The implication isn't hard to derive. If all moral rules are arbitrary (that is, based on personal preference -- and I think this is true for us as well as God), then the implication for the atheist is that "might makes right". The implication for the theist depends on the "properties" of God. If God is eternal and sovereign, then such a theist would note that might enforces right. And there is a world of difference between the two. Most people don't hold that might makes right. So either atheists are inconsistent (which, in this case, might be a good thing), or that there is a an interesting incongruity between this particular worldview and our nature.
That isn't a true statement. Joseph does mention Jesus, although scholars believe that there is a later addition which embellished on what Joseph wrote.
And, btw, Luke is considered to be an excellent historian.
I guess that makes God a crappy engineer for not forseeing problems if things...don't follow the "happy path".
Except that the Bible says that He did forsee it and planned for it.
Idiot!... I was talking to Yaweh, of course.
That you would call God an idiot because things don't go like you expect them to is, in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with mankind (i.e. that man has the hubris to try to judge God). Now, since you're such a hotshot engineer, how do you propose to fix it?
Really? Tell that to the people who murder children in the womb, or the anti-semites, or the people who think Arabs should be exterminated. Not everyone agrees with your everyone. Who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
We know nothing about the aliens in ID4 except that they shoot green shit, have antigrav, and run MacOS. Actually, they run Windows. But the point is that we can do a "thought experiment" to determine the properties of systems. This is an interesting experiment to do in light of your statements about a basis for morality -- a basis which they do not share. Now what? Are you going to sit down and try to persuade them to your point of view? You could get them to agree on the properties of gravity. I'd like to see how you would get them to agree with your moral decisions -- especially since, to them, you aren't an everyone.
Saying that an atheist's rules are arbitrary because anything not of God is arbitrary is merely begging the question.
Except that I didn't say that, now did I? I might want to argue that even God is arbitrary (in the sense that I don't know what would, of necessity, determine His nature).
If you're an atheist, you might indeed believe that rules are arbitrary. But you might not.
If not, then I can't help you if you wish to be inconsistent with your worldview.
Actually, Paul was martyred in 66(?) A.D. so that his letters are, at most, 30 years from the death of Jesus and some much earlier. Add to this that Paul wrote to churches that were already in existence and they needed time to form. Furthermore, Paul passes on what he had learned, possibly citing a hymn which was used by the early church, which can be used to date the proclamation of the Resurrection to about 8 years after the death of Jesus.
At least eleven events are considered to be knowable history by virtually all scholars, and a twelfth event is considered to be knowable history by many scholars. (1) Jesus died due to the rigors of crufixion and (2) was buried. (3) Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. (4) Although not as frequently recognized, many scholars hold that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was discovered to be empty a few days later. Critical scholars even agree that (5) at this time the disciples had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Because of these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and Resurrection, even to be willing to die for this belief. (7) This message was central in the early church preaching and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had died early before. As a result of this message, (9) the church was born and grew, (10) with Sunday as the primary day of worship. (11) James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later Paul the persecutor of Christians was also converted by an experience that he, similarly, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.
From: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead: The Resurrection Debate, with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (who recently made news).
Not really. You can derive a decent ethical system from egoism.
That assumes that you have an a-priori notion of decent. If you think about it, you'll end up with a hall-of-mirrors effect that cannot be broken except by personal preference. And that happens to be arbitrary.
However, if you tell people "everyone be nice to everyone else," you have a much more effective moral system, because everyone benefits from the idea.
More hidden assumptions about what is better than something else. Do you think the Borg, or the aliens in Independence Day, would agree with your morality? It's an interesting thought experiment.
but instead are using morality as a method for everyone to have more fun
And why should "more fun" be the determiner of what is moral?
Why don't you try Mormonism? One of the lines their missionaries use is "pray to know that these things are true". They will relate how they prayed and received some kind of experience (some has described it as a 'burning feeling in the heart') that convinces them that Mormonism is true.
Yet Mormonism and Buddhism cannot both be true. So did (at least) one of you have a faulty experience?
Why, in Western society, do we regard "faith" (and in this case blind faith) a virtue?
Because Western society has been highly influenced by Christianity, in which faith is one of the main virtues (e.g. St. Paul's statement "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.", or Jesus' words, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
BTW, faith should never be blind. Faith needs to be tied to something real (and we can argue about how good the evidence for this real event, or events, happens to be).
I find the best argument for Christianity is people who just keep their beliefs to themselves and live Jesus' teachings...
Slight problem there, since Jesus said to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."
We don't get to pick and choose which teachings we will follow and which we will ignore.
...about being accepting and treating other people like you'd want to be treated
Please don't confuse "being accepting" with having no moral standards. For example, Jesus loved the women caught in adultery, but He didn't condone adultery. He said, "go and sin no more."
I agree with you about the difficulty of proving a negative, but that's never bothered militant atheists.
Heinliein was a good writer (I'm reading "The Rolling Stones" to my daughter at night), but he was a lousy theologian. The bumper sticker, "Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed", while crude, does contain an element of truth.
And, um, I live in Georgia. I have neighbors, co-workers, and friends who are atheists. So be careful how you stereotype.
Props, however, for the Outer Limits reference. That would be worth some mod points, if I had any. But I would note that Christianity hasn't done a good job of using the media to get their message across; we do fair with radio, pathetic with television, but seem to be finding the power of the internet. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that if you asked the average person on the street what Christianity was all about they might say something about the anger that is expressed toward various types of misdeeds (and usually not about things like injustice, or poverty, & etc). I doubt that rarely would someone say, "oh, they are those people who believe that Jesus rose from the dead."
Language never makes sense, so I stopped worrying about it. After all, in English, "ghoti" is pronounced "fish".
Then what term do you use for those who flatly declare that there is no god?
Since you gave us a lesson in pronouncing greek, "theos" is the Greek word for god. I certainly don't agree that this has been "hijacked" to mean "the Christian God".
I have read the whole text. The issue isn't about control, nor is it about hate. Either we are here for no reason at all, or we were designed with a purpose in mind. The Bible affirms the latter, and that said purpose no more includes homosexuality than it does obesity.
...you will not be able to understand people who self-determine their personal morality
I understand them very well, since I used to be one. Your problem is that all you see is yourself. Certainly, you self-determine your own personal morality -- but you haven't fully worked out all of the implications about how such a system works out conflicts between other self-deterministic beings. There is only one absolute which is guaranteed to resolve such conflicts. And, as a logical consequence, that resolution must be good.
Slashdot Mirror
The implication isn't hard to derive. If all moral rules are arbitrary (that is, based on personal preference -- and I think this is true for us as well as God), then the implication for the atheist is that "might makes right". The implication for the theist depends on the "properties" of God. If God is eternal and sovereign, then such a theist would note that might enforces right. And there is a world of difference between the two. Most people don't hold that might makes right. So either atheists are inconsistent (which, in this case, might be a good thing), or that there is a an interesting incongruity between this particular worldview and our nature.
That isn't a true statement. Joseph does mention Jesus, although scholars believe that there is a later addition which embellished on what Joseph wrote.
And, btw, Luke is considered to be an excellent historian.
Given that the message of the resurrection can be traced to within 3 to 8 years of the event, that's not a tenable proposal.
I guess that makes God a crappy engineer for not forseeing problems if things...don't follow the "happy path".
... I was talking to Yaweh, of course.
Except that the Bible says that He did forsee it and planned for it.
Idiot!
That you would call God an idiot because things don't go like you expect them to is, in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with mankind (i.e. that man has the hubris to try to judge God). Now, since you're such a hotshot engineer, how do you propose to fix it?
Really? So...shaved your sideburns recently?
Haven't shaved in two days, but I will in the morning. Perhaps you are laboring under the mistaken notion that the Mosaic covenant applies to me?
you are responsible for your beliefs
Everyone is responsible for their beliefs -- especially before God. Why do you think the Christian God stresses right belief above all else?
And if there is no god, to whom am I responsible? You?
Even then, you don't find out who's right, only who's left.
...as you say it's all subjective
Then what defines who is right?
To me, whatever makes the most people happy the most often while hurting the fewest people is what is most moral
The point of the thought experiment is that what you think doesn't carry any weight.
The ultimate moral test is the golden rule, and any belief which does not pass it is inherently wrong.
Is that because the Christian God, who is Love, really exists; or because you just happen to prefer this?
So we're back to square one. Please make up your mind and try to be consistent.
"more fun" isn't the important part. Everyone is.
Really? Tell that to the people who murder children in the womb, or the anti-semites, or the people who think Arabs should be exterminated. Not everyone agrees with your everyone. Who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
We know nothing about the aliens in ID4 except that they shoot green shit, have antigrav, and run MacOS.
Actually, they run Windows. But the point is that we can do a "thought experiment" to determine the properties of systems. This is an interesting experiment to do in light of your statements about a basis for morality -- a basis which they do not share. Now what? Are you going to sit down and try to persuade them to your point of view? You could get them to agree on the properties of gravity. I'd like to see how you would get them to agree with your moral decisions -- especially since, to them, you aren't an everyone.
Saying that an atheist's rules are arbitrary because anything not of God is arbitrary is merely begging the question.
Except that I didn't say that, now did I? I might want to argue that even God is arbitrary (in the sense that I don't know what would, of necessity, determine His nature).
If you're an atheist, you might indeed believe that rules are arbitrary. But you might not.
If not, then I can't help you if you wish to be inconsistent with your worldview.
Actually, Paul was martyred in 66(?) A.D. so that his letters are, at most, 30 years from the death of Jesus and some much earlier. Add to this that Paul wrote to churches that were already in existence and they needed time to form. Furthermore, Paul passes on what he had learned, possibly citing a hymn which was used by the early church, which can be used to date the proclamation of the Resurrection to about 8 years after the death of Jesus.
From: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead: The Resurrection Debate, with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (who recently made news).
Not really. You can derive a decent ethical system from egoism.
That assumes that you have an a-priori notion of decent. If you think about it, you'll end up with a hall-of-mirrors effect that cannot be broken except by personal preference. And that happens to be arbitrary.
However, if you tell people "everyone be nice to everyone else," you have a much more effective moral system, because everyone benefits from the idea.
More hidden assumptions about what is better than something else. Do you think the Borg, or the aliens in Independence Day, would agree with your morality? It's an interesting thought experiment.
but instead are using morality as a method for everyone to have more fun
And why should "more fun" be the determiner of what is moral?
...but they're rock-solid now, aren't they?
That doesn't make them any less arbitrary, does it? Why is it the way it is?
Why in the world can't you wear clothing made from two kinds of fabric or plant two different kinds of seeds in the same field? Why?
Do you really want an answer? I'll be happy to give you one.
Thanks!
Why don't you try Mormonism? One of the lines their missionaries use is "pray to know that these things are true". They will relate how they prayed and received some kind of experience (some has described it as a 'burning feeling in the heart') that convinces them that Mormonism is true.
Yet Mormonism and Buddhism cannot both be true. So did (at least) one of you have a faulty experience?
What makes you think the Bible explains it?
Because I think the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is very strong and that His earliest disciples were trustworthy witnesses to His teaching.
I think we hae a purpose in the universe but we don't know it...
How do you know this?
and we're better off not knowing (since we might decide not to be part of that plan).
In your worldview, is there any risk to not being part of the plan?
Why, in Western society, do we regard "faith" (and in this case blind faith) a virtue?
Because Western society has been highly influenced by Christianity, in which faith is one of the main virtues (e.g. St. Paul's statement "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.", or Jesus' words, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
BTW, faith should never be blind. Faith needs to be tied to something real (and we can argue about how good the evidence for this real event, or events, happens to be).
I find the best argument for Christianity is people who just keep their beliefs to themselves and live Jesus' teachings...
...about being accepting and treating other people like you'd want to be treated
Slight problem there, since Jesus said to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."
We don't get to pick and choose which teachings we will follow and which we will ignore.
Please don't confuse "being accepting" with having no moral standards. For example, Jesus loved the women caught in adultery, but He didn't condone adultery. He said, "go and sin no more."
If you're an atheist then all rules are arbitrary. Pot, kettle, black.
The fallacy of the false dilemma. Another possiblity is that creation is "fallen" due to sin. YMMV.
I agree with you about the difficulty of proving a negative, but that's never bothered militant atheists.
Heinliein was a good writer (I'm reading "The Rolling Stones" to my daughter at night), but he was a lousy theologian. The bumper sticker, "Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed", while crude, does contain an element of truth.
And, um, I live in Georgia. I have neighbors, co-workers, and friends who are atheists. So be careful how you stereotype.
Props, however, for the Outer Limits reference. That would be worth some mod points, if I had any. But I would note that Christianity hasn't done a good job of using the media to get their message across; we do fair with radio, pathetic with television, but seem to be finding the power of the internet. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that if you asked the average person on the street what Christianity was all about they might say something about the anger that is expressed toward various types of misdeeds (and usually not about things like injustice, or poverty, & etc). I doubt that rarely would someone say, "oh, they are those people who believe that Jesus rose from the dead."
Language never makes sense, so I stopped worrying about it. After all, in English, "ghoti" is pronounced "fish".
... he could easily have produced the shroud
If so, have we been able to duplicate it?
Then what term do you use for those who flatly declare that there is no god?
Since you gave us a lesson in pronouncing greek, "theos" is the Greek word for god. I certainly don't agree that this has been "hijacked" to mean "the Christian God".
I have read the whole text. The issue isn't about control, nor is it about hate. Either we are here for no reason at all, or we were designed with a purpose in mind. The Bible affirms the latter, and that said purpose no more includes homosexuality than it does obesity.
It's hard to see how these injunctions apply to someone who is dead.
...you will not be able to understand people who self-determine their personal morality
I understand them very well, since I used to be one. Your problem is that all you see is yourself. Certainly, you self-determine your own personal morality -- but you haven't fully worked out all of the implications about how such a system works out conflicts between other self-deterministic beings. There is only one absolute which is guaranteed to resolve such conflicts. And, as a logical consequence, that resolution must be good.