toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[rexlunae]

That "oughtness" you feel is not something the universe instilled within you, but the One who made you in His image, albeit corrupted since the fall of Adam.

The "oughtness" is a fundamental human trait. Different people contextualize it differently, as a moral lawgiver, for instance, but it's really just a part of us that helps us coexist with others.

Not that I expect you to agree. But it's no worse an explanation.

 

[alwight]

Er, no. You live a life defined by some relativistic chimera that you have labeled "moral" all the while ignoring an objective moral Lawgiver.

Bald assertion.

That "oughtness" you feel is not something the universe instilled within you, but the One who made you in His image, albeit corrupted since the fall of Adam.

Bald assertion, but with a very particular ancient mythology.

The sad thing is that from birth we are all unlearning God, knowing He is, just not liking the God who is until we confront our humanity in the face of His holiness.

Bald assertion with supposition, presumption and a religious platitude.

I have no illusions about my state of life, and know that anything I might claim as being "good" in my life is by God's saving grace alone.

AMR

Bald assertion apparently derived from a life invested in a delusion that for you has now gone well beyond the point of using any critical thinking skills. You simply can't allow yourself to be wrong now. lain:

 

[DavisBJ]

Er, no. You live a life defined by some relativistic chimera that you have labeled "moral" all the while ignoring an objective moral Lawgiver. That "oughtness" you feel is not something the universe instilled within you, but the One who made you in His image, albeit corrupted since the fall of Adam. The sad thing is that from birth we are all unlearning God, knowing He is, just not liking the God who is until we confront our humanity in the face of His holiness. I have no illusions about my state of life, and know that anything I might claim as being "good" in my life is by God's saving grace alone.

You claim my journey is away from acknowledging that innate morals come from God, and I claim you are inventing a pretend God with the qualities you think he would have.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Why that question, since I said nothing of the sort?

I'm just asking. What sort of moral qualities do you see God being presented as having?

 

[DavisBJ]

I'm just asking. What sort of moral qualities do you see God being presented as having?

In church classes for elementary school age kids I see Him presented as a father figure, kindly and loving. In adult classes, sometimes His propensity to wrath is added on to the previous childhood view. But the God I see presented in the Old Testament is a fearful figure. Not fearful because he demands our allegiance, but fearful in the same way Pol Pot and Genghis Khan and Stalin and Idi Amin were – sometimes demonstrating a complete abrogation of morals in acts of ethnic cleansing, horribly severe penalties for childish behavior on our part, and ordering mass wanton murder and rape. I didn’t fabricate those qualities of God, they are in the pages of my Bible.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

In church classes for elementary school age kids I see Him presented as a father figure, kindly and loving. In adult classes, sometimes His propensity to wrath is added on to the previous childhood view.

I got all that as a child, before I ever went to elementary school. Then again, my grandmother was pretty religious.

But the God I see presented in the Old Testament is a fearful figure.

I see God as a loving figure -- even in the OT.

Not fearful because he demands our allegiance, but fearful in the same way Pol Pot and Genghis Khan and Stalin and Idi Amin were – sometimes demonstrating a complete abrogation of morals

I have to ask you here -- what is your standard for morality? It seems like you have to borrow from my worldview to call anything good or bad. Otherwise, they're just actions that, in the big picture, ultimately have no meaning. In a few billion years, all life on this planet will be extinct, and then what will it have mattered?

in acts of ethnic cleansing, horribly severe penalties for childish behavior on our part, and ordering mass wanton murder and rape.

I don't recall God ever ordering rape or murder. Regardless of that, if God created life, does He not have the right to take it away?

I didn’t fabricate those qualities of God, they are in the pages of my Bible.

Would you say those qualities are good or evil?

 

[Silent Hunter]

z z z z z

 

[zerocipher]

I think he is miserable in the existence he has, and as such thinks he should have fun and play "kick the christian".

 

[nicholsmom]

Not fearful because he demands our allegiance, but fearful in the same way Pol Pot and Genghis Khan and Stalin and Idi Amin were

But they killed their own people en masse. God protected His own.

ethnic cleansing,

Protecting His own, right.

horribly severe penalties for childish behavior on our part,

I wasn't aware that you were old enough to have been in the OT :shocked:

Still, what "childish behavior" are you referencing here?

and ordering mass wanton murder and rape.

Quote the scripture where God orders rape.
As to wanton murder, you'll have to define what you mean, and the only way you could attribute such order to God is if you see war as wanton murder. Do you?

I didn’t fabricate those qualities of God, they are in the pages of my Bible.

Wow. What version is that? The Koran version?

 

[Silent Hunter]

But they killed their own people en masse. God protected His own.

Protecting His own, right.

I wasn't aware that you were old enough to have been in the OT.

Still, what "childish behavior" are you referencing here?

Quote the scripture where God orders rape.
As to wanton murder, you'll have to define what you mean, and the only way you could attribute such order to God is if you see war as wanton murder. Do you?

Wow. What version is that? The Koran version?

:mock: nicholsmom

You need to get to know your Bible (and your imaginary friend) better . . . :loser:

 

[WizardofOz]

:mock: nicholsmom

You need to get to know your Bible (and your imaginary friend) better . . . :loser:

Or.....you could actually address her points rather than act like a childish troll.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Or.....you could actually address her points rather than act like a childish troll.

. . . I did. Her "points" are foolish on their face.

 

[nicholsmom]

Wow, that was a stretch. Differ all you want, since I said no such thing.

AMR had said, "Even the child having a temper tantrum would not hesitate to strike you dead if it were within their power to do so."
And your response to that was:

Part of growing up is realizing that actions have consequences

So you tell me what that means if not that avoiding consequence is a reason to avoid murder (and thereby a reason to "moral" behavior).

You seem to be intent on making a mountain out of my use of a common phrase that, without you pathetically stretching it, most people agree with.

You are the one who used it in that context - as cause for "morality."
If you didn't mean to present it as cause for "morality," then you will have to explain what you did mean by it when you placed it in that context (as a cause for "morality").

Your statement only holds if by “genuine feelings”, they must all come from a common universal source (God?). I never said as much, and certainly do not believe it. Are you resistant to the idea that people, in growing up, see that the types of actions that hurt them often hurt others as well? Are you incapable of discerning that without first getting a “This idea is sanctioned by God” seal?

I think the trouble you have here is in not reading the whole post before responding, because I did explain it later.

To answer your question: if we are the products of random chance and natural selection, then "hurt" is only a mental construct as well as our response to seeing that which our computer brains interpret as "hurt" in others around us. But why should our evolved minds care? Why should that aid in survival of the species?

I find purpose and meaning and so on ...

Sure, your evolved biochemistry has provided for you a mental construct that you have called "purpose and meaning and so on" but why? To what possible evolutionary end? I mean, if you are correct and we have evolved from nothing without purpose, wherein is purpose inserted? From whence? To what survival benefit to our species?

I choose to see goodness, and evil, on their own merits –

Now that's and interesting thing for you to say :think: What can you possibly mean by "on their own merits" when speaking of "goodness and evil" I wonder... Are goodness and evil entities? Do they have personality and therefore merits? I would have thought that you, an atheist, would see "goodness and evil" as plain mental constructs - made up by either the individual or by society in general (which varies from culture to culture and age to age). But if "goodness and evil" may be defined absolutely, then how have they come to have such absolute definition from the evolutionary perspective?

I can’t image affiliating with a religious philosophy which pointed me towards a need to think of myself as a monstrous reprobate just so I would somehow love God more thereby. Sick, sick, sick.

None of this answers any of my questions. Here they are again, individually:

Why are you moral?

Are you moral because you cannot work out ways to avoid negative consequences?

Don't you, like most atheists, believe that we are overpopulating the planet?

Shouldn't murder be a great way to deplete our numbers by way of eliminating the stupid and weak?

Why do you think that murder and rape are wrong when they make perfect sense for natural selection purposes?


Answer these and we Christians here at TOL will be a long way toward understanding what you mean by "morality" and "goodness and evil and so on."

 

[nicholsmom]

Per, like TH and Nicholsmom, I too have been sizing up whether you are really kind and moral.

Which is funny when you come to think of it. Do you disregard the definition I gave for "polite?" Or did you decide that I was right on that score, but that "kind" and "moral" are not related to "polite."

How about some more work from the dictionary? (same source as before)

kind adj. kind·er, kind·est 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature. 2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word. 3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals. 4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke. 5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise. 6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.

:think: P66 said that a person very dear to me is a "magic man" - does that meet the standard of "kind" or would that rather meet the standard of this word?

un·kind adj. un·kind·er, un·kind·est 1. Lacking kindness; inconsiderate or unsympathetic. 2. Harsh; severe:

Now you tell me: can a person who is unkind and impolite really and truly be moral

mor·al (môrl, mr-) adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

I ask this last question because my understanding of your view of the source of morality is still up in the air... Once those questions are answered, this might just become more clear to me.

 

[nicholsmom]

Sorry to be so harsh and crude, I was a bit annoyed at the time. The point, that both of you may have missed as a result, is that I did not require the belief in any deity to keep me from doing bad things. You don't either. And if you do, I've got my concerns.

I do, but that doesn't keep me from appreciating this very fine apology :e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

You do know that I'm a teacher, right? Though I don't see how I can harm teenagers by teaching them maths.

My second child would be able to tell you, chapter and verse, how teaching maths is an evil occupation :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Bald assertion.

Oh yeah? Let's see your user pic then. lain:...what?

Bald assertion, but with a very particular ancient mythology.

That or a truth supported by the greater part of human thought and experience.

Bald assertion with supposition, presumption and a religious platitude.

Rather, a differing context that, for all you know, is as likely true as false. And every and any speculation or declaration on the subject from any particular perspective can be similarly described.

Bald assertion apparently derived from a life invested in a delusion that for you has now gone well beyond the point of using any critical thinking skills.

See, when you write something like that, a declaration beyond the objectively sustainable, one that fails to make a reasoned distinction between your conjecture and those bald facts, one as negatively charged and assumptive as you must believe AMR's is wishful and unsustainable, it really does seem as though...well, I think you say it well enough with this:

You simply can't allow yourself to be wrong now. lain:

lain:

 

[Skavau]

Are you moral because you cannot work out ways to avoid negative consequences?

Don't you, like most atheists, believe that we are overpopulating the planet?

Shouldn't murder be a great way to deplete our numbers by way of eliminating the stupid and weak?

Why do you think that murder and rape are wrong when they make perfect sense for natural selection purposes?

These questions are thoroughly obscene by what they imply and explicitly hypocritical from someone who in an earlier Theology Online daily topic thread complained about me condemning hellfire for non-believers as evil.

Are you moral because you cannot work out ways to avoid negative consequences?

No. That would be pseudo-morality. I feel empathy. I feel guilt. I am altruistic. We all are and do to a specific extent. So long as I feel those I cannot purely act morally based solely on self-interest or through an inability to avoid punishment.

Don't you, like most atheists, believe that we are overpopulating the planet?

Shouldn't murder be a great way to deplete our numbers by way of eliminating the stupid and weak?

Actually, a way to prevent overpopulation is to bring contraception and alleviate poverty in third world nations. They are the locations with the extortionate birth rates (excluding possibly some Islamic nations that put a massive emphasis on extremely large families). In any case, it is obscene to suggest that murder (even if you are projecting it onto atheists) should be used to quell the population. It makes a complete parody of civilization and insinuates that atheists are all or should be pseudo-Darwinist collectivists.

Why do you think that murder and rape are wrong when they make perfect sense for natural selection purposes?

What on earth does rape have to do with natural selection purposes? Regarding murder, and I know what you're referring to here (the murder of the weak) - it is not necessary. We now live in civilised society. The question of the physically weaker members of society having to be sacrificed for others to continue on is no longer an issue. We do not need to act as hunter gatherers. This question is effectively stuck in a time warp.

 

[nicholsmom]

I would say that theology is vast, but not terribly complex. And you don't really need a professional background in order for it to be accessible.

I've just never found it very inaccessible.

I think this is pretty accurate - from an outsider's perspective like my own, anyway. I have never doubted that I could get at the teachings of theology if I had only enough time. I'm quite certain that it wouldn't be beyond my intelligence to learn ... but then neither is any science I've encountered. Time alone seems to be my limiting element.

The same is not true with most branches of science, once you get past the edge.

As an engineer, I've gotten past the edge of several sciences and have found them quite learnable. Maybe you are likewise hindered in your evaluation of theology - that higher intelligence makes a subject seem simpler just because it is not beyond us to comprehend given a luxury of time and adequate interest in learning the subject.

Math never bothered me until I met a mathematician (PhD) who dealt in the realms of theoretical math :shocked: I never realized such a thing existed. Still, I think that if I had the time to study it, I'd have it for lunch :chew: Don't you?

I aim to please.

:cheers:

 

[nicholsmom]

These questions are thoroughly obscene by what they imply and explicitly hypocritical from someone who in an earlier Theology Online daily topic thread complained about me condemning hellfire for non-believers as evil.

This is a discussion of the atheist perspective on morality, not the Christian one. I most certainly would see murder and rape as evil - my standard is clear in the Christian Bible. I ask these questions from the logical atheistic perspective of having been evolved by way of random mutations and natural selection. I invite you to answer them too - with more than incredulity, please
:listen: incredulity cannot substitute for a reasoned response

No. That would be pseudo-morality. I feel empathy. I feel guilt. I am altruistic. We all are and do to a specific extent. So long as I feel those I cannot purely act morally based solely on self-interest or through an inability to avoid punishment.

So what, exactly are feelings? Where do they come from? Are they real or are they a construct of programming (genetics) and input (experience)? If they are a construct, then why should we trust them, much less follow them?

Actually, a way to prevent overpopulation is to bring contraception

Forced or voluntary? The voluntary isn't working so well in the US...

How would forced contraception make people feel? (personally, I think that forced contraception is worse than murder since you are denying a potential person any existence at all, however short) Would it matter?

and alleviate poverty in third world nations.
They are the locations with the extortionate birth rates (excluding possibly some Islamic nations that put a massive emphasis on extremely large families).

But we have no such thing in the US where the experts tell us we are overpopulating the place...

In any case, it is obscene to suggest that murder (even if you are projecting it onto atheists) should be used to quell the population. It makes a complete parody of civilization

How so?

and insinuates that atheists are all or should be pseudo-Darwinist collectivists.

Yes, it does. Show me how that is wrong by answering my question concerning how murder and rape are "wrong" or "evil" or "bad."

What on earth does rape have to do with natural selection purposes?

Surely you jest? What is natural selection but selective breeding based on survivability at it's core? How does rape not fit into that? In fact, how is forced contraception not akin to rape in regard to selective breeding?

Regarding murder, and I know what you're referring to here (the murder of the weak) - it is not necessary. We now live in civilised society. The question of the physically weaker members of society having to be sacrificed for others to continue on is no longer an issue. We do not need to act as hunter gatherers. This question is effectively stuck in a time warp.

If we are, in fact, overpopulating the planet, then it most certainly necessary. Do we want a hoard of autistic parents on our hands (autism is hereditary) raising up more autistic kids when we must share precious resources? Won't that ensure devolution? There are an increasing number of inherited disorders that will yield an increasingly weak population.

I would argue that it makes less sense for an underpopulated world to murder the weak than for an overpopulated one to do so. All they'd have to do is prevent their procreating, whereas an overpopulated world must share resources with those not productive.

If pure reason is to be followed, murder and rape are not immoral for an overpopulated world. Thank God that He is more merciful.