Evolution
Options
Replies
-
I believe in science!0
-
Believe in it? Don't believe? Whatever your belief, give your reason why.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I've seen the world and have decided that we are devolving . . . have you seen the news lately? The things we do to each other an our children? *shudders* as a mother the paranoia sets in almost daily, I have family protection plans in my head just in case so that there is no need to hesitate should the necessity arise, people are nucking futs!0 -
If God was all-loving, then people wouldn't be sent to hell for not believing in him.
Additionally, if God is in control of everything and 'has a plan' then free will does not exist. You may THINK you have free will ,but if there is a God and things all happen because of his divine 'plan' then your perceived free will is nothing more than a puppet on a string, you just don't know about it.
Building that, if God already knows what's going to happen because it's his decision, then prayer doesn't do a damn thing except make someone feel better.
And honestly, if everything is part of God's plan, then I think his plan pretty much sucks. If his plan is to have the world at war with itself, millions living in poverty and dying from starvation, disease, etc, then I am not impressed.
Not wanting to rehash this topic, but I did want to reply to you on the above.
1.People are “sent to hell” because they choose to reject God’s love and grace. “Believing in him” has to do with a loving, trusting response to God’s loving invitation. Those who reject that have determined themselves to the despair that comes from knowing they have rejected the only thing that can truly make them happy.
2.God’s “control” of all things is not a rival or counter force to our freedom. Human freedom is a result of divine power and providence, not a force that is in opposition to it. God’s plan includes free acts by creatures and therefore our acts can be truly free and also incorporated into God’s plan without implying a contradiction.
3.You are thinking of God’s relationship to time like someone looking into a crystal ball and seeing the future. This is simply wrong. Every “now” moment is present to God in his mode of being: unchanging present. Our “now” moments are present to us in our mode of being: changing, temporal/sequential moments. It is simply a mistake to transfer our experience of time and freedom to God’s mode of being. Regarding our prayers, there is nothing contradictory or incoherent in saying that our prayers in one moment are incorporated into God’s providential plan for the future. In other words, the presence of “tomorrow” in God’s present does not mean that tomorrow does not logically depend on the events of today. One may pray today and God’s eternal plan take account of those prayers so that they are truly “means” and instruments by which God achieves his purposes.
4.Your objection to God’s plan is like judging Star Wars by watching the first five minutes of episode four or judging a ****en’s novel by reading three pages of chapter three. You are not looking at the whole picture. Can you really look at the 15 billion years of cosmic history and not be amazed at the dynamic movement towards living and then conscious and then intelligent, self-directing beings? The story is absolutely astonishing. How can you possibly say that the whole story of the cosmos, once all factors are considered, does not turn out to be an absolutely beautiful story? Furthermore, most people in the world find countless reasons to be grateful for their lives and many reasons to hope for a better world. What is wrong with me seeing the good of life as a reason to give thanks to God and also see evils in the world as an invitation to use the intellect and freedom given by God to advance our world and make it better? Why can’t I also see this life as a “test” of sorts to see whether I choose to embrace this good gift of life and work against evil or ignore the good and focus only on the evil? What is illogical about that?
Edit to add: What was bleeped out in #4 was the last name of Charles****ens. Apparently, I can't use the letters D.I.C.K. together, or MFP comes at me!
0 -
Also we have to stop confusing the issue. Religion has no place in the discussion.
Yes, it does, since it plays a significant factor in a lot of people's argument for or against it.
Personally, yes, I believe in evolution. Living things evolve all the time.
Do I think we "started as monkeys" or "started as tadpoles?" I honestly have no idea, and personally, I don't really care. I'll leave that up to the scientists to discover.
I do not believe in the creation stories from any religious texts, so I definitely hold my water with the scientific explanation of our origins.
I agree that religion is a valid argument just a science is. Though I am on the fence about religion, I tend to believe that God put the scientific process in place with creation.0 -
Don't believe it. I think it's too unlikely to have all happened this way by accident.
Because it really makes more sense that a big invisible man in the sky created everything?0 -
I'll bold my answers to each point below.
Not wanting to rehash this topic, but I did want to reply to you on the above.
1.People are “sent to hell” because they choose to reject God’s love and grace. “Believing in him” has to do with a loving, trusting response to God’s loving invitation. Those who reject that have determined themselves to the despair that comes from knowing they have rejected the only thing that can truly make them happy.
I must have missed the invite. And trust me, I've tried countless times to get invited to the party. It just ain't happening. I don't see it as 'rejecting' anything as there's nothing to reject.
2.God’s “control” of all things is not a rival or counter force to our freedom. Human freedom is a result of divine power and providence, not a force that is in opposition to it. God’s plan includes free acts by creatures and therefore our acts can be truly free and also incorporated into God’s plan without implying a contradiction.
But again, if something is TRULY part of God's will/plan/whatever you want to call it, then our choices really aren't our own choices if God already has planned things out. Anyway, if everything was part of God's plan, then he'd already know who would end up atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.
3.You are thinking of God’s relationship to time like someone looking into a crystal ball and seeing the future. This is simply wrong. Every “now” moment is present to God in his mode of being: unchanging present. Our “now” moments are present to us in our mode of being: changing, temporal/sequential moments. It is simply a mistake to transfer our experience of time and freedom to God’s mode of being. Regarding our prayers, there is nothing contradictory or incoherent in saying that our prayers in one moment are incorporated into God’s providential plan for the future. In other words, the presence of “tomorrow” in God’s present does not mean that tomorrow does not logically depend on the events of today. One may pray today and God’s eternal plan take account of those prayers so that they are truly “means” and instruments by which God achieves his purposes.
Again, if God is omnipresent and all-knowing, etc, then the prayers aren't going to matter to ultimately what he has planned. I keep hearing how God already knows the end of the story and how things play out, etc, so obviously praying or not praying isn't going to matter in the end if there's already a final chapter written.
4.Your objection to God’s plan is like judging Star Wars by watching the first five minutes of episode four or judging a ****en’s novel by reading three pages of chapter three. You are not looking at the whole picture. Can you really look at the 15 billion years of cosmic history and not be amazed at the dynamic movement towards living and then conscious and then intelligent, self-directing beings? The story is absolutely astonishing. How can you possibly say that the whole story of the cosmos, once all factors are considered, does not turn out to be an absolutely beautiful story? Furthermore, most people in the world find countless reasons to be grateful for their lives and many reasons to hope for a better world. What is wrong with me seeing the good of life as a reason to give thanks to God and also see evils in the world as an invitation to use the intellect and freedom given by God to advance our world and make it better? Why can’t I also see this life as a “test” of sorts to see whether I choose to embrace this good gift of life and work against evil or ignore the good and focus only on the evil? What is illogical about that?
I guess to me, if people need religion to feel whole or feel content with how things are, that's fine with me. But honestly, I don't think I'd want to believe in a God that wants to 'test' me to see if I'm worthy or not. I'd rather live my life the best I can because that's all I think there is.
Touching on what you said about billions of years of cosmic history, most people who deny evolution also deny that the earth is billions of years old.
Also, I think we can embrace the gift of life without believing that a giant man in the sky was the one who gave it to us. You don't need religion to appreciate what you have, to be good to one another, to live a good life and do your best.
Edit to add: What was bleeped out in #4 was the last name of Charles****ens. Apparently, I can't use the letters D.I.C.K. together, or MFP comes at me!0 -
I'm still not sure why some people want to "deny" evolution! 0
-
I'm still not sure why some people want to "deny" evolution!
My thing is that, say that there IS a god. Why is it so unreasonable (to some) to believe that maybe evolution IS god's divine work? And that the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is metaphorical so people who were reading the BIble at the time could more easily understand and accept it?0 -
My thing is that, say that there IS a god. Why is it so unreasonable (to some) to believe that maybe evolution IS god's divine work? And that the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is metaphorical so people who were reading the BIble at the time could more easily understand and accept it?
I can't answer that for you. Not all Christians feel that way. Plenty of us believe evolution was at the hand of God, and many of us can differentiate parables, poetry, and hyperbole used in the Bible.0 -
My thing is that, say that there IS a god. Why is it so unreasonable (to some) to believe that maybe evolution IS god's divine work? And that the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is metaphorical so people who were reading the BIble at the time could more easily understand and accept it?
I can't answer that for you. Not all Christians feel that way. Plenty of us believe evolution was at the hand of God, and many of us can differentiate parables, poetry, and hyperbole used in the Bible.
It's nice to hear that some Christians believe that the Bible contains parable, metaphors, etc. It's always struck me odd that some believe that the Bible is all factual events that actually happened and refuse to believe that maybe some of it is stories used to help people better accept it.0 -
It's nice to hear that some Christians believe that the Bible contains parable, metaphors, etc. It's always struck me odd that some believe that the Bible is all factual events that actually happened and refuse to believe that maybe some of it is stories used to help people better accept it.
That's just ignorance (in the true meaning of the word). There are many uneducated Christians, and not everyone is able to afford a Christian education. We need to do better in our parishes on educating our people.0 -
1. The “invite” is all around you. The invite is found in your own inner drive to find meaning and purpose in your life. It is found in the fact that your very existence is a mystery that causes you to ask about what it means. I would also say that the greatest invitation is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.I'll bold my answers to each point below.
Not wanting to rehash this topic, but I did want to reply to you on the above.
1.People are “sent to hell” because they choose to reject God’s love and grace. “Believing in him” has to do with a loving, trusting response to God’s loving invitation. Those who reject that have determined themselves to the despair that comes from knowing they have rejected the only thing that can truly make them happy
I must have missed the invite. And trust me, I've tried countless times to get invited to the party. It just ain't happening. I don't see it as 'rejecting' anything as there's nothing to reject.
Our free acts are truly free but are only possible because the divine power is able to cause free beings. This results in two facts: (a) all reality comes from God and serves God’s purposes and (b) humans are free in the way they respond to God. I don’t see anything in your reply that undermines these two facts.2.God’s “control” of all things is not a rival or counter force to our freedom. Human freedom is a result of divine power and providence, not a force that is in opposition to it. God’s plan includes free acts by creatures and therefore our acts can be truly free and also incorporated into God’s plan without implying a contradiction.
But again, if something is TRULY part of God's will/plan/whatever you want to call it, then our choices really aren't our own choices if God already has planned things out. Anyway, if everything was part of God's plan, then he'd already know who would end up atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.
God knows how it all turns out because God also knows the means to that end, including our prayers.3.You are thinking of God’s relationship to time like someone looking into a crystal ball and seeing the future. This is simply wrong. Every “now” moment is present to God in his mode of being: unchanging present. Our “now” moments are present to us in our mode of being: changing, temporal/sequential moments. It is simply a mistake to transfer our experience of time and freedom to God’s mode of being. Regarding our prayers, there is nothing contradictory or incoherent in saying that our prayers in one moment are incorporated into God’s providential plan for the future. In other words, the presence of “tomorrow” in God’s present does not mean that tomorrow does not logically depend on the events of today. One may pray today and God’s eternal plan take account of those prayers so that they are truly “means” and instruments by which God achieves his purposes.
Again, if God is omnipresent and all-knowing, etc, then the prayers aren't going to matter to ultimately what he has planned. I keep hearing how God already knows the end of the story and how things play out, etc, so obviously praying or not praying isn't going to matter in the end if there's already a final chapter written.
God’s “testing” of us is also the means he uses to cause us to grow into being more fulfilled as his creatures. The athlete works out and perfects his/her body as a means to becoming a great athlete. Human persons are not born in a completed condition. We arrive at our completion through a process of growth and this life is a crucial part of that. In the end what matters is not whether I like some part of what is happening to me but whether or not this life is a divinely-given journey.4.Your objection to God’s plan is like judging Star Wars by watching the first five minutes of episode four or judging a ****en’s novel by reading three pages of chapter three. You are not looking at the whole picture. Can you really look at the 15 billion years of cosmic history and not be amazed at the dynamic movement towards living and then conscious and then intelligent, self-directing beings? The story is absolutely astonishing. How can you possibly say that the whole story of the cosmos, once all factors are considered, does not turn out to be an absolutely beautiful story? Furthermore, most people in the world find countless reasons to be grateful for their lives and many reasons to hope for a better world. What is wrong with me seeing the good of life as a reason to give thanks to God and also see evils in the world as an invitation to use the intellect and freedom given by God to advance our world and make it better? Why can’t I also see this life as a “test” of sorts to see whether I choose to embrace this good gift of life and work against evil or ignore the good and focus only on the evil? What is illogical about that?
I guess to me, if people need religion to feel whole or feel content with how things are, that's fine with me. But honestly, I don't think I'd want to believe in a God that wants to 'test' me to see if I'm worthy or not. I'd rather live my life the best I can because that's all I think there is.Touching on what you said about billions of years of cosmic history, most people who deny evolution also deny that the earth is billions of years old.
Also, I think we can embrace the gift of life without believing that a giant man in the sky was the one who gave it to us. You don't need religion to appreciate what you have, to be good to one another, to live a good life and do your best.
I would argue that belief in God (in the classical meaning of that term) is essential to providing a sufficient grounding for all the things you mentioned. If an atheist follows a moral law and believes there is a real, objective meaning to human life he/she is believing and doing something good but without a sufficient foundation for it. There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support morality or cosmic meaning/purpose. In my understanding, by definition, atheism is the denial of any objective basis for such things. The only “absolute” for an atheist is a universe that is a brute fact and is not the result of any intelligent, purposeful, meaningful cause.0 -
It's nice to hear that some Christians believe that the Bible contains parable, metaphors, etc. It's always struck me odd that some believe that the Bible is all factual events that actually happened and refuse to believe that maybe some of it is stories used to help people better accept it.
That's just ignorance (in the true meaning of the word). There are many uneducated Christians, and not everyone is able to afford a Christian education. We need to do better in our parishes on educating our people.
Precisely! As both a Christian, albeit not a particularly religious one (I know that sounds odd, but I have always had issues with organised religion and don't see that as incompatible with having faith and subscribing to the particular system of belief with which I was raised) and, once upon a time, a Literature major, it is very clear to me that the Bible, along with many other early texts, is highly allegorical - it's a teaching tool, and a way of codifying certain sociological norms that were important to its' creators.
Macpatti is right - those who believe the Bible is an absolute transcription of the Word of God, intended to be read and applied literally, most often do so through ignorance. Like any text, secular or religious, the interpretation is key, and interpretation, especially in an earlier historical context when fewer people were sufficiently educated to read the Bible for themselves, or to see parallells between similar documents, is highly susceptible to manipulation. I will never forget being required to read Marx for a Comparative Literature paper, and being stunned at how far the ideas and ideals Marx wrote about, many of them very laudable, were twisted in the interpreting by Lenin, and even more so, Stalin, for example.
I don't particularly belong to any religious community any more, but more widely to the Christian tradition and faith. I certainly hope I will be able to give my own future children the benefits of an education in the same tradition I experienced. However, what is essential to me, both personally, and on a wider scale, is that leaders should inform in order to prompt personal thought and reflection, rather than to dictate a mode of thinking or belief - and that holds for me in every field of life - religion, science, politics, the works! In that regard, we all, Christian, atheist, Buddhist or agnostic, have a long way to go.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support morality
what do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??0 -
Macpatti is right - those who believe the Bible is an absolute transcription of the Word of God, intended to be read and applied literally, most often do so through ignorance. Like any text, secular or religious, the interpretation is key, and interpretation, especially in an earlier historical context when fewer people were sufficiently educated to read the Bible for themselves, or to see parallells between similar documents, is highly susceptible to manipulation.
This is why it is important for us to rely on theologians, religious scholars, and those most educated in not just the Bible, but the history of all religions. Just want to add that I am not saying 'everything' in the Bible is poetry, parable, or hyperbole. There are actual eye witness accounts to much of it from the people closest to Jesus or alive during His time.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support moralitywhat do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.0 -
Macpatti is right - those who believe the Bible is an absolute transcription of the Word of God, intended to be read and applied literally, most often do so through ignorance. Like any text, secular or religious, the interpretation is key, and interpretation, especially in an earlier historical context when fewer people were sufficiently educated to read the Bible for themselves, or to see parallells between similar documents, is highly susceptible to manipulation.
This is why it is important for us to rely on theologians, religious scholars, and those most educated in not just the Bible, but the history of all religions. Just want to add that I am not saying 'everything' in the Bible is poetry, parable, or hyperbole. There are actual eye witness accounts to much of it from the people closest to Jesus or alive during His time.
Absolutely, but I think we agree that a lot, particularly in the Old Testament, which is the part most relevant to this particular discussion, is not intended to be taken literally. I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of your preferred interpreters, but I would certainly make reference to such whilst reaching my own conclusions.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support moralitywhat do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.0 -
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.
The problem I have is the use of the term "selfish". Like you say meeting needs such as our survival are advantageous. Calling that "selfish" would the same as telling a mother who wants her newborn to survive that she's being "selfish". Maybe there's a bit of truth to that if you want to think of it that way, but it's certainly not what we think of when we think of the word.
I believe our morality evolves with us (hey look we're actually talking about evolution again!). It's clearly improved over time. Say what you want about the bible, if you were to meet the people who actually wrote it you would consider them barbarians. Like anyone else from our time. Most of them would be furious that a woman was even speaking to them. So I have no problem with the knowledge that my morality is superior to the men who wrote all the ancient books on religion. It's proven to me simply by reading them.
It was once ok to treat women as slaves, as well as having actual slaves. To this day the persecution of gays is justified with biblical teachings. Our morality simply can not come from the bible as it is currently better than the bible. There are things in there we all know are simply deplorable behavior. I don't care if your God condones it, things like rape, incest and slavery are wrong. I do not get this from religious teaching. Religion has taught at various times that all these things are fine.
Our morality comes from the fact that we need one another to survive. Reptiles have no morality. They are born with all the tools and knowledge they need for their lives. Humans are different. We rely on one another. We are weak and fragile at birth. Newborn infants begin immediately learning the difference between happy faces and sad faces and what it means to their well being. Helping others helps us, and so we have morality. The saying I head is "reptiles eat their young, mammals care for their young, human beings save up for a year to take their kids to Disney."
This is my belief on why we can be moral creatures, without god. Some of us clearly are already. To say that without the bible, the one that condones slavery, there is no morality is nonsense to me. It isn't even objective morality using the bible. Good and bad changes regularly based on God's whims at the time. So there's no objective morality and that's ok. We're learning. As we learn we improve. As we improve..
we evolve.0 -
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.
1.Your first paragraph seems to admit what I was claiming. I would clarify, though, that atheism not only does not have a moral code but it also does not have the resources to provide a moral code. The atheist view of the world precludes any real morality underpinnings or “source.”
2. I take your second paragraph to be an admission that the atheist understanding of human actions is selfishly motivated? I agree that treating someone well “so you get the golden ticket to heaven” is also selfish. If that is the primary motivation for a Christian to treat another well then it is no better, I don’t think, that the selfish acts of an atheist. The true Christian motivation for treating another person well is that they are a person, made in God’s image, that has a profound worth and value that should draw from us a response of love. In other words, I treat another person with love and kindness because they are a being of value and significance that I want to experience love and kindness. I am to see other persons as reflections of the nature of God and therefore having an intrinsic value and goodness that should be treated with love. It is not selfish, I don’t think, to find delight and happiness is doing good for another. This is the essence of altruism. I certainly think that atheists can find delight in the experience of loving and doing good for others, I just don’t think they can explain why this is a moral duty.
3.Yes race, genocide and slavery are bad. There are laws and commands against such things in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Take a few moments to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will find each of those actions condemned in no uncertain terms. Do you really think that Christians endorse those kinds of things? Christians have fought against them for a very long time. You can’t read very much of Martin Luther King, Jr. without finding how deeply influenced he was by basic Christian concepts in his fight against injustice based on race. You say that we know that such things are wrong now without being told by God but it seems dramatically unfair and ahistorical to act as if the current moral sensitivities about such things has nothing to do with millennia of permeation by Christian and biblical concepts that led to moral advance. Concerning the texts you mention from the Old Testament, you cannot possibly think that such “war texts” reflect the general message of the Bible about morality and human relationships (if you are familiar with the rest of the Bible). Isolating middle-eastern war texts and trying to use them as a basis of societal ethical codes is simply not fair to the Bible and it ignores the thousands of years of reflection and developing understanding and application of the Bible. What we find in those texts about war is similar to what we find today when a person might say after a sporting event: “We slaughtered them!” or “We annihilated them!” No one understands that to be a literal statement of what was really done. A careful reading of the Old Testament war stories shows that they are similar uses of hyperbole/exaggeration in a manner that is still quite common the middle east. Further, this approach to the Bible fails to see the gradual growth in insight and depth of understanding regarding morality that is reflected in the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments emphasize the fact that God accommodated himself to human depravity and sinfulness in order to gradually lead his people to a more profound understanding of the moral life. You are taking your present more developed moral sensitivities (that are the result of absorbing them from a culture highly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition) and anachronistically using that to judge a culture of 3500 years ago that was at a much more primitive stage of moral development. I just don’t think this is a fair way to evaluated to moral influence of the Bible. If you put yourself in the world of Moses or Joshua, I think you will find that their moral concepts exceeded those of their contemporaries.0
