problem facing me personally. I get the impression it's a completely different story for atheists in America.
I don't mind anyone's beliefs so long as they aren't trying to infringe on my own rights. I understand that if I were American, I would have to deal with being discriminated against as part of my life.

 

[GA777]

I meant that's the current view from many modern Christians of what the Bible teaches.

I guess I can understand that. Purgatory was never really explained to me as well as it was probably explained to you, though. I had no idea it had anything to do with whether you'd confessed your sins. I actually read the Bible with Purgatory in mind because I wanted to know more about it, since I thought that was the place I would most certainly go after death. I couldn't find anything, so that just bothered me more. (Also I was pretty sure I'd skipped over it in among all the "begats"...)

Yes, but there are too many views about the teaching of the bible nowadays although they are clearly proved as false in the bible. Many think they know when the world will end for example basing their interpretation on a certain paragraph in the bible without checking other verses confirming that no one knows the end. (This is 1 out of many examples)

I don't think it is mentioned anywhere in the bible. But it is highly possible that it can be interpreted from the bible. And it's existence is mentioned in trusted apparitions according to many saints. And don't believe everything explained to you if it doesn't agree with the bible. And I can give you some information about Purgatory as explained by very important saints who were closely connected to God if you want.

 

[aiki]

I don't think my existence is futile or empty. I'm very happy knowing what I do. For me, a godless Universe still provides all the wonderment and fulfillment I could want. As I said before in this thread, I came to be at peace with this when I was still young.
All the atheists you know insulate themselves from living what atheism entails? What lifestyle does atheism entail?

Well, if God doesn't exist, then a certain set of facts assert themselves:

1. If God does not exist, then the origin and existence of the universe has no rational explanation. Nothing cannot give rise to something. But this is what one must believe in the absence of a Creator. Without God as a First Cause of the universe, one must assume the utterly irrational: the universe created itself.
2. If God does not exist, then there are only blind, mechanical, impersonal, natural processes giving rise to, and governing, our existence. Such processes cannot impart meaning or purpose to us. Each of us is, essentially, an accident, unintended and relatively short-lived, existing fundamentally as DNA-replicating machines in an environment governed by "survival of the fittest."
3. If God does not exist, then, as science tells us, the universe will expand until it reaches a state of equilibrium and heat-death. There will only be darkness and cold at some point in the future into which humanity and its history will vanish forever. God will not intervene and alter this course of events if He does not exist. All of humanity's greatest achievements, all of humanity's vilest atrocities, will be utterly forgotten, lost in the vast reaches of a dead universe.
4. If God does not exist, then a good, moral life meets with the exact same end as an evil one. Natural processes do not care if one is a serial killer or a Mother Theresa. These processes do not reward charitable acts or bless selfless deeds, nor do they punish evil. If God does not exist, then final justice is not meted out and morality loses its anchor.
5. If God does not exist, then this life is all there is; one must make the most of this life. All the pleasure, and gratification, and happiness one will ever experience occurs between one's birth and death. Maximizing one's pleasure, gratification and happiness, then, is the highest goal of living.

But the question at hand is, what legitimate reason is there to outlaw same-sex marriage?

As a Christian, I believe that marriage is a God-ordained institution. From the beginning, God's plan for marriage was one man bound to one woman for life. Homosexuality perverts the God-designed marriage institution and necessarily, then, results in a degradation of marriage and a resulting degradation of the society in which it is permitted. History has shown this to be the case. Prevalent homosexuality has presided over the destruction of many great empires. The fall of the Roman Empire is a good example.

Also I don't quite get what you're saying with "homosexuality is not congenital." Are you implying homosexuals choose their sexual orientation?

While there are a number of psycho-social factors that predispose a person toward homosexual behaviour, in the end the behaviour is a chosen one.

The moral code we've prescribed in this country is devised by officials who represent as many of the citizens as possible. As such, the laws serve to uphold the safety and comfort of everyone in this country, not just one particular set.

What you're saying here just isn't so. More and more, the laws of the land in North America are determined by an elite judiciary, not the general public. And this elite judiciary is governed by political agendas and powers and special interest groups, not the will of the masses. Further, the laws do not uphold the safety and comfort of everyone. The laws governing abortion, for example, have caused the death of millions of unborn members of North American societies.

So to answer your question, Judeo-Christian law and secular, Canadian law are not interchangeable because only one is actually written and enforced by people who, for the most part, agree with it and have the power to change it if they don't.

As I've explained above, this isn't so. But even if it was, you'd be basing morality upon "might makes right," which has been the basis for some of the greatest atrocities of human history. If the majority of people decided cannibalism was lawful, would you endorse cannibalism? If the majority of people decided torturing babies was lawful, would you endorse doing so?

Selah.

 

[Taleswapper]

I don't think it is mentioned anywhere in the bible. But it is highly possible that it can be interpreted from the bible. And it's existence is mentioned in trusted apparitions according to many saints. And don't believe everything explained to you if it doesn't agree with the bible. And I can give you some information about Purgatory as explained by very important saints who were closely connected to God if you want.

How do we know to trust the apparitions of saints?
If you'd like to send me some information, please do.

1. If God does not exist, then the origin and existence of the universe has no rational explanation. Nothing cannot give rise to something. But this is what one must believe in the absence of a Creator. Without God as a First Cause of the universe, one must assume the utterly irrational: the universe created itself.

Why assume the Universe was created at all? God was certainly never created, yet you would assert He exists. Why can't the same be said of the Universe?
Why can't we simply not know what caused the Universe? Why must we assume, as you say, that the Universe created itself? What's stopping us from not assuming anything?

2. If God does not exist, then there are only blind, mechanical, impersonal, natural processes giving rise to, and governing, our existence. Such processes cannot impart meaning or purpose to us. Each of us is, essentially, an accident, unintended and relatively short-lived, existing fundamentally as DNA-replicating machines in an environment governed by "survival of the fittest."

What do you mean by "governing?" Why must some process give us meaning? Why can't we devise such things for ourselves?
Life is a way for the Universe to experience itself. It may be an accident, but it is the most beautiful accident yet produced. I don't know about you, but that holds great meaning to me.

3. If God does not exist, then, as science tells us, the universe will expand until it reaches a state of equilibrium and heat-death. There will only be darkness and cold at some point in the future into which humanity and its history will vanish forever. God will not intervene and alter this course of events if He does not exist. All of humanity's greatest achievements, all of humanity's vilest atrocities, will be utterly forgotten, lost in the vast reaches of a dead universe.

What we are and what we do hold meaning to us, now, in the present. You seem to be saying that the only way for humanity to have any purpose is if it continues on forever and ever. In reality, the only meaning we could ever even want comes while we are alive. Don't get me wrong, the future does matter. We've got children to raise, friends to make and keep, and societies to build, so that people in the future can enjoy as good a life as we can enable for them. Eventually, even these future peoples will meet their end, and assuming the inevitability of heat death, there will eventually be a time when no humans exist anymore. Does that rob us of everything we've ever experienced? No, it just means that in the distant, distant future, our legacy cannot be experienced by others. It holds no bearing on what we do with our lives today because we've still got so much future ahead of us.

4. If God does not exist, then a good, moral life meets with the exact same end as an evil one. Natural processes do not care if one is a serial killer or a Mother Theresa. These processes do not reward charitable acts or bless selfless deeds, nor do they punish evil. If God does not exist, then final justice is not meted out and morality loses its anchor.

Natural processes do not care, but we do. Serial killers are usually convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment because of what we as humans uphold as laws. Mother Theresa is revered by many people for her deeds (although she misappropriated the donations she got, kept the sick in squalor and believed that pain brings you closer to God, which bothers me).
The beauty of what we are as a species is that we do not need nature to tell us how and what to think and do. Nature does not reward charitable acts or punish evil; we do. Final justice is not meted out because final justice does not ultimately mean anything. It would be categorically unfair and cruel to give someone eternal punishment for a finite crime. Even Hitler doesn't deserve eternal torment for what he did. I'd say maybe, one lifetime in Hell for every life he ended prematurely? That's still over a hundred million years, but that's nothing compared to eternity.
As it stands, Hitler actually died a horrible death, he and his wife were driven to kill themselves at the base of his toppled empire and slaughtered people, then they were burned by Russian soldiers. That's not equal punishment for what he did, but among the punishments one can imagine, it ranks pretty high up there.
As for the "anchor" you say we would lose, if divine justice provided an anchor for human morality, why do people throughout history who've never heard of the Bible or God still adhere to the same basic rules, such as a disdain for theft, murder and dishonesty?

5. If God does not exist, then this life is all there is; one must make the most of this life. All the pleasure, and gratification, and happiness one will ever experience occurs between one's birth and death. Maximizing one's pleasure, gratification and happiness, then, is the highest goal of living.

This is an unfair assertion because it is arrogant to suppose a meaning for the life of everyone who simply doesn't believe in God. Also, I get the impression that you are saying living for gratification and happiness is somehow bad. Personally, I would feel the most fulfilled if I were the best person I could be between birth and death. I aspire to be kind, helpful, sincere and perhaps above all, loved by the people I care about. I feel I have a responsibility to others around me to help them live their lives and to cause as little harm as I can. If that means I'm living for the gratification of knowing I'm a good person, then so be it. At the very least, we agree on that much.

As a Christian, I believe that marriage is a God-ordained institution. From the beginning, God's plan for marriage was one man bound to one woman for life. Homosexuality perverts the God-designed marriage institution and necessarily, then, results in a degradation of marriage and a resulting degradation of the society in which it is permitted. History has shown this to be the case. Prevalent homosexuality has presided over the destruction of many great empires. The fall of the Roman Empire is a good example.

Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and again, societies throughout history who've never heard of God or the Bible have marriage as an ingrained part of their culture. I don't think the ceremony itself is actually described in the Torah or the NT, although I remember seeing marriage mentioned multiple times. It would seem to be referring to marriages that have been created by ceremonies that already existed in Judean culture. But this is a quibble.
The fall of the Roman Empire likely had nothing to do with the prevalent homosexuality in that culture. More likely, it was from a combination of factors including the rise of the Church that destabilized the control of the emperor (which continued into the days of the Holy Roman Empire, now best known as Germany), the reliance on barbarians and mercenaries who took power for themselves (sort of like a Feudal system that rose against the will of the Emperor), and the lack of logistical support for the army that led to a general decay in its might, enabling it to be overthrown. There's also an argument to be made that inflation and economic problems resulted in its downfall. But there's no evidence of which I'm aware to suggest homosexuality is what caused it.
Also, legalizing same-sex marriage is NOT equivalent to making it prevalent in our society. In the Roman Empire, homosexual behavior was strongly encouraged among soldiers. In our society, marriage would just be available for those who already desire it. There's no reason to think there would be an increase in the incidence of homosexuality just because they're allowed to marry. (Also, the Roman Empire didn't allow same-sex marriage to have any legal standing either.)

While there are a number of psycho-social factors that predispose a person toward homosexual behaviour, in the end the behaviour is a chosen one.

This makes little sense to me. There are factors that predispose someone towards homosexual behavior, but your conclusion is they choose it? What leads you to believe that?

What you're saying here just isn't so. More and more, the laws of the land in North America are determined by an elite judiciary, not the general public. And this elite judiciary is governed by political agendas and powers and special interest groups, not the will of the masses. Further, the laws do not uphold the safety and comfort of everyone. The laws governing abortion, for example, have caused the death of millions of unborn members of North American societies.

Fine, the majority doesn't always dictate the law. The US Constitution, for example, guarantees that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, no matter how many citizens think the government should adopt Christianity. But these laws can actually be changed if enough of a majority is elected that then decides to amend the Constitution.
From what I understand, the laws on abortion are still a hotly-debated issue and the fact of the matter is that if it gains enough judicial support, the law will change.
The fact that judges can be bought off by special interest groups is a testament to the need for finance reform in the US. This, too, can be accomplished by the will of the people. It'll be difficult because politicians don't seem to be doing their jobs, but if enough people make their voices heard, it'll get done. In my view, the main problem is complacency.
Either way, the society I mentioned is an ideal one. Obviously things don't work out perfectly in terms of how the system works, but it does work rather well since we haven't descended into anarchy yet. You must agree that there's more than just a fine line between the laws of our society and Biblical/Quranic law.

you'd be basing morality upon "might makes right," which has been the basis for some of the greatest atrocities of human history. If the majority of people decided cannibalism was lawful, would you endorse cannibalism? If the majority of people decided torturing babies was lawful, would you endorse doing so?

I am basing this on "might makes right" in the same way that democracy is based on "might makes right." It's the will of the people that matters, not their strength. Heck, if anything, it's Biblical law that's based on "might makes right" because it is enforced by eternal torture from an omnipotent God.
Let me ask you: If, in the US, the majority decided torturing babies was lawful, would that be made into law? I'd explain why it wouldn't, but I'm not an expert.
I'm talking about the legal system that actually exists in your country, not some hypothetical one I made up, by the way. Maybe I'm getting it wrong, maybe not. But my point is, if you think the legal system is based on "might makes right," then your problem isn't with me.

Also, can't this also be turned around? If the Bible said that you should torture babies, would you endorse doing so? That might sound sort of facile, but it's no less facile than levying the question at me. If you would prefer Judeo-Christian law to the legal system we have now, it's a fair question.
Bear in mind it's a hypothetical. I know in your view God would not order such a thing. I'm asking about if it were commanded in the Bible.

 

[Sketcher]

You mean like everything in the OT?
I've come to understand from this thread that exactly who God addresses is important in this situation. I mostly had a problem with these regulations because they just seemed silly for a god to command, but I think razeontherock's analogy about the ball game makes a little bit of sense. They still seem silly to me, but at least it's somewhat consistent.

Actually, not everything. Start researching the Laws of Noah.

 

[mandyangel]

thanks 4 the answers even though i disagree i appreciate the discussion

 

[razeontherock]

Edit: I don't really have a huge beef with non-atheists, so I don't think this question applies to me. But I think you're talking about how American atheists seem to usually be activists for change, so I'll answer from that context.

Christianity has a real possibility of affecting the legislature, at which point obviously atheist and non-Christian citizens will lose out.

A real possibility? Every aspect of the founding of this Nation was based not merely on Christian principles, but verbatim from the Bible as much as possible. Any aspect of the attempt to drive out Christian influence is a drastic change of status quo, and what atheists are experiencing is not persecution but recoil; reaction.

 

[Taleswapper]

Actually, not everything. Start researching the Laws of Noah.

I totally neglected this. Thanks.

thanks 4 the answers even though i disagree i appreciate the discussion

You're more than welcome. Discussion is good.

A real possibility? Every aspect of the founding of this Nation was based not merely on Christian principles, but verbatim from the Bible as much as possible. Any aspect of the attempt to drive out Christian influence is a drastic change of status quo, and what atheists are experiencing is not persecution but recoil; reaction.

I feel like you're talking about the ACLU here or something, which is a secular organization AFAIK, not an atheist one. Either way, a question; if America were to become a theocracy, do you believe that would be a good thing?
I think I was referring to the persecution in general of atheists in America. If that's what you're referring to, then is it justified to slash an atheist's tires or issue death threats? How can you tell which is persecution and which isn't?
From what I understand, it doesn't matter how the nation was founded because its binding documents make an attempt to distance government from religious affiliation of any kind. America was established mostly as a result of refugees fleeing the Protestant British who were persecuting them for believing differently, wasn't it (I'm genuinely unsure)? So of course in that sense, it's founded around Christianity because the people who founded it were, for a large part, Christians fleeing from Christian persecution. But the fact of the matter is that if you prefer one religion over another in a given country, it no longer governs a free people because some of them are marginalized by pro-Christian laws. Everyone deserves equal footing.
Given this much, the danger in Christianity affecting legislation is not only that it ignores binding documents like the Constitution, but that it enables more persecution against non-Christians by putting the power of law behind it.
Is the founding of your nation based verbatim on the Bible? In what way?

 

[razeontherock]

Either way, a question; if America were to become a theocracy, do you believe that would be a good thing?

NO! When Jesus returns, in full force so even Jews receive Him, then we can talk theocracy. (And I'm not sure the Bible speaks in literal terms about anything like that) Until then all it would be is an easier route for corruption to take hold, since fewer would be in charge, with no checks or balances. This is the exact opposite of what I'd like to see here, which is for the intended checks and balances (separation of powers) to be restored.

I think I was referring to the persecution in general of atheists in America. If that's what you're referring to, then is it justified to slash an atheist's tires or issue death threats? How can you tell which is persecution and which isn't?

No, that would be criminal. And up to a Judge to decide if it was "persecution," which would be subject to stiffer penalties under hate laws. I'm really not sure abut the status of such legislation, but I'd be in favor of giving blanket coverage for all minorities, including homosexuals and atheists.

From what I understand, it doesn't matter how the nation was founded because its binding documents make an attempt to distance government from religious affiliation of any kind.

Media jumbles such things around quite a bit. The term was "no establishment of State religion," which is fully observed. Public buildings were used for Sunday worship, as well as verbal and artistic expressions of Christian Faith all over the place in our Nation's early years. Obviously such things pose no problem, and do not violate the establishment clause.

Our State (and Nation) does not establish any religion; no one is forced to attend Church, and there is no "thought police," such as the Inquisitions. This clause of our founder's is working well! None of this was designed to prevent anyone from voting their conscience. And yet these very things that are obviously just fine, are what atheists are creating an issue out of. And for decades, Christians did basically nothing. Then atheists decided to push too far, and here we are

America was established mostly as a result of refugees fleeing the Protestant British who were persecuting them for believing differently, wasn't it (I'm genuinely unsure)?

No. It's funny that currently the Church of England isn't considered Protestant, but I'm with you it should be. And we refused election to any Catholic for a long time, and Jews even longer; so the basic beliefs were similar. What we were fleeing was primarily the corrupt european banking system by those with money, and the commoners wanted freedom of religion; i.e., no thought police, regardless what was enforced. The real problem was that if you held power in the Church, you had political clout, and vice versa. Unbridled corruption! And again, we are free from that. (Still corruption runs rampant here, just not via that avenue)

if you prefer one religion over another in a given country, it no longer governs a free people because some of them are marginalized by pro-Christian laws. Everyone deserves equal footing.

I am curious to see examples of this, and the only thing brought forth is Jews that can't work Saturday. Although I hesitate to call that religious persecution, because I have had to work both Sundays and Christian holidays. But "blue laws" indeed are pro-Christian, if that term makes sense in any instance. It would be a major factor for a Jew working in retail or service industries though, as Saturdays are a peak time.

Given this much, the danger in Christianity affecting legislation is not only that it ignores binding documents like the Constitution, but that it enables more persecution against non-Christians by putting the power of law behind it.

Using Gov't buildings (unused on Sundays) for Christian worship is FAR more "pro Christian" than anything being done today, and FAR moreso than anything atheists are protesting. IOW, Christianity virtually cannot affect legislation in any way that violates the Constitution; the 2 are that compatible. No aspect of Christianity could possibly favor persecuting anyone, atheist or otherwise. (Yes, I'm perfectly aware of atrocities that were committed "in the Name of the Lord," just as I hope you are aware that all such instances were people merely justifying what they wanted to do)

Is the founding of your nation based verbatim on the Bible? In what way?

Where possible, they used the Bible word for word. Which is to say, not often, since the Bible doesn't deal with many issues pertaining to Gov't. In those cases our founders turned to other great literature for guidance.

 

[Taleswapper]

And yet these very things that are obviously just fine, are what atheists are creating an issue out of. And for decades, Christians did basically nothing. Then atheists decided to push too far, and here we are

Can you give me some examples?

It's funny that currently the Church of England isn't considered Protestant, but I'm with you it should be.

I think I was referring to the English being Protestant in the same way I'd refer to the Americans being Christian. If I'm not mistaken, during the 18th century Britain was predominantly Protestant. It was a minor point anyway. I'll defer to what you say about Americans fleeing the corrupt banking system in England because I don't know for myself. Plus I'm pretty sure this would lead to the Boston Tea Party so you're probably right about that.

I am curious to see examples of this, and the only thing brought forth is Jews that can't work Saturday.

In some middle Eastern countries, the mere practice of a non-Islamic faith is a crime, or is at the very least highly reviled by the public. This is because Islamic fundamentalists have been in control of these societies for a long time (again, AFAIK).
Oh, I think you might be responding to my saying specifically "pro-Christian" laws.
In that case I don't think I could give you one from the present because most Christian nations are also located in well-developed regions and have matured socially enough that we don't penalize people for having the wrong faith. Such was not the case in the Middle/Dark Ages, but that goes without saying.

Using Gov't buildings (unused on Sundays) for Christian worship is FAR more "pro Christian" than anything being done today, and FAR moreso than anything atheists are protesting. IOW, Christianity virtually cannot affect legislation in any way that violates the Constitution; the 2 are that compatible. No aspect of Christianity could possibly favor persecuting anyone, atheist or otherwise. (Yes, I'm perfectly aware of atrocities that were committed "in the Name of the Lord," just as I hope you are aware that all such instances were people merely justifying what they wanted to do)

Yes, but I'm talking about the potential for pro-Christian lobbying to actually change that. There are many Christians who favor teaching creationism in schools even though it hasn't gained any notable support whatsoever in the scientific community, for example. It's not something that Christianity is capable of doing at present, but if it gains enough political clout, it will become a true possibility.

Where possible, they used the Bible word for word. Which is to say, not often, since the Bible doesn't deal with many issues pertaining to Gov't. In those cases our founders turned to other great literature for guidance.

Ah, I was hoping you'd cite something. I'll have to try finding it myself. But while I'm posting, do you mean by citing the Bible in opinions or on the Senate floor, for example? Or do you mean by including the text of the Bible in laws themselves?

The reason I haven't quoted/directly addressed the rest of your post is that I am sort of in a rush and generally agree with you on the rest of what you said, insofar as I agree with your motivations. I think more Christians would do well to listen to you.

 

[razeontherock]

Can you give me some examples?

Two things I'm aware of directly. When non-professing Christians need to change clothes that have really no meaning to them, but display some sort of symbol that a teacher thinks is Christian, but Muslims are allowed to pray facing Mecca right in the middle of class, or in the middle of a crowded hallway between classes, in either case disrupting everything and nobody dares say anything to them.

2) The school system where everyone in my family went, picked by both parents who were teachers, solely because of its National standing including its music program, was forced to do away with the majority of the music it had because it wasn't secular. This is at a time when budget cuts are doing away with music programs all across the Country, even in some very wealthy areas. Do you have any idea what it costs to get sheet music for just one piece, for a good sized orchestra, band, and choir? To say nothing of the respective conductors knowing the piece well, to actually be able to educate with it.

So here you had a school system regularly turning out pro musicians, performing the entire "Messiah" in a good year, suddenly reduced to Frosty the Snowman. Fully 1/2 that school system is Jewish, and they were equally horrified at the drop of sheer educational value.

In some middle Eastern countries, the mere practice of a non-Islamic faith is a crime, or is at the very least highly reviled by the public. This is because Islamic fundamentalists have been in control of these societies for a long time (again, AFAIK).

Indeed. W/o getting into their own holy writings, which I cannot claim to understand, the US has never been plagued with that.

we don't penalize people for having the wrong faith. Such was not the case in the Middle/Dark Ages, but that goes without saying.

And yes that was a big reason for why North America grew in population so quickly.

Yes, but I'm talking about the potential for pro-Christian lobbying to actually change that. There are many Christians who favor teaching creationism in schools even though it hasn't gained any notable support whatsoever in the scientific community, for example. It's not something that Christianity is capable of doing at present, but if it gains enough political clout, it will become a true possibility.

I really wouldn't call this a "pro Christian" issue, since Christianity takes no stance on it. I would call it a social issue. There are people who think creationism should be taught as science, and I consistently point out how this whole thing could fade into the background: stop teaching things we make up just to make the ivory tower look more solid than it really is. I also think that would be good for science as a whole, since kids would learn how much opportunity there is in the field, which is anything but one monolithic block of agreement on details. Note that this is not "teach the controversy," just be honest about what we do and do not know.

Ah, I was hoping you'd cite something. I'll have to try finding it myself. But while I'm posting, do you mean by citing the Bible in opinions or on the Senate floor, for example? Or do you mean by including the text of the Bible in laws themselves?

I'm not one to footnote everything I come across, since I learn for my own purposes. Citations seem out of sync w/ a chat room such as this. If you wanted to find things like this for yourself, there are Christian organizations that make it a point to scour the areas you mentioned looking for such things. It amuses me the way people here reject facts on fallacious bases like poisoning the well and ad hom; a fact is a fact, even if someone from "the other side" found it.

 

[GA777]

How do we know to trust the apparitions of saints?
If you'd like to send me some information, please do.

There are many signs confirming the authenticity like :
1- If the message contradicts what's said in the bible, then the apparition is false.
2- Saints usually know a lot about the bible, and many who don't know much about the bible know how to test the spirits (For example evil spirits ran away from the sign of cross if made, go in the name of Jesus, can't say certain words like God is almighty etc. as they don't have the holy spirit.)

Those are maybe 2 of the main important ones proving that the appearance isn't made by any evil entities.

Tho. if the apparition was a supposed hallucination, it may be more than 99% in disorder, and it can't be a coincidence that the ones (priests/monks) experiencing such things are seen as very good and faithful by their companions.

Of course there can be many other reasons but I think these are the main and basic ones above.



2 Machabees 12:46: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”



Matt 12:32: “…but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”



1st Cor 3:13,15: “Every man’s work shall be manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire: and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”



Padre Pio

Go there and press Ctrl + F and type the word "purgatory" and read the context it is written in. And if you're interested, you can read everything there as you will get some important and valid information about Christianity whether by concluding some events or having in mind what he said.

And as mentioned by St Faustina :

Pugatory:
" ...I saw my Guardian Angel, who ordered me to follow him. In a moment I was in a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls. They were praying fervently, but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid. The flames, which were burning them, did not touch me at all. My Guardian Angel did not leave me for an instant. I asked these souls what their greatest suffering was. They answered me in one voice that their greatest torment was longing for God. I saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory. The souls call Her “The Star of the Sea”. She brings them refreshment. I wanted to talk with them some more, but my Guardian Angel beckoned me to leave. We went out of that prison of suffering. [I heard an interior voice which said] ‘My mercy does not want this, but justice demands it. Since that time, I am in closer communion with the suffering souls.’” (Diary, 20)

 

[aiki]

Why assume the Universe was created at all? God was certainly never created, yet you would assert He exists. Why can't the same be said of the Universe?

Because the universe is an effect, not a cause as God is. We know that the universe came into being a finite time ago. The Big Bang Theory, which is well-supported by modern, mainstream science, indicates that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Inasmuch, then, as the universe began to exist, and is therefore caused, it is an effect of its cause. This is what is argued by the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Why can't we simply not know what caused the Universe? Why must we assume, as you say, that the Universe created itself? What's stopping us from not assuming anything?

The nature of the universe itself points to the nature of its Cause. No fancy, arcane line of reasoning is required to see this. Certainly, people can refuse to look at what the universe itself tells us of its Cause, but not because nothing can actually be discerned.

There is no other option but the irrational to account for the existence of the universe. If one rules out a First Cause, a Creator, then only willful ignorance or impossible logic remains.

Why must some process give us meaning? Why can't we devise such things for ourselves?

No natural process can give you meaning. That was my point. The natural processes that produce life offer absolutely no reason for bringing anyone into being; no one exists for any objective purpose or plan. Without God, we all must infuse our lives with subjective meaning, which is essentially illusory, in order for it to be liveable. I can tell myself that my children give my life meaning, or my work, or my contribution to the arts or to science, or whatever, but none of this actually alters the fact of the absence of any objective reason for my existence.

Life is a way for the Universe to experience itself.

How do you know this? And, what does this actually mean?

It may be an accident, but it is the most beautiful accident yet produced. I don't know about you, but that holds great meaning to me.

Why should it hold meaning for you? So what if the "accident" of life is beautiful? What if it had been incredibly ugly? What then? Would life lose its meaning for you? There are millions who have been born into profound poverty and disease who have starved to death, or wasted away under some horrible disease, or been killed as a direct result of the desperation of their condition. Do you think they saw their lives as "beautiful accidents"? I very much doubt it.

What we are and what we do hold meaning to us, now, in the present. You seem to be saying that the only way for humanity to have any purpose is if it continues on forever and ever.

No, there are subjective purposes to which people apply themselves all the time. But what offers purpose to one person offers none at all to another. This is what I mean when I describe such purposes as "subjective." THere is nothing intrinsically meaningful in any of these subjective purposes to which people set themselves. Whether it is stamp collecting or saving the rain forests, none of our self-imposed purposes change the fact that all of us, if God does not exist, have no intrinsic, objective value or purpose. Furthermore, the subjective purposes to which we set ourselves have no objective value either, however dear to us those purpose(s) may seem. If there is no objective purpose to human life, none of our pursuits have any objective significance. No atheist I know of, however, actually faces these facts square-on and lives in accord with them. Living daily under the knowledge that life is without objective purpose and meaning is intolerable. Instead, the atheists I know borrow purpose and meaning from their culture or derive it from the inclinations of their personality. Consider the words of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg (who is an atheist):

"It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not some more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that somehow we were built in from the beginning...It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." The First Three Minutes (pg. 154)

In reality, the only meaning we could ever even want comes while we are alive. Don't get me wrong, the future does matter. We've got children to raise, friends to make and keep, and societies to build, so that people in the future can enjoy as good a life as we can enable for them. Eventually, even these future peoples will meet their end, and assuming the inevitability of heat death, there will eventually be a time when no humans exist anymore. Does that rob us of everything we've ever experienced? No, it just means that in the distant, distant future, our legacy cannot be experienced by others. It holds no bearing on what we do with our lives today because we've still got so much future ahead of us.

None of what you've described here can be said to be objectively valuable or meaningful, if God does not exist. As Steven Weinberg has aptly explained, humanity is just the result of a series of accidents, with no objective, intrinsic purpose or value. The human race will come and go and the universe will not care one iota. Overlaying this unalterable reality with subjective meaning and purpose is just masking the truth - however passionately we feel about what we do to make our lives seem meaningful.

Natural processes do not care, but we do.

And why is that? How do impersonal, amoral natural processes enable us with a moral sense and a desire for justice?

The beauty of what we are as a species is that we do not need nature to tell us how and what to think and do.

But it is only the mindless processes of Nature, if God does not exist, that enable us to do so. How do we know that what these processes have prompted us to think about morality and justice is correct?

Nature does not reward charitable acts or punish evil; we do.

This ignores the fact that, if God does not exist, we are merely by-products of "Nature." All that we are - including our sense of morality and justice - is caused by the amoral, mechanical processes governing "Nature."

Final justice is not meted out because final justice does not ultimately mean anything.

Nor does any justice, if God does not exist (at least on an objective level)!

It would be categorically unfair and cruel to give someone eternal punishment for a finite crime. Even Hitler doesn't deserve eternal torment for what he did.

You're entitled to your opinion. To what objective standard do you anchor it?

I'd say maybe, one lifetime in Hell for every life he ended prematurely? That's still over a hundred million years, but that's nothing compared to eternity.

Why should your assessment here be taken seriously? What makes it objectively forceful as a point of view?

As it stands, Hitler actually died a horrible death, he and his wife were driven to kill themselves at the base of his toppled empire and slaughtered people, then they were burned by Russian soldiers. That's not equal punishment for what he did, but among the punishments one can imagine, it ranks pretty high up there.

You're entitled to your opinion.

As for the "anchor" you say we would lose, if divine justice provided an anchor for human morality, why do people throughout history who've never heard of the Bible or God still adhere to the same basic rules, such as a disdain for theft, murder and dishonesty?

Why indeed? It seems there is an objective Moral Law that transcends time, and culture, and personality. But if there is such a Law, where does it come from? Obviously, it cannot have come from the amoral processes of nature. So from where, then?

This is an unfair assertion because it is arrogant to suppose a meaning for the life of everyone who simply doesn't believe in God.

What else at bottom is there (if God does not exist)? If you are just an accident of nature, and have no objective value or significance, why should you not want to live for as much personal gratification as you possibly can in the life you have? Does it make any sense to live otherwise when nothing you do has any real, objective meaning? Self-sacrifice is not really, truly good in any objective sense. You may feel it is good and worth doing, but the next guy may feel quite differently. He may feel slouching about serving himself is just as good and worth doing - and he would be no less right than you in a world where there is no objective purpose and meaning to life.

Also, I get the impression that you are saying living for gratification and happiness is somehow bad. Personally, I would feel the most fulfilled if I were the best person I could be between birth and death.

But you don't know objectively what being "the best person" actually is. You have to go by your own inclinations and the views of your culture to decide. But there is nothing objectively true about such a standard. The next person might feel most fulfilled by being what you would describe as the worst person he could be, but his subjective standard is no less valid than yours for all the negative feeling you might have about it.

I aspire to be kind, helpful, sincere and perhaps above all, loved by the people I care about. I feel I have a responsibility to others around me to help them live their lives and to cause as little harm as I can. If that means I'm living for the gratification of knowing I'm a good person, then so be it. At the very least, we agree on that much.

Yup.

This post cont'd in a following post.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian God, and again, societies throughout history who've never heard of God or the Bible have marriage as an ingrained part of their culture.

Which is suggestive of what the Bible asserts about marriage being something that is transcendent to time and culture because it was ordained from the One who transcends all. Certainly, we did not get the institution of marriage from natural processes.

I don't think the ceremony itself is actually described in the Torah or the NT, although I remember seeing marriage mentioned multiple times. It would seem to be referring to marriages that have been created by ceremonies that already existed in Judean culture. But this is a quibble.

The record of the Bible indicates that a marriage ceremony developed over time. Initially, it seems that marriage was defined by a request of the would-be husband to the parents of the woman he intended to marry to take her to wife and then a coming together of the two sexually to "seal the deal." That was it. As time passed, ritual and ceremony grew up around the act of marriage but it was not this way from the beginning.

The fall of the Roman Empire likely had nothing to do with the prevalent homosexuality in that culture. More likely, it was from a combination of factors including the rise of the Church that destabilized the control of the emperor (which continued into the days of the Holy Roman Empire, now best known as Germany), the reliance on barbarians and mercenaries who took power for themselves (sort of like a Feudal system that rose against the will of the Emperor), and the lack of logistical support for the army that led to a general decay in its might, enabling it to be overthrown. There's also an argument to be made that inflation and economic problems resulted in its downfall. But there's no evidence of which I'm aware to suggest homosexuality is what caused it.

I never said homosexuality caused the Fall of the Roman Empire. I said homosexuality was prevalent in the culture at the time of its fall - as it has been in other cultures that fell into ruin.

Also, legalizing same-sex marriage is NOT equivalent to making it prevalent in our society. In the Roman Empire, homosexuality was strongly encouraged among soldiers. In our society, marriage would just be available for those who already desire it. There's no reason to think there would be an increase in the incidence of homosexuality just because they're allowed to marry. (Also, the Roman Empire didn't allow any legal standing for same-sex marriage either.)

It seems to me the homosexual push to obtain formal marriage status for themselves has more to do with normalizing their behaviour in the culture than with equal rights. But homosexuality is not normal in any of the common senses of the word and should not be made to appear as though it is. I don't think the right to marry will, itself, necessarily increase the number of homosexuals in a given society, but it will reinforce the illusion that homosexuality is normal, which, at the very least, makes the choice to be homosexual an easier one.

While there are a number of psycho-social factors that predispose a person toward homosexual behaviour, in the end the behaviour is a chosen one. This makes little sense to me. There are factors that predispose someone towards homosexual behavior, but your conclusion is they choose it? What leads you to believe that?

Ultimately, yes, homosexuality is a choice. Just as some people have a predisposition, born of their upbringing and personality, to be, say, tempermental, some are also inclined toward homosexuality. No one has to be short-tempered, impatient and easily frustrated, however, any more than one has to be homosexual. The research I'm aware of concerning the biological origin of homosexuality indicates that homosexuality is not "in the genes" and therefore is not biologically mandated as eye color or height is. Studies of monozygotic twins, brain studies, research on hormones, and homosexuals-turned-heterosexual - all have served either to defy the idea that homosexuality is genetic or have produced results that fail to concretely bear out the view that homosexuals "have no choice" but to be as they are.

You must agree that there's more than just a fine line between the laws of our society and Biblical/Quranic law.

Well, I don't think it is appropriate to lump Q'uranic law in with biblical law. They are not the same. It's also necessary to distinguish between OT law given specifically to the theocracy of Israel and the NT law of love and grace commanded of all people by God. These are not the same, either.

I do think there are still many vestiges of the Judeo-Christian roots of the Canadian and American societies within their laws and observable in the rights and freedoms of their citizens. There is definitely a growing erosion of the Judeo-Christian foundations of western society, however. It seems to me that the erosion of these foundations will only be a detriment, not a boon, to free western societies.

Heck, if anything, it's Biblical law that's based on "might makes right" because it is enforced by eternal torture from an omnipotent God.

Why is it atheists always caricature the theology and doctrine of the Bible this way? It demonstrates a pretty serious lack of knowledge and understanding of what the Bible actually says.

Let me ask you: If, in the US, the majority decided torturing babies was lawful, would that be made into law? I'd explain why it wouldn't, but I'm not an expert.

A thing may be be lawful without being made law. It is lawful to enjoy a picnic at the park on Sunday, but there is no law mandating such a thing.

Also, can't this also be turned around? If the Bible said that you should torture babies, would you endorse doing so? That might sound sort of facile, but it's no less facile than levying the question at me. If you would prefer Judeo-Christian law to the legal system we have now, it's a fair question.

Inasmuch as God's laws reflect His nature, if He commanded the torture of babies, He would not be the holy, loving God we see revealed in Scripture. He would be a monster. The only way I would obey such a command is if God created me with a moral sense that accommodated it. With my present moral sense, however, I would never obey such a command.

Selah.

 

[Taleswapper]

Two things I'm aware of directly. When non-professing Christians need to change clothes that have really no meaning to them, but display some sort of symbol that a teacher thinks is Christian, but Muslims are allowed to pray facing Mecca right in the middle of class, or in the middle of a crowded hallway between classes, in either case disrupting everything and nobody dares say anything to them.

Christians are allowed to pray in class. I can't speak for what clothing you're allowed to wear, but how do you know it was because of the Christian message rather than what people may have found offensive about it? I'm actually wondering if this was a t-shirt that said something that people thought was offensive.
The difference is that clothing isn't necessarily a practice of Christianity, whereas praying is. So if the school were to enforce a dress code, that's acceptable but it wouldn't be able to stop students from praying because that would be unconstitutional (and assuming it's a public school, that means it has to adhere to it).

2) The school system where everyone in my family went, picked by both parents who were teachers, solely because of its National standing including its music program, was forced to do away with the majority of the music it had because it wasn't secular. This is at a time when budget cuts are doing away with music programs all across the Country, even in some very wealthy areas. Do you have any idea what it costs to get sheet music for just one piece, for a good sized orchestra, band, and choir? To say nothing of the respective conductors knowing the piece well, to actually be able to educate with it.

I'll agree that that's just dumb, unless the music was actively trying to proselytize, which, if you're talking about Handel's "Messiah," probably wasn't. In that case that's a pretty dumb solution the school chose. Better to just include non-Christian music from other religions as well.
I'm aware of the costs of getting license to play music and everything else. But you're saying this like it's the reason the music program went to hell (no pun intended). Why didn't they choose Bach or some other secular composer that wasn't terrible? (Assuming they didn't, you're the first I'm hearing of this.)

I really wouldn't call this a "pro Christian" issue, since Christianity takes no stance on it. I would call it a social issue. There are people who think creationism should be taught as science, and I consistently point out how this whole thing could fade into the background: stop teaching things we make up just to make the ivory tower look more solid than it really is. I also think that would be good for science as a whole, since kids would learn how much opportunity there is in the field, which is anything but one monolithic block of agreement on details. Note that this is not "teach the controversy," just be honest about what we do and do not know.

Perhaps not, but the reverse is true: creationism does take a stance on Christianity. That's why Intelligent Design came along as an attempt to move God back a step from the process by replacing Him with a "designer."
The problem isn't that it's religious. The problem is that it hasn't been verified to be valid by the scientific community. I know you're not espousing this, but just for the record, "Teach the controversy" is unethical because if the greatest minds in science don't think a theory has any value, then teaching it to kids is wrong because they are depending entirely on their teachers for their education, and they don't have the capacity to know whether an alternative theory is valid or not because they're still learning the basics of science and critical thinking.
It's like if you were to teach kids "Well, the Earth is probably round and here's why, but some people think the Earth is flat, and here are some theories on that."
Hey, I'm a poet and didn't realize. Anyway, it's just a bad idea because it's more confusing than informative. You're sending mixed signals for no good reason.
By the way, yes, we should be honest about what we do and do not know, but within reason. We don't know for certain that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe, for example. But we shouldn't go teaching kids that because they don't have the tools to discern what's valid and what's not. This is a debate to be had among scientists who know what they're talking about, not in an elementary school classroom.

There are many signs confirming the authenticity like :
1- If the message contradicts what's said in the bible, then the apparition is false.
2- Saints usually know a lot about the bible, and many who don't know much about the bible know how to test the spirits (For example evil spirits ran away from the sign of cross if made, go in the name of Jesus, can't say certain words like God is almighty etc. as they don't have the holy spirit.)

Point 1. doesn't confirm anything. It just provides a way to invalidate something. Like imagine a bottle filled with a clear liquid and we don't know what it is. We can drop a match into it, and if it goes out, then it's NOT gasoline. That doesn't tell us about what it is, it just tells us (very little) about what it's not.
My point is, an apparition can conform perfectly to the Bible, and still not be a true apparition. If a saint knows the Bible inside and out, and has a hallucination for example, the fact that it doesn't contradict the Bible doesn't mean anything because it would depend on the saint, who knows the Bible.

Tho. if the apparition was a supposed hallucination, it may be more than 99% in disorder, and it can't be a coincidence that the ones (priests/monks) experiencing such things are seen as very good and faithful by their companions.

What do you mean by "disorder"?
If you live in a culture that expects apparitions to occur, then suddenly hallucinations might become misinterpreted as apparitions, even by people who didn't experience them. If they want to believe in an apparition, they're more likely to believe a story about one.

Thanks for the info on Purgatory, I'll get on it.

Because the universe is an effect, not a cause as God is. We know that the universe came into being a finite time ago. The Big Bang Theory, which is well-supported by modern, mainstream science, indicates that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Inasmuch, then, as the universe began to exist, and is therefore caused, it is an effect of its cause. This is what is argued by the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

How do you know the Universe is an effect and God is a cause?
How do you know the Universe came into being a finite time ago? I think I explained this earlier, but in all likelihood, time itself came into being along with the Universe, so this statement arguably makes no sense.
The Big Bang Theory does not say that the Universe ever came into existence. Strictly speaking, it describes how the Universe behaves from the point where the laws of physics as we know them came into effect. It's a quibble, I know, but to say the Universe began to exist is an assumption.
The point where the Kalam Cosmological Argument stops holding water is this:
Premise 1 and premise 2 both, on the surface, seem to refer to the same thing: a cause. However, in premise 1, the assumption is that something begins to exist if it has a reason to be. Trees are caused by seeds, sunlight and water. Cars are caused by an assembly line of workers, metal and energy, and so forth.
But premise 2 refers to the creation of matter and energy from nothing. We've never observed this to require a "cause," because we've never observed it at all. It's simply not the same kind of "cause." To be precise: we don't know that this requires a cause, and in fact, if you know anything about virtual particles, you understand that there may not even be a cause for the spontaneous creation of matter and energy!
That's where the argument falls apart. It juxtaposes "cause" as in an object being created, with "cause" as in a sudden spontaneous creation of the Universe. So it's a deceptive change in meaning between one word and another that renders the argument invalid.
Here is some more information on the counter-apologetic to Kalam. I know it's a debate issue, but I feel like I need to address this here to validate the questions I asked at the beginning.

The nature of the universe itself points to the nature of its Cause.

It probably would, if we knew that it had one. But if it does, then it points towards its own cause in such a way as to obfuscate to the point where people can come up with over a thousand different causes for it.

No natural process can give you meaning. That was my point.

And mine, too. You seemed to be saying that in order for me to have a consistent worldview, I need to believe that natural processes can give us meaning, and I was asking why you think this is true.

The natural processes that produce life offer absolutely no reason for bringing anyone into being; no one exists for any objective purpose or plan. Without God, we all must infuse our lives with subjective meaning, which is essentially illusory, in order for it to be liveable. I can tell myself that my children give my life meaning, or my work, or my contribution to the arts or to science, or whatever, but none of this actually alters the fact of the absence of any objective reason for my existence.

How is subjective meaning illusory? Why do you, personally, require an objective meaning to your existence? What would that even mean for you, ultimately?

How do you know [that life is a way for the Universe to experience itself]? And, what does this actually mean?

It's a quote from Carl Sagan. The Universe has given rise to consciousness, which can appreciate the Universe itself because, here we are, appreciating it. So in that sense, the Universe is experiencing itself through our consciousness. It's more poetic flair than anything else.

Why should it hold meaning for you? So what if the "accident" of life is beautiful? What if it had been incredibly ugly? What then? Would life lose its meaning for you?

No, it would just be an ugly accident. I don't know how life spontaneously arising from an otherwise lifeless Universe could be ugly, though.
Personally speaking, eternal life would be meaningless. At least when life has an end, everything you do matters. If it never ends, everything is inconsequential because your life is infinite and you can do an infinite amount of things no matter what.

There are millions who have been born into profound poverty and disease who have starved to death, or wasted away under some horrible disease, or been killed as a direct result of the desperation of their condition. Do you think they saw their lives as "beautiful accidents"? I very much doubt it.

I'm talking about the creation of life itself. You're talking about life as in the human experience, the thing that comes between birth and death. I'm talking about life as in materials coalescing into a living creature.
So yes, some people have terrible lives and it's certainly not pleasant. But the fact that they came into being at all is a wonder to behold.

No, there are subjective purposes to which people apply themselves all the time. But what offers purpose to one person offers none at all to another. This is what I mean when I describe such purposes as "subjective." THere is nothing intrinsically meaningful in any of these subjective purposes to which people set themselves. *snip*
If there is no objective purpose to human life, none of our pursuits have any objective significance. No atheist I know of, however, actually faces these facts square-on and lives in accord with them. Living daily under the knowledge that life is without objective purpose and meaning is intolerable. Instead, the atheists I know borrow purpose and meaning from their culture or derive it from the inclinations of their personality.

"Subjective" does not mean wrong or invalid. Subjective just means depending on the subject. The meaning of my life, in other words, depends on me. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. You seem to be saying that everyone needs to have a purpose given to them from some outside, "objective," source. (Specifically, you said that living without an objective purpose is intolerable, and that none of our pursuits has objective significance) Our pursuits have significance in that they generally improve the subjective experience of others. I'm living just fine under the knowledge that my life is without objective purpose, because I don't need the meaning to my life dictated to me.
Could it be that atheists are living under this knowledge, but you think differently about it? That whether it is "intolerable" is, in fact, subjective? I surmise that it is. I'm going to cite the paragraph directly after the one you cited from Steven Weinberg.
"But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there
is at least some consolation in the research itself. Men and
women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of
gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily
affairs of life; they also build telescopes and satellites and
accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working
out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand
the universe is one of the very few things that lifts
human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some
of the grace of tragedy."
The First Three Minutes (p. 149 of my book, so we must be using different editions.)
It would seem you would hold that without a meaning given by some objective means, life is meaningless. I believe the opposite. The objective meaning of life, if there is one, is to find it for yourself. That's the only thing that I believe holds true for the life of every person when it comes to the question of purpose. (Weinberg thinks this is a tragedy; I don't.)

None of what you've described here can be said to be objectively valuable or meaningful, if God does not exist.

I know, and I'm okay with that. And I think you knew that would be my answer.

As Steven Weinberg has aptly explained, humanity is just the result of a series of accidents, with no objective, intrinsic purpose or value.

As he then aptly elaborated, that is not the point of life. I feel like you're missing something very obvious in what he was saying.


More next post. So much. @_@

 

[Taleswapper]

The human race will come and go and the universe will not care one iota. Overlaying this unalterable reality with subjective meaning and purpose is just masking the truth - however passionately we feel about what we do to make our lives seem meaningful.

You seem to be saying that if the Universe doesn't care, we don't matter at all. Why is that? What is it about us that makes us completely meaningless in your mind, unless there's a God? Further, you seem to be saying that if I find my own purpose, I'm just disguising the fact that I don't have a purpose.
Doesn't that sound arrogant to you? Like your God is the only way I can possibly have any meaning, and damn what I actually think?
Let me ask you, let's say for the sake of argument that there is some objective purpose to our lives. What if it isn't given to us by God? How would we ever know in a way that would satisfy you?

Natural processes do not care, but we do.

And why is that? How do impersonal, amoral natural processes enable us with a moral sense and a desire for justice?

To your first question: because we're humans, it's in our nature to care about our own betterment. We care about each other because we evolved that way. If that removes its meaning for you, then the best I can say is I'm sorry I can't give you an answer that satisfies you.
Your second question: The best I can do is refer you to Google. Look up "evolution of morality." Succinctly, animals that move in groups do so because it increases their chances of survival. Humans have more intellectual capacity and so can make bigger groups, and increase their chances of survival even more. With huge groups comes a moral code. Don't do harm to someone else in the group, for example. If someone violates that code, we've evolved to exclude them from the group, or punish them, or both. It has served us well even up until now. This can be observed in the animal kingdom, especially in more social creatures like wolves and monkeys.
If you've got the time and patience, there was about an hour-long speech given on "Darwin Day" by AronRa that covers this topic and more. He spends a lot of time qualifying what he's saying and explaining how science works, but if you've got the patience to sift through all that, it's a pretty full explanation. Just look up "AronRa morality of evolution." I'd link it here but the site seems insistent on embedding it in the post, when it's a playlist, so it'd just show you the first ten minutes. *sigh*

But it is only the mindless processes of Nature, if God does not exist, that enable us [how and what to think and do]. How do we know that what these processes have prompted us to think about morality and justice is correct?

This question can be asked of you, if you believe God created us. How do we know that what He's prompted us to think about morality and justice is correct? Heck, how do we know anything we know is correct? In the end, all possible answers are ultimately subjective.

Nature does not reward charitable acts or punish evil; we do.

This ignores the fact that, if God does not exist, we are merely by-products of "Nature." All that we are - including our sense of morality and justice - is caused by the amoral, mechanical processes governing "Nature."

I drew a distinction between us and Nature there. In much the same way as I'd draw a distinction between my body and my left big toe. We're a part of Nature, but we aren't Nature itself.
In that sense, Nature itself does not reward or punish anyone. We do because of the aforementioned moral code we all mostly share (which, yes, is given to us by Nature). This doesn't make it any less valid than if it were given to us from someone else, because that someone else would also have to get it from somewhere, unless it's just arbitrary and therefore not objective anyway.

Nor does any justice [get meted out], if God does not exist (at least on an objective level)!

Indeed.

You're entitled to your opinion. To what objective standard do you anchor it?

There is no objective standard to which to anchor something subjective like morality. The best we can do is pick a subjective standard that most benefits our species. That is the "anchor" to which I would attach my opinion.

Why should your assessment [that Hitler deserves one lifetime in Hell for every life he ended prematurely] be taken seriously? What makes it objectively forceful as a point of view?

Nothing makes it objectively forceful. I guess it could be taken seriously because we all subscribe to more-or-less the same moral standard as humans living in similar societies. There's no need, in my mind, for an
"objective" standard. Let alone the fact that there doesn't seem to be one in existence. Even if God were to exist, the morality He would prescribe is still subjective because it is based on His mind. It might be more binding because He's God, but that doesn't make it objective.

Why indeed? It seems there is an objective Moral Law that transcends time, and culture, and personality. But if there is such a Law, where does it come from?

How did you get that from what I said? I disagree that there is an objective, transcendent moral law. So obviously I don't believe it can come from anywhere.
I was talking about how humans tend to have a similar moral code no matter where they are in the world. I refer you to the stuff I said above about the evolution of morality. It does not transcend time nor culture nor personality. (It changes only slightly with culture, but it does nonetheless.) My point was that if there is a God-given objective moral code, why do so many people have such a similar moral code, but no knowledge of God?

What else at bottom is there (if God does not exist)? If you are just an accident of nature, and have no objective value or significance, why should you not want to live for as much personal gratification as you possibly can in the life you have? Does it make any sense to live otherwise when nothing you do has any real, objective meaning?

Answering in order:
Ourselves.
Because I don't feel like it. Not having any objective significance does not mean anything in terms of how I should live my life.
"Real" and "objective" are not synonymous. I have real meaning as a person, but not an objective meaning. My meaning, as I've explained, is to be as good a person as I can be. That's subjective, but it's real because here I am, living it. Again, I know that doesn't satisfy you, but bear in mind that even what you're saying to me right now is subjective, based on your own mind. Even if you were to decide to bind to what you think is an "objective" significance, that decision would be subjective, so it would be meaningless in your view anyway.

Self-sacrifice is not really, truly good in any objective sense. You may feel it is good and worth doing, but the next guy may feel quite differently. He may feel slouching about serving himself is just as good and worth doing - and he would be no less right than you in a world where there is no objective purpose and meaning to life.

Yes. But the fact of the matter is I don't care if that's what he thinks. His life is his own to lead. This gets back to the point of arrogance that I touched on before. What right is it of mine to tell him what his purpose ought to be? What if he is right and I'm wrong?
The moral code from our society holds that, in general, if he doesn't cause harm to others, he's free to do as he wishes. I'm happy with that because it makes sense, offering as many people as possible a chance to be happy. It's still subjective, but you're the only one out of the two of us to whom that matters.

But you don't know objectively what being "the best person" actually is.

I explained in the next paragraph you quoted what that means to me. You said something about someone else living by a completely different standard. My response from above remains the same.

Which is suggestive of what the Bible asserts about marriage being something that is transcendent to time and culture because it was ordained from the One who transcends all. Certainly, we did not get the institution of marriage from natural processes.

I didn't say that. You said marriage was a God-ordained institution. My response was that it actually predates the Torah, and there's no real reason to think God ordained it, other than people get married in religious ceremonies all over the world, but even then, cultures who've never heard of God get married, the ceremonies are completely different and marriages may be with many people rather than just one. Marriage seems to be an effect of human monogamy, and at the same time seems not to be a transcendent concept because it varies so much between cultures.

I never said homosexuality caused the Fall of the Roman Empire. I said homosexuality was prevalent in the culture at the time of its fall - as it has been in other cultures that fell into ruin.

What you actually said was "Prevalent homosexuality has presided over the destruction of many great empires. The fall of the Roman Empire is a good example."
Presided means to be in a position of authority. The implication was that because the Roman Empire was presided over by homosexuality, it fell, which is likely not the case.

It seems to me the homosexual push to obtain formal marriage status for themselves has more to do with normalizing their behaviour in the culture than with equal rights.

I explained earlier in this thread that same-sex marriage would solve many legal problems facing couples who want to get married. If you don't believe me, then I'm out of options.
Is your goal to make homosexuals feel ostracized?

The research I'm aware of concerning the biological origin of homosexuality indicates that homosexuality is not "in the genes" and therefore is not biologically mandated as eye color or height is.

Genes are not the only thing that biologically mandate a condition. There's actually promising research that suggests a hormonal imbalance in the womb is a likely contender for a cause of homosexuality.
You say that homosexuality is a choice because the behavior can only be chosen whereas the predisposition exists without any known choice.
However, homosexuality itself is the predisposition. Like how one can be a hemophiliac without actually bleeding. In that sense, it would seem we agree again.

Well, I don't think it is appropriate to lump Q'uranic law in with biblical law.

They are similar in that they are religiously mandated. I was comparing religious mandate with a legal system defined by society itself.

Why is it atheists always caricature the theology and doctrine of the Bible this way? It demonstrates a pretty serious lack of knowledge and understanding of what the Bible actually says.

Thanks for lumping me in with other atheists.
Enlighten me, though. The Bible doesn't actually give any logical reason to follow God's commandments. The carrot-and-stick analogy is applicable here.
What reason is given by the Bible to follow it, other than the divine reward?

A thing may be be lawful without being made law. It is lawful to enjoy a picnic at the park on Sunday, but there is no law mandating such a thing.

You know what I meant.

Inasmuch as God's laws reflect His nature, if He commanded the torture of babies, He would not be the holy, loving God we see revealed in Scripture. He would be a monster. The only way I would obey such a command is if God created me with a moral sense that accommodated it. With my present moral sense, however, I would never obey such a command.

But you would still hold this to be an objective moral sense, wouldn't you?

There's a huge disconnect that exists between us regarding objectivity. Specifically, you believe an objective meaning to our lives is necessary, and I don't. This is something we need to clear up before we can move on to, say, whether Divine mandate is actually equivalent to objective morality (which I believe it isn't).
The reason I single this disconnect out among the other issues here is that you seem to be ascribing a worldview to me and then drawing conclusions from that worldview, which I do not hold. You seem to think I ultimately believe there's no meaning to my life simply because I don't think there's an objective, concrete meaning to be found. In reality, I don't think I need an objective meaning, and further, I believe it is impossible to have such a thing. Even if you were to believe in God, it would just raise more questions. What is the objective meaning of God's existence, for example? The Universe isn't even a good answer because the fact that He created it implies that He does not need it. It doesn't satisfy anything existentially to suppose God exists, so arguing for God's existence from the lack of objective meaning is nonsensical.

By the way, aiki, I know this is getting kind of long on a specific point, and dangerously close to a debate. If you want to continue talking about it, just respond here as if normal, then after that I'll probably PM you if we want to argue it out.

More questions:
Does God have a meaning/purpose in your view?
I know of Matthew 24:36 and Acts 1:7 saying that it will be impossible to know the date of the end of this world, but (and this is going to sound silly) when I asked my mother about this as a child, she said I'd ascend bodily into heaven and the nonbelievers would be left behind while the world burns. Is there anything that we can "know" about the end of the world, aside from when, according to your view?
Has there ever been an instance when another Christian has challenged what you believe in your particular denomination? For example, if you're a Baptist and had your adherence to that denomination challenged by a Mormon, etc. Or, is there a live-and-let-live mindset among the religious about challenging someone else's beliefs?

Thanks again. It's always good to discuss this with you guys.

 

[lucaspa]

I guess that's fair. I've sort of learned to avoid saying "Christians do _____" in that sense because generalizing to that extent always gets on someone's nerves. But, I have to agree that the Pope and other religious leaders have/should have no bearing on whether someone is a true Christian. We tried that in the Dark Ages and it sucked.

You overlook that insisting on what is "truly" in the Bible may also have no bearing on whether someone is a "true" Christian.

You're right (aside from pedophiles marrying children, which is the only one among the examples you cited that actually necessarily causes harm). If homosexual marriage is legalized, then it's possible that polygamous and incestuous marriages should be legalized as well unless they cause some significant amount of harm that I'm not aware of.

You noted the harm in both marriages later in your post: "At least with polygamous marriage, there's a gender inequality issue ... and with incestuous marriage, there's a health concern for the children that may be produced." We know incestuous marriages cause harm in the offspring. Too easy for harmful recessive traits to emerge. Historically, polygamous marriages have often caused harm due to the unequal and sometimes harmful treatment of the male toward some of the wives and also because of the treatment of the wives toward each other.

But the question at hand is, what legitimate reason is there to outlaw same-sex marriage?

So far, the opponents of gay marriage have not listed an objective reason. We hear vague "harm to marriage" but I've never seen details of what that harm is.

Also I don't quite get what you're saying with "homosexuality is not congenital." Are you implying homosexuals choose their sexual orientation?

Our sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, is hardwired into our alleles. None of us has a choice about their sexual orientation. References in the scientific literature available on demand.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists, so I don't think He does.

Wow. That is really bad logic. If you think that logic is valid, then science stops immediately. In science, we don't make pronouncements on what we "think" exists until we have evidence! There's lots of things we don't know if they exist -- like multiverse, time travel, faster-than-light travel, or adult stem cells that are like embryonic stem cells. But we certainly "don't think they do"! If we thought that, then why do any research on something we don't think exists!

Atheism does pose many dangers for science. You have just illustrated one.

You are an atheist. Not an "agnostic atheist", just an atheist.

From what I understand, the main issue facing atheists in America is the enormous amount of persecution they get from religious folk and the fact that Christianity has a real possibility of affecting the legislature, at which point obviously atheist and non-Christian citizens will lose out.

Atheists are becoming a bit more activist. I submit that the problem is that theistic behavior is so embedded in the culture that many theists don't realize the persecution they are handing out. Kinda like most whites in the South in 1950 couldn't see why African-Americans would object to having a separate "white" and "colored" public drinking fountain.

You've got a lot of politicians who want to teach creationism in schools, and who believe God is telling them to run for President, to enact certain policies, etc. There are more than a lot of people saying that the US was based on Christian values, that the founders were all Christian...

Quite a few Christians have problems with all those.

There was a huge controversy not even a year ago when the Texas school board made these radical changes to history books that sideline Thomas Jefferson, make weird vocabulary changes like "capitalism" to "free-enterprise" because it has a less negative connotation, and put a huge amount of bias in favor of Christian influence. AFAIK, they had almost no justification for doing so, and knew so, but did it anyway.

It's trying to preserve priviledge. As I said, "Christianity" is so embedded in the culture that some Christians don't realize (or actually want to) the persecution of people who don't believe as they do.

I don't mind anyone's beliefs so long as they aren't trying to infringe on my own rights.

And that is what American's have to deal with. "in God we trust" on the money is an example. "under God" in the Pledge was inserted to force people to denounce Communism.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Everything proves a designer.

 

[Taleswapper]

Wow. That is really bad logic. If you think that logic is valid, then science stops immediately. In science, we don't make pronouncements on what we "think" exists until we have evidence! There's lots of things we don't know if they exist -- like multiverse, time travel, faster-than-light travel, or adult stem cells that are like embryonic stem cells. But we certainly "don't think they do"! If we thought that, then why do any research on something we don't think exists!

Atheism does pose many dangers for science. You have just illustrated one.

You are an atheist. Not an "agnostic atheist", just an atheist.

You misunderstand me. Or I misspoke, whichever. When I say "I don't think God exists," I mean if you were to ask me "Do you think God exists?" I would not say "Yes."
Considering I've explained this at least three times now, I think I might just not know how to adequately illustrate the difference between thinking God doesn't exist, and not thinking He exists.
I said "I don't think He exists." This does NOT mean I think He doesn't exist. It just means I don't actively think He does. My conclusion on the matter is NOT "yes," so I can't say I think He exists.
Consider the question: Do you think my right hand is bigger than my left? The answer is no, you don't. You can't make that judgment because you've no idea how big my hands are, right? In the same way, I don't think God exists, because I don't know whether He exists. Does that help?
If it's still unclear, let me know. I'm seriously trying really hard to make it clear that all I'm saying is I just don't actively assert that God exists.

Quite a few Christians have problems with all those.

I'm doing my best to make clear I'm not stereotyping all Christians. Sometimes I'll refer to Christians in a general sense, but I don't under any circumstances mean ALL Christians.