Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[jstrodel]

...? You said that one cannot trust their mind, and yet you somehow know that you aren't being decieved by Satan or just crazy. Wouldn't the idea that you can't trust your mind provide support for the idea that "god" was simply your misperceptions?

Was not intended to teach skepticism, only that peoples perceptions are fallible and are not intended to be absolute guides to everything. A lot of science is based around the idea that human reason is fallible, you know that, don't you?

Yeah. Culture has invented many things that do not have a direct evolutionary advantage. Take this debate for instance; neither of our survivals hinge upon it. However, it should be noted that a free for all backstabbing society would tend to be less successful than a peaceful and cooperative one.

Your survival does depend on this debate. What you believe about God is the most important thing in your whole life, it will determine your morality and what kind of person you become. Whether you can exist with God in eternity will depend on whether you accept the morals God gives or you create your own.

You are sidestepping the issue of whether evolution is the ultimate ground of morality, or culture, or your own assessment of each. If it is the first, you have not given a sufficient expression of morality. If it is the latter two, how is relativism avoided? You have not shown this, you are just going back and forth between evolutionary theory and culture. The reason is because neither sufficiently grounds morality and your theory of morality lacks the explanatory power necessary to ground all your linguistic constructions and lifestyle choices in anything other than your opinion. If you are a person who is concerned about truth, this will trouble you deeply.

God. Because an unknown principle formed god...or a higher god...or a heaping plateful of special pleading.

This does not even remotely come close to showing why belief in God is less rational than having faith in some other principle to be discovered. Also, you have provided no evidence to show that God must have been created by something else. Many theologians and philosophers have accepted that God does not exist in time, or that God's nature is substantially different ontologically than God's creation. You have not dealt with this, but have repeated atheist apologetics "a heaping plateful of special pleading". Why do you consider repeating insults enough to solve philosophical issues? How is this consistent with your values of being a free thinker?

Which is what I'm doing by opening myself to other theories of morality, rather than sticking with one theory and remaining relatively unquestioning about it. I think that most moral theories have some good parts, but no one theory encompasses all behaviors.

Are your moral theories formed to fit all the available evidence (from culture, religion, etc)? Or are they just philosophical word games that are not formed by any rigorous appreciation of the relevant factors but are created and applied ad hoc to give you some moral compass (e.g. opinions).

I'm mocking religion? The more you know...
Well, it depends on what is considered mocking, I guess. Mere mockery is pointless, really.

That is good. You seem to have a positive attitude. I appreciate talking to you, darkstar. Mocking is dangerous and is a form of brainwashing. People use mocking to take the respect out of things so they will no longer seem true. This is why atheists mock religion so much, because when you mock something, it becomes harder to believe. Most atheists are unconcerned that this mocking is a non-rational means of advancing their movement, even though atheism purports to offer the world "critical thinking" and "logic". Someone who pursues these subjects deeply becomes aware of the degree to which his use of non-rational forms of persuasion lowers the cultural level and erodes peoples ability to make rational choices on the basis of all available evidence.

Religious belief is one of the most defining characteristics of the world, and rational people should not mock religion in order to disprove it. If they are honest, they will realize appreciating the nature of religion is integral to understand history and philosophy and culture.

I think they experienced something too, but rather something natural (the sun, lightning, tidal waves) that they attributed to the supernatural because they had a very limited understanding of science.

Do you have any evidence for this? I would recommend, if you are serious about understanding the world, go to a charismatic church with an open mind and just talk to the people there and ask for them to pray for you. I can't promise you that you will receive a prophetic word, but you may. Try it out. You don't have any evidence that it isn't real. I can promise you that it is real. You have nothing to lose. To be an honest atheist, you should at least hear the other side on its own terms, and approach the issue not from reading a book about it but by seeking to be a participant in something that you believe may be real. This is the only honest way, and you are deceiving yourself if you believe that your prejudice against the supernatural is evidence, because some scientists have believed the same (many have not).

I don't think it is very strong evidence due to the general scientific ignorance of the people of that time.

What relationship does scientific knowledge play in a testimony in a court room? Would someone who claimed to have witnessed a murder be asked if they are a science expert? Why would this consideration be relevant to assessing the reliability of peoples reports about the world? Why would scientific knowledge be relevant here? If you have an honest mind, you will inquire yourself. I appreciate talking with you.

It depends on how you define "opinion". If by that you mean simply a whim or feeling, then I would argue that morals can be more substantial than that. It isn't like the opinion that the color black is cool, because there is no solid evidence that can support that as a statement of fact. For morals, on the other hand, there is (hopefully) a solid reason behind each moral rule, rather than simply a mere opinion. So while you can't 100% objectively prove moral rules, you can demonstrate that some morals are superior to others in a way that is more than simply opinion or feeling.

What is the criteria that you do this by? How do you separate your presuppositions about morality from reasoning about morality? Could you show an example in logic of how this is separate from your unproven assumptions, which I would argue color your result more than anything? What is the ultimate ground of these presuppositions, which really define the morality that emerges rather than the "reasoning" which is just a way of associating propositions with presuppositions.

I would argue that we probably agree substantially about morality, and you presuppositions could be grounded teleologically, if you ascribed some role of design in your assessment of humanity "It is wrong to murder" because "Human life is valuable" because "people were designed to be valuable and it is human nature that human life is valuable". This is what you are invoking anyways and what you mean, why not just accept it that you ascribe some value to human life that you believe is greater than dust?

Can you prove it is a virtue, or is that just your opinion?
Just kidding, I also agree. And there is an obvious factual basis to support that idea, rather than simply feelings.

See above. The factual basis is not reasoning about whether people can feel x amount of pain more than cows and pain is important because I wouldn't want to feel pain or something like that. That is a false basis, it never has worked and it never will work and there is no reason that anyone anywhere can possibly claim that is adequate because it doesn't create any duty for people to obey anything. Someone could just take that and say "It is wrong to kill cows" and another "it is wrong to kill dust mites" or another "It is wrong to demand an 8 hour day because I don't want to feel pain". In the end, what you have are opinions, not values.

The only way out of this is to ascribe some intrinsic value to human person, which people have a clear, self evident perception of from God, that absolute prevents them from murdering others or harming others without a clear conscience. People must respond to this overwhelming clear and certain proof and properly basic belief of human nature and seek to understand why it is that people have this overpowering sense that life itself is not as important as this thing.

The quest to understand the nature of this perception that I see that you have, in that you yourself also strive to be a kind person, to understand the nature of it is the most important quest that people have to make.

Here is where one runs into the "opinion" dilemma. Can it be proven that killing is generally wrong? Sure, you can turn to the golden rule, and explain what would happen to society if killing was seen as a moral act in most circumstances, and how that would impede survival and ruin (end) innocent lives, but what if you just wanted to see the world burn? Then what? It is difficult to objectively prove moral rules, but the concept of human rights, paired with empathy would be a good start. Empathy isn't in and of itself a moral yardstick, but rather a means by which to help determine if an action would be harmful to another person. I'm not sure if that answered your question...

No, it doesn't answer the question at all, though I appreciate the humble spirit. When you say "invoke the golden rule", you are not answering the question of why the golden rule should be authoritative, or the very interesting question of why I personally and virtually every other person on the planet has considered the golden rule to be authoritative. An honest person would recognize the deep mystery behind this seemingly universal appreciation of ethics. To invoke something is not to explain or justify it - what is it that makes the golden rule.

Locking someone up for no reason would be wrong, but you are allowed to lock up lawbreakers. This contradicts normal morals by allowing one to supercede normal moral rules in the name of justice. If the person is guilty, then it is supposed that the contradiction is justified under that pretense that it will prevent other harms (i.e. the person committing another crime). One would hope justice would be better, but you must be careful to make sure the penalty is proportional to the crime in order to maintain this balance. It would be difficult to put in formal logic. I suppose one could develop a mathematical formula for fines payed/years of prision vs. amount of money stolen or...something else, but it might be clumsy ouside of strictly fines. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking in the last part.

Doesn't it bother you that some parts of your belief system that rest on unproven assumptions that are deeply at odds with other parts of your belief system? In the Christian faith, no such conflict exists. I could easily demonstrate how theistic morality is justified. I would urge you to look at the hidden presuppositions that your beliefs rely on and as someone who I see is an honest person, try to wrestle with how your beliefs interact with your other presuppositions about the world, such as naturalism, and whether you feel you have stronger evidence that, for instance, the material universe is all that exists (something that Saul Kripke, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century called "a prejudice")

Well, I can ask, but will he answer?
(H'Shem? I've only heard Yahweh and Jehovah, or do you mean something else?)

Ha Shem will answer if you seek God sincerely and sanctify yourself and are ready to do anything to know the truth. Honesty will compel you to want to know. God will absolutely answer, but you really must seek God, because you realize you sinfulness and need God's redemption.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God Mt 5:8 - You have to be pure in heart, you have to sanctify yourself, you have to be ready to obey God and listen to God. You have to have faith, and treat seeking God seriously, as if you are approaching a noble being, not mocking God, listening, revering God, as if you are meeting your father, ready to listen.

If you humble yourself and sincerely seek God, and wait for God, God will answer you. If you are half hearted and don't take it seriously, if you don't treat the question of what is the right way to live seriously, God won't answer you.

What does it mean to be a good person - God asks that you take this seriously and that you consider that perhaps the vast majority of people who have chosen theistic approaches to this question are correct.

I dont think it proves the supernatural, as it would seem to have an evolutionary basis. And I'm not sure how empathy is a desire.

Empathy understood as a virtue, what makes it a virtue. Evolution created the appendix too perhaps, does that make the appendix equally important with evolution?

Empathy is like an experience of the feelings of other people, it is also a desire to provide help to others in the way that the feeling is experienced.

Is the love insincere, then? Or is it that they force themselves to feel empathy for other people?

The ground of the sincerity is not feelings. People have feelings to eat and to have sex and to kill each other. A feeling cannot make something sincere. Sincerity is when people obey their nature. Honesty is not a phenomenological intention to will the good of another, it is being truthful through appreciating the nature of people and the world around them.

It is impossible for a fool to be honest, or be sincere, no matter how hard he tries. You know this is true, because though a fool may try as hard as he can to tell the truth, he only deceives people because of his foolishness and hurts them though he was trying to help them.

Christian love is grounded in the teleological relationship between the feelings of empathy and the nature given to man to love your neighbor as yourself. The feeling, is not what makes morality authoritative, because one must love whether one feels empathy or not. The feeling is evidence for the duty to love and the underlying nature of people. The nature of what it means to be human is that to be human means to love others, and this is so whether they feel it or not. So the ground of ethics is not the feeling of love, which passes or remains, but it is the nature of humans being directed towards love.

I don't think Social Darwinism is moral, and even evolutionarily it fails because it is a misapplication of natural selection. Unless for both you mean to ask whether their application would be moral or not, in which case I would note that both are not very popular throughout the world. Culture refined morality generally speaking, but this is not to say that every culture continues to do so.

What is the nature of the relationship between whether something agrees with evolutionary theory and whether something is accepted as being moral or is in fact moral? What makes something moral, does evolutionary theory make it moral or does culture make it moral? If evolutionary theory was consistent with Social Darwinism, would it be moral?

Liberal society? More like the Sumerians. I'm talking way back. Just learning how to cooperate in multifamily groups and follow basic laws. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "explain other moralities understanding".

What percentage of your life is deeply influenced by Sumerian society? 1/2 a percent? What percentage of your life is influenced by liberalism? 75%?

Well, nothing really. If the rights can't be enforced, then they might as well not exist. If you were in a war zone, would your right to life really do anything for you?

So if your rights did not exist independently of the state, how can you argue that the state does not create the rights or apply whatever exists to such a degree that the original rights have no meaning? How does this not imply relativism and demand an authoritative understanding?

Do you mean to say that human rights are a political opinion? There are demonstrable reasons why they should exist (which I believe I have covered more than once).

You have listed reasons why they should exist, but you haven't proved the presuppositions that they are based on. You have mentioned evolution, but you haven't mentioned why evolutionary processes that create appendix's and genetic problems should be separated from other evolutionary processes that seem to be helpful for human life.

You have not shown how your belief system escapes relativism or demonstrated anything remotely close to how your ethical statements can be justified true belief.

This is something that is seriously worth considering as it is among the most important decisions of your life.

So...I should research moral theories for an hour a day, or try to become "holy"? What is holy anyway? Is there any objective definition?

Holiness is when you have harmony with your creator and God's creation. It is like living in the truth.

You said "reveal". You didn't provide any evidence either. You asked me to ask someone else (who I presume would also not provide any actual evidence besides their word).

ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, for everyone who asks receives, he who seeks find, he who knocks the door will be opened to you - Jesus

What kind of miracles? If there were verified miracles at any church, it would be big news. Also, how can one understand god? I mean, he's...god. (and you keep pressuposing his existence, but I'll let it slide)

Commonly you can see prophetic gifts (people correctly prophesying details of your life), healings, God speaking to people in the Bible, coincidences that happen over and over again.

People can understand God through the revelation of God that is revealed in human language concepts that represent God infinite nature. This problem is dealt with theologically in another place, it is not a real difficulty, you can describe something about God just fine, other things must be left till heaven.

The miracles in the church are big news, inside of Christian circles. There is plenty of buzz that surrounds figures like Heidi Baker, Smith Wigglesworth or John G Lake (look them up), or medieval figures and saints who were said to do miracles. There is also recent buzz surround the near death experiences of different scientists and figures (such as "proof of God" by Dinesh DSouza).

I have posted arguments for God's existence in another thread.


Good talking with you, Darkstar. You have a good heart.

[Silver]

What you believe about God is the most important thing in your whole life, it will determine your morality and what kind of person you become.

False. Man is perfectly capable of being good without a belief in a deity.

[Ryantology]

What you believe about God is the most important thing in your whole life, it will determine your morality and what kind of person you become.

False. Man is perfectly capable of being good without a belief in a deity.

Though he probably implied goodness in that sentence, his statement was neutral, and as such, he's not totally wrong. A person's morals tend to derive much from their religious beliefs, if they have religious beliefs. If a person doesn't, they develop a moral system in which God plays no role.

[Angrboda]

Mocking is dangerous and is a form of brainwashing.

[Something completely different]

[LastPoet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtZ6_UNYOOY

[Darkstar]

Was not intended to teach skepticism, only that peoples perceptions are fallible and are not intended to be absolute guides to everything. A lot of science is based around the idea that human reason is fallible, you know that, don't you?

Yes, so why do you claim to know that falliable senses are accurately percieving something that objective scientific tests cannot?

Your survival does depend on this debate. What you believe about God is the most important thing in your whole life, it will determine your morality and what kind of person you become. Whether you can exist with God in eternity will depend on whether you accept the morals God gives or you create your own.

I still don't know what morals god supposedly gives. Should you kill rebellious children, is it moral to do so?

You are sidestepping the issue of whether evolution is the ultimate ground of morality, or culture, or your own assessment of each. If it is the first, you have not given a sufficient expression of morality. If it is the latter two, how is relativism avoided? You have not shown this, you are just going back and forth between evolutionary theory and culture. The reason is because neither sufficiently grounds morality and your theory of morality lacks the explanatory power necessary to ground all your linguistic constructions and lifestyle choices in anything other than your opinion. If you are a person who is concerned about truth, this will trouble you deeply.

The reason I'm jumping between them is for the very reason you've provided. Neither, on its own, can fully explain morals. Basic morals and empathy evolved, and then culture created more sophisticated morals. Not all cultures had a concept of human rights, though, and so they had different morals in that regard. Some morals are relative, but some aren't. The way to demonstrate if a moral is simply opinion or grounded in facts is a matter of debate as many moral theories have proposed different methods, and none of these theories, on its own, can fully explain the way to decide of an action is moral or not. I can tell you if a particular action is moral or not (in a specific situation), or at least provide a case for one side or the other, but I cannot provide a solid rulebook because there are too many exceptions to the rules.

God. Because an unknown principle formed god...or a higher god...or a heaping plateful of special pleading.

This does not even remotely come close to showing why belief in God is less rational than having faith in some other principle to be discovered

God is one possible explanation. I don't necessarily think any current theory is surely true, but there could be hundreds, even thousands of other theories. And almost any theory imaginable would be easier to swallow than a god. Unless you think god and naturalistic explanation are the two theories...

Also, you have provided no evidence to show that God must have been created by something else.

Nor have you shown me evidence that the universe must have been created. If the universe and life are too amazing to exist without being created, then what does that say about god?
in some other principle to be discovered
Many theologians and philosophers have accepted that God does not exist in time, or that God's nature is substantially different ontologically than God's creation.[/quote]
On what evidence? Is this merely hypothetical?

You have not dealt with this, but have repeated atheist apologetics "a heaping plateful of special pleading". Why do you consider repeating insults enough to solve philosophical issues? How is this consistent with your values of being a free thinker?

I wasn't really trying to insult you, I'm just saying that if god doesn't need a creator for arbitrary reasons or reasons that couldn't apply to the universe, but the universe does, then that is special pleading.

Are your moral theories formed to fit all the available evidence (from culture, religion, etc)? Or are they just philosophical word games that are not formed by any rigorous appreciation of the relevant factors but are created and applied ad hoc to give you some moral compass (e.g. opinions).

I haven't seen all the evidence that exists yet, I will adapt as I learn more. Unless obedience to god is the only relevant factor, I would argue that your ideas on morals do not meet the standard you laid out above.

Mocking is dangerous and is a form of brainwashing.

Brainwashing...?

People use mocking to take the respect out of things so they will no longer seem true.

Not necessarily, but I suppose intellectually dishonest people might.

This is why atheists mock religion so much, because when you mock something, it becomes harder to believe. Most atheists are unconcerned that this mocking is a non-rational means of advancing their movement, even though atheism purports to offer the world "critical thinking" and "logic".

Or maybe they just get tired much more easily than I do.

Someone who pursues these subjects deeply becomes aware of the degree to which his use of non-rational forms of persuasion lowers the cultural level and erodes peoples ability to make rational choices on the basis of all available evidence.

If you mean someone who deeply pursues mockery, then I suppose I agree at least to an extent.

Religious belief is one of the most defining characteristics of the world, and rational people should not mock religion in order to disprove it.

Correct. Mocking it could never disprove it anyway.

If they are honest, they will realize appreciating the nature of religion is integral to understand history and philosophy and culture.

Hmmm...well...actually I think you may be right about that, as religion has had a significant impact on many cultures and their actions throughout history.

I think they experienced something too, but rather something natural (the sun, lightning, tidal waves) that they attributed to the supernatural because they had a very limited understanding of science.

Do you have any evidence for this?

No one believes in them anymore. That's enough evidence for you to dismiss them, isn't it? Or do you suppose Zeus actually exists?

I would recommend, if you are serious about understanding the world, go to a charismatic church with an open mind and just talk to the people there and ask for them to pray for you. I can't promise you that you will receive a prophetic word, but you may. Try it out. You don't have any evidence that it isn't real.

I don't have any evidence that it is real either...

I can promise you that it is real. You have nothing to lose. To be an honest atheist, you should at least hear the other side on its own terms, and approach the issue not from reading a book about it but by seeking to be a participant in something that you believe may be real. This is the only honest way, and you are deceiving yourself if you believe that your prejudice against the supernatural is evidence, because some scientists have believed the same (many have not).

I believe that the inability of anyone to ever prove even a single instance of any form of the supernatural is, at the very least, not evidence that the supernatural is real.

I don't think it is very strong evidence due to the general scientific ignorance of the people of that time.

What relationship does scientific knowledge play in a testimony in a court room? Would someone who claimed to have witnessed a murder be asked if they are a science expert? Why would this consideration be relevant to assessing the reliability of peoples reports about the world? Why would scientific knowledge be relevant here? If you have an honest mind, you will inquire yourself. I appreciate talking with you.

Because people didn't know what mental illnesses were, they thought people were possesed, or something. Remember our falliable senses? We know that they can be mistaken now, but what about it did they know then? And even if they really saw something, is a strike of lightning evidence for the existecne of Zeus? Today, people would say it isn't, but back the they didn't know any better, and often attributed things they couldn't yet explain to the supernatural.

It depends on how you define "opinion". If by that you mean simply a whim or feeling, then I would argue that morals can be more substantial than that. It isn't like the opinion that the color black is cool, because there is no solid evidence that can support that as a statement of fact. For morals, on the other hand, there is (hopefully) a solid reason behind each moral rule, rather than simply a mere opinion. So while you can't 100% objectively prove moral rules, you can demonstrate that some morals are superior to others in a way that is more than simply opinion or feeling.

What is the criteria that you do this by? How do you separate your presuppositions about morality from reasoning about morality? Could you show an example in logic of how this is separate from your unproven assumptions, which I would argue color your result more than anything? What is the ultimate ground of these presuppositions, which really define the morality that emerges rather than the "reasoning" which is just a way of associating propositions with presuppositions.

I would argue that we probably agree substantially about morality, and you presuppositions could be grounded teleologically, if you ascribed some role of design in your assessment of humanity "It is wrong to murder" because "Human life is valuable" because "people were designed to be valuable and it is human nature that human life is valuable". This is what you are invoking anyways and what you mean, why not just accept it that you ascribe some value to human life that you believe is greater than dust?

I do ascribe some value to human life, but isn't that a product of evolution (i.e. I don't want to die + empathy = I don't want you to die)? Actually, the idea is that simple. We don't want to die, and we can have empathy for others, so we value their lives as well. I agree with the above except for humans being designed to be valueable. It is in human nature to value human (and sometimes non-human) life.

Can you prove it is a virtue, or is that just your opinion?
Just kidding, I also agree. And there is an obvious factual basis to support that idea, rather than simply feelings.

See above. The factual basis is not reasoning about whether people can feel x amount of pain more than cows and pain is important because I wouldn't want to feel pain or something like that. That is a false basis, it never has worked and it never will work and there is no reason that anyone anywhere can possibly claim that is adequate because it doesn't create any duty for people to obey anything.

If you "sign" the social contract, your rights are protected and you must honor others' rights. The golden rule applies empathy, but a form of duty could arise from others treating you the same way you treat them. Of course, avoiding being retaliated against is ultimately a selfish motive, but if unselfish empathy is inadequete in your opinion, then we would have to add something else.

Someone could just take that and say "It is wrong to kill cows" and another "it is wrong to kill dust mites" or another "It is wrong to demand an 8 hour day because I don't want to feel pain". In the end, what you have are opinions, not values.

But for society to function, people must work, so complaining about that is unjustified (unless you are undersompensated). The arguments for animals are less concrete, but it is generally thought that the value of life is the capacity for intelligence it has. I don't mean that unintelligent people's lives have no value, but rather that a cow cannot appreciate art, for example, and a dust mite basically runs of pure instinct (I think).

The only way out of this is to ascribe some intrinsic value to human person, which people have a clear, self evident perception of from God, that absolute prevents them from murdering others or harming others without a clear conscience. People must respond to this overwhelming clear and certain proof and properly basic belief of human nature and seek to understand why it is that people have this overpowering sense that life itself is not as important as this thing.

The only difference here is that I say humans value humans because they are humans, and you say that god made them value humans. You may be right, we might not be that different in our moral theories, or we might be miles apart. Those who subscribe to theological morals tend to have a very explicit handbook. What parts of the bible are included in it?

No, it doesn't answer the question at all, though I appreciate the humble spirit. When you say "invoke the golden rule", you are not answering the question of why the golden rule should be authoritative, or the very interesting question of why I personally and virtually every other person on the planet has considered the golden rule to be authoritative. An honest person would recognize the deep mystery behind this seemingly universal appreciation of ethics. To invoke something is not to explain or justify it - what is it that makes the golden rule.

I personally consider the usefulness of the golden rule (barring masochists, among other exceptions) to be self evident. You don't want to be hurt, they don't want to be hurt, you would want someone to help you if you're in trouble, they would want someone to help them if they were in trouble, everybody wins.

Doesn't it bother you that some parts of your belief system that rest on unproven assumptions that are deeply at odds with other parts of your belief system?

The irony expert strikes again!

In the Christian faith, no such conflict exists.

It just gets better! Or do you mean "god is so amazing he just irons out the contradictions"?

I could easily demonstrate how theistic morality is justified. I would urge you to look at the hidden presuppositions that your beliefs rely on and as someone who I see is an honest person, try to wrestle with how your beliefs interact with your other presuppositions about the world, such as naturalism, and whether you feel you have stronger evidence that, for instance, the material universe is all that exists (something that Saul Kripke, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century called "a prejudice")

Wouldn't naturalism be the default position, and if not, why not?

Ha Shem will answer if you seek God sincerely and sanctify yourself and are ready to do anything to know the truth. Honesty will compel you to want to know. God will absolutely answer, but you really must seek God, because you realize you sinfulness and need God's redemption.

Ask another atheist. Others here have tried and failed. I don't want to live a lie for decades, and though I know you don't consider it one, I have good reasons to think the above method will fail. Do you know what confirmation bias is?

If you humble yourself and sincerely seek God, and wait for God, God will answer you. If you are half hearted and don't take it seriously, if you don't treat the question of what is the right way to live seriously, God won't answer you.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God Mt 5:8 - You have to be pure in heart, you have to sanctify yourself, you have to be ready to obey God and listen to God. You have to have faith, and treat seeking God seriously, as if you are approaching a noble being, not mocking God, listening, revering God, as if you are meeting your father, ready to listen.

So god doesn't appear unless you are respectful? That isn't what Drich told me...he claims god appeared to him when he only wanted to spit in his eye.

What does it mean to be a good person - God asks that you take this seriously and that you consider that perhaps the vast majority of people who have chosen theistic approaches to this question are correct.

I'll consider the evidence if you have it. Argument ad populum isn't really evidence (in this case, at least).

I dont think it proves the supernatural, as it would seem to have an evolutionary basis. And I'm not sure how empathy is a desire.

Empathy understood as a virtue, what makes it a virtue. Evolution created the appendix too perhaps, does that make the appendix equally important with evolution?

Empathy is like an experience of the feelings of other people, it is also a desire to provide help to others in the way that the feeling is experienced.

Yeah, it is (if acted upon) basically selfless, hence why it is called a virtue. The appendix and empathy are too different to compare. Not just apples to oranges, more apples to Sants Clause (they're both red, though, well his suit anyway).

Is the love insincere, then? Or is it that they force themselves to feel empathy for other people?

The ground of the sincerity is not feelings. People have feelings to eat and to have sex and to kill each other. A feeling cannot make something sincere. Sincerity is when people obey their nature. Honesty is not a phenomenological intention to will the good of another, it is being truthful through appreciating the nature of people and the world around them.

Having sex is in human nature too...

It is impossible for a fool to be honest, or be sincere, no matter how hard he tries. You know this is true, because though a fool may try as hard as he can to tell the truth, he only deceives people because of his foolishness and hurts them though he was trying to help them.

No comment. It's better this way, trust me.

Christian love is grounded in the teleological relationship between the feelings of empathy and the nature given to man to love your neighbor as yourself. The feeling, is not what makes morality authoritative, because one must love whether one feels empathy or not. The feeling is evidence for the duty to love and the underlying nature of people. The nature of what it means to be human is that to be human means to love others, and this is so whether they feel it or not. So the ground of ethics is not the feeling of love, which passes or remains, but it is the nature of humans being directed towards love.

If you removed the word teological, I would almost agree.
What is the nature of the relationship between whether something agrees with evolutionary theory and whether something is accepted as being moral or is in fact moral? What makes something moral, does evolutionary theory make it moral or does culture make it moral? If evolutionary theory was consistent with Social Darwinism, would it be moral? [/quote]
There isn't necessarily a relationsihip. Empathy + the golden rule create much of morality (with certain exceptions, such as when dealing with lawbreakers). It is the origin of these two things that comes from evolution and culture, repsectively.

What percentage of your life is deeply influenced by Sumerian society? 1/2 a percent? What percentage of your life is influenced by liberalism? 75%?

I don't know, actually. Does it matter? If we removed every civilization from history up until now, would the world look the same? The Sumerians were one of the first, though they don't influence us directly anymore, the early societies that formed concepts such as law, were of great importance. I'm not sure how much of my life is influenced by liberalism, I really don't think about it that much. If somthing I say sounds liberal, that's just me, I've not been brainwashed by propoganda from either side (as far as I know).

Well, nothing really. If the rights can't be enforced, then they might as well not exist. If you were in a war zone, would your right to life really do anything for you?

So if your rights did not exist independently of the state, how can you argue that the state does not create the rights or apply whatever exists to such a degree that the original rights have no meaning? How does this not imply relativism and demand an authoritative understanding?

Rights are a good idea. Is this relative? Can you think of someone (who isn't suicidal/masochistic) that would arbitrarily surrender their most basic human rights for no reason?

You have listed reasons why they should exist, but you haven't proved the presuppositions that they are based on. You have mentioned evolution, but you haven't mentioned why evolutionary processes that create appendix's and genetic problems should be separated from other evolutionary processes that seem to be helpful for human life.

You have not shown how your belief system escapes relativism or demonstrated anything remotely close to how your ethical statements can be justified true belief.

This is something that is seriously worth considering as it is among the most important decisions of your life.

You said I have listed reasons why rights should exist. If these are compelling reasons, then they are not merely relative but factual. What links do you think are missing (other than the value of human life)?

You said "reveal". You didn't provide any evidence either. You asked me to ask someone else (who I presume would also not provide any actual evidence besides their word).

ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, for everyone who asks receives, he who seeks find, he who knocks the door will be opened to you - Jesus

As I mentioned before, there are atheists on this board who tired that for decades and came up empthy handed.

What kind of miracles? If there were verified miracles at any church, it would be big news. Also, how can one understand god? I mean, he's...god. (and you keep pressuposing his existence, but I'll let it slide)

Commonly you can see prophetic gifts (people correctly prophesying details of your life),

Extremely vague details?

healings,

Faith healing is dangerous for people with serious illnesses that require actual treatment. Or did you mean something else?

God speaking to people in the Bible, coincidences that happen over and over again.

http://wordplay.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...ry-common/

People can understand God through the revelation of God that is revealed in human language concepts that represent God infinite nature. This problem is dealt with theologically in another place, it is not a real difficulty, you can describe something about God just fine, other things must be left till heaven.[/quote]
Okay.

I have posted arguments for God's existence in another thread.

I will have a look (if I have the time).

Good talking with you, Darkstar. You have a good heart.

That's what the cardiologist said!

[jstrodel]

What you believe about God is the most important thing in your whole life, it will determine your morality and what kind of person you become.

False. Man is perfectly capable of being good without a belief in a deity.

How? You ignored the pages of pages of debate and just posted your opinion.

[Autumnlicious]

That's rich...

[jstrodel]

Why is mocking religion a legitimate way to make a point?