Often when I see the issue of morals come up (not at this site, but others), I often read that morals come from God and without Him, morals would be impossible. Basically what's being said is that without a belief in a God, there would be no morals and humans wouldn't be able to decide what is right and wrong. Is this truly the case or is there more to it?
-
.
Just because I don't believe in a God does not mean that I'm not a moral person. Personal belief has nothing to do with morals. People should NOT label other people as being immoral, just because they do not feel that we were created by a supreme being. Morality is "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct". You do not necessarily have to be a spiritual or religious person to be concerned with the distinction of good and evil or right and wrong.
21%
Voted for by
Stella Cadente,
Weydon,
Kahliya,
petethemeat,
splodgey.
(7 total)
-
Anarchistic(Darwinist) view of morality
The concept of god in my opinion has greatly hindered humanity's ability to create solid morality.
As we have created a single basis of all things good and bad instead of developing individual ability to comprehend such things, we rely on teachings of others to substitute true morality.As with all other species in order to advance we had to go through trial and error to create absolute morality,sadly we attempted to hasten the process and now are stuck with the after affects.We have removed the ability to process black and white without a guide book and this has created many problems for society as a whole, which we must now move backwards to fix. Although it is true human development of morality would have been much slower without religion,
but again it must now be corrected as very few human beings can judge for themselves.To say that god is necessary for morality is a poor conclusion as god is simply a symbol of humanity's insecurity about itself; that it needs guidance.
Throw down such guidance mankind and venture onwards as inevitably right and wrong will become clear without being blotched by simplistic attempts to solve the greatest questions.The masses can not and never will accept a black and white system of regulations so applying such a system to rule morality creates unneeded
confusion and must be rendered as an obsolete way of thinking.
15%
Voted for by
Ievianty,
Orange seedsandpeel,
Kazrith,
nanoinfinity,
sca.
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
April 1, 2007
Stella Cadente
April 3, 2007
My religion are HUMAN morals, not Biblical or Quran morals. Murder is wrong for me, but so is insulting other people's beliefs. If I see a person lying on the street, because they fell down the bicycle, I will go there and help them. My friend fell down her bicycle and she broke her leg...dozens of people passed by and they did not even ask her how she was. Many of those people might go to church every Sunday, they might pray how they are supposed to and so on and so forth...but they are not immune of what happens in life. Just because they go to Church, it does mean that everything they do is right.
Regards,
Ana.
April 3, 2007
But I'm saying is, that Humans morals will change, as they have in the past, and they will continue to change, but the biblical morals have stayed the same, and they are the best morals (I have noticed from expirience) even though a lot of people disagree with them.
And no, just because they go to church doesn't mean they are going to follow the bible all the time. But that doesn't change that what the bible teaches is correct. And when they don't do what is right is when they don't do what the bible tells them. Noone is perfect and cannot always go by the rules of the bible. But the bible nonetheless still tells us to do what it says, and what it says is what is good.
~God bless
Robert
Stella Cadente
April 4, 2007
I am not that much familiar with Christianity(or any religion for that matter) but I know that there was an Old Testament, and there is the New one. Doesn't that show change over time?
And again, I apologize if I have insulted any of your beliefs, without knowing it.
May 1, 2007
So if brethren have a child, the child will be a lot more likely to receive the SAME harmful mutation from both parents. So they won't just have 1 mutation, but 2. 1 mutation is usually recessive, and doesn't harm the person alot. (But there are a lot of cases in witch one mutation can do a lot of damage such as Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, witch causes a child to age tremendously by just 1 mutation)
But while man was just made. There were no genetic mutations. And there were very very very very VERY small odds that 2 children from 2 genetically perfect humans (adam and Eve) would have the same mutation (there are about 3 billion base pairs, and the odds of a mutation even happening are low)
So humans could "inbreed" for a long period of time, while they were genetically perfect. But there is a case in witch inbreeding has severely hurt humans. This was at the time of Noah. At the time of noah, after the flood. Inbreeding (a while aftyer creation) had to be done (there was noone else after a catastrophic flood). But there were a few mutations within that small gene pool. Obviously, a LOT of mutations were destroyed in the human gene pool at the flood, but some remained in Noah's family. If you have read the bible. People lieved for almsot a thousand years before the flood. But now inbreeding caused genetic mutations that shorten human life, to multiply in the human race. (We see a gradual decline in age after the flood)
This is just validation.
Leviticus chapter 18, verses 6-18 tells us that NOW (a long time after creation) that marriage with kin is forbidden. This is becasue later, genetic mutations has built up to a point were incest would cause severely deformed children. (apparently, the bible knew about genetic mutations before humans knew about DNA)
I jsut wanted to bring this up =P
Stella Cadente
May 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
maddyblue
August 8, 2007
Edit | Reply
Genetic Mutation
Where in the bible does it tell us that there were genetic mutations? So, what you are saying is that human genetics mutated or evolved over time? Wouldn't what you say imply that there is support for the theory of evolution in the bible? What source outside of the bible and your religious teachings proves to you that the bible is the 'right' place to get our morals from?maddyblue
May 20, 2007
Hitler?
Hitler knew exactly what he was doing, he did not think that he was being moral. Even if he did, he would be easily diagnosed as psychotic (homicidal does fall in the category of psychotic after all)...so he is clearly not a good example of someone who would have good moral judgement.The biblical morals have changed, just as morality before the bible changed. The bible from which you claim to get your moral bearings is a book written by humans, maybe as psychotic as Hitler, based on mythology found prominently among the areas of the mediterranean, the middle east, and northern africa. Those moral codes existed long before the bible and could exist long after it.
TeChNoWC
August 8, 2007
Hitler had strong views about what he was doing, and I would wager that he did, in some form, believe it to be just, right, and moral. This may differ from your pathos for morality, but he still clung to some form of 'right doing' in what he aimed to achieve. I would suppose that power, greed and many other factors were involved in his decision making as well, but I can understand, in part, the rationale behind his motives (yet why the Jews and with such passion and hatred does astound me). Fear also motivated his desire to see a better future for the fellow German, and for his idealized nationalism and national security.
maddyblue
August 8, 2007
Because....
What Hitler did is classified as psychitic. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. The medical definition of psychotic includes homicidal tendencies.TeChNoWC
August 10, 2007
Your 'facts' and conviction of them means little to me other than chemicals control your brain. Open your mind to a little understanding, perhaps. Hitler's cause was rationalised. Many things can be rationalised. Doing the wrong thing does not make you psychotic, it makes you evil. There is no apparent mystical morality in sync with apparent rationality, that is deprived to the psychotic. The fact that your mind can operate at a harmonious level has no distinction with the fact that you can be good, or you can be evil. Get over it. Its a 'fact'. Hitler was smarter and wiser than you will ever be - just hope to be a better person.
maddyblue
August 10, 2007
yes
this has nothing to do with his classification of psychotic, and even by German Nazi standards he is psychotic, whatever you call it is hugely agreed upon that he was a mass murderer and he is considered to be an immoral man regardless of race, creed, or religion. Evil in humans is a bunch of bullsh*t the church made up to better control the human population.You are born with sin, therefore you need salvation, the way to salvation is through the church. kinda handy for the church, eh? To claim to hold the foundation of all morality in its hands...as well as the key to salvation.
I'm not gonna argue with you about hitler's intelligence. I never said he was stupid, psychotic and genius often blur their edges.
i have nothing to get over, you ninny. i am perfectly comfortable with my mind 'operating at a harmonious level' which is really a load of bunko you wrote down to make you sound smart. And my mind and my conscience have everything to do with me being good or evil. and your crazy religion has nothing to do with good and evil. merely power and subjugation.
so...theres nothing for me to get over. im a good person, i live a good life, and yeah i may not be as smart as adolf hitler....but im okay with that.
TeChNoWC
August 10, 2007
"whatever you call it is hugely agreed upon that he was a mass murderer and he is considered to be an immoral man regardless of race, creed, or religion."
Again, with the consensus of truth on morality. Too bad 83% of your consensus is currently made up of deluded God-believers, and history would show that a lot more were induced in the belief system. Your morality seems to deny you.
Psychosis is more attributed to regular drug takers who rely on massive hits of LSD's and magic mushrooms... Not a semi-rational idealist who was simply interested in a moral clause that ultimately did not prove to hold the benefit that he first hypothesized it would. I do agree that it is possible that Hitler had a prevailing mental disorder - and many historians consider this - but now consider the one hundred or more other historical figureheads who have rose to bloodthirsty power and influence, and maybe consider for a minute that it was due to a failing society that induced an aggressive radical desire invoked through desperation and available power. This is not 'insane', it is understandable and human-like. Imperfection due to an imperfect state, perhaps.
"You are born with sin, therefore you need salvation, the way to salvation is through the church. kinda handy for the church, eh? To claim to hold the foundation of all morality in its hands...as well as the key to salvation."
This is Catholicism, and deluded just as you have demonstrated. At least we agree on one thing.
"i have nothing to get over, you ninny. i am perfectly comfortable with my mind 'operating at a harmonious level' which is really a load of bunko you wrote down to make you sound smart. And my mind and my conscience have everything to do with me being good or evil. and your crazy religion has nothing to do with good and evil. merely power and subjugation."
You said evil didn't exist, yet you are claiming you avoid it through the mind and conscience you have?
"so...theres nothing for me to get over. im a good person, i live a good life, and yeah i may not be as smart as adolf hitler....but im okay with that."
So good exists? I thought only sane and insane....???
maddyblue
August 11, 2007
im sick....
of arguing in circles....but obviously not sick enough to try and make a few last points....this is not specific to catholicism, this is (in one form or another) the claims of most churches, most religions.....it maye be more specific to judeo christian religions....but that is still a large portion of the world.
i dont avoid evil i avoid immorality. and i didnt say that i didnt believe evil existed, i said i didnt believe it existed in humans. being one form of god(s)-believer i believe see no difference between: evil/good, yin/yang, feminine/masculine, etc etc. balance. so a your use of the word evil to me is just semantics. where as right and wrong is different from good and evil. and sane and insane are not the same as either right and wrong, or good and evil.
psy·cho·sis
n.
A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.
I am not ignorant on the subject of hitler. and i have viewed him from many points of view. And your view is, at the very least, interesting. however, adolf hitler, fit the description of psychotic with or without his mass murdering tendencies. And if we considered these symptoms as mere character traits of a man in your specified climate for the types of leaders to arise, then you would expect them to remain constant. however, hitler shower an advancement in all the symptoms as his life progressed. they progressed in a fashion typical of someone who suffers from one or more psychoses. i really dont care whether you want to call him insane or a genius. I just know that he was not moral, he didn't even stand behind his own 'morals'....the man was half jewish. It's like the Hutu leaders telling the common Hutu man to kill their Tutsi wives and children of Tutsi blood, but went home every night to their own Tutsi wives.
For me that's the difference.
"That makes morality in flux. Unless of course you are merely saying that this is the changing perceptions of morality, and then morality becomes subjective to the individual and the absolution of morality is unfortunately unnatainable due to his/her state of flux."
This is actually very close to what I believe. I believe that as humans we can be expected to live our lives right and moral to the best of our ability at the time we are living them. So, it's not that I believe in an absolute morality, because I do not believe in an absolute reality. I do however believe that morality requires nothing more than our whole self. because we are human we inherently have human morality. different from say, wolf morality.
You can go through all of history and find a million and one reasons to justify killing, and I believe that if those people in that moment truly believed that what they were doing was the right thing to do in that moment, then who is any human to judge their morality. you can not walk even a mile in another mans shoes, let alone a life time. so, as humans we have no right to judge. what we do have the right to judge is the damage that a person has had on society, and the risk of them remaining a part of society and causing more damage. and certainly even then we are pretty bad at that because we still cant get past our racial, societal, economical, and ethnic perceptions.
mudgod
September 10, 2007
This statement would appear to require a defined moral code. Can you enlighten me about this code? Can I type it out and tape it to my mirror?
maddyblue
September 10, 2007
ill show you mine if you show me yours
1) Explain to me ow this statement requires a defined moral code.2) Explain to me how your moral code fits on a piece of paper you can tape to your mirror.
mudgod
September 10, 2007
As far as my moral code? That's easy.
It is the ten commandments:
(1)
Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(2)
Exo 20:4 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:
Exo 20:5 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;
Exo 20:6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
(3)
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(4)
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(5)
Exo 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(6)
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
(7)
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
(8)
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
(9)
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(10)
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
maddyblue
September 10, 2007
My One Commandment
Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.mudgod
September 10, 2007
maddyblue
September 11, 2007
Edit | Reply
As opposed to....
Some rules made up by Moses (which may or may not have been passed to him by the word of a god that may or may not exist)?I find your morality just as subjective as it is based on what you choose to believe is the proper moral code.
maddyblue
September 11, 2007
Edit | Reply
maddyblue
August 8, 2007
inherent morality and those who are deceived
My basis for believing in an inherent human morality, is that history shows us that morality and religion have changed tremendously over human existence. There are, however, certain morals that do not seem to change. An example would be murder. Now a societies definition of murder may change, but the taking of another life without justification is considered to be wrong in every society i have ever studied. Obviously different cultures hold different justifications to be valid.and i dont think i contradict myself at all by saying that some people (such as hitler) are unaware. or have a 'broken' moral compass.
TeChNoWC
August 10, 2007
maddyblue
August 10, 2007
You have exactly made my point...
Murder is inherently immoral. The definition of murder is not inherent.And yeah, historical consensus does consitute aboslute morality, at least more than some silly black book passed down from some man in black robes.
i dont rationalise through clauses and motivated feelings. i rationalise in spite of them.
and lets start here...first of all you dont know the first thing about my ancestors so lets not start with that bull. killing and murder are not the same thing. not even close. as you so conveniently pointed out for me. killing does not necessarily equal murder and different societies have different views on which killing constitutes murder.
and thank you for pointing out what is already incredibly obvious to me....(wow you are one for deep thought). Reall lesbians have been persecuted throughout history? I never knew that. I thought we were always freely accepted in society. oh wait we are still being killed for our sexual orientation. of course if you look at who was doing the killings of lesbians and gays...it would be your oh so moral church. or its predecessors. was it murder? not to them...clearly. is it murder now? yes.
TeChNoWC
August 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
maddyblue
August 8, 2007
in his insanity....
i am sure in his psychotic state hitler did believe what he was doing was just and moral. but as the entire world has come to an agreement that actions such as mass murder are considered wrong, he can be categorically classified as insane. what he does or does not believe to be moral is irrelevant. and the fact that you can understand any part of the rationale that led to the death of six million human beings tells me that your moral compass may be a little off, too.TeChNoWC
August 10, 2007
maddyblue
August 10, 2007
yes
i would lead the world into a communal state. doesnt really have anything to do with political mass censorship.TeChNoWC
August 10, 2007
Edit | Reply
"and thank you for pointing out what is already incredibly obvious to me....(wow you are one for deep thought). Reall lesbians have been persecuted throughout history? I never knew that. I thought we were always freely accepted in society. oh wait we are still being killed for our sexual orientation. of course if you look at who was doing the killings of lesbians and gays...it would be your oh so moral church. or its predecessors. was it murder? not to them...clearly. is it murder now? yes."
Murder now? That makes morality in flux. Unless of course you are merely saying that this is the changing perceptions of morality, and then morality becomes subjective to the individual and the absolution of morality is unfortunately unnatainable due to his/her state of flux.
Weydon
April 3, 2007
April 3, 2007
And there is a lot more examples I can give. But the rest takes faith. As with all religeons (including evolutionism and atheism), you must have faith in order for it to work.
April 25, 2007
May 1, 2007
And people call christians narrow minded sometimes, because should the truth be dilluded? If we have the truth, that means everything but the truth, isn't the thruth. So if something contradicts the bible, we must first ask "Is this true", and "Is the bible wrong". Now the bible is right for a LOT of things. (A lot of witch seems ludacris or had no scientific merit when it was written, but is now scientifically accurate)
SO we must first beleive the bilbe was right, but there has been a misinterpretation with the thing that contradicts the bible. And Usually, the bible ends up being right in the first place.
And about evolution. I used to be a hard headed evolutionist. Not anymore. (as you can tell =P)
Evolution is just a pile of assumption after assumption of unprovable, and acward ideas. It's like the geocentrical orbit model. People used to believe the earth was in the center of the orbit. But what they saw in space validated a helio centrical orbit model. But people added epicycles to the geocentrical model to make the evidence support the model. Even though the geocentrical model is wrong, you can alter it, so that the observations will validate what happens in the model. (In this case, epicycles, or having objects make circles while they revolve around the earth, made the planets go into the right places, even though the model is ludacris)
Same thing with evolution. They just add on more and more stuff to it, so that the observations validate the conclusion, when a much simpler model is provided (In the last case, a heliocentric model), In this case, creationism. See evolution requires miracles. Like the first cell. How could those thousands of parts simply come into exsistance? Even if the chirality problem (of the right and left handed amino acids) of the first DNA strand was over come, there would be no cell parts to READ the DNA. ANd without cell parts, the DNA is worthless, and it's impossible (Or so improbable that you can believe that tornados can go through junk yards and come up with space stations with enough time) for the cell parts to come into exsistance in the first place. Not only that, but the first cell parts must be compatable with the DNA (or RNA), vise versa, and the universe just isn't designed to do such akward things. (Imagine dust particles fallings down on a peice of paper, writing down something in a language NOONE knows, then having random bytes coming together to form a program, with no intellegence, and reading the language, to form the program)
I could go more in depth, but I jsut don't have the time ATM. =P
maddyblue
May 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
So how many languages do you read?
"The bible is written so wonderfully, that it stops misinterpretations."Do you read Ancient Greek? Aramaic? Latin? How do you know there have been no minterpretations? How are there so many versions of the bible if there is only one way to interpret it? How are there so many religions that stem from the bible, yet clearly differ on their interpretations of the bible.
Why is it any more likely that DNA would not form naturally through evolution? If I hit a golf ball into a fairway. The chances of it hitting any one specific blade of grass is "so improbable that you can believe that tornados can go through junk yards and come up with space stations with enough time"? Right? I mean you gotta figure on a fairway how innumerable must the blades of grass be? So the chances of the ball landing on any one blade of grass would be 1 in umpteen quadrillion or so?! (anyone care to find the average # of blades of grass per sq ft, and the average sq footage of a fairway?) Anyhow, you hit the ball and it lands on blade of grass #659,927,234,182,988,172. Is that a miracle? Is that an act of god?
No because it was just as likely to hit that blade of grass as any other one.
maddyblue
May 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
I think Galileo might have something to say.
The church clearly fought with him on his heliocentric ideas, but he has clearly been proven right. Even the church has recanted.Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
...and yet we know for a fact this is not true. The eart does in fact, rotate and revolve around the sun.
Weydon
April 3, 2007
SCIENCE and REASON have also "always been right on everything else so far".
Everything has been wrong on everything.
"As with all religeons (including evolutionism and atheism), you must have faith in order for it to work."
So just close your eyes and point, then stick with that one beyond all logic?
May 1, 2007
So the bible said the earth was sphrical, the people said it was flat. WHo do you believe? Word of God (If it Is the word of God), or Humans who are a mass amount of cells?
The bible outsmarts the followers of the bible =P
Now I DON'T support blind faith. I support faith, but not blind faith. But there is more evidence supporting creationism than evolution. Some of thease are from the impossibilities of evolution without an intellegent being. Some are from the geological columb ponting torward the worldwide flood of noah over slow gradual processes. Just the fact that the bible get's it right so many times is proof for creationism. But creationism is fully possible. As with an infinite being, ANYTHING can be done. SO you can't say something is impossible for creationism if you have an infinite being.
But Evolutionism, without an infinite being is impossible (sorry, so improbable that you might as well believe volcanic ash can settle into towers simlilar to the twin towers, and having rain cement it leaving behind towers that people would confuse with the twin towers)
That's why theistic evolution is becomming popular, but it certainly cannot be theistic evolution of christianity (as the bible contradicts those thinkings) But it can happen with other religions.
Weydon
May 1, 2007
How do we know when it's correctly interpreted?
May 1, 2007
Because an incorrect interpretation would go against other parts of the bible. But a correct one will be back up by the rest of the bible.
Weydon
May 2, 2007
Edit | Reply
petethemeat
April 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
Doom you are obviously clever, but I believe you have narrowed your focus too much. You are very quick to denounce opposition to your beliefs, and I believe are gathering too much of your information from sources which you only seek out because they comply with your views. It is important to seek out information from all viewpoints, because even if not persuaded to a differing view, you gain greater knowledge of your opponents subject.
I was a Christian and one with very solid knowledge from the bible. I may now be an atheist, but I still research from a variety of sources, be they religious, non-religious or otherwise. Being an atheist does not mean you must close your eyes to the possible existence of God.
May 1, 2007
Actually, Atheism does require faith. It's the belief that there is no God. Now there are different denominations of atheist. Some say "we lack belief in God" rather than "there is not God". This kind of annoys me. As when people try to reduce friction with other religions, they alter their belifs, so people can't confront them. Now You may "lack" the belief of God's exsistance. That mean's you choose not to believe. And you would then be agnostic. Not atheist. Then for agnosticism, I would have to say that you believe that you can lack belief.
But ANYWAYS.... Evolution DOES require faith. Because You cannot prove that random chemicals turned into the first RNA (or cell), billions of years ago. Because NOONE was there. You can't prove that those chemicals were even in exsistance. Noone was there to see it. You can't prove that the RNA evolved. You can't prove it, you can only validate it. (Witch evolutions also lack). You can validate prehisotric earth conditions in test tubes. And see if it comes up with life. But the millery-urey expiriment LACKED the ability to produce the chemicals needed for life. Etc...SAme things for creationism. We can't prove God made Man on the 6th day. We can only validate it. Like with human mitochondrea. If you saw the discovery channel movie "The True Eve". It would have shown that all of mankind arose from 1 ancestral female app. 100-250 thousand years ago. BUT newer dating methods have shorted down that date to arround 6,000 years. Now this VALIDATES the bible's message about the first man and woman. But it doesn't prove it. But it does seem pretty unusual that the mitochondrea would point that all men have arisen from the same ansestral female aproximately 6,000 years ago, when the bible said the exsact same thing.
Doom you are obviously clever, but I believe you have narrowed your focus too much. You are very quick to denounce opposition to your beliefs, and I believe are gathering too much of your information from sources which you only seek out because they comply with your views. It is important to seek out information from all viewpoints, because even if not persuaded to a differing view, you gain greater knowledge of your opponents subject.
I was a Christian and one with very solid knowledge from the bible. I may now be an atheist, but I still research from a variety of sources, be they religious, non-religious or otherwise. Being an atheist does not mean you must close your eyes to the possible existence of God.
But Evolution is not a "likely" theory to explain exsistance. As the whole thing requires countless unlikely things to happen. (like RNA that can read itself to form, all amino acids beings 100% left handed at the time when an energy burst fused the amino acids together, the way to get the chemicals needed for life. How you can have all those chemicals consentrated enough to even become RNA, How mutations could make self reading RNA more complex, when any change in the RNA would cause it to no longer be able to read itself, How random mutations SOMEHOW make up blueprints for more complex structure. Imagine dropping beads on a floor with a small hole a millimeter apart. Then the beads somehow write something that a random person from the world can read. Now imagine that happening for millions of years. As random people read what the beads make on the floor, to end up building a skyscraper.
PLUS, I DO go to talk.origins.com all the time (well I used to), then I would go to true.origins.com, and answersingenesis.com, and compare. I found that talk origins was such an organized array of BS, for over 6 months, I have completely stoped going to it. They have tried deceiving multiple times. Some are like the earths atmosphere and the helium content in it. Talk origins says helium can escape the atmosphere, buyt then answersingenesis comes arund and uses math to show that the rate at witch helium escapes isn't near fast enough to remove helium. (If you must know, during radioactive decay, helium aatoms are produce, and is released into the atmosphere all the time. TOday's atmosphere cannot accounts for a steady stream of helium for more than about 2 millions years. 2000 times too young, as what evolutionists need. That DOESN'T inclue that helium would be rushing into the atmosphere faster as there was more decay happening earlier in history when there was more radioactive elements)
So Now I have become completely convinced that creationism is right, simply because I have seen all the fallicies in the evolutionary theory. And I ahve seen them Before I was confronted with the lies. SO I now know what is wrong about it, when they come up with "evidence" that supports it.
It's a hard consept for someone who isn't a creationist to understand. But I'll simplify it.
I have learned that evolution is phony because I have seen their "evidence" and seen how that evidence really isn't evidence at all. And Now I'm a commited creationist.
petethemeat
May 21, 2007
Edit | Reply
If atheism is a religion then you are apinkelephantist, aflyingorangedragonist etc because you have faith that they dont exist... How can you be sure? Well you can't but your logic and reason tells you that as far as you know they do not exist.
Sure I am open to the possibility there may be a higher power- it would be foolish not to be, and if it is the God you worship an omnipotent being would have no problem making me believe in Him.
You cannot have faith in disbelief- it is like Weydon explained- if i was to have faith that dragons didnt exist.
Finding potential gaps/flaws in evolutionary theory (I am dubious whether these are unexplainable, I would imagine members such as Dry Ice or Kazrith would offer suitable explanations ) is no more evidence for creationism than my aforementioned satirical hippo god...
You offer no support for creation other than- 'evolution is flawed so creationism must be correct' hardly a logical assumption.
Weydon
May 2, 2007
Xelgaroth
May 19, 2007
Now, as neither "denomination" of atheism can be fully proved correct, an atheist, just like a creationist/religious person does, must take on faith and what he already knows and believes to influence which idea he believes. There must still be a moment in which you must believe what you believe, even for atheists. That is what I think Doom is trying to say. But perhaps I'm wrong.
Kazrith
May 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
aye, but the definition of a religion is the belief in a supernatural deity. atheism does not believe in that, so therefore, it is not a religion by definition
petethemeat
May 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
Applehead
August 8, 2007
Edit | Reply
petethemeat
August 23, 2007
He causes his followers to go on a mass genocidal campaign- killing children and women as well as men.
Judges 11- he causes an Israeli king to sacrifice his daughter, due to the victory he granted.
TeChNoWC
August 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
August 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
Or the more likely senario is that religion was developed in the manner it was to help enforce morals that are inherant in the human experience.
Xelgaroth
August 26, 2007
Edit | Reply
Xelgaroth
August 29, 2007
Edit | Reply
My point is that just because most societies agree that murder, etc, are wrong, no one is actually bound to follow this code of morals. Someone could simply believe that murder is right, and go around murdering. Without a universal standard of morals, nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, just or unjust.
“Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meanings ‘wrong’ (pertaining to conduct) could have would be ‘in opposition to X’ and ‘falling short of X’s standards,’ which are only persuasive to those who have accepted X.”
-Calvin Freiburger
Applehead
August 30, 2007
Edit | Reply
August 30, 2007
Interesting how..................
you asked me the question, all the while believeing I am an ignorant unthinking type. I understand now what you are up to and choose not to play that game.Suffice it to say that to be outed as one of the multitudes that can't yet explain the definative origins of the universe brings me no distress. I am content to know that we don't yet know but will keep on looking.
If you are one of the "TRULLY" ignorant who need the crutch of the supernatural and believes that 'god' started it all then more power to you, it matters lilttle to me.
I understand that more and more the supernatural is reduced to lurking like pustuels in the dark areas science has yet to address. Enjoy it, (if you do) while you can because sooner or later science will shed some light on those areas and you will loose the growth medium that religion so sorely needs, (true deliberate ignorance.)
When that happens the supernatural will be put in the place it trully belongs, the history books and the small minds of the defiant ignorant few.
TeChNoWC
September 1, 2007
When that happens the supernatural will be put in the place it trully belongs, the history books and the small minds of the defiant ignorant few."
Did God tell you this? Just wondering, couldn't recognize where your hope was coming from - I don't see any.
September 1, 2007
HMMMMMMMMM..........
""Did God tell you this? Just wondering, couldn't recognize where your hope was coming from - I don't see any.""How to respond to an argument put in this way.....oh ya I think I remember
"I am rubber--you are glue---what you say bounces of me and sticks to you" and if I remember correctly a well placed NA NA NA NA BOO BOO is also called for in this juvenile exchange.
TeChNoWC
September 1, 2007
Edit | Reply
Applehead
September 3, 2007
I have no doubt of Gods existance. Supernatural.. bring it on I welcome it. I mean look at the universe tha in itself is WAY supernatural and deserves credit be given to the power of creation that being God! Science is a wonder no doubt about it. Without it I would not be talking to now so how can i refuse it
September 4, 2007
Edit | Reply
If...........
..no insult was intended then I accept your apology and extend one of my own to you for my over reaction.As for the universe being supernatural, of course I disagree. It is not super natural but rather it is just natural. Much of what goes on is understood and that which is not is under scutiny.
Science can in fact be relied upon. Change in science is a good thing as it means we have finally asked the right question.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free