I have said yes to give a lecture about Religion: The Bible

[Kadagar_AV]

You think that just because the ancients practiced slavery that their moral system as a whole is completely invalid? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere...

Nah, that was just on the top of my head... Their view of women does not exactly make me give a standing applause either.

[Tuuvi]

Nah, that was just on the top of my head... Their view of women does not exactly make me give a standing applause either.

Still, I don't think you can dismiss an entire culture's morality system just because it has some bits in it you don't like, that doesn't make sense.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still, I don't think you can dismiss an entire culture's morality system just because it has some bits in it you don't like, that doesn't make sense.

You seem to be downplaying the part where it is ok to fundamentally own another human being or treat 50% of the human population (women) as inferior.

I wouldn't consider those as "bits".

[Kadagar_AV]

Still, I don't think you can dismiss an entire culture's morality system just because it has some bits in it you don't like, that doesn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I think they were rock solid some 2000 years ago.

What scares me is that the only modern super power is on the same track as of today!!


EDIT: What ACIN said. I implied it, but I might as well shout it out loud.

[Kadagar_AV]

I want to be like them because I believe it is the way God wants all of us to to be and my parents hit the nail on the head, not because I'm worried about shaming my parents. If I failed to live up to the standard, I wouldn't be afraid that my parents were shamed, but that I had betrayed God's will.

See, this. THIS is what scares me about religious people.

You do not believe in cultural memes, but in the Bible. Your learnt about the bible from... Where? You accidentally stumbled upon it one day? Or did your parents give you a cultural meme in the form of the bible to lean back on?

You seem to seriously believe that YOUR parents hit the nail on the head, because they offered you the Bible, because the Bible is right, Because your parents hit the nail of the head on that one................................................................................................

Don't you have any ability what so ever to take a step back and go like - "Oh wait":

* In Sweden a thousand years ago you would have believed in Thor and Odin.
* In Egypt some 3000 years ago the Pharaohs would have been Gods (Not to mention Ra!).
* In ancient Greece you would have sacrificed to Zeus.
* In ancient Rome you would have had Bacchus orgies.
* In Germany 1930 you would be in the Jugend Corps.
* In Soviet 1950 you would be communist.

I claim that what keeps me back is shaming my parents.

You claim that what is keeping you back is betraying "God's will".

Here is a mind opener for you, your parents were the ones teaching you about God and the Bible. No? They introduced you to the first priest, who has a -longer than- 2000 year history and evolution of turning self thinking individuals into not-so-self-thinking-Bible-Followers.

You are more a tool of your parents than I am. I can at least honestly say that they had a big impact, you can't even do that, you just see it all as a lucky coincidence that both you, your parents and your priest adhere to the same belief.

My parents taught me to think for myself, to pick a religion if I found one that I believed in. You think you are blessed for having found the right way in life.

I am very sorry to say, but it is hard for me to budge on this. I honestly think that you could have been shaped in any mold.

Pretty please, take a step back. Have a look at what you said about not being afraid to shame your parents, but GOD. Know what? Your parents put GOD in your head.

For me, shaming my parents is the same as it is for you to shame God, because that is what they taught you.

The difference between you and me, is that my parents didn't set me on to a track on a set belief, but on a track to find a truth I can believe in - whatever that is.

You were set on a track to be a good Christian boy. And what disturbs me is that you fell into it head first, actually thinking your mum and dad got it right, and the overwhelming majority of the world got it wrong.

[Hax]

I was wondering about the "biological (or evolutionary) argument"; could it be so that spiritual belief is also embedded in the nature of humans to reinforce concepts of morality?

[ICantSpellDawg]

See, this. THIS is what scares me about religious people.

You do not believe in cultural memes, but in the Bible. Your learnt about the bible from... Where? You accidentally stumbled upon it one day? Or did your parents give you a cultural meme in the form of the bible to lean back on?

You seem to seriously believe that YOUR parents hit the nail on the head, because they offered you the Bible, because the Bible is right, Because your parents hit the nail of the head on that one................................................................................................

Don't you have any ability what so ever to take a step back and go like - "Oh wait":

* In Sweden a thousand years ago you would have believed in Thor and Odin.
* In Egypt some 3000 years ago the Pharaohs would have been Gods (Not to mention Ra!).
* In ancient Greece you would have sacrificed to Zeus.
* In ancient Rome you would have had Bacchus orgies.
* In Germany 1930 you would be in the Jugend Corps.
* In Soviet 1950 you would be communist.

I claim that what keeps me back is shaming my parents.

You claim that what is keeping you back is betraying "God's will".

Here is a mind opener for you, your parents were the ones teaching you about God and the Bible. No? They introduced you to the first priest, who has a -longer than- 2000 year history and evolution of turning self thinking individuals into not-so-self-thinking-Bible-Followers.

You are more a tool of your parents than I am. I can at least honestly say that they had a big impact, you can't even do that, you just see it all as a lucky coincidence that both you, your parents and your priest adhere to the same belief.

My parents taught me to think for myself, to pick a religion if I found one that I believed in. You think you are blessed for having found the right way in life.

I am very sorry to say, but it is hard for me to budge on this. I honestly think that you could have been shaped in any mold.

Pretty please, take a step back. Have a look at what you said about not being afraid to shame your parents, but GOD. Know what? Your parents put GOD in your head.

For me, shaming my parents is the same as it is for you to shame God, because that is what they taught you.

The difference between you and me, is that my parents didn't set me on to a track on a set belief, but on a track to find a truth I can believe in - whatever that is.

You were set on a track to be a good Christian boy. And what disturbs me is that you fell into it head first, actually thinking your mum and dad got it right, and the overwhelming majority of the world got it wrong.

Many on this board seem to be saying that God is just, inherently, in you. You don't call it God, but you appeal to your conscience as capable of knowing a truth that judges right from wrong - beyond the utilitarian argument. I call it God, you call it... je ne sais qua. I read the Bible and other sources to understand some of the fundamentals of culture and morality, others lambaste it. I know what you are saying to me, my religious culture was given to me by my parents like the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and I'm just brainwashed into it. I think you're just as brainwashed by the mainstream culture you've inherited. Your morals seem baseless to me just as mine must seem baseless to you. You get yours from popular culture on TV, your mommy and daddy, teachers. I do too.

I'm not sure that the world got it "wrong". As you and others here have said in a roundabout way, most people know "God", they just can't say the name out loud for fear of being called "faithful" instead of "completely rational"

[Sigurd]

The morale debate is rather boring.
Using any number of religious philosophies and then point at their absurd differences does in no way defeat the argument of universal truths nor the inexistence of a deity.

The Christian faith has answered this inherent ability to discern right from wrong as: Everyone is born with a portion of the light of Christ (God). Man was made in the image and likeness of God and is thus sons and daughters of God. Thereby inheriting certain godlike qualities like morale – the inherent understanding or maybe more correctly, the recognition of what is right and wrong. They explain this recognition as the light of Christ.

This light of Christ is also applied when “recognizing” the existence of deity. That humans inherently believe (no atheists in a fox hole etc.)

Again do we see that any religious discussion will boil down to the question of whether there is a God or not. (Anyone up for calling it something? Godwin is taken).
The law could state: “As any online discussion on any given religious topic grows longer, the probability of discussing the existence of God approaches 1".

[ICantSpellDawg]

The morale debate is rather boring.
Using any number of religious philosophies and then point at their absurd differences does in no way defeat the argument of universal truths nor the inexistence of a deity.

The Christian faith has answered this inherent ability to discern right from wrong as: Everyone is born with a portion of the light of Christ (God). Man was made in the image and likeness of God and is thus sons and daughters of God. Thereby inheriting certain godlike qualities like morale – the inherent understanding or maybe more correctly, the recognition of what is right and wrong. They explain this recognition as the light of Christ.

This light of Christ is also applied when “recognizing” the existence of deity. That humans inherently believe (no atheists in a fox hole etc.)

Again do we see that any religious discussion will boil down to the question of whether there is a God or not. (Anyone up for calling it something? Godwin is taken).
The law could state: “As any online discussion on any given religious topic grows longer, the probability of discussing the existence of God approaches 1".

Ha! But we love doing it, or at least I do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Strictly philosophically speaking, you could prove pretty much anything. Let us have at least one foot in reality here, shall we?

Well - I have found limited comfort in the living world. I try to live compassionately, in as much concordance to my beliefs as possible, but I'm afraid physical pleasures don't really do it for me.

Well, I don't. So no God needed.

Yes, I know, but you don't need God for your moral system. It's not you I'm irritated with.

I think you made my point for me.

That depends on the point

You don't believe it because it doesn't provide for absolutes, and you require absolutes because you have a faith that requires absolutes... Circle reasoning much lately, are we?

Circuler reasoning can mean either a lack of foundation or a perfect argument.

For what's it's worth - the absolute came first, the faith later. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm arguing that my moral system, and my faith, are parts with my character.

I have my faith in large part because of my character.

I see "meme" as a nice word invention that put a name to something we all know exists and can observe directly, and thus believe in. Anyone who had a parent, or parent figure, will have a natural understanding for what a meme is.

It's just a fancy word for "idea" though.

No, God is inside your head. You are just malcontent in your little glass bowl and fervently wish something bigger would bother to have a peek.

I'm not malcontent though - I'm quite content. God might be inside my head, but he might not.

We shall both know once we are dead - for what it's worth if I am brought into heaven I shall ask what God intends to do with the atheists who believed according to their natural concience.

Correct :)

Right, that's fine.

Actually, no. As an atheist I don't believe in good and evil, as no one can define it or prove its existence. Take Bruto as an example, I don't think he woke up thinking "hmm, I want to be evil today". A more modern example, Breivik. We do not brush him off as evil, we send him to psychiatrists checking if his mind is fully functional, then we have a weeks long process trying to figure out why he deemed it okay to do what he did. I think that makes more sense than brushing him and his actions off as "evil", you don't?

I can call his actions evil and him mad. A truly evil man would understand what he was doing was evil and still do it, Breivik believes he is justified.

Regardless of what you believe, there are atheists who talk of "good and "evil" as real things.

No. That is wrong. You are just pulling that out as a synonym when really that is just a non-sequitor. There is a universal right and wrong. It's infallible. Ok. That in no way means it's applicable to flawed beings. What you are saying is just taken from an abuse of the word infallible and instead of just claiming that it is infallible in it's assignment of values you now have left reality to claim that these universal values are values that can be upheld at all given times. Obviously such values are not able to be upheld at all given times, even the most devout and studied Christian will "sin" or make moral errors at some point, which means that these values are not always applicable which means your premise falls apart.

You are confusing the system and it's application. A theoretically "perfect" principle can be "perfectly" applied and always be applicable. That does not mean that it is upheld or applied. It is possible to judge flawed beings using a flawless system (what God is said to do) and it is possbile for flawed being to use a flawless principle (the dichtimony between right and wrong) in an imperfect way without the principle being violated.

Christians sin constantly, if you think otherwise you have fundamentally misunderstood the religion. This is why the religion places such a high value on repentence and forgiveness - nor do Christians claim to be morally better than other people.

Again human fallibility makes any infallible moral system, fallible. If the moral system cannot be upheld consistently, then it is not a perfect moral system.

And again you confuse the system and it's application. The system is the concept, the Platonic "perfect form" - it's not the same thing as the concrete reality. Indeed, that is the whole point - there is a disconect between the way the world should be, and the way it is.

This is such a distorted caricature you have painted. A case of the essence or the spirit of the law being ignored by rigid adherence to the letter of the law. The laws are to communicate values, not to be values in themselves, even in absolute morality system. By killing me, the murderer then kills someone else and you claim that any reasonable man who is trying to follow the moral law will believe that that was the point of the moral law. This is silly and if your defense of your particular construction of absolute morality is based off these distortions of reality and by making sure definitions are set on your terms, then this will go nowhere because you have successfully locked yourself in a box.

You do not understand the point.

If the moral LAW is "thou shalt not kill, except to stop killing" it is an ass. My "charicature" is made purely for the purpose of demonstrating that your posited moral law does not work on a moral plane.

Again, you confuse principle and application. The point is that if the law is applied in all cases it does not work.

And this is where you contradict yourself. If nobody violates...., which is presupposing that humans are able to be flawless, which they are not, which is known to the infallible creature that designed this infallible morality. Which means this infallible create made an error in making a system that requires humans to be something which he knows cannot be. So he is not infallible at all.

Humans are utterly incapable of flawless thoughts or actions, that is our nature.

However, if you want to believe in good and evil you need to believe there is such a thing as good and evil in the universe - that requires a perfect morality because there is no space between good and evil, there are just the two sides.

So - you take your money and make your choice.

Want to be a relativist or utilitarian? No God for you. Want to believe in an absolutel difference between good and evil? God comes as part of the package.

[Ironside]

The morale debate is rather boring.
Using any number of religious philosophies and then point at their absurd differences does in no way defeat the argument of universal truths nor the inexistence of a deity.

The Christian faith has answered this inherent ability to discern right from wrong as: Everyone is born with a portion of the light of Christ (God). Man was made in the image and likeness of God and is thus sons and daughters of God. Thereby inheriting certain godlike qualities like morale – the inherent understanding or maybe more correctly, the recognition of what is right and wrong. They explain this recognition as the light of Christ.

Well, here's a more complex one. If the recognition of right and wrong comes from God and being made from his image, can God himself evolve with time? Early God and those holy people are often quite morally wrong, or humanity has already becomes far more virtious than God himself imho.

[Kralizec]

Wow, this thread has grown a lot since I last read it.

I've been an strong agnostic for most of my life, except for the past 5 or 6 years. At various points in time I've dabbled in faith.


Why not? I think that sociopaths are just people who intrinsically get what I am talking about. A sociopath is not necessarily someone who seeks to harm others actively or kill them, those are just the ones that we hear about in the news and fear.

They simply disregard society and it's mores (for the most part). They would have varied compulsions, just like the rest of us. Some moral people are driven to kill, steal, give to charity, eat, etc but respect society and guard society's view of them or their interests. Being a natural or congenital sociopath just makes it easier to do what I am talking about here, but the human mind could simply come to these conclusions. You could still appear normal and fit into society at large.

Also, your understanding of "conscience" would need to be rather rigid or dogmatically constructed to believe that it mattered much, more like a philosophical appendix than a reason to do or not to do things.

If you value conscience, value religion. I suspect that both are human evolutionary products for the preservation of natual, God given law. One is biological, the other sociological, but both are technologies that do very similar things. My belief that Religion is "man-made" and developed should not be construed as a belief that man created the idea of "God" or that these things were not a gift from God. I don't believe that this opinion is far off of the Catholic church's recognition that tradition and Sacraments are a very important part of our faith, but I could be wildly wrong. I don't disbelieve in the tenants of my faith or the assertions, but much of the ritual is there to help strengthen our moral resolve. It's not just for God, it's for us as well. The ritual has a spiritual presence - our understanding and interpretation of "the way" with the Benediction of God. It's a give and take. I believe that biological and sociological evolution are as much a part of God's creation as your soul, so this shouldn't be too radical a thought, but all it is is a thought.

If you bothered to read that wiki entirely instead of selectively picking parts of it for the sake of your argument, you noticed that a person with ADP already demonstrates a lack of empathy before the age of 15. Usually it's long before that age, certainly before most people bother to seriously ponder ethics and morality. Show me a single case of where a person who demonstrably was sane and possessed empathy voluntarily decided to condition himself against his consience, and you'll have an anecdote. If you manage to find a study that shows that this happens with a meaningful amount of people you might have an argument.

And yeah, some people manage to selectively override their conscience when they're in a situation where doing so would benefit them. That's not quite the same of ignoring your conscience alltogether, and besides, this happens regardless of a persons religious beliefs. You might think that this is more likely to occur with atheists, but I doubt you'll find anything to back that up, and I could just as easily argue that Catholics are more likely to transgress because they convince themselves that they can repent at some point in the future and confess to their local cleric.

Ah, but are you a proper Atheist.

ICSD appears to be describing moral apathy, absent threat of sanction he does not feel compelled to act in a way as proscribed by "morality".

You, on the other hand, follow the dictates of your concience - which you justify as an evolutionary advantage. The interesting thing about this is that ICSD is following a utilitarian philosophical model whilst you are responding to the moral issue on an intuitive level and then applying a utilitarian justification.

Or, to put it another way, you sould like a man of faith and he sounds like an atheist.

I'll admit that I have something of an utilitarian streak; I don't agree with the entire philosophy as such however.

I don't see how my argument sounds like faith. I never resorted to anything supernational and my position is perfectly plausible from an evolutionary perspective. Tuff is just channeling a negative caricature of atheists that's popular among religious people.

[Noncommunist]

Well, here's a more complex one. If the recognition of right and wrong comes from God and being made from his image, can God himself evolve with time? Early God and those holy people are often quite morally wrong, or humanity has already becomes far more virtious than God himself imho.

Or we're just becoming more morally decadent and only think ourselves to be progressing due to our moral blindness.

[Skullheadhq]

Athanasius is not so interesting a character as Augustine, not as complex or controversial.

I don't think so. The emperors tried to kill him, banished him five times and sent a large amount of soldiers to hunt him down in the desert. He was to name the list of NT books we have today.

and moral advice from an age where slavery was common practice.

So everything Plato, Socrates and Aristotle said, on morals or otherwise, is automatically null and void because of the time they lived in or because they supported slavery?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So everything Plato, Socrates and Aristotle said, on morals or otherwise, is automatically null and void because of the time they lived in or because they supported slavery?

It puts everything they said under great scrutiny and suspect.

Personally, I am more offended by Aristotle's Physics than anything else.

[Skullheadhq]

It puts everything they said under great scrutiny and suspect.

Well, that's just childish.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, that's just childish.

Yeah, well so's ur mum.

[Skullheadhq]

Yeah, well so's ur mum.

No, you.

[Greyblades]

Yo momma's so dumb she's voting BNP 'cause she thinks it's the "Be Nice Party"

[Skullheadhq]

Yo momma's so dumb she's voting BNP.

I won´t comment on your mom, because hindus might be offended if I equate her to their holy animal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This kind of conversation brings me back to my high school days, when a student decided to smear a can of tuna paste underneath a teacher's desk on a day where it was 102 degrees F outside and the air conditioner was off due to budget cuts.

[Ironside]

Or we're just becoming more morally decadent and only think ourselves to be progressing due to our moral blindness.

Well, by some bizarre reason, I'm not finding some Bible stuff to be done by paragons of virtue:

Like punishing a people because what you mind controlled their leader to do.
Punishing your son's decendants into to eternal slavery.
Offering your daughters as company for visitors, and by the same time being so awesome that those daughters rape you.
Not to mention how his wife died, looking back on her home being destroyed.
Bashing your army for not being cruel enough.
Testing people's faith by demanding that they sacrifice their son (but not needing to do it, how nice).
Some minor city and world destruction here and there.
I'm quite sure I missed a thing or two as well.

I think I take more of this moral decadence than keeping those "virtues" you know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, by some bizarre reason, I'm not finding some Bible stuff to be done by paragons of virtue:

Like punishing a people because what you mind controlled their leader to do.
Punishing your son's decendants into to eternal slavery.
Offering your daughters as company for visitors, and by the same time being so awesome that those daughters rape you.
Not to mention how his wife died, looking back on her home being destroyed.
Bashing your army for not being cruel enough.
Testing people's faith by demanding that they sacrifice their son (but not needing to do it, how nice).
Some minor city and world destruction here and there.
I'm quite sure I missed a thing or two as well.

I think I take more of this moral decadence than keeping those "virtues" you know.

Are all those things to be taken a positive examples, though?

I also find the claims about modern morals somewhat supect.

We still have slavery, we just outsource it to Africa and China - and pay the slaves.

Women? Still treated like crap, in a few ways worse than 100 years ago. For example see posters of Scarlett Johansson for Iron Man 2.

[Kadagar_AV]

This, or?

I don't see what's wrong with it.

[Ironside]

Are all those things to be taken a positive examples, though?

Pretty much, certainly never as a negative. It's either done by God or one of the really holy people (or at least the most holy of the bunch, in the case of Lot and Noah).

"Do as I say and not as I do, because the stuff I do is quite evil", isn't exactly encouraging.

I also find the claims about modern morals somewhat supect.

We still have slavery, we just outsource it to Africa and China - and pay the slaves.

Women? Still treated like crap, in a few ways worse than 100 years ago. For example see posters of Scarlett Johansson for Iron Man 2.

Never said perfect. Beating old God on average though.
"Salary slaves" got more rights than the old ones, even those who might fit for the title.

The display of females as sex objects are a complicated matter, since it was hidden, but extremely prevalent in Victorian times for example. Add that you also have the needed female sexual liberty (since it's needed to break the old madonna and whore system and is also an acknowledgement of female independence). Besides, a woman can be sexy without being an object, and by her own choise nowadays. Quite an improvement.

Old school, part of the enemy? She would be excuted since she's not a virgin (thanks for that Moses). Had she been that? Only a sex slave. Could be beaten and rape by her husband without it counting as a crime, etc, etc.

[ajaxfetish]

This, or?

I don't see what's wrong with it.

Yeah, I'm curious too. I looked through google images, and saw a few variations, but none of them seemed offensive or degrading to women. Is there a less obvious version out there that's problematic?

Ajax

[Kadagar_AV]

This is one of my favourite pics on the intrawebz

Might mean different thing to different people. But my take on it, is that women should stop blaming men. They do a pretty good job of bringing it all on themselves.

I have no idea about Islamic culture, but in the western culture, girls primarily dress up for the sake of other girls. They are way harsher on each other than men will ever be. We are generally quite satisfied if we can buy them a drink and talk with them some, no matter what clothes they have.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, I'm curious too. I looked through google images, and saw a few variations, but none of them seemed offensive or degrading to women. Is there a less obvious version out there that's problematic?

Ajax

She had epic digital enhancement - and lads mags went a bit fruity when she "had a breast reduction" too - aka when she lost weight and stopped padding her bra.

Ironside: I think you're misreading the text, I don't have my Bible with me and I'm on a shoddy connection so I can't explain it presently.

[Kralizec]

She had epic digital enhancement - and lads mags went a bit fruity when she "had a breast reduction" too - aka when she lost weight and stopped padding her bra.

Ironside: I think you're misreading the text, I don't have my Bible with me and I'm on a shoddy connection so I can't explain it presently.

Still not getting it. I only get that portraying women in skimpy clothing, especially with exaggerated features, offends your sensibilites somehow. Is offending your sensibilities just as bad as treating women as second-class citizens or even property?

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't know... she is naturally quite slim and busty... I could picture a combat dress/armour having extra padding on the more sensible parts of a females body, just like us guys would have a susp if we were to battle, you know, people with super powers.

However, with that said, I am in no, absolutely NO way in favour of digital enhancing of bodies, female as well as male ones. We have the bodies we have, no need for photoshop.

But then, I see digital adjustments as less intruding on a female than, say, rape.