Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Whateverist]

Of course we don't need it; but as sure as shit stinks we'd be extinct as a species without it.

Historically speaking, extinction seems to be the way of life, why buck the system? Burn more coal! Dump radioactive waste in the ocean! Develop more and more genetic variations of diseases that we can use for biological warfare! It's only natural...

That is pretty disappointing. Is that the veiled expression of an old, naive theist chestnut? You know, the one that assumes atheists, having turned down the bible's goodness are now morally rudderless. Since all we see is the workings of nature where you prefer to see the hand of god, what reason would we have to object to the continued practices of humanity even if it hastens our own extinction?

But what is natural is not what we exalt, it is merely what we suppose. As with the invention of vaccines we don't always except what is natural. The correct opposite of natural is man made, not supernatural. Morality comes from the reflected upon moral responses of human beings, and probably by degree in any number of other mammals, birds and other creatures. But that which we are in a position to do something about is our own moral impulses.

But if it makes you useful you just keep praying to god. The people you think have no morality will be busy doing what can be done to the degree that it can be done.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Historically speaking, extinction seems to be the way of life, why buck the system? Burn more coal! Dump radioactive waste in the ocean! Develop more and more genetic variations of diseases that we can use for biological warfare! It's only natural...

That is pretty disappointing. Is that the veiled expression of an old, naive theist chestnut? You know, the one that assumes atheists, having turned down the bible's goodness are now morally rudderless. Since all we see is the workings of nature where you prefer to see the hand of god, what reason would we have to object to the continued practices of humanity even if it hastens our own extinction?

But what is natural is not what we exalt, it is merely what we suppose. As with the invention of vaccines we don't always except what is natural. The correct opposite of natural is man made, not supernatural. Morality comes from the reflected upon moral responses of human beings, and probably by degree in any number of other mammals, birds and other creatures. But that which we are in a position to do something about is our own moral impulses.

But if it makes you useful you just keep praying to god. The people you think have no morality will be busy doing what can be done to the degree that it can be done.

On that note,
why wear sunscreen to the beach?
or corrective lenses while reading?
Why wear different shoes on a hiking trip?

It seems obvious that we are a species that has been fortunate enough to evolve in such a way as to have some impact on the order of things. We have the power to make improvements, and with that power comes the responsibility to do so. A little empathy is all that is needed to move from environmental actions of improvement to moral ones. Recognizing that the universe has a natural order that can be cruel and inhospitable is one thing, but our ability to recognize the flaws is exactly what motivates us to overcome them. If the question is "why not just do as the rest of the universe does?", the answer can be as simple as "because clearly, there is something unique about our ability to recognize that it's fraught with flaws, and when one knows better, they possess the ability to do better"

Hence...sunscreen!

[The Grand Nudger]

Why indeed? Should I be more suspicious of a "person" who can't think of a reason to be decent, or a "person" who can't think of a reason -other than god-? If the line between skullfucking a toddlers corpse and helping an old lady cross the street is ambiguous until we insert some fuckin yahweh....then maybe we -should- give up all pretense and eradicate each other asap? If that's the case, if someone thinks that to be the case, then fuck it, I'll agree with them...in their case. Who am I to tell them they aren't as shitty a person as they know themselves to be, eh?

[The Reality Salesman01]

I don't tnink anybody really thinks this "why" question matters.

"Why are boobs good? Why are rainbows good? How's the posi-track work on the rear-end of a Hemi? I don't know-it just does."
-Joe Dirt's Dad (Papa Dirt)

[daver49]

Historically speaking, extinction seems to be the way of life, why buck the system? Burn more coal! Dump radioactive waste in the ocean! Develop more and more genetic variations of diseases that we can use for biological warfare! It's only natural...

That is pretty disappointing. Is that the veiled expression of an old, naive theist chestnut? You know, the one that assumes atheists, having turned down the bible's goodness are now morally rudderless. Since all we see is the workings of nature where you prefer to see the hand of god, what reason would we have to object to the continued practices of humanity even if it hastens our own extinction?

But what is natural is not what we exalt, it is merely what we suppose. As with the invention of vaccines we don't always except what is natural. The correct opposite of natural is man made, not supernatural. Morality comes from the reflected upon moral responses of human beings, and probably by degree in any number of other mammals, birds and other creatures. But that which we are in a position to do something about is our own moral impulses.

But if it makes you useful you just keep praying to god. The people you think have no morality will be busy doing what can be done to the degree that it can be done.

I think we should follow your dog into the garden...

[Ben Davis]

Ok, those are good examples I can use. The fact that you even ask a question implies that you lack knowledge about the thing you are asking about.

Not necessarily. You may already have the answer but want to check (e.g. a teacher testing their students)

So, by "lacking" you have already judged the situation for yourself. You lack knowledge about "how Christians support the claim..." You lack knowledge about How I am. In both cases you have found yourself to be less than you want to be. You want have "More knowledge." If you want more of anything, you have judged yourself as not having enough of it. Yes, it is trivially simple.

'Ignorance' ≠ 'bias'.

[daver49]

It seems obvious that we are a species that has been fortunate enough to evolve in such a way as to have some impact on the order of things. We have the power to make improvements, and with that power comes the responsibility to do so. A little empathy is all that is needed to move from environmental actions of improvement to moral ones. Recognizing that the universe has a natural order that can be cruel and inhospitable is one thing, but our ability to recognize the flaws is exactly what motivates us to overcome them. If the question is "why not just do as the rest of the universe does?", the answer can be as simple as "because clearly, there is something unique about our ability to recognize that it's fraught with flaws, and when one knows better, they possess the ability to do better"

Hence...sunscreen!

Hmmm...are we separate from the universe (s)? If not, then the universe already knows its flaws...and what we are doing "in toto" (not the little dog) is exactly what the universe is doing. I think" the universe is perfectly comfortable with itself..."no flaws, no problem." We are the one's who "think" we have problems, not the universe.

We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

--Joni Mitchell, "Woodstock"

[The Reality Salesman01]

It is one thing to notice we are a part of the universe and that the universe is the sum of all its parts. In that sense, yes, we are the universe. The universe could very well be pointless on that account and as mere parts of a whole, there would be no need to contemplate anything of meaning. I'm hesitant to accept that view because what may be true for the whole does not necessarily apply to the parts.

I believe it would be an error to extract from that observation that all parts of the whole must be equally in error to observe and react to flaws since the universe does not seem to notice or care. Would the fish not need to seek places that have more food since the ocean does not care to seek food? Hmm...

[daver49]

It is one thing to notice we are a part of the universe and that the universe is the sum of all its parts. In that sense, yes, we are the universe. The universe could very well be pointless on that account and as mere parts of a whole, there would be no need to contemplate anything of meaning. I'm hesitant to accept that view because what may be true for the whole does not necessarily apply to the parts.

I believe it would be an error to extract from that observation that all parts of the whole must be equally in error to observe and react to flaws since the universe does not seem to notice or care. Would the fish not need to seek places that have more food since the ocean does not care to seek food? Hmm...

Don't be a part...realize you already are the whole.

The ocean is a good place to start. I was at Kaanapali Beach on Maui a few years ago watching the surfers. They would sit out there waiting for a wave. So, I started watching the waves too. I would look out to see if there was a large one, and if the surfers might catch it. It took quite a while before the wave would reach them. They would catch it and ride it for awhile. Eventually, the wave came and crashed onto the beach, then returned to the ocean.

In a sense, we are like waves (you are one named TRS, with certain physical characteristics) on the ocean thinking we are separate from the ocean. We maintain an energy form for a certain amount of time and then dissolve back into where our form came from and what it really is...the ocean. This is just a finger pointing at the moon.

BTW, most waves are formed by the wind (symbol here).

[FatAndFaithless]

Can you please, for once, clearly make your point without resorting to clumsy and vague metaphors or ill-conceived analogy.