THE SHOWDOWN: Does God exist?

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You're the only one to bring this up FrenchToast, and I'm glad you did. If indeed there is one and only one path for each electron in the universe, and that free will is a complete impossibility, that means that the entire universe is essecially one huge computer program. Who wrote that program?

Nobody 'wrote' any 'program'. The universe itself follows certain parameters or it wouldn't exist. We follow certain parameters or else we wouldn't be able to exist. In no way does taking away the idea of free will instill an idea of a creator.

Also, if there is one and only one route for us to take in each decision, that would rule out Good and Evil, because we are only doing what we're programmed to do. It's the classic "I didn't have a choice, the universe made me do it." defense.

That's bullshit, because for society to function we need to set laws for ourselves. Murderers go to jail because murdering people is bad. Whether or not their brains could have done it any different doesn't matter. Murderer = jail time.

I can agree to this. I also think you and I can agree that evolution is also a theory, because it has not been proven either. Correct?

Gravity is also just a theory. Do you buy into that gravity shit?

And your additional suggestions that people would be immoral without God is complete bullshit. I would say that people become less moral when a God is present. Religious pretenses are one of the number one reasons for genocides and wars. People know that killing one another is bad and wrong, and won't do it, until you tell them that the other person worships false idols and wants to destroy all that is good and true in the world.

Religion fucks you up far more than atheism.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

Nobody 'wrote' any 'program'. The universe itself follows certain parameters or it wouldn't exist. We follow certain parameters or else we wouldn't be able to exist. In no way does taking away the idea of free will instill an idea of a creator.

So you're arguing that everything that is going to happen in the universe was predefined, but it was predefined by chance? And if so, extrapolating that theory out a bit and using that line of thinking, it is theoretically possible for me to calculate what my great great great great second cousin twice removed is going to get for their 14th birthday a few centuries from now?

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

That's bullshit, because for society to function we need to set laws for ourselves. Murderers go to jail because murdering people is bad. Whether or not their brains could have done it any different doesn't matter. Murderer = jail time.

If everything is pre-defined there can't be a "bad" or a "good", it's just part of the way the universe has been programmed to unfold. In a universe where no one has a choice how can they be held accountable for acts they commit? If you have absolutely no choice what so ever but to rape a child how can you be held accountable for it? The universe, in your theory, forced that act to occur.

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

Gravity is also just a theory. Do you buy into that gravity shit?

You're trying to compare apples to oranges here, let me help you understand why. Gravity is an observable force, albeit one that can not be adequate defined. The theory of evolution is a guess made by man to explain his idea of the beginnings of life on earth, kinda like "the earth is flat" or "the moon is made of cheese."

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

And your additional suggestions that people would be immoral without God is complete bullshit. I would say that people become less moral when a God is present. Religious pretenses are one of the number one reasons for genocides and wars. People know that killing one another is bad and wrong, and won't do it, until you tell them that the other person worships false idols and wants to destroy all that is good and true in the world.

Religion fucks you up far more than atheism.

You haven't been paying attention Toast, I didn't say that people would be immoral without God. In fact, I've made it clear in several posts that I wasn't saying people without God are immoral. Re-read my posts and you'll see I'm saying that, in Atheism, there is no good or evil, right or wrong, immoral or moral in the classic sense. There are no "evil" animals that kill, or rape, or steal another's person's food. If we're just another animal, we can't be 'evil' either.

I don't know that religion fucks you up more then atheism, but I have noticed it cuts down on the use of colorful medifors in posts.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by skuLL

I can't fucking believe you just said that, I mean, what the fuck?

Originally Posted by accrede

I agree that ideas of right and wrong are a social constructions, although my personal view is that this applies to both theists and atheists. I do think though, that atheism seems to be closely linked to "evolutionism"/ survival of the fittest in this thread. This is a pretty narrow view of atheism. An atheist believes that there is no god, that does not preclude a belief in right or wrong or any other irrational but non-superstitious belief.

I did not say that atheists do not have definitions for right and wrong, nor did I say that they do not believe things they don't like are "bad" All I am saying is that in Atheism, a true hard core definition of atheism is pure nature. In nature it is survival of the fittest, killing to get ahead is perfectly acceptable.

Skull and Circ, help me out here. Help me by answering two questions for me, so that I can understand your point of view a little clearer.

1) In Atheism, without anyone (society, parents) ever telling you that killing is wrong, *why* is killing wrong?

2) If rape/incest in animals is acceptable behavior, why isn't that acceptable behavior if man is just another animal?

[uBeR]

Wasn't the Bible translated into English by man? Just an aside.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Stick to your examples ekiM. Read the passages and tell me if they're ambiguous. You chose them so let's see it through to the end.

No. I simply am not interested in this discussion getting diverted into a lengthy aside analysing the text of the Bible. Attemping to change the topic to a verse-by-verse analysis is simply a distracting tactic. Neither of us are expert theologians. I'm sure we've both read the relevant sections of the text and formed out own opinions on what they mean. However, our opinions on how to read those section simply are not germane to the larger point which you are desperately attempting not to address. It is not necessary to derail the thread to acknowledge that Christian scripture is interpreted by different denominations in different ways and, as such, must be ambiguous.

Different denominations of Christianity interpret the Bible in different ways and have their own interpretation of divine moral framework. I chose those examples as areas where there clearly is ambiguity, as evidenced by the stark contrast between the stance of different Christian denominations. According to you, contraception is not inherently immoral. According to the catholic church, it is. According to some denominations, being homosexual is immoral. According to some denominations, being homosexual can't be helped but acting on those feelings is immoral. The US Episcopal Church ordained Gene Robinson.

It's patently obvious that these different denominations have their own interpretations of the divine moral framework. You simply cannot honestly deny that. It doesn't require us to compare notes on the Bible to come to that conclusion.

Now, you can claim that there is only one way to interpret Christian scripture and these liberal new-time sects (the Catholic church, et al) are simply making stuff up. Or you can admit that there is more than one valid way to interpret Christian scripture.

Either way, my original point (which you've worked so hard to try and have us forget) is that even if we allow that the Christian God exists as described in the Bible; that there is an absolute divine moral framework; and that God tried to tell us what that framework is through his messengers.. mankind cannot use that framework directly. Man uses his own interpretation. Man's interpretation of a divine moral framework is not somehow inherently less malleable than secular moral frameworks.

Now obviously you think *your* interpretation of what the Bible says is the correct one. According to you, the divine moral framework says that contraception is OK and homoexuality is not OK. According to other Christians' interpretations, the exact opposite of those individual points can be true. Am I to believe that your interpretation is correct and those other Christians simply don't "get" the divine moral framework? OK, we could spend an eternity analysing passages of scripture and you could argue why those passages support your position. This wouldn't change that your interpretation of the Bible is just that - an interpretation. It seems like the best interpretation to you, because you came up with it and because it confirms your existing beliefs and prejudices. However unless you are claiming that you, personally, have a special insight into the mind of God that is not available to all those Christians who have built a different moral framework from scripture than you.. there is no particular reason for anyone to accept your interpretation as the true interpretation. And if your interpretation is subjective and personal to you then basing it on what you, as a falliable human, think is the divine moral framework does not make it more absolute than secular frameworks. It's still subjective.

There is no objectively correct interprtation of what the Bible tells us of the divine moral framework. There are only subjective interpretations, created by falliable humans.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Are you being deliberately evasive in not answering?

Coming from someone who spent half a dozen posts trying to change the subject so he didn't have to answer a question..

Originally Posted by Innoc

No. You're implying hypocracy where none exists. We never finished the two points he raised and to expect to dilute the conversation into the broader macro question without finishing these two points is unreasonable.

No, to attempt to divert the conversation onto discussing individual passages of scripture is unreasonable. Our individual interpetations (and I'm sure as hell they'd be different) are not germane to the point of this subthread - does positing a divine moral framework make morality less subjective?

Originally Posted by Innoc

As far as the Catholic Church goes I see quite a few things they do that I cannot see where they are supported by scripture. It's not a matter subject to interpretation...it's flat out not supported....period.

You hadn't mentioned that you are the ultimate arbiter of what the scripture says and have a perfect knowledge of the mind of God and his moral framework. If you'd have said that earlier things would be much clearer. Someone should probably notify the Pope so that he can put the Catholic Church on the one true path, as told by Innoc. Once they're onside we can work on converting the rest of them to your one true vision.

Originally Posted by Innoc

ekiM still hasn't shown where the scripture is ambiguous on his two issues.

Rather than do what you want and turn this into an amatuer analysis of scripture, I defer to my learned friends in the huge number of denominations that don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible. You can claim that you're smarter than all of them put together, and I'd probably believe you, but you might have a hard time convincing them.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I can agree to this. I also think you and I can agree that evolution is also a theory, because it has not been proven either. Correct?

Quite right. Nothing in science can be proven. Scientific theories are not verifiable, they are falsifiable. Why you think this is significant is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So you're arguing that everything that is going to happen in the universe was predefined, but it was predefined by chance? And if so, extrapolating that theory out a bit and using that line of thinking, it is theoretically possible for me to calculate what my great great great great second cousin twice removed is going to get for their 14th birthday a few centuries from now?

Yes. The calculating device is the universe and the calculation will take a few centuries. Please hold.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You're trying to compare apples to oranges here, let me help you understand why. Gravity is an observable force, albeit one that can not be adequate defined.

Not quite. Evolution is an observable phenomena. We can see it happening under the microscope. We can see it happening at dog shows. We can get a small view of it happening long-term in the fossil record.

We can see evolution effecting small changes in short periods of time. I'm not sure why it's a big leap to go from that to expecting that over long periods of time it would effect large changes.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

The theory of evolution is a guess made by man to explain his idea of the beginnings of life on earth

Flat out wrong. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the origin of life on earth.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

kinda like "the earth is flat" or "the moon is made of cheese."

"Kinda like" in the same way that religion is "kinda like" belief in the tooth fairy and unicorns?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

1) In Atheism, without anyone (society, parents) ever telling you that killing is wrong, *why* is killing wrong?

Beats me. Randians would say that a rational being has a moral obligation to not kill others because killing others doesn't help him to survive. Emotivists would say that killing is wrong because it feels wrong. Altruists would say that you have a moral obligation to serve others ahead of yourself and killing them isn't a part of that. Kantians would say that killing is wrong because if everyone did it, everyone would be dead.

Why is killing wrong in Christianity?

[Scuzzy]

In response to my question to skull and circ about in atheism, without hearing from someone else why would killing be "wrong":

Originally Posted by ekiM

Beats me.

So you and I agree on the one point I'm trying to discuss in this thread, is that without hearing it from someone else (or society), in Atheism, killing, rape, incest are just like they are in nature and are neither "wrong" nor "right", they are just natural occurences, correct?

[ekiM]

No.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So you and I agree on the one point I'm trying to discuss in this thread, is that without hearing it from someone else (or society), in Atheism, killing, rape, incest are just like they are in nature and are neither "wrong" nor "right", they are just natural occurences, correct?

Originally Posted by ekiM

No.

Alright, then in Atheism, if animals killing each other isn't wrong in nature, but inherently man killing each other is wrong, who gave man the "right" to life as described above?

[luminous]

Other animals kill each other in a survival of the fittest struggle, and the food chain. most animals dont kill their own species in nature, so why do humans have to? therefore humans killing each other can be seen as "wrong" as its unnecesary

just how i see it anyway

[qui]

Alright, then in Atheism, if animals killing each other isn't wrong in nature, but inherently man killing each other is wrong, who gave man the "right" to life as described above?

We are a more developed species than "animals" and we can reason that killing each other is irrational and "wrong".

Morals are something that we have developed by ourselves, presumably to make things easier for ourselves. We wouldn't of progressed as a species as well as we have without these morals, to make it so we work together and become stronger, rather than killing eachother.

Also, i find it incredibly irritating when people dismiss scientific theories because they can be disproven. Yes all theories can be disproven, but that doesn't mean they are "guesses". There is always a grounding for theories, not just plucked out of the air. They are educated guesses based on what we observe.

For example

Evolution: We can see it happening, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution as we understand it exists. The main argument is, did we all evolve from some very simple organisms to what we are? Now of course creationists are always going to point and say, well you dont have absolute proof, so of course it cannot be accurate!

Then they turn around and give a reason for what we are from a book written by men, thousands of years ago. And if you don't think it would of been changed during that time to fit someone's agenda then you are very, very naive.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges here, let me help you understand why. Gravity is an observable force, albeit one that can not be adequate defined. The theory of evolution is a guess made by man to explain his idea of the beginnings of life on earth, kinda like "the earth is flat" or "the moon is made of cheese."

Such a rediculous thing to say.

Evolution happens.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Alright, then in Atheism, if animals killing each other isn't wrong in nature, but inherently man killing each other is wrong, who gave man the "right" to life as described above?

That's an awfully leading question, don't you think? Wouldn't a better question be "what gives man the right to life?"

I don't speak for all atheists. I'm also not really qualified to sum up a few millenia of moral philosophy in a single forum post. If you belive that morality is impossible outside of a theological framework then you are obviously no great student of philosophy. There are a hell of a lot of objective moral philosophies that have nothing to do with religion. You have a lot of reading to do.

Free sample : Immanuel Kant, a theist, proposed the theory of Categorical imperative. Actions are immoral if they are self-contradictive. Cribbed from wikipedia :

According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction in conceivability. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of property, but were A universalized, then there could be no property, and so the proposition has logically annihilated itself. Hence we have a perfect duty never to steal. Similarly, if the moral proposition B: "It is permissible to lie" were true, there must be language, but the universalization of lying would destroy the meaning of language. Therefore proposition B results in a logical contradiction, and Kant (rather famously) declared that lying is impermissible in any and all conceivable circumstances.

If you're actually interested then try reading every link on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
You can probably find better explanations there than I can provide.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

That's an awfully leading question, don't you think? Wouldn't a better question be "what gives man the right to life?"

I don't speak for all atheists. I'm also not really qualified to sum up a few millenia of moral philosophy

I'm not talking about philosophy, that's the point here. We're STRICTLY talking about nature. In Atheism man is a physical result of evolution, he's an animal just like a dog, just like an insect. If we are animals and animals can commit rape, incest, and kill without it being "right or wrong" why would it be different for man? It's not a leading question, it's a perfectly honest question.

Think of it this way: In Atheism, any belief in good and evil, or right and wrong, beyond nature, is a religion. That religion may not have a "God" as a central figure, but it's still an organized group of people creating their own organized set of rules to live by to surpress others behavior without any natural basis for those rules. So, unless you believe in the true nature of Atheism, you're part of a religion.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by luminous

Other animals kill each other in a survival of the fittest struggle, and the food chain. most animals dont kill their own species in nature, so why do humans have to? therefore humans killing each other can be seen as "wrong" as its unnecesary

just how i see it anyway

Animals kill their own kind all the time. The praying mantis kills after mating, every time. Your argument makes no sense.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by qui

We are a more developed species than "animals" and we can reason that killing each other is irrational and "wrong".
Morals are something that we have developed by ourselves, presumably to make things easier for ourselves. We wouldn't of progressed as a species as well as we have without these morals, to make it so we work together and become stronger, rather than killing eachother.

Again, you're talking about how man has rationalized that killing is wrong or right. Your stating that we are "more developed" but haven't given me any definition about why animals are any different then man. If there is no right and wrong in nature, and we are ONLY a part of nature, we have no right and wrong. Again, only "what a man likes", what a man doesn't like, is the only definition of good or bad in Atheism.

At what point does right and wrong get introduced to creatures? Are chimpanses evolved enough to have good and evil? Or because they haven't built prisons they don't have to worry about such stuff?

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'm not talking about philosophy, that's the point here.

You asked what makes an action moral or immoral. That's a question of ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

We're STRICTLY talking about nature.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

In Atheism man is a physical result of evolution, he's an animal just like a dog, just like an insect. If we are animals and animals can commit rape, incest, and kill without it being "right or wrong" why would it be different for man?

Without wanting to generalise too much, most objective moral philosophies are based on the premise that a man is a being capable of reasoning.

Think of it this way: In Atheism, any belief in good and evil, or right and wrong, beyond nature, is a religion.

Uh, no.

That religion may not have a "God" as a central figure, but it's still an organized group of people creating their own organized set of rules to live by to surpress others behavior without any natural basis for those rules.

A moral philosophy is not an organised group of people.

So, unless you believe in the true nature of Atheism, you're part of a religion.

You argument makes no sense. You're redefining "religion" to mean "moral philosophy" then saying "atheists have no moral philosophy". Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God(s). Atheism is not a moral philosophy. Not is it incompatible with any moral philosophy, other han theologically founded ones.

[Loader]

Some people kill each other because they believe it is what thier God wanted them to do.

They think thier religion is right, you think yours is right.. Which one is it?

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Again, only "what a man likes", what a man doesn't like, is the only definition of good or bad in Atheism.

You keep saying this. All it does is hilight that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Atheism is not a moral philosophy. Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). Atheism is compatible with any moral philosophy that is not theological in nature. There are any number of moral philosophies that are not based on "what a man likes or dislikes". That you are ignorant of their existence is irrelevant.

[Suite307]

This thread makes me laugh, y'all are debating this subject like it matters.

[accrede]

I'm not talking about philosophy, that's the point here. We're STRICTLY talking about nature. In Atheism man is a physical result of evolution, he's an animal just like a dog, just like an insect. If we are animals and animals can commit rape, incest, and kill without it being "right or wrong" why would it be different for man? It's not a leading question, it's a perfectly honest question.

I think that the point is, that man IS an animal, but that we are able to evolve socially as well as biologically. We are not just like other animals due to our powers of reason and self-awareness, this does not mean we are more valid than other animals or divinely created.

It just means that we have found an adaptation that seems to set us apart, but is in fact just like the difference between things that can fly and things that can't (for example).

I also think that saying other animals kill and rape each other so what is the difference with humans, is disingenuous. For starters, there is a preclusion to incest in nature (i'm not saying it doesn't happen though) and also some insects and other species do kill or drive off other members of their hive/ pack if they break the social structure. Social/moral structure arising from nature without reasoning?

However, I agree that there is no supernatural, religious or paranormal moral absolute and that we do have to work out what is wrong and right. However, we do have the tools to work those things out, by nature of the creature we have evolved into.

We are different from other animals in the same way that crabs are different from birds, that does not mean that we are divinley sanctioned because we can reason and can have morals.

I also think that morals are inutively hardwired into us, we know we something is wrong or right in terms of whether it hurts/benefits us or hurts/benefits them. Sometimes, we know this, but just don't care. I.E. we do "know" the impact of our behaviour will be destructive(wrong) or constructive(right) but we carry on and do it anyway.

[EDIT] Some of my stuff is redundant now, cos you guys are too quick! :P