Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us

[screwtape]

It is not surprising xians quote people who died over a century ago.  Because they tout a "holy" book that is 2000 years old, of course using sources obsolete for 100 years is no biggie.  I mean, what could we have possibly learned in the last 100 years that would be of any value or could contradict them?

[Hatter23]

So what your are telling me morals are what you decide them to be and what I choose them to be how will we ever know if one society is right to think all people should have value and love their neighbor or if it is right of those who choose to eat their neighbor. You can't refer to a system like that with the term morals it would be like that of the animal kingdom.

You forget we ARE part of the animal kingdom...the breath, we eat, we, crap, we die. You are just appealing to emotion and pity....societies have occasionally allowed for cannibalism. However it was either ritually religious, or it was be calling another society as unworthy of being considered "real" humans. You can try to point at your sky God all you like but you ignore the very real world examples I put in front of you how morality varies.

[Samuelke]

Just because social similarities arise with us and animals doesn't mean we are the same. Any kind of truth requires coherence and I ask if you can show me that in your claims?
If I knew how to post the link I would this article relates I believe on Rzim.org on the left side of the page the read option and then in the just thinking section the article the new atheism and maybe it will help

[screwtape]

Just because social similarities arise with us and animals doesn't mean we are the same.

Are you saying people are not animals?

If I knew how to post the link I would ...

paste the url you want linked into the text box. 
put your cursor at the end of the url and then press the "Enter" key. 
click "post". 
you now have posted a link.

[Samuelke]

I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom but due to a vast amount of information about human intelligence and complexities of our physical bodies and our bodies of work( art, history, civilizations) these things not even a monkey can compare to. And thanks
http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/10020/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx

[screwtape]

I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom

okay, good.

...but due to a vast amount of information about human intelligence and complexities of our physical bodies and our bodies of work( art, history, civilizations) these things not even a monkey can compare to.

Intelligence, I agree.  physical complexities?  I don't know how we are any more complex than a chimp or any other mammal.  And even if we are, I don't understand what conclusion you want us to draw from that.

And thanks

No sweat.

[Samuelke]

The brain specifically I was talking about in light of all these questions we can come together ask them and exchange ideas hundreds or thousands of miles apart. No other animal has come to rule over nature as we have and as now we attempt to stab deadly knives into nature. This is relevant to me because the bible is very clear from the beginning that God intended for us to be over all the animals.

[screwtape]

Sorry if this sounds  rude, but your link was not very good.  J.M. Njoroge - the guy who wrote the essay - is either dishonest or stupid.  Probably an unhealthy dose of both.

I do not think it is worth going through his whole essay to defeat it.  It is stupid on its face.  He talks about atheists spewing vitriol.  Seriously?  Does he listen to how xians characterize atheists?  He also stuffs several strawmen, makes a lot of assumptions, begs a lot of questions.  Intellectually, this is a joke. 

[Samuelke]

No it's not rude of that's what it is to you that's that. Could you give me a few lines which you think lack logic or intellect I would like to see.

[Ambassador Pony]

I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom but due to a vast amount of information about human intelligence and complexities of our physical bodies and our bodies of work( art, history, civilizations) these things not even a monkey can compare to.

Neanderthals did ok.

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

art, history, civilization, language...

[Zankuu]

I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom but due to a vast amount of information about human intelligence and complexities of our physical bodies and our bodies of work( art, history, civilizations) these things not even a monkey can compare to.

Homo sapien intelligence was, and still is, a work in progress! From the smaller 400cm3 brain sized Australopithecus (3 million years ago), to the 850cm3 brain found in Homo erectus (1.5 million years ago), to our current 1100cm3 brain size (200,000 - present).

[Samuelke]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=intelligence-evolved

[Zankuu]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=intelligence-evolved

What are your thoughts on that link?

[mrbiscoop]

God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.

Christ, assuming he existed at all, was neither the first nor the last person to be cruxified. I doubt his suffering was any greater than anyone else's who received the same punishment. Are you against capital punishment or just capital punishment that hurts?

Maybe Jesus had like the lowest pain tolerance imaginable.

[Hatter23]

Just because social similarities arise with us and animals doesn't mean we are the same. Any kind of truth requires coherence and I ask if you can show me that in your claims?

Ok coherence:

I state we are part of the animal kingdom. Period.

You state we are part of the animal kingdom, but are separate from it

Which of these statements are more coherent?

I state that morality it a cultural thing that has evolutionary roots. I show examples through history to confirm this claim.

You state morality is absolute, therefore God. You do not address the variety of morality humans show or that some base morality has evolutionary roots. You state that animalistic morality shows some similarities, then go off on a complete tangent that doesn't address the question of morality


Which of these statements are more coherent?


I state that all god are complete fictional characters

You make an exception for the one popular in the culture you grew up in at the time you were born.


Which of these statements are more coherent?

[Samuelke]

That article I likens a decent bit of it but my question there is how does something come from nothing they are still left with that problem in the claims of the beginning. I do believe in some form of evolution though.

[boobatuba]

That article I likens a decent bit of it but my question there is how does something come from nothing they are still left with that problem in the claims of the beginning. I do believe in some form of evolution though.

There are plenty of intelligent people who believe that something has always existed and always will. It takes care of that little problem of something coming from nothing.

Or, at least, it's better than goddidit^©.

[Samuelke]

I never said we were separate from it we are just different and unique among all others for a long list of reasons.

If morals are a cultural thing then how do you explain the massive list of people who have gone against all notions of their societies?

And I never said God was morals. I said he is the moral law giver yet he also gives us free will.

I've studied many religions and I haven't found one yet other then the bible that that corresponds so well to reality. Things like islam saying there is no compulsion in religion and hindus saying we should free ourselves from every single desire even if that may be your own child.C.S Lewis before he believed in God said he came to the conclusion that the only two possible religions that could be true are pantheism or christianity.

[Samuelke]

Are you saying I have that problem to because of the biblical definition for God?

[Hatter23]

That article I likens a decent bit of it but my question there is how does something come from nothing they are still left with that problem in the claims of the beginning. I do believe in some form of evolution though.

"I don't know" is an answer...."god of the gaps" is not. Gods being the reason has been an incorrect answer for disease, lightening bolts, earthquakes, origin of man. Atheists just have the sense to see that line of reasoning being wrong every time in the past and assume that it will continue.

[boobatuba]

I'm wondering if someone can please teach Samuelke to quote so I can have some semblance of an idea if he's talking to me or not.

[Hatter23]

If morals are a cultural thing then how do you explain the massive list of people who have gone against all notions of their societies?

For the same reason that cultures evolve, new forms of art develop, new music, new words. There's always rebellion against the status quo. Sometimes those rebellions gain momentum, sometimes they do not.

Mostly however they stick towards the basic problems presented by evolution of a pack animal. Selfishness will get your genes passed on, but a pack consisting of only selfish individuals will die out versus a cooperative pack. Two diametricly opposed evolutionary imperatives create a complex interplay.

I never said God was morals. I said he is the moral law giver yet he also gives us free will.

I never claimed you said God was morals. I said you claimed Morality, therefore God. You are still claiming this, and it is still incorrect. Morality is a set of cultural items that has biological roots. From "women and children first" of Edwardian Sensibilities; to the execution of Jews under the Inquisition(they are not of our tribe) all pretty straight forward.

[DumpsterFire]

If morals are a cultural thing then how do you explain the massive list of people who have gone against all notions of their societies?

If morals are objective, how do you explain the massive list of people who have gone against all notions of their god?

[Samuelke]

I'm wondering if someone can please teach Samuelke to quote so I can have some semblance of an idea if he's talking to me or not.

My bad

[Samuelke]

For the same reason that cultures evolve, new forms of art develop, new music, new words. There's always rebellion against the status quo. Sometimes those rebellions gain momentum, sometimes they do not.

Mostly however they stick towards the basic problems presented by evolution of a pack animal. Selfishness will get your genes passed on, but a pack consisting of only selfish individuals will die out versus a cooperative pack. Two diametricly opposed evolutionary imperatives create a complex interplay..

I never claimed you said God was morals. I said you claimed Morality, therefore God. You are still claiming this, and it is still incorrect. Morality is a set of cultural items that has biological roots. From "women and children first" of Edwardian Sensibilities; to the execution of Jews under the Inquisition(they are not of our tribe) all pretty straight forward.

But how do you say that these morals are from culture and society when every culture has their morals based on some form of religion?

[Samuelke]

Morals is another thing that makes us different then the rest of the animals

[Barracuda]

Just jumping in, Samuelke, I think you might find this video interesting http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

I think the degree to which we are "unique" or different from every other species is grossly overstated.

[oogabooga]

I never said we were separate from it we are just different and unique among all others for a long list of reasons.

All species have a long list of characteristics in which the differ from others. I don't get your argument.

If morals are a cultural thing then how do you explain the massive list of people who have gone against all notions of their societies?

That's precisely the way moral precepts change. There are people who believe something we do is wrong and should be done in a different way in order to further our development and better our lives. Their ideas gather momentum and 'infect' other people. After a sufficient amount of time they become standard. This is how we got rid of slavery, gave women equal rights, started to abhor child abuse, started to punish crimes against humanity (especially genocide) and so on. All of the above is something your god has practically commanded in the past, but is now considered appalling at best. Your god either demanded or approved of slavery, it was his will that women and children be property of the man, he commanded mass murder (more precisely the wiping of entire nations, therefore genocide).

Your moral law giver gave humanity those same laws that some peoples we now call terrorists are trying to enforce in their own societies and the rest of the world is trying to prevent that. Allah as seen by the Taliban is a lot like your own god (actually, it is your own god, since Islam as an Abrahamic religions is just another offshoot of Christianity), but Sharia law is something even you would probably find too gruesome for words.

And I never said God was morals. I said he is the moral law giver yet he also gives us free will.

And for that free will he's willing to punish us. He used to, didn't he? He punished Adam and Eve for their free will. He drowned the world because people had the audacity to exercise their right to free will. And by 'talking' to a bunch of 'holy' men he keeps on punishing people for exercising their god given right - the Jews, the supposed witches, pagans, heretics and so on. How does that compute? Would you really find it just to punish your child for doing something after telling him he can do whatever he wants? And how exactly do we have free will if it comes with a price and a whole bunch of prohibitions? My will is either free or it's not.

I've studied many religions and I haven't found one yet other then the bible that that corresponds so well to reality. Things like islam saying there is no compulsion in religion and hindus saying we should free ourselves from every single desire even if that may be your own child.C.S Lewis before he believed in God said he came to the conclusion that the only two possible religions that could be true are pantheism or christianity.

The Bible corresponding best to reality is your wishful thinking. No compulsion in religion equals free will, doesn't it? So Islam therefore corresponds better to your god's supposed ideas than your own religion (if that was true, but it isn't - Islam has just as many prohibitions as Christianity and only certain denominations hold such beliefs). Hinduism consists of various traditions that don't even begin to conform to what you claim (complete asceticism is not the norm), but I would like to point out that Jesus said a lot of those same things. Again - same geographic region, same types of beliefs. That's neither surprising nor a sign of any of them being right.

C.S. Lewis' conclusions are simply wrong, because they are the product of his own wishful thinking. He believed something therefore he was convinced that one or the other version of his own beliefs are the only possible ones. Most people who have firm beliefs in something will claim the same, regardless of the origin of their beliefs.

How can Christianity be 'one true religion' when its own members can't decide on what their one single holy book even means? There are over 30 thousand denominations with vastly different convictions. Which one of them was C.S. Lewis talking about? Let me guess - his own?

[sun_king]

hindus saying we should free ourselves from every single desire even if that may be your own child.C.S Lewis before he believed in God said he came to the conclusion that the only two possible religions that could be true are pantheism or christianity.

Hinduism doesn't say anything explicitly like "free ourselves from every single desire even if that may be your own child". That is more of Buddhism. The Hindu's even have a god for sex, won't that be redundant if desire is frowned upon? Get a grip on the facts before making tall claims.

And for the record C.S. Lewis was also heard saying "Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is his only Son" So much for the only "two possible religions"