[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's possible? Now that's the kind of humility I was looking for. I was only shocked with the degree of certainty you used to indict others of ignorance. It was the second time you brought up the whole "more than one god" thing. I let it go the first time until it became apparent that you were insisting on repeating the error.

I certainly didn't mean to come off as completely certain about it, but I do know that I have a tendency to do that (drives my fiancée crazy...). But to call it absolutely an error is the same thing on your part. This isn't a theory that I came up with all by myself, I've seen it in other places as well. Certainly, as other people in this thread have brought up, Judaism originates in a time when each tribe or civilization had their own religion, and rather than saying that their religion was the only correct one, acknowledged that the gods and religions of others were real as well. People prayed to the gods of their tribe, and knew that others prayed to other gods. In other words, at the very least early Judaism was henotheistic not monotheistic.

God refers to Moses in the exact same manner in Exodus 7:1; "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

Does this also mean Moses is "many gods" and/or many Moses'? No. This is known as a plural intensive syntax and is used broadly throughout Jewish text. It is used in other places as well such as the word "chayim" (also with 'im' or plural suffix) meaning "life" in the singular. It means "more" than simply "existence", but certainly not "many lives" in context. It is a way of intensifying the noun, not multiplying it. The translation of it was exactly as it was from the original text.

I'm not doubting your knowledge of Hebrew here, but if God is making Moses a god himself doesn't that necessarily mean that there are multiple gods and the god of Abraham is merely the primary one for Jews?

Except the fact that you will not see this used in any such way or from anyone else speaking of themselves royalty or otherwise, in Scripture.

I didn't mean to say that it was actually the 'royal we', just a similar usage that may well be confined only to God.

The Ten Commandments are found in kind from Exodus 20:2-17. It does little good to read the first two as exclusive statements. The full text from Exodus 20:2-5 is; "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."

It is generally understood that in any division of this text, the two are directly related. Particularly in regards to Jews, Roman Catholics, and Lutherans. The church of nonhuman may see it differently.

I don't see that including the rest of the text precludes the henotheistic interpretation. In fact including the bit about graven images 'of any thing that is in heaven above' would seem to support it. In ancient times what was 'in heaven above' other than the gods and their machinations?

I don't have a problem with you being new to the Bible, unpracticed at the Bible, or even in complete disbelief of the Bible.

I assure you I'm not new to the Bible, unpracticed at the Bible, or even in complete disbelief of the Bible. The first time I read the Bible cover to cover I was about 6 years old. My father is a minister, my mother was a missionary, and I was raised accordingly. And though I now count myself an atheist, there is certainly some truth in the Bible; both great Truths, and historical truths.

I might suggest that you shore up some of these "memory" problems before you accuse others of forgetfulness.

And you're right about that. I'll do my best to be less forceful in my statements when I can't be more certain of them.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Turning of an Atheist
Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about Antony Flew, and his supposed conversion to a belief in a supernatural being. A book was recently published under his name, that he says he absolutely no hand in writing. It is becoming more clear to me that he, unfortunately, is an old man who is having trouble with his memory, rather than someone who has converted his beliefs.

Secular Web Kiosk and Bookstore

[Chuckit]

For reference, Flew was 81 when he "came out" as a theist.

[Chongo]

If the shoe were on the other foot, would you say the same thing? "JP II concludes there is no god!", Nah can't be true. It must be the Parkinson's and his advanced age affecting his thought process.

Journalist Mark Oppenheimer suggests that Flew, now 84 years of age, has been suffering from a mild form of senile dementia for at least three or four years

Remember the articles "JP II embraces evolution!"
pope embraces evolution - Google Search

[Chuckit]

Since the Pope did not arrive at his theistic beliefs after a rational and scientific analysis of the available evidence as far as I am aware, his thought process does not seem germane.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I certainly didn't mean to come off as completely certain about it, but I do know that I have a tendency to do that (drives my fiancée crazy...). But to call it absolutely an error is the same thing on your part.

Your statement was;

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because at some point in the past 2,000 years or so a bunch of people forgot that their religion explicitly acknowledges the existence of multiple Gods...

This is an error. If you wanted to mention obscure references to potential plurality in text, that would be one thing. That of course is not what you said. IMO, I've done a sufficient job of pointing out the repeated error.

This isn't a theory that I came up with all by myself, I've seen it in other places as well.

Certainly there are many theories, but the theories you're stating are those of a select few. The overwhelming majority of scholars and theologians both of Judaism and Christianity do not adhere to this theory of plurality.

Certainly, as other people in this thread have brought up, Judaism originates in a time when each tribe or civilization had their own religion, and rather than saying that their religion was the only correct one, acknowledged that the gods and religions of others were real as well. People prayed to the gods of their tribe, and knew that others prayed to other gods. In other words, at the very least early Judaism was henotheistic not monotheistic.

Henotheism is the belief in one God, while acknowledging the existence of other gods. What you state regarding the tribes and/or civilizations who had their own religions, acknowledged and prayed to the gods of their tribes, etc... brought judgment upon them repeatedly. This is in direct contradiction to the expressed intent and law under the Jewish faith teaching against "false gods". While there may have been the notion of "other gods" in both belief and worship among various tribes at different times, every indication I have is that any such entertainment of "other gods" is a transgression of law in the OT and the OT is wrought with text regarding God's punishment for believing in false gods. (not other, "real" gods, but "false gods") There is wikipedia and there is Scripture. Both seem fairly certain, but at very specific odds with one another. While there are vague references to the potentiality of the belief in many gods, there is the express statement made repeatedly and as clear as one could possibly indicate throughout the entire OT; that there is only one God.

I'm not doubting your knowledge of Hebrew here, but if God is making Moses a god himself doesn't that necessarily mean that there are multiple gods and the god of Abraham is merely the primary one for Jews?

context; "to Pharoah". A god would not only be a god to one person. Unless I'm missing something very fundamental here. You're of course familiar with the story of Moses and how the Pharoah regarded him.

*and people accuse fundies of taking the Bible so literally.

I don't see that including the rest of the text precludes the henotheistic interpretation. In fact including the bit about graven images 'of any thing that is in heaven above' would seem to support it. In ancient times what was 'in heaven above' other than the gods and their machinations?

Again... dealing with the constructs of man. No man could know what images of heaven could have been as those have been indicated very little in Scripture. All of the above deal with human constructs. You have only very obscure references to plurality, but the OT is littered with very specific, IMO absolutely inarguable statements regarding only "one God", "no other Gods beside Him", "the first and last God", and on and on and on...

I assure you I'm not new to the Bible, unpracticed at the Bible, or even in complete disbelief of the Bible. The first time I read the Bible cover to cover I was about 6 years old. My father is a minister, my mother was a missionary, and I was raised accordingly. And though I now count myself an atheist, there is certainly some truth in the Bible; both great Truths, and historical truths.

I am only going off your self-professed atheism and need of Biblical brush-up. I appreciate the clarification however.

And you're right about that. I'll do my best to be less forceful in my statements when I can't be more certain of them.

... but that wouldn't be you. Be you nonhuman and I will be me. We'll butt heads from time to time, but we'd want it no other way right?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Since the Pope did not arrive at his theistic beliefs after a rational and scientific analysis of the available evidence as far as I am aware, his thought process does not seem germane.

So it would be irrelevant if the Archbishop of Canterbury resigned and announced he was an atheist because he did come to his belief in God "after a rational and scientific analysis of the available evidence"

What about Bill Murray, Madalyn Murray O'Hair's (rest in pieces) son who was raised an atheist, and is now a Baptist preacher?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What about Bill Murray, Madalyn Murray O'Hair's (rest in pieces) son who was raised an atheist, and is now a Baptist preacher?

What about him? He apparently needs something to believe in besides himself. Because his mother was an atheist and he "found" religion, proves what point?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This question goes both ways:

For the believers, what would it take to make you seriously doubt what you believe.

Atheists, what would it take to make you believe?

for me it would take losing a family member who committed suicide by faith, the attacks of 9-11, a president who makes HIS faith the reason to use and abuse our military and the transformation of the religious right into a fascist movement.

oh wait, all those things have taken place. my faith is thus changed.

now my faith is very personal. i no longer attend church (had gone most every sunday my entire life long), i do not pray and my bible has been discarded. why? because my beliefs are not defined by or contained in a book.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by art_director 

now my faith is very personal. i no longer attend church (had gone most every sunday my entire life long), i do not pray and my bible has been discarded. why? because my beliefs are not defined by or contained in a book.

These are honest questions, not meant in any way to be inflammatory:

What standard do you use as a foundation for your beliefs? From what is that foundation derived? Is it an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong? Lastly, if it is an instinctive "knowing" that determines what you consider to be right and wrong, where did that knowledge come from?

On a separate note, my faith is very personal to me, and I'm a strong believer in the Bible. I've read it, tested it, and at one point in my life, tried to destroy it. Today I believe in it 100%, but it doesn't control me; it guides me as I submit to it. I don't feel like less of an individual because of my faith. As a matter of fact, I feel more inquisitive and independent since developing my spiritual walk.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

These are honest questions, not meant in any way to be inflammatory:

What standard do you use as a foundation for your beliefs? From what is that foundation derived? Is it an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong? Lastly, if it is an instinctive "knowing" that determines what you consider to be right and wrong, where did that knowledge come from?

On a separate note, my faith is very personal to me, and I'm a strong believer in the Bible. I've read it, tested it, and at one point in my life, tried to destroy it. Today I believe in it 100%, but it doesn't control me; it guides me as I submit to it. I don't feel like less of an individual because of my faith. As a matter of fact, I feel more inquisitive and independent since developing my spiritual walk.

good questions.

first let me say that i respect the faith of others -- what you believe is, in my view, your business. people who try to push their faith on others offend me in the worst possible way.

my faith largely comes from christianity -- lutheran was my upbringing. as i became exposed to the beliefs of others i opened my views to include many things from other faiths / beliefs. today i consider my beliefs to be a hot dish, if you will, comprised of ideas from around the religious spectrum. i feel my beliefs are now more in line with hinduism philosophically than with christianity but not exclusive to that doctrine.

there's much in the christian faith that i believe and much i reject. to get further would require calling out the many, many, many different interpretations of that book called the 'Bible.' ever sit down and look at how vastly different the same passage can be depending upon what denomination wrote it?

like i said at the start, i respect the beliefs of others but chose my own path.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by art_director 

good questions.

first let me say that i respect the faith of others -- what you believe is, in my view, your business. people who try to push their faith on others offend me in the worst possible way.

my faith largely comes from christianity -- lutheran was my upbringing. as i became exposed to the beliefs of others i opened my views to include many things from other faiths / beliefs. today i consider my beliefs to be a hot dish, if you will, comprised of ideas from around the religious spectrum. i feel my beliefs are now more in line with hinduism philosophically than with christianity but not exclusive to that doctrine.

there's much in the christian faith that i believe and much i reject. to get further would require calling out the many, many, many different interpretations of that book called the 'Bible.' ever sit down and look at how vastly different the same passage can be depending upon what denomination wrote it?

like i said at the start, i respect the beliefs of others but chose my own path.

You absolutely have the right to choose your own path.

I had no prior knowledge of whether or not you were a Christian/atheist/Jew/Muslim/etc. I think your response places you in a slightly less common category than most on these forums. It seems the predominant stance here is either atheism or agnosticism, with Christians making up a much smaller percentage. For you to fall somewhere altogether different is interesting.

The reason I asked is that I've always been curious as to how atheists define what their perspective on morality is when there is no religion perspective to help shape it. If any atheists visiting this thread can chime in on this issue, I would appreciate it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

You absolutely have the right to choose your own path.

I had no prior knowledge of whether or not you were a Christian/atheist/Jew/Muslim/etc. I think your response places you in a slightly less common category than most on these forums. It seems the predominant stance here is either atheism or agnosticism, with Christians making up a much smaller percentage. For you to fall somewhere altogether different is interesting.

The reason I asked is that I've always been curious as to how atheists define what their perspective on morality is when there is no religion perspective to help shape it. If any atheists visiting this thread can chime in on this issue, I would appreciate it.

no worries. i appreciate the questions. often this forum can be filled with nasty exchanges rather than civil discussion. this is a nice departure from the norm.

you pose an excellent question to the atheists. i, too, look forward to the answers that may come.

[Jawbone54]

I thought I'd mention something quickly about sharing faith, or pushing it off on others.

As a Christian, I'm expected through the Great Commission to share my faith and be an example for others to follow. It's difficult for many to avoid being abrasive, but I hope I've found somewhat of a balance in this.

I've found the best route for me to take is to be as good of a person as I can be to others that I'm around who don't share my faith. I try to be patient, kind, and as happy as I can be. If they see something in me that is appealing, then they'll either ask me specifically about what makes me different, or a door will open through the course of conversation where I can tell them about it without "pushing it off" on them. If they aren't receptive to any of it, then I'll continue to treat them the way I always have.

The thing is, being a true Christian should be a witness it itself. A potential "soul" to win shouldn't be considered a trophy; they should simply be the product of someone being attracted to the kind of life a Christian leads. Christians should treat people with the same kindness and courtesy, whether they're trying to "win them" or not.

Would this, by some of you guys' standards, still be considered pushing off my faith on others?

If so, then would it be safe to assume that some of you don't believe that someone should speak publicly about one's religion at all?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I thought I'd mention something quickly about sharing faith, or pushing it off on others.

As a Christian, I'm expected through the Great Commission to share my faith and be an example for others to follow. It's difficult for many to avoid being abrasive, but I hope I've found somewhat of a balance in this.

I've found the best route for me to take is to be as good of a person as I can be to others that I'm around who don't share my faith. I try to be patient, kind, and as happy as I can be. If they see something in me that is appealing, then they'll either ask me specifically about what makes me different, or a door will open through the course of conversation where I can tell them about it without "pushing it off" on them. If they aren't receptive to any of it, then I'll continue to treat them the way I always have.

The thing is, being a true Christian should be a witness it itself. A potential "soul" to win shouldn't be considered a trophy; they should simply be the product of someone being attracted to the kind of life a Christian leads. Christians should treat people with the same kindness and courtesy, whether they're trying to "win them" or not.

Would this, by some of you guys' standards, still be considered pushing off my faith on others?

If so, then would it be safe to assume that some of you don't believe that someone should speak publicly about one's religion at all?

this is where the road forks on christianity. as stated, i was brought up lutheran. never was i taught that i needed to lure people to christianity to be a christian. to this day i feel that way.

i won't comment on you and your approach / beliefs but i know several christians who insist upon forcing their reading of the bible and christianity into every conversation.

one person in particular, is a vendor i used for many years. we had a good solid relationship until he became born again. then every time we spoke he forced his faith into the talk. when my life hit a hurdle he tried bringing me to some 'heavy hitters with god.'

we don't do much business any more and i've made my discomfort with his lack of professional behavior known in subtle ways. he's made me and others impacted by my decision to work with him uncomfortable.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The reason I asked is that I've always been curious as to how atheists define what their perspective on morality is when there is no religion perspective to help shape it. If any atheists visiting this thread can chime in on this issue, I would appreciate it.

I'll see if I can answer this.

As an atheist, my sense of morality springs largely from a 'Golden Rule'-like philosophy. In my experience, if you're nice to people, they'll generally be nice to you; this is largely true in interpersonal relationships, as well as in business (though obviously there are exceptions, but even a religious-based morality will break down in certain circumstances). If I want to be happy myself, it helps if the people around me are happy so that they will, at the very least, leave me alone and, ideally, contribute towards my own happiness. In addition, kind actions tend to contribute towards a more stable society in which it's easier for everyone (including myself) to prosper.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The way I see it, there's a certain happiness to be gained just from helping others (aka altruism). Some associate this feeling with their religion; maybe it helps them to think this happiness is from winning points with an ever watchful authority figure. I don't. For me it is also about the golden rule, but not in any sense of reciprocity, or expectation thereof. It's just about doing what's right. We don't need ten commandments or 613 mitzvot to explicitly tell us what the right things to do are. I can tell what's right just by asking what I would want if the roles were reversed. I have an intrinsic motivation not to be a drain on society, and it has nothing to do with religion.

It reminds me of a line from A Few Good Men: "you don't have to wear a patch on your arm to have honor." If wearing the patch makes it easier for you, more power to you.

[Jawbone54]

Quite honestly, that's a much, much better response than I've ever been given. (nonhuman)

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The way I see it, there's a certain happiness to be gained just from helping others (aka altruism). Some associate this feeling with their religion; maybe it helps them to think this happiness is from winning points with an ever watchful authority figure. I don't. For me it is also about the golden rule, but not in any sense of reciprocity, or expectation thereof. It's just about doing what's right. We don't need ten commandments or 613 mitzvot to explicitly tell us what the right things to do are. I can tell what's right just by asking what I would want if the roles were reversed. I have an intrinsic motivation not to be a drain on society, and it has nothing to do with religion.

It reminds me of a line from A Few Good Men: "you don't have to wear a patch on your arm to have honor." If wearing the patch makes it easier for you, more power to you.

Another good response, but I have another question. How do we define what is "right" without an established guide? I underlined the portion to which I'm referring.

Where does that intrinsic motivation come from? I'm not asking you to accredit it to religion, but can that innate feeling exist without a source? If we are motivated by a desire to contribute to society, what is it inside of us that would make us feel guilty for being a drain on everyone else?

I'm going to have to come back to this thread later. I have an appointment to make.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Another good response, but I have another question. How do we define what is "right" without an established guide? I underlined the portion to which I'm referring.

Where does that intrinsic motivation come from? I'm not asking you to accredit it to religion, but can that innate feeling exist without a source? If we are motivated by a desire to contribute to society, what is it inside of us that would make us feel guilty for being a drain on everyone else?

I'm going to have to come back to this thread later. I have an appointment to make.

i'm going to throw that one back to you.

why does one need a guide for how to live life and to be a good person? can one not discern the difference between right and wrong without other people showing them? i think we can do it for ourselves.

i know several people who were brought up in houses without faith only to become some of the best and most upstanding people i know. by contrast, i know several people brought in churches, temples and other places of worship and with strong faith only to become less than desirable and unproductive members of society.

when i look at events in recent years, christians haven't exactly given themselves many selling points for recruiting to the faith. i won't bore with listing names but we can all think of a few.

then i wonder why christianity must spread. why do good christians need to bring people into the tribe? jews don't and they can be good jews. muslims don't and they can be good muslims. etc. etc. etc. it just seems like a selfish and self-serving need to bring in trophies. always wondered about that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Another good response, but I have another question. How do we define what is "right" without an established guide? I underlined the portion to which I'm referring.

And you underlined the answer too Treat others like you would want to be treated. You don't need an extrinsic guide to know how you would like to be treated do you?

Where does that intrinsic motivation come from?

Where does any intrinsic motivation come from? Where does the motivation come from for love? Or for hate? Why does watching someone laugh make you want to laugh? Ditto crying, or yawning. It's human nature (with the caveat that human nature is variable among different humans).

but can that innate feeling exist without a source?

Why wouldn't it? How is it different from any other innate feeling? Even pain or hunger or boredom? It's just an extension of shame really, on a continuum with pride on the other end. It's not even confined to human nature, since so many animals clearly have shame and pride as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I thought I'd mention something quickly about sharing faith, or pushing it off on others.

As a Christian, I'm expected through the Great Commission to share my faith and be an example for others to follow. It's difficult for many to avoid being abrasive, but I hope I've found somewhat of a balance in this.

I've found the best route for me to take is to be as good of a person as I can be to others that I'm around who don't share my faith. I try to be patient, kind, and as happy as I can be. If they see something in me that is appealing, then they'll either ask me specifically about what makes me different, or a door will open through the course of conversation where I can tell them about it without "pushing it off" on them. If they aren't receptive to any of it, then I'll continue to treat them the way I always have.

The thing is, being a true Christian should be a witness it itself. A potential "soul" to win shouldn't be considered a trophy; they should simply be the product of someone being attracted to the kind of life a Christian leads. Christians should treat people with the same kindness and courtesy, whether they're trying to "win them" or not.

Would this, by some of you guys' standards, still be considered pushing off my faith on others?

If so, then would it be safe to assume that some of you don't believe that someone should speak publicly about one's religion at all?

I wish all Christians were like this, the world would be a better place!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wish all Christians were like this, the world would be a better place!

Agreed.

[Kerrigan]

Christians and avowed atheists have much more in common than either would want to acknowledge.

Atheists, for starters, have an eschatology which describes modernity as having a begining (with the birth of modern science and social science), as well as an end, that is, a culmination in which mankind, after doing away with all the old unjust traditions, will enjoy a future free from prejudice and ignorance.

Furthermore, if you are an atheist of the modern sort (let's not get into post-modernism), then you necessarily have faith in reason, and reason is something whose existence, permanence, causes, and effects cannot be demonstrated. Granted, it is much easier to believe in reason than in an invisible god, but reason and science are metaphysical, in the sense that they exist outside of our immediate physical perception of the world.

Christians, for their part, are often unwilling to accept that an atheistic society may in fact be closer in line to the radical millenarian future prophesied by Jesus. The racist, segregated society embraced by evangelical Christians like Bob Jones, I, stands in contrast to atheistic, tolerant, progressive states such as those existing in Scandinavia. On the basis of his most important commandment (love thy neighbor), Jesus would not approve of the former.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

reason and science are metaphysical, in the sense that they exist outside of our immediate physical perception of the world.

How so?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by art_director 

i'm going to throw that one back to you.

why does one need a guide for how to live life and to be a good person? can one not discern the difference between right and wrong without other people showing them? i think we can do it for ourselves.

i know several people who were brought up in houses without faith only to become some of the best and most upstanding people i know. by contrast, i know several people brought in churches, temples and other places of worship and with strong faith only to become less than desirable and unproductive members of society.

The point I’m focusing on is that without a definite moral compass that was placed within each and every human being, one wouldn’t have any idea of what is right/wrong. It’s what C.S. Lewis referred to as the moral code.

One [I]can[/I[ discern the difference between right and wrong without being shown; that is part of what always had me convinced, even when I turned from Christianity, that there must be a god.

I don’t accredit the Bible for making me aware of most of what is right and wrong. I have to give God the credit for putting that within humankind, and kudos to anyone who acknowledges the golden rule, whether they’re a religious person or not. However, I do credit the Bible for helping me distinguish what is right and wrong in some of the “gray areas” that aren’t as easily discernable.

Through a series of events, I became convinced that the God of the Bible is THE god. From that point forward, I had to read the Bible to familiarize myself with His laws, attributes, and history. I’m perfectly aware that, to a non-Christian, it all has to seem absolutely ridiculous to base my life around something they perceive as archaic.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (NIV) – “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

I’m not drawing attention to the “perishing” part. I’m just acknowledging the fact that to a non-Christian, Christians are always going to seem to be foolish, uneducated, and/or delusional. I’ve accepted that my faith is going to put me in some uncomfortable situations; I’m aware that nothing I can say can is going to make sense to someone who is dead-set against my philosophy.

And that’s okay. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. I just hope that my opinion isn’t considered an instant placement into the simpleton category (which I believe sometimes happens on these boards).

when i look at events in recent years, christians haven't exactly given themselves many selling points for recruiting to the faith. i won't bore with listing names but we can all think of a few.

There are definitely bad Christians out there, some of them being in prominent positions. I believe the few bad apples out there have overshadowed the legion of good Christians. For instance, Westboro Baptist Church has garnered more mainstream media attention than my denomination has in the past 50 years.

On a somewhat related point, Islam hasn’t exactly shown itself to be a beacon of hope for the world in recent years, but it’s growing steadily and rapidly gaining influence in modern Western nations. Why is that?

then i wonder why christianity must spread. why do good christians need to bring people into the tribe? jews don't and they can be good jews. muslims don't and they can be good muslims. etc. etc. etc. it just seems like a selfish and self-serving need to bring in trophies. always wondered about that.

Just as “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is a commandment, so is spreading the Gospel, according to Matthew 28:16-20.

Christians are simply doing what the Bible says. Whether or not witnessing is an essential tenet of our faith is not debatable, but how one goes about that job is.

Again, I don’t want to be a polarizing figure on these boards (which is why I usually stay out of the political/war lounge). I just chipped in while visiting this thread the other day.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Christians and avowed atheists have much more in common than either would want to acknowledge.

I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot lately (though not in quite the same way you’ve mentioned).

It seems to me that whenever I meet a moral, principled, “good” person, most of the time they are either way atheist or way Christian. And the funny thing is that it’s very easy to confuse the two – at work, I had someone pegged as an atheist, but it turns out she’s way Christian, and I had someone else pegged as Christian, but turns out he’s way atheist. And though I’m vehemently atheist, I’ve been mistaken for being Christian on a number of occasions because of the way I choose to live and carry myself.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And you underlined the answer too Treat others like you would want to be treated. You don't need an extrinsic guide to know how you would like to be treated do you?

No we don't, but why is that? How could we develop this sense of awareness through a strictly evolutionary process? Can this knowledge be scientifically explained?

Where does any intrinsic motivation come from? Where does the motivation come from for love? Or for hate? Why does watching someone laugh make you want to laugh? Ditto crying, or yawning. It's human nature (with the caveat that human nature is variable among different humans).

Why wouldn't it? How is it different from any other innate feeling? Even pain or hunger or boredom? It's just an extension of shame really, on a continuum with pride on the other end. It's not even confined to human nature, since so many animals clearly have shame and pride as well.

Sure, animals show something that resembles pride or shame, but on the same level as humanity?

Human nature is incredibly complex. We love, hate, protect, and harm because it is simply in us to do these things. Yet there is nothing that we can track down through scientific methods to indicate to us why we behave the way we do. Is human nature a development, or is it a gift?

Some point to human nature as proof of God's existence. Others point to it as reason for their denial of His existence (at least in Christian form).

[Kerrigan]

Uncle Skeleton:

For a good summary of the best sceptic thinker, you may want to check out this:
David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (sections 10 and 11)

Basically what it comes down to is that we have no authority to move outside of experience: we expect the future to be like the past, but we can never move from the present into either the future of the past to find real, solid justifications of what happens around us. We believe in the uniformity of the universe, but we cannot justify it. Like the cliche goes, "We can't know anything for sure". Of course, this itself is supposed to be a universal statement about the universe, ie, that we know nothing, which is a circular argument, and our attempt to justify reason has spun around in circles, as it were.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Sage 

I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot lately (though not in quite the same way you’ve mentioned).

It seems to me that whenever I meet a moral, principled, “good” person, most of the time they are either way atheist or way Christian. And the funny thing is that it’s very easy to confuse the two – at work, I had someone pegged as an atheist, but it turns out she’s way Christian, and I had someone else pegged as Christian, but turns out he’s way atheist. And though I’m vehemently atheist, I’ve been mistaken for being Christian on a number of occasions because of the way I choose to live and carry myself.

That's odd, isn't it?

On the flip side, I've been a strongly-believing Christian for the past 6 years, but I've been mistaken for an atheist several times. An atheist friend of mine conceded that he probably wouldn't have become friends with me quite so easily if he had initially known I was a Christian.

He said I didn't act like any of the other Christians he's known. I don't know if that's saying something bad about me, or something bad about the other Christians.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

No we don't, but why is that? How could we develop this sense of awareness through a strictly evolutionary process? Can this knowledge be scientifically explained?

Easily. Social behavior is a survival strategy just like any other, and it didn't even evolve in humans: all primates live in hierarchical social groups in which it is necessary for them to be able to empathize with others in order to be successful.

Sure, animals show something that resembles pride or shame, but on the same level as humanity?

Why would it have to be on the same level as humans? We have (possibly) the most highly developed brains on the planet, isn't it conceivable that they would grant us abilities beyond those of creatures will more primitive brains?

Human nature is incredibly complex. We love, hate, protect, and harm because it is simply in us to do these things. Yet there is nothing that we can track down through scientific methods to indicate to us why we behave the way we do. Is human nature a development, or is it a gift?

Why do you think that it's so impossible to conceive of these things having occurred without divine intervention? I have no problem doing so.

Some point to human nature as proof of God's existence. Others point to it as reason for their denial of His existence (at least in Christian form).

I wouldn't consider human nature to be evidence either way. It is what it is, and was either created by God or by evolution.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

He said I didn't act like any of the other Christians he's known. I don't know if that's saying something bad about me, or something bad about the other Christians.

Most likely just saying something good about you. I have quite a large number of Christian friends, and see no reason why religion would affect our relationships. I think one sign of a strong friendship is the ability to freely exchange conflicting ideals.

BTW, in regards to your question about where morality comes from: the problem is that you’re going to get a different answer depending on which atheist you ask. If you ask Christians that question, you’ll get a fairly consistent answer, but atheists run the whole gamut from “there-is-no-morality” to “there-is-intrinsic-morality”.

For example, here’s my answer: I’m an Objectivist, which means that I believe there is no intrinsic morality (that is, a morality that exists independent of man), but I do believe that there is an objective morality; since it’s Ayn Rand’s philosophy, she put it best, saying that morality is “determined by the nature of reality”. Specifically, the nature of reality is survival of the fittest, and we are very poorly-equipped for survival of the fittest if we were to only heed our animalistic instincts. Thus, we need a certain code of living that takes advantage of our brains and our ability to invent and socialize (in other words, the way natural selection has formed us), and from there a code of morality is created. I’ve way way way simplified it, but you can read more here (if you want ).

That’s just my answer though. I bet you could easily get a dozen different answers from a dozen different atheists just on this forum alone.

[Kerrigan]

"I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don’t need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn’t stop me trying to be kind to others, and I’m never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely."

- Jeremy Clarkson
Unhand my patio heater, archbishop | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

"I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don’t need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn’t stop me trying to be kind to others, and I’m never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely."

- Jeremy Clarkson
Unhand my patio heater, archbishop | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online

It seems the "be kind to others" attitude in brother Jeremy's heart is in need of a reset.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Sage 

BTW, in regards to your question about where morality comes from: the problem is that you’re going to get a different answer depending on which atheist you ask. If you ask Christians that question, you’ll get a fairly consistent answer, but atheists run the whole gamut from “there-is-no-morality” to “there-is-intrinsic-morality”.

...

That’s just my answer though. I bet you could easily get a dozen different answers from a dozen different atheists just on this forum alone.

Definitely the truth.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The point I’m focusing on is that without a definite moral compass that was placed within each and every human being, one wouldn’t have any idea of what is right/wrong. It’s what C.S. Lewis referred to as the moral code.

One [I]can[/I[ discern the difference between right and wrong without being shown; that is part of what always had me convinced, even when I turned from Christianity, that there must be a god.

I don’t accredit the Bible for making me aware of most of what is right and wrong. I have to give God the credit for putting that within humankind, and kudos to anyone who acknowledges the golden rule, whether they’re a religious person or not. However, I do credit the Bible for helping me distinguish what is right and wrong in some of the “gray areas” that aren’t as easily discernable.

Through a series of events, I became convinced that the God of the Bible is THE god. From that point forward, I had to read the Bible to familiarize myself with His laws, attributes, and history. I’m perfectly aware that, to a non-Christian, it all has to seem absolutely ridiculous to base my life around something they perceive as archaic.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (NIV) – “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

I’m not drawing attention to the “perishing” part. I’m just acknowledging the fact that to a non-Christian, Christians are always going to seem to be foolish, uneducated, and/or delusional. I’ve accepted that my faith is going to put me in some uncomfortable situations; I’m aware that nothing I can say can is going to make sense to someone who is dead-set against my philosophy.

And that’s okay. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. I just hope that my opinion isn’t considered an instant placement into the simpleton category (which I believe sometimes happens on these boards).



There are definitely bad Christians out there, some of them being in prominent positions. I believe the few bad apples out there have overshadowed the legion of good Christians. For instance, Westboro Baptist Church has garnered more mainstream media attention than my denomination has in the past 50 years.

On a somewhat related point, Islam hasn’t exactly shown itself to be a beacon of hope for the world in recent years, but it’s growing steadily and rapidly gaining influence in modern Western nations. Why is that?



Just as “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is a commandment, so is spreading the Gospel, according to Matthew 28:16-20.

Christians are simply doing what the Bible says. Whether or not witnessing is an essential tenet of our faith is not debatable, but how one goes about that job is.

Again, I don’t want to be a polarizing figure on these boards (which is why I usually stay out of the political/war lounge). I just chipped in while visiting this thread the other day.

you make some interesting points.

in my view some people are more in need of a moral compass than others. i know people who have had their ups and downs in life -- some with actions in the past that would shock and alarm. some of them were brought up with faith, others not. iow, some had been given a moral compass from square one yet it didn't help. others never had that and ended up going down similar bad roads. others had an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad and never had such issues / problems. faith, whether christian or other, does not seem to have made for fewer mistakes in life, just fewer free sunday mornings.

as for a god, i don't think you need a faith to believe in a higher power. in fact, i think that having an organized faith makes it more difficult for some to relate and understand.

bible quotes have long made me shake my head. i know they're very important to millions of people. to me they're just manmade bits of information written with enough wiggle room to be interpreted in several ways.

i do not consider myself a non-christian, a non-jew, a non-muslim, a non-hindu, etc. in my life, for my beliefs, i have found enlightenment and comfort by way of appreciating the many wonderful attributes of several religions. for they all hold good. and bad. i do not have a 'god' but i do believe in a supreme power / being. i don't memorize biblical verse -- been there, done that and it didn't resonate with me. just words that lose meaning when the wrong emphasis is placed on them.

can't speak for others but i do not put you into a simpleton category. in fact, i've enjoyed our exchange.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

"I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don’t need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn’t stop me trying to be kind to others, and I’m never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely."

- Jeremy Clarkson
Unhand my patio heater, archbishop | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online

i have more in common with the author of that quote than i do with members of my former church.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

No we don't, but why is that? How could we develop this sense of awareness through a strictly evolutionary process?

Awareness of how others feel (or rather how you would feel in their place), aka empathy? In addition to what nonhuman said about social groups being stronger than the sum of their members, there is a selective advantage to being able to empathize with potential predators and prey, so you can predict their behavior. Though this is somewhat less than firmly established, there are things called "mirror neurons" which are tuned towards empathy, and the failure of them is involved in autism. Hopefully it's not hard for you to imagine that individuals who refuse to "play by the rules" of cordial society might be culled from the reproductive pool.

Also you have to keep in mind that some of this "social evolution" is biological but some of it is really just social. Your parents teach you some of your morals at a young age, as did their parents before them. Where did these learned morals come from? It's not hard to imagine that such insights come with the wisdom of age, maybe some old guy (let's just call him Jesus) figured out that if you spread fear and spite it makes you fearful and spiteful, whereas if you spread peace and love it makes you feel peaceful and lovely. From that guy it could easily be passed down through generations until we only know it as intrinsic human nature. I certainly have minute examples of this type of revelation in the microcosm of my personal experience, and I'm only 28 (although in Jesus' time that might have been old, who knows). If I had to hazard a guess, anyone who lived long enough to be a grandparent would discover this just by trial and error, and try to teach it to his youngers, if for no other reason than that he had to live with them.

Is human nature a development, or is it a gift?

Regardless of how it got there, it's there. If you believe God made us, then the logical conclusion is that God made human nature. If you believe that evolution made us, then the logical conclusion is that evolution made human nature. Your impulse to pluck out and analyze the "human nature" chunk from the human whole is arbitrary, and I predict it will grant no more insight to the nature of the world than examining any other chunk, human or otherwise.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

reason is something whose existence, permanence, causes, and effects cannot be demonstrated.

Uh…actually, I can demonstrate reason. People do it all the time.