Research on Belief in God

[Jspear]

Check this out and then tell me you still believe in god Facts can prove anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

Jesus and fish.

Jesus fed the 5,000 with bread and fish because this is what was available. If you want to build doctrine off something like this we should focus on the bread. There was more bread than fish here. In all seriousness think about it...they weren't rich; bread was a very common part of their meals and fish was abundant. The sea of Galilee was right there. Nothing odd here.

Jesus did have 4 fishermen among his disciples. Again that was a pretty common occupation for someone living near Galilee. Nothing strange here either. Jesus purposefully picked men who weren't "wise" or "big shots" according to the worlds standards.

The term "fishers of men" simply means evangelizing. Sharing Christ with others. It's not the only metaphor used in Christianity. We also use the term "sowing seed." Get it? "Fishers of men." "Seed Sowers." "Harvesters."

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I watched an oversimplified video from some British Humanist society, which lazily, and dishonestly categorized all of those who believe in the existence of an eternal being and soul.

The funny thing is that, at the end, the video suggested that belief in "good" and "evil" is easily transferable to an atheistic belief system.

A couple of things:
1. Either that group is borrowing ideas from theists and isn't willing to attribute such, or;

2. They don't understand that there is no such thing as truly objective truth under their belief system; therefore, there are only subjective interpretations of those concepts, and thus no universal truth to apply.

Atheists can jump up and down, and make arguments all day to the contrary, but I would ask them to list all of the attributes of those to concepts, and then I or anyone with sociological understanding, can list a myriad of examples where group dynamics defeat the tenants they ascribe to those concepts.

Like it or not, under an atheist belief system, majority rules as it relates to those concepts, and majorities change, always. Thus, there are no objective truths in the universe, as any concept of good or evil may be defeated given enough contrary opinion...and there are many examples of groups overcoming seemingly universally accepted truths. So then, explain to me why that wouldn't happen in a world only populated by atheists.

 

[hrotha]

Check this out and then tell me you still believe in god Facts can prove anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

Zeitgeist, seriously?

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

The "God's sun=God's son" thing is the single most idiotic thing I've ever seen in religious debate.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

A couple of other things:

1. The idea that civilization could have developed into a moral one, in the absence of theism is interesting to me, because the civilization we have was developed in concert with varying theist systems. So really, your idea is just an untested theory, with little to no relevant evidence.

2. This week, I read that the emerging theory is that there was no "Big Bang," and that the universe has existed in some form, infinitely.
--Problem 1: If that is the case, then it seems interesting that every single thing in the universe defies the observable fact that everything was born of something else.

Problem 2: If that is not the case, then everything was born of nothing, and the troubling thing about that idea is that it means that "nothing" is an infinite concept.

 

[hrotha]

1. The idea that civilization could have developed into a moral one, in the absence of theism is interesting to me, because the civilization we have was developed in concert with varying theist systems. So really, your idea is just an untested theory, with little to no relevant evidence.

All social animals have rules about what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. There's no reason why humans would be an exception.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

All social animals have rules about what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. There's no reason why humans would be an exception.

The question didn't contemplate a lack of rules, it contemplated what would and would not be considered as "good" or "evil" (choices the British Humanist Society chose to claim, independent of theism) in the absence of objective truth. Because, as I said, as much as atheists jump up and down and claim objective meaning of such things, it simply doesn't exist.

I also don't think suggesting that mimicking social animals is a wise choice. Now, you may counter that we enact our rules based on "reason," but again, that is a subjective term, like it or not. The only unifying tenant of those who claim "reason" as their guiding principle seems to be the denial of a deity...and that's pretty thin grounds for the development of morality.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I also find it amusing that those who deny the existence of a deity, suggest that reason will one day reveal the answer to everything. If indeed, the universe is infinite (as seems to be the case), you're simply a dog that doesn't realize that its tail is part of its body. You're in an infinite loop, claiming a finite answer...it really doesn't take much intelligence to see the problem there, but what do I know, I'm just a moron who believes that there beings have an eternal component that is immeasurable by science.

 

[hrotha]

In terms of social animals, "good" and "evil" are other names for "benefits the pack" and "hurts the pack". I don't see any problem here, and I certainly wasn't suggesting "mimicking" other animals' behavioural norms - I merely said we have our own, and that they're perfectly natural.

Nothing to do with "reason".

 

[Jspear]

In terms of social animals, "good" and "evil" are other names for "benefits the pack" and "hurts the pack". I don't see any problem here, and I certainly wasn't suggesting "mimicking" other animals' behavioural norms - I merely said we have our own, and that they're perfectly natural.

Nothing to do with "reason".

Is stealing evil or not? Is sex slavery evil or not?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

In terms of social animals, "good" and "evil" are other names for "benefits the pack" and "hurts the pack". I don't see any problem here, and I certainly wasn't suggesting "mimicking" other animals' behavioural norms - I merely said we have our own, and that they're perfectly natural.

Nothing to do with "reason".

So if everyone agrees that culling the infirmed from the gene pool benefits the pack, that is abject good? Because you are skimming the surface of what I am suggesting, and I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not?

 

[hrotha]

Is stealing evil or not? Is sex slavery evil or not?

Yes.

Obviously there's a cultural component, but that's perfectly natural too - it's built on those biological urges, plus adaptation and competition between individuals. And it's learned behaviour. At any rate, a taboo on sex slavery can hardly be inherently theistic, since it's perfectly kosher under many religions, and a religion-based morality still allows for large chunks of cultural morals.

So if everyone agrees that culling the infirmed from the gene pool benefits the pack, that is abject good?

No. Look above.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes.

Obviously there's a cultural component, but that's perfectly natural too. At any rate, a taboo on sex slavery can hardly be inherently theistic, since it's perfectly kosher under many religions, and a religion-based morality still allows for large chunks of cultural morals.

Instead of pointing out the flaws of other belief-sets, why not explain why, under your's, both of those things are abjectly evil. You took the soft route out, which I see a lot of atheists doing.

 

[Jspear]

Yes.

Obviously there's a cultural component, but that's perfectly natural too. At any rate, a taboo on sex slavery can hardly be inherently theistic, since it's perfectly kosher under many religions, and a religion-based morality still allows for large chunks of cultural morals.

Yes please explain why they are objectively evil. Also I've meet plenty (by that I mean literally dozens) of athiests/agnostics who think it ok to steal.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes.

Obviously there's a cultural component, but that's perfectly natural too - it's built on those biological urges, plus adaptation and competition between individuals. And it's learned behaviour. At any rate, a taboo on sex slavery can hardly be inherently theistic, since it's perfectly kosher under many religions, and a religion-based morality still allows for large chunks of cultural morals.

No. Look above.

"No. Look above." is the best you have?

I'd really like to see a more thorough explanation of why culling the infirmed from the gene pool is abjectly evil, because I can come up with a pretty easy argument as to why it isn't, based on your "what is best for the heard" criteria. As to whether we add a "cultural component" to it, well, that's pretty much the poster child for subjectivity, innint? I don't think basing what is and is not evil on "cultural component" is a terribly sufficient answer or basis for exploration of "good" and "evil."

EDIT: Not to mention that, if "everyone" agrees that it is abjectly good, you're sitting on the wrong side of your code of morals, and arguing that the "cultural component" that suggests it is good, is actually evil...which puts you on the wrong side of the criteria you are using to define the terms you use (without giving credence), and that's a pretty tough pickle go get out of...

 

[hrotha]

Instead of pointing out the flaws of other belief-sets, why not explain why, under your's, both of those things are abjectly evil. You took the soft route out, which I see a lot of atheists doing.

I'm not faulting other belief systems, I'm saying the original discussion is about the possibility of morality popping up in completely atheistic societies. That there are ethical norms that don't conform to strict evolutionist, adaptative needs, or even that we inherited many of our current morals from older religions, doesn't weaken that original argument.

The biological argument is about how moral systems pop up. It's not about their subsequent development, which is learned. This is not a problem because there are many examples in nature of things that don't help pass on an animal's genes at first glance, but which still developed because they were beneficial in other ways - like the handicap principle.

edit: also, in case you haven't noticed, you're replying at the same time as me. I'd appreciate it if you took that into account instead of posting needlessly confrontational stuff like "is that the best you have?" when I reply to an earlier post. Coupled with how dismissive you've been from the beginning, it shows you're not quite interested in an actual debate, but rather on being smug about your own views.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm not faulting other belief systems, I'm saying the original discussion is about the possibility of morality popping up in completely atheistic societies. That there are ethical norms that don't conform to strict evolutionist, adaptative needs, or even that we inherited many of our current morals from older religions, doesn't weaken that original argument.

The biological argument is about how moral systems pop up. It's not about their subsequent development, which is learned. This is not a problem because there are many examples in nature of things that don't help pass on an animal's genes at first glance, but which still developed because they were beneficial in other ways - like the handicap principle.

Why are you denying the subjective component of this argument? For every "norm" or "adaptation" you raise, I can come up with an equally valid and logical counter. So the question isn't whether these things form, but whether there is an objective definition to the terms from which we can deduce a congruent set of principles to govern society in a moral manner.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If atheists would just admit that they truly live by completely subjective principles, then I would tip my hat to their honesty, and move along. However, there are volumes of words written that deny that problem of logic, and pretend that there is, somewhere, a unified concept of "good" and "evil."

Atheism produced Stalin and Ayn Rand. I think you'll have a hard time finding common ground among their thoughts...

 

[hrotha]

You're moving the goalposts. The original discussion, again, was about whether or not you can have morality without theism. And you can.

Is it absolute and universal? Of course not. But then, a glance at history will show you morality isn't absolute or universal, whether or not religion is involved. Hell, not even if the same religion is involved at different times - see slavery in Christianity for example.

This doesn't mean that murdering won't be universally held to be evil, because again, it goes against basic biological norms for social animals. You'll note however that the definition of murder has always been subjective.

If the point you're trying to make is that Good and Evil are not cosmic forces under an atheist world view, I tend to agree.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm not faulting other belief systems, I'm saying the original discussion is about the possibility of morality popping up in completely atheistic societies. That there are ethical norms that don't conform to strict evolutionist, adaptative needs, or even that we inherited many of our current morals from older religions, doesn't weaken that original argument.

The biological argument is about how moral systems pop up. It's not about their subsequent development, which is learned. This is not a problem because there are many examples in nature of things that don't help pass on an animal's genes at first glance, but which still developed because they were beneficial in other ways - like the handicap principle.

edit: also, in case you haven't noticed, you're replying at the same time as me. I'd appreciate it if you took that into account instead of posting needlessly confrontational stuff like "is that the best you have?" when I reply to an earlier post. Coupled with how dismissive you've been from the beginning, it shows you're not quite interested in an actual debate, but rather on being smug about your own views.

That's a fair critique. I think it comes from the smugness I see in the evangelical leaders of the atheist movement, and I painted you with that brush unfairly.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're moving the goalposts. The original discussion, again, was about whether or not you can have morality without theism. And you can.

Is it absolute and universal? Of course not. But then, a glance at history will show you morality isn't absolute or universal, whether or not religion is involved. Hell, not even if the same religion is involved at different times - see slavery in Christianity for example.

This doesn't mean that murdering won't be universally held to be evil, because again, it goes against basic biological norms for social animals. You'll note however that the definition of murder has always been subjective.

If the point you're trying to make is that Good and Evil are not cosmic forces under an atheist world view, I tend to agree.

Then what you offer in terms of morality and "good" and "evil" is really no different that what we have with religion. That is an argument I can accept.

And yes, I was pointing to the use of those terms, as presented by whatever British humanist society made the video to which I originally referred. They spoke of doing "good" for the sake of doing "good," rather than doing "good" to obtain an eternal reward (I won't argue the efficacy of the Christian mindset as it relates to that tenant, because I don't personally adhere to that mode of thought). My question to them would be to define the course I should take to accomplish their charge, because I don't see where it is anything but vague.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I will also note that it is clearly the suggestion, and outright assertion of some, that a set of moral principles created by an atheist society is abjectly superior to the ones that have been created by theist societies. I don't buy that argument for one second, and there is certainly no actual evidence of that being the case, and any theoretical argument that supports such a notion can be easily, and soundly countered.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Didnt knew about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Oh England how low can you get. How in the phucking world can a single original Englishmen elect the basterds that cant save their children. And again it has got nothing to do with the islam (sarcasm alert!).

And I thought its already bad in Germany. Oh god help us that our original people wake up fast and throw all those spinless politicans out of office. We need a peoples movement to save our childrens future before the basterds fully take over... Stop (islamic) immigration. Now!

P.S.: Alpe, Merckx, Wilson etc; Dont shy away from my rants. Its an important read to know what multi-kulti politicans do to our countries in the name of "tolerance". I know you wouldnt believe me, but after reading this you know whats going on in Europe. Its shocking. And disgusting that 50%+ of people still elect those gangsters from Green Party, SPD etc. into official government jobs, that allow such things to happen to us original Europeans in the name of "political correctness".

... and then we have the mob that demonstrate against the only freedom movement we have left (Pegida, and else). Whats going on in their brainwashed heads? I dont get it!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Being an atheist is not being part of any religion or movement and it has no rules or guidelines, it is simply not believing in any sort of God or God-figure or organized religion. Anyone who purports to be some sort of atheist leader certainly doesn't speak for me, and my sum total of ethical guidelines with regard to how I treat others is this: I have only this life to live so I should live it the way I see best, as long as I don't keep others from doing the same.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Being an atheist is not being part of any religion or movement and it has no rules or guidelines, it is simply not believing in any sort of God or God-figure or organized religion. Anyone who purports to be some sort of atheist leader certainly doesn't speak for me, and my sum total of ethical guidelines with regard to how I treat others is this: I have only this life to live so I should live it the way I see best, as long as I don't keep others from doing the same.

Good for you. But there are powerful people out there that attack your freedom: The islamic intruders. Read the Rotherham article. Its all about a "religion" that knows only evil messages: terror, child abuse, sex slavery, holy wars, misogyny, etc... Cant talk with them. Need to stop them... Freedom doesnt fall from the sky.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Being an atheist is not being part of any religion or movement and it has no rules or guidelines, it is simply not believing in any sort of God or God-figure or organized religion. Anyone who purports to be some sort of atheist leader certainly doesn't speak for me, and my sum total of ethical guidelines with regard to how I treat others is this: I have only this life to live so I should live it the way I see best, as long as I don't keep others from doing the same.

Funny, I don't know that my idea of spiritual guidance (which is really all I'm looking for anyway) is much different from that at all.

I also have no issue with atheists, nor do I have some a desire to convert anyone. Within my system of beliefs, which is completely subjective and individualized, I'm not sure it matters one way or the other whether you believe or not to the deity in which I believe. I have shared my beliefs with innumerable people, but that was in a setting where they were asking. Attraction rather than promotion is such a better philosophy of engaging the world than evangelizing.

I do feel that there is a movement to evangelize atheism, and I find it similarly distasteful to religious evangelizing.

I'm really just posting here to start some sh!t...plus, I found the recent revelation that the theory of the Big Bang is being abandoned by some to be quite interesting as it relates to the concept of infinity.