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

[Skavau]

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.

There is no 'atheist standard' on morality (and I know that your questions were posed to atheists). There is nothing in the term 'atheism' that invokes anything regarding morality. It is a descriptive term that refers solely to a non-belief. I think you really should be asking about humanism, or just vacate from it all and refer to social Darwinist (who you're really referring to, and fortunately none of us are them).

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

We do not derive morality from our origins. It is as simple as that.

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?

You will have to ask someone completely versed in the human mind for why we are altruistic, feel empathy and why we feel guilt. In any case, why we should follow them (or why we do) is because they are reactions to what we perceive as injustice and the plight of others. Without those emotions we are effectively sociopaths.

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?

The United States birth rate is absolutely nothing compared to the third world. European birth rates more so. I'll add that I never spoke of forced contraception.

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

They're talking rubbish then. The USA is vast and there is plenty of room.

How so?

A civilization that suborns murder based on (well, anything since murder doesn't need a reason) is going to capitulate immediately. It seems obvious to me at least that any culture that allows murder will wipe itself out within a lifetime, or undergo a revolution and and an abolition of murder.

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

I don't need to. I can respond to your disgusting and insulting statements my simply informing that I loath collectivism (just look briefly at my observation of anything Traditio says) and that I am not a social Darwinist. I value civilization, personal liberty and culture and that is all I need to say. Murder and rape if legalised would present an existential threat to us all. It would descend society into abject anarchy within days as all concept of security breaks down.

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?

Again: Do not derive morality from social darwinism. Also, stop lying about what I said. I didn't even mention forced contraception. I said to introduce that concept and provide the technology to place it in third world countries. You inserted the word 'forced' to make it sound like I had fascist tendencies.

If we are, in fact, overpopulating the planet, then it most certainly necessary.

No it isn't. It defeats the purpose. If overpopulation leads to a lack of food resources that ends up with people dying to thirst and starvation then to kill them prior to it simply leads to the exact same conclusion that you would have anyway. The resolution for for stopping the ridiculous birth rates in third world countries is to bring them out of poverty (specifically through the empowerment of women) and through the overthrow and undermining of tyrants.

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?

It isn't an issue. We don't have autistic parents en mass dramatically increasing the percentage of autism.

Won't that ensure devolution? There are an increasing number of inherited disorders that will yield an increasingly weak population.

You have no idea what evolution means. It isn't about getting faster, better, stronger at all (which you imply you think it does by your use of 'devolution'). It simply is about the successful survival traits surviving and reproducing to pass on those traits.

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

Except you are conflating social Darwinism with humanism and imposing it on atheists. I also can't help but wrench at the suggestion that you believe in a more merciful God when you've told me in the past that you believe all atheists are tortured in hell (though you were kind enough to not try and defend it, but concede ignorance as to why).

 

[nicholsmom]

There is no 'atheist standard' on morality (and I know that your questions were posed to atheists). There is nothing in the term 'atheism' that invokes anything regarding morality. It is a descriptive term that refers solely to a non-belief. I think you really should be asking about humanism, or just vacate from it all and refer to social Darwinist (who you're really referring to, and fortunately none of us are them).

Before I even get started on this, I want to reassure you that this is not in any way intended to be an attack on any person, including you. The sole purpose of this particular discussion is to demonstrate the contradiction between evolution (of any but the theistic sort) and morality. It is a logical argument, not an emotional one. I want to know if there is any error in my logical analysis of that stated contradiction between the plain, vanilla ToE (without intervention or guidance from God) and morality.

Next, my words were not "atheistic standard" but "atheistic perspective" - totally different things. I'm not looking for a standard - how could there even be one? I'm looking for atheistic perspectives on the source of morality and why it's so thoroughly ingrained in human beings.

We do not derive morality from our origins. It is as simple as that.

We also do not derive it from PlayDoh. What I asked wasn't from where it wasn't derived, but rather from where it was.

You will have to ask someone completely versed in the human mind for why we are altruistic, feel empathy and why we feel guilt.

Tell me please how this doesn't mean that altruism, empathy and guilt are not derived then from our origins. If they are in our programming (brain/genetics) and input (experiences/thought) then where are they? If they are in our programming and input, then how can we trust them - they are mere constructs - outputs from programming and input. What if our programming were different and our input different? Would we not expect to come up with something different? If we are to accept that, then how can we condemn the response of any man to the equation that determines what is moral? Even the sociopath is therefore moral by his own brain's output.

But you seem to think these brain outputs concerning good and evil are trustworthy:

In any case, why we should follow them (or why we do) is because they are reactions to what we perceive as injustice and the plight of others.

But what makes your perception of injustice any better than a sociopath?

Without those emotions we are effectively sociopaths.

Are the feelings and perceptions of injustice calculated by the sociopath's brain any more wrong than your own? Why? Who decides which is a good program (brain) and which is a bad one?

The United States birth rate is absolutely nothing compared to the third world. European birth rates more so.

So elimination of the worst growth eliminates all growth? If the world is in fact overpopulated, should we not reverse all population growth - the small with the great?

I'll add that I never spoke of forced contraception.

You didn't, it's true. But the trouble is we have lots of overpopulation to overcome, and voluntary contraception hasn't stopped population growth in the USA, nor has abortion...

The USA is vast and there is plenty of room.

What about immigration?

How long before there isn't plenty of room? What will we do then? Do you suppose that these immigrants don't have adequate access to contraception? That they don't choose their great numbers of children?

A civilization that suborns murder based on (well, anything since murder doesn't need a reason) is going to capitulate immediately.

Capitulate? To what?

As an aside, our civilization does suborn murder - it's called abortion, but it's still killing off the weakest of human beings for the presumed good of the stronger.

It seems obvious to me at least that any culture that allows murder will wipe itself out within a lifetime, or undergo a revolution and and an abolition of murder.

Not if we are to learn from Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin. They murdered their own people by the truck-load, but their countries continued on. What about modern day China, killing babies when women try to violate the forced contraception, killing Christian protesters, wiping out millions, and yet they persist. I think you will have to look around you, and in history to find that this assertion is without foundation.

Certainly a culture that only murders the weak and rapes the women with the best genetics will thrive in intelligence, strength and heartiness. It is pure logic.

I don't need to. I can respond to your disgusting and insulting statements my simply informing that I loath collectivism

But your disgust at my logical reasoning is not worthy of the effort of typing the words. This has nothing to do with collectivism and everything to do with a species evolved from lesser life forms. It entails simple logic and rational progression from evolution (apart from the God-directed sort) to evolution. It shows the complete inadequacy of perceived morality toward that end, and in face, shows how moral behaviors (as defined by religious folks - "murder is wrong" and "rape is wrong" and the like) are actually antithetical to evolutionary progress of the species toward healthier, smarter, stronger, and generally more survivable individuals.

If we want something other than healthier/smarter/stronger/more-survivable, then we must ask ourselves why. Why should evolutionary processes cause our species to want something contrary to our further evolution?

I value civilization, personal liberty and culture

I'm glad to hear it, but I'm puzzled by it. Why should an evolved being be concerned with things contrary to the evolutionary progress toward healthier/smarter/stronger?

and that is all I need to say.

The whole point of this conversation is that it isn't all you need to say. I can tell you why I value these things, but you have not yet provided a reason for your valuing them. You value them because you do? :shut:

Murder and rape if legalised would present an existential threat to us all.

Can you provide historical evidence for that position? I mean something that counters mine?

It would descend society into abject anarchy within days as all concept of security breaks down.

What's wrong with anarchy? Isn't that the evolutionary model? Isn't that how man arose from Neanderthal? How Neanderthal arose from some ape-like creature? The strong male stole the best daughters of the weak males and made babies with them. The strong males prevailed against the weak ones, where I'm sure murder and rape were prevalent... Were they wrong? Were they evil?

I said to introduce that concept and provide the technology to place it in third world countries.

But you forget that their cultures include multi-child families. Multiple children is their desire. Offering them contraception is like offering them poison. They won't take it voluntarily in any quantity that is likely to affect overpopulation in any significant way.

If overpopulation leads to a lack of food resources that ends up with people dying to thirst and starvation then to kill them prior to it simply leads to the exact same conclusion that you would have anyway.

Right. To an atheist, death is non-existence. See, my morality comes from the Christian notion of the soul. The soul has a beginning but no end. Contraception denies a soul existence; murder just shortens the carnal portion of that existence, but doesn't shorten or eliminate it.

One more point on this: can you see how cultures that survive in spite of extreme poverty value multiple children even more? But clearly you think that eliminating the poverty would eliminate this valuation. I and my 6 children beg to differ. I and the vast community of home-schooling moms who have an average of 6-8 kids (yep, loads of them have 10 or more) each beg to differ. Haven't you seen "Cheaper By The Dozen" ? The premise of that show was a real study done by a real man in the efficiency of larger families as compared to smaller ones. It is far more efficient to raise many children who can benefit from hand-me-downs and help with raising food and other necessary chores, than to raise only one or two. Those in poor countries know this too. It is only selfishness of adults that has blinded us in this country to this fact of life.

The resolution for for stopping the ridiculous birth rates in third world countries is ... through the overthrow and undermining of tyrants.

:squint: Um... explain this.

It isn't an issue. We don't have autistic parents en mass dramatically increasing the percentage of autism.

Wanna take that back?
Or provide some counter evidence?

You have no idea what evolution means. It isn't about getting faster, better, stronger at all (which you imply you think it does by your use of 'devolution'). It simply is about the successful survival traits surviving and reproducing to pass on those traits.

Then explain to me why we evolved from the very successful apes Or why anything evolved from the very successful roach, the very successful rat, the very successful plankton, bacterium, etc.

I also can't help but wrench at the suggestion that you believe in a more merciful God when you've told me in the past that you believe all atheists are tortured in hell (though you were kind enough to not try and defend it, but concede ignorance as to why).

God provided His Son to die a most horrible and painful death upon the cross so that any who wanted to be could be saved from Hell (which we, each one, deserves for our choice to sin). That is mercy tempering the justice of Hell. But that's another topic...

:e4e:

 

[alwight]

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

I'm merely thinning a bit (OK, a lot.) TH, though anything AMR says seems to be a bald utterance in more ways than one, now you come to mention it.

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

A&E oh please, it just so never happened, you can trust me about this I'm an atheist. lain:

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.

Yes of course and its so nice to see some real evidence presented for a change, hang on, no I'm wrong there is none :sherlock: :doh: I was reading the corn flakes box, must stop multi-tasking.

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:

Well AMR rather baldly claims to know that I and other atheists are not really atheists at all because apparently we have singled out your particular God to hate because secretly we know He exists. That makes me so mmmMad I could squeem and squeem. :IA:

Btw TH best wishes and I hope that your Jack is still an atheist. :cheers:

 

[DavisBJ]

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

His own? Does your Bible say, “Bring the little children unto me (unless those little infants are the children of unbelievers, in which case I want them slaughtered like cattle)”?

Protecting His own, right.

His own? Does your Bible say, “Bring the little children unto me (unless those little infants are the children of unbelievers, in which case I want them slaughtered like cattle)”?

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?

“Bring the little children unto me (unless those little infants are the children of unbelievers, in which case I want them slaughtered like cattle)”?

Wow. What version is that? The Koran version?

The accounts of God ordering the slaughter of children are in the King James, except for those who need to blindly deny them. I take it you have no qualms about beheading kids whose parents are unbeleivers.

 

[Persephone66]

I figured, which was why I didn't so much go after you as nudge you.

And that was cool of you sir.

I understand your perspective. I suppose my caveat would be "bad by what standard?"

Why, by my own arbitrary standard that I adjust as needed, of course. :dizzy:

Actually there's more to it than that.

Again, depends on how you mean it, what standard/context is being applied. It's the Christian belief that the good exists as an extension of the arbiter of moral authority, God. Or, in other words, your declaration is founded on a contextual foundation that is no more demonstrable or necessarily true than any you object to.

:e4e:

Can't really argue with that.

 

[nicholsmom]

His own? Does your Bible say, “Bring the little children unto me (unless those little infants are the children of unbelievers, in which case I want them slaughtered like cattle)”?

You are so cute. Do you really think that I'll be baited by this? :crackup:

The accounts of God ordering the slaughter of children are in the King James, except for those who need to blindly deny them. I take it you have no qualms about beheading kids whose parents are unbeleivers.

What happened to the rape? You forgot about the rape.

I don't deny the Bible, but I do read it lain:

Let me ask you a few simple questions: do you understand the progress of a plan? Do you get how the parts of the plan differ?

A bird builds a nest, lays her eggs, feeds the chicks that hatch, trains the survivors to fly, and abandons the nest. Does the bird treat the nest differently from the way she treats the eggs? Does she treat the eggs differently than she treats the chicks? Does she treat the nest the same way in the beginning of the process as she does at the end of it? Is she cruel to sit on the eggs? Is she cruel to not feed them? Is she being mean to not sit on the chicks? Is she being unfair in not training the nest or the eggs to fly? Should she abandon the nest once the chicks leave it? What part of this whole thing confuses you, exactly?

 

[Persephone66]

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

I thank you for that, though I do have my concerns about you. From my perspective, it appears that your faith is the only thing keeping you from doing something immoral, which seems a bit crazy at best.

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

really? enlighten me, please.

 

[DavisBJ]

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?

I find this idea fascinating that things that are not eternal are therefore unimportant. Is it because I don’t expect to be around in a later life, I am therefore relieved of the need to be kind and decent in this life? Perhaps if you were to lose your faith in God, then you could see someone in great pain, but your conscience would not feel even a pang. Though it may not be eternal, I at least, still experience compassion, and sorrow, and joy. Sorry those feelings are not an innate part of you.

if God created life, does He not have the right to take it away?

Since supposedly God created everything, then under this philosophy he can do whatever he wants. if he decides we are pawns, to be fed to monsters from hell just for his entertainment, then that is his right.

Would you say those qualities are good or evil?

I wonder about the morals of anyone who would ask such a question.

 

[DavisBJ]

You are so cute. Do you really think that I'll be baited by this?

Not really, but at least you came up with a new way of dodging that question that no Christian has honestly answered for me.

What happened to the rape? You forgot about the rape.

Kill the families, but keep the virgin girls alive. Give half of them to the priests, and half to the soldiers.

I don't deny the Bible, but I do read it lain:

Then answer honestly, would you have been able to slaughter innocent kids?

Let me ask you a few simple questions: do you understand the progress of a plan? Do you get how the parts of the plan differ?

A bird builds a nest, lays her eggs, feeds the chicks that hatch, trains the survivors to fly, and abandons the nest. Does the bird treat the nest differently from the way she treats the eggs? Does she treat the eggs differently than she treats the chicks? Does she treat the nest the same way in the beginning of the process as she does at the end of it? Is she cruel to sit on the eggs? Is she cruel to not feed them? Is she being mean to not sit on the chicks? Is she being unfair in not training the nest or the eggs to fly? Should she abandon the nest once the chicks leave it? What part of this whole thing confuses you, exactly?

What part of this makes the slaughter of innocent children good and proper?

 

[nicholsmom]

I thank you for that, though I do have my concerns about you. From my perspective, it appears that your faith is the only thing keeping you from doing something immoral, which seems a bit crazy at best.

At my conversion, that would have been true. Now that I've been a Christian for nearly 30 years, I would say that in the totally unlikely event that I lost my faith (this is akin to losing belief in my own existence, btw), the worst that would happen is a bullet in my head bc I couldn't stand the futility of atheism, nor the hopelessness of being a product of random evolutionary processes - thoughts and feelings being merely a construct of my mind, that sort of thing would make me despair beyond the ability to take another breath of life.

But no worries. God is someone as real to me as the woman in the mirror. He permeates my being so thoroughly that there isn't the slightest worry that I'd ever believe that He wasn't.

Concerning math:

really? enlighten me, please.

The trouble we have with math is that she is smart, but basically lazy. She doesn't want to have to be responsible for doing the homework, so she convinces herself that she simply can't understand the material. So I wind up re-teaching every lesson again and again, until I convince her that she knew it all along. She doesn't want to be able to understand it, so it takes a great deal of time and creativity on my part to teach in new ways that will catch her off-guard. And when she finally (and unwittingly) follows me down the path to understanding, I've caught her! "See? You do understand this stuff." "No. That's not the same thing." I show her how it is exactly and precisely the same thing, and she's sunk :thumb: Not fun, but satisfying when I've finally bagged her. Then there's the trouble of making her do the work that follows :sigh: I'm just no good at cracking the whip, though I have plenty of whips in my arsenal - facebook, other computer time (photography stuff mostly), books (kid loves to read ), events with the youth group...

Someday, I'll learn...

 

[Persephone66]

At my conversion, that would have been true. Now that I've been a Christian for nearly 30 years, I would say that in the totally unlikely event that I lost my faith (this is akin to losing belief in my own existence, btw), the worst that would happen is a bullet in my head bc I couldn't stand the futility of atheism, nor the hopelessness of being a product of random evolutionary processes - thoughts and feelings being merely a construct of my mind, that sort of thing would make me despair beyond the ability to take another breath of life.

That's rather sad. I don't find any sort of futility or hopelessness in being an atheist.

But no worries. God is someone as real to me as the woman in the mirror. He permeates my being so thoroughly that there isn't the slightest worry that I'd ever believe that He wasn't.

What ever works, I guess. It's nearly the opposite for me, and not just because of what Hawking said.

Concerning math:


The trouble we have with math is that she is smart, but basically lazy. She doesn't want to have to be responsible for doing the homework, so she convinces herself that she simply can't understand the material. So I wind up re-teaching every lesson again and again, until I convince her that she knew it all along. She doesn't want to be able to understand it, so it takes a great deal of time and creativity on my part to teach in new ways that will catch her off-guard. And when she finally (and unwittingly) follows me down the path to understanding, I've caught her! "See? You do understand this stuff." "No. That's not the same thing." I show her how it is exactly and precisely the same thing, and she's sunk :thumb: Not fun, but satisfying when I've finally bagged her. Then there's the trouble of making her do the work that follows :sigh: I'm just no good at cracking the whip, though I have plenty of whips in my arsenal - facebook, other computer time (photography stuff mostly), books (kid loves to read ), events with the youth group...

Someday, I'll learn...

Someday I will too. She sounds like so many students I have taught and tutored. Let me guess, she excels in writing or the arts.

So what was that Bible verse?

 

[Town Heretic]

Not really, but at least you came up with a new way of dodging that question that no Christian has honestly answered for me.

Then you're an indifferent scholar. Read Paul Copan on the topic ("Is God a Moral Monster"). He does a fairly thorough job. So do more than a few others. If you're point and part is to have an answer that should be a good start.

:e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

Not really, but at least you came up with a new way of dodging that question that no Christian has honestly answered for me.

I'll give it a go, but I'm betting you won't like the answer - I haven't met an atheist yet who does. See below.

Kill the families, but keep the virgin girls alive. Give half of them to the priests, and half to the soldiers.

You will have to prove that these girls didn't want to marry these people, that they didn't get any choices concerning which ones to marry or whether to marry. That they were kept alive so that they might be married is undeniable, but that they had no choices seems an unnecessary stretch to me and not in the text.

Then answer honestly, would you have been able to slaughter innocent kids?

I would never have been asked to do this since I am a woman, and therefore not a soldier. BUT if I were a soldier/man? The short answer is "yes."

Let me see if I can explain to you where this sort of morality comes from apart from just a simple reading of the Bible.

The first part is the thing I mentioned (maybe not to you, but I think in this thread) about the human soul. Christians believe that the human soul has a beginning but no end - it's eternal in one direction, forward. The soul lives on beyond the grave of the body, but will one day be re-united with that body in a glorified state. So consider: the Christian does not see death as the end.

But the Bible tells us "It is appointed to a man once to die, then the judgment." (Heb 9:27) Now God is the only just Judge. He sees not only our whole lives but also the intention of our hearts for all of our lives. Christians trust that God will judge rightly and temper that judgment with mercy as He sees fit. It is His world, His choice to give mercy according to His own council. It is what we call the "sovereignty" of God.

So we have this child put to death because of the depravity of that child's village/town/city, then she is judged by the only wise and just Judge Who tempers his justice with mercy. What better place for her? If she'd been allowed to grow up in such a place, the likelihood of her becoming just as depraved as her kinsmen is very high. Her likelihood of spending eternity in Hell is therefore very high indeed. But through early death she may well find mercy in the hand of God. There is adequate evidence in the Bible that children are not held culpable for their sins, so this seems a very good chance for her to enter into eternal bliss in Heaven. This can also be applied to those virgins kept alive - a chance to learn of God, to live as an Israelite, to raise children in a society of righteousness and wind up in Abraham's bosom at the end of it all.

Now, I don't want you to go from here to therefore murdering all children at birth bc, God will judge, blah, blah, blah. The second part comes into play now.

Theocratic Israel is the nest in the analogy I painted for you before. Now that was only an analogy and it breaks down badly in that God will not abandon the nest, though His interaction with that nest changes. It's only an analogy.

So in the beginning, God singled out Abraham, then Isaak, then Jacob who became Israel. Israel had to grow into a great nation before God could give them a land of their own. So He tucked them away safely in Egypt until they had grown to a very large people. Then He made sure that they were oppressed enough to want to leave Egypt to go to a land of their own, that God had planned for them all along. But two important things were happening while Israel grew in Egypt - people were settling in the land that God had given to Abraham; and the Israelites were learning the wicked ways of the Egyptians and their gods.

God's answer to these things was two-fold: He gave Israel a theocratic government in which God's Law was very strict to eliminate any wicked influence brought from Egypt and to engender righteous living; and kept them separate from the wicked nations which had overrun Abraham's land. He was building the nest - the exact sort of society needed - for the Messiah's coming. He had certain requirements for that nest and it took hundreds of years to build it through many adversities and trials, but build it He did. By the time of the arrival of Christ, Israel was a nation under a greater, more stable nation. They were humble, but weighed down by the added restrictions of the religious leaders of the time. He came to free them from the bondage of both that increased law and their own sin. The mass deaths of Israelites during that time was just like a momma bird removing a rotten stick from her nest. The mass deaths of the people inhabiting Abraham's land were like a really strong, mighty momma bird getting rid of the foxes and raccoons and opossums that would try to eat her chicks and destroy her nest.

God protected His own. He still does.

 

[Jukia]

Let me see if I can explain to you where this sort of morality comes from apart from just a simple reading of the Bible.

Sorry "morality" and slaughtering innocents does not compute in any rational manner.

 

[nicholsmom]

That's rather sad. I don't find any sort of futility or hopelessness in being an atheist.

I certainly wouldn't expect you to.

What ever works, I guess. It's nearly the opposite for me, and not just because of what Hawking said.

Believe it or not, I can understand this. We, each of us, has expectation for life - we get entrenched in our habits and livelihood in ways that make them dear to us. For the Christian, it is a call to divest ourselves of that attachment (Christ said to deny ourselves) so that we place our treasure in Heaven, but for atheists, I'd imagine, it is the very stuff of life - the things which bring meaning to the whole thing. I would imagine that the thought of letting all that go would be a very difficult one indeed. It's probably why most Christians come to Christ before age 18. Worse than removing a bandaid...

Someday I will too. She sounds like so many students I have taught and tutored. Let me guess, she excels in writing or the arts.

She is an amazing graphic artist with a real feel for putting her emotion right into the picture - there's no missing it. She's also becoming quite the original photographer. Fantastic insight into composition - very different from the ordinary. So yes, you are right on that score =)

So what was that Bible verse?

:chuckle:

 

[nicholsmom]

Sorry "morality" and slaughtering innocents does not compute in any rational manner.

It wouldn't for you. Did you bother to read on? I did try to explain why and how this is different for Christians - and all those who believe in the afterlife, in fact.

 

[zippy2006]

I am an unprofitable servant. Rather than appeal to my own feebleness in explaining things explained against your confused entrenchment or attempting to the lay that burden at my feet, why not take my suggestions to heart and steep yourself in the materials I have suggested? When you have read Brakel and Ott, perhaps the discussion will be more fruitful. If you think that Catholic theology agrees with your assumption concerning Adam's liberty of indifference, then I must humbly inform you once more that you are mistaken. That you attempt to use a quote from Augustine isolated from his full treatment to bolster your position tells me clearly you don't understand the man nor the topic the man was discussing.

AMR

In short, I have heard you and many other Calvinists claim that:

1. Adam could not have acted otherwise than he did
2a. Adam was a morally responsible agent
2b. Adam had freedom in a meaningful sense

Now it seems clear to me (and very many other quite bright and learned people throughout history) that both 2a and 2b contradict 1. I have put quite a bit of time and energy toward discovering whether I missed something, and no one has convinced me that I have. In fact moral responsibility is essentially nothing else than being able to do otherwise along with the existence of some objective moral standard.

It will probably take me a long time to read those you reference, mainly because I strongly believe they are wrong on that particular topic and I prefer to spend my time reading people who do not make those mistakes. I've also done quite a bit of inquiry into the question of whether Calvin addresses the contradiction, and it seems that he doesn't.

Your referral to Catholic doctrine is not false but is vastly misleading. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in libertarian free will or the lack of free will, and it certainly doesn't believe those are the only two options. I know you do and I know that is why you defaulted to "libertarian free will," but as I said that is a misleading comment. Catholic doctrine holds that man is free (and therefore a responsible moral agent). I've explained to you elsewhere why your dichotomy is circular, requiring a deterministic description of free will or none at all. If freedom could be deterministically described by our inclinations and othersuch Reformed explanations, then it wouldn't be freedom at all, just as it isn't in the Reformed tradition.

Unless someone gives me a plausible way to resolve the following dilemma I will be understandably slow to read up on the Reformed tradition.

1. Moral responsibility requires the ability to have done otherwise
2. Calvinism denies the ability to have done otherwise

-zip :e4e:

 

[DavisBJ]

You will have to prove that these girls didn't want to marry these people, that they didn't get any choices concerning which ones to marry or whether to marry.

Imagine you are a young lady, at the age that you are thinking ahead to what young man you will marry and what your life with him will be like. But along come the Hebrews, and you are witness to your father being beheaded, your mother’s stomach cut open, and your infant brother having his skull crushed. Every one of the young men in your village are methodically butchered, under direct orders from the Hebrew God. Now I am really sure you are deeply considering whether or not you want to marry one of these Hebrews.

I think that you maintaining this level of cognitive dissonance derails any possibility of realistic consideration of ideas. Your unmitigated insanity in defense of your God’s actions is not something I have any idea of how to bypass.

 

[nicholsmom]

1. Moral responsibility requires the ability to have done otherwise
2. Calvinism denies the ability to have done otherwise

-zip :e4e:

Does Calvinism really deny the ability to have done otherwise? I thought the "Man is free, but God is freer" gives man free moral agency insofar as it doesn't run contrary to what God has mandated will be (very little in the scope of things, from my perspective). So each and every time a person chooses to sin, he may choose otherwise, otherwise he is not responsible for that sin. But man is constrained to do what is in the realm of possibility based on his makeup and past experience (no libertarian free will). God's will will be done, but within that, man is free to operate. Is that not the teaching, if oversimplified?

AMR?

 

[nicholsmom]

Imagine you are a young lady, at the age that you are thinking ahead to what young man you will marry and what your life with him will be like. But along come the Hebrews, and you are witness to your father being beheaded, your mother’s stomach cut open, and your infant brother having his skull crushed. Every one of the young men in your village are methodically butchered, under direct orders from the Hebrew God. Now I am really sure you are deeply considering whether or not you want to marry one of these Hebrews.

Maybe none of the young men in my village are worthy mates, being depraved. Maybe I despised my parents for their depravity. Maybe I had been betrothed by my hated father to a brute of a man who had pledged to sacrifice his first son on the foundation of his first home to honor Mollech. Perhaps I would look on these Hebrews as saviors.

You forget that these villages that were ordered to be destroyed were deemed totally wicked by a God who knows their hearts. That God would allow the Hebrews to leave the virgins alive is an indication that God saw the hearts of these women and knew that they would embrace righteous living and raise up families in happiness.

I think that you maintaining this level of cognitive dissonance derails any possibility of realistic consideration of ideas. Your unmitigated insanity in defense of your God’s actions is not something I have any idea of how to bypass.

So you're gonna skip out of the hard stuff? Nice lain: Is this how you've managed to keep claiming that Christians won't answer your questions, by failing to read the responses? Wow. Just wow.

Don't wade into the water in the first place if you're afraid of getting wet. :chicken: