Why be good?

[Randy Carson]

I did exactly that. Seven people. Liar.

Yep!  So now we're back to my question, which Randy still hasn't answered: Randy, you want to know why we're "good" (whatever that actually means), but I want to know from you.  Why should you be good?  And where is that line?  Honesty obviously doesn't fall in line with "good" for you...

And I have responded to you previously by saying that I would like to think about this and to read the articles recommended to me by a forum member which I have already printed out. I'm in no hurry. What's the rush?

Edit: actually, I just did the find function myself, and it did come up with 18 for me.  Doesn't change all the other things Randy's lied about or misrepresented, though.

Thank you for that correction.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm sometimes accused of lying when I'm actually not.

---

@Randy:  Why would you expect a group of people whose only commonality is that they don't believe in a god to be in lockstep on the question 'why be good'?  Rejecting divine command 'theory' doesn't obligate us to agree completely on the basis of moral action.  Perhaps we aren't as enamored of the flock/herd metaphor as you believers are.

I don't expect that. I'm pointing out the differences as a little poke in the ribs. Y'all like to mock Christians for their doctrinal differences. Sauce for the goose...

What I am looking for, however, is a coherent explanation. Lots of attempts have been made in this thread. Some actually decent, but still of the mark, IMO.

BUT I plan to do some more reading and less typing on this topic...for now.

---

@Randy Carson

I have already presented information on why the gospels are not eyewitness reports.  However, You still have refused to address the stories of Zeus and the other gods.  There is as much information validating them if not more.

Sure. That's why there are all those Temples to these gods on the street corners of most major cities...because everyone appreciates all that validation. 

---

I'm not into Genesis 1-3 as a literal account personally, but let's say that it was.

Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time. Who would the eyewitnesses have been? 

And when god was creating everything, there were zero people on the planet, and yet, your book gives us an account.

But, like I said, that was a different time, when you could write down any assertion and have it be believed. A convenience not enjoyed by the time of the NT authors. They seemed to need to qualify their stories in their more evolved civilization.

It does give an account, but it is more theological than historical. It is not so important that Adam and Eve ACTUALLY lived in the Garden as it is that we understand from that story that God created the world, etc.

And yes, the authors of the NT were recording history very differently from what Moses was recording in the Pentateuch.

[rexbeccarox]

Yep!  So now we're back to my question, which Randy still hasn't answered: Randy, you want to know why we're "good" (whatever that actually means), but I want to know from you.  Why should you be good?  And where is that line?  Honesty obviously doesn't fall in line with "good" for you...

And I have responded to you previously by saying that I would like to think about this and to read the articles recommended to me by a forum member which I have already printed out. I'm in no hurry. What's the rush?

Really?  You started an entire thread called "Why Be Good?" but you can't answer what it means to be good?  Why would you need to read anything at all to answer that question?

Edit: actually, I just did the find function myself, and it did come up with 18 for me.  Doesn't change all the other things Randy's lied about or misrepresented, though.

Thank you for that correction.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm sometimes accused of lying when I'm actually not.

Which is why I corrected myself; I'm more honest than you.

[Randy Carson]

Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time.


His wife.

But in your words, "Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time."

At the time of the fall, yes. After they were expelled from the Garden, dunno.

BTW- you did see me say that I'm not into a literalist interpretation of Gen 1-3, right?

I'm explaining it because you're asking, but this isn't my position.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But in your words, "Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time."

At the time of the fall, yes. After they were expelled from the Garden, dunno.

BTW- you did see me say that I'm not into a literalist interpretation of Gen 1-3, right?

I'm explaining it because you're asking, but this isn't my position.

What does it say about the veracity of the text that even its adherents distance themselves from it when the absurdities become obvious?

Can't say I blame you -- I wouldn't want to have to defend that horseshit either, Randy.  But let's face it, if you find yourself tiptoeing for fear of stepping on a mine, wouldn't you be better off just staying out of the minefield?

Or at least doing the honest thing and clearing the mines before you go in?

[Randy Carson]

Parkers, I do not and have never denied your service or your testimony about your experiences. So, I'm not sure why you keep referring me to your service records....I BELIEVE YOU.

That's the whole point of this...I can believe what you say about your service, your experiences with "atheists in foxholes" and the authenticity of the documents you have scanned and put online, etc.

I don't know you from Adam, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact that you are highly motivated to prove me wrong (above just about all others in the forum have been out to do so since the day I arrived - and that's saying something).

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

You're still missing the point, which is that I do not expect you to accept my word at face value. I expect you, and anyone else who claims to be intelligent, to ask for evidence if such is pertinent. It clearly is pertinent when you're pulling your Perry Mason act about asking me if I'd swear to it: here, I'll show you, you need not take my word is my response.

I understand, Parkers. Really. I know that you were NOT asking me to accept your word.

But what I'm driving at is this: we DO believe people all the time based upon our inclination to accept what people say at face value unless we have some reason to doubt them. I quoted Professor Richard Swineburne previously precisely because he makes this point: we accept what knowledgeable and reliable people say ALL THE TIME without fact-checking them.

That is because I understand that the onus is upon me to demonstrate my claim.

Fair enough. But it was pretty obvious that not only you three but Stimbo and others were getting pissed that I asked if you would be willing to testify in court, etc. CD was very insulted and said so - if memory serves. The consensus of the group was, "Who the hell are you to question...". And no, that is not a quote...just my impression of the sentiment of the group earlier in the thread. 

When you can present evidence in proportion to the extraordinary claims made in the NT, we will once more have the basis for conversation. Until then, your comparison of the NT author's writings to the service history of any poster here is fatuous -- because our claims are documented.

Parkers, I think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would say they HAD documented their accounts pretty well. Luke is pretty emphatic about having researched the whole thing carefully, for example.

I feel sort of embarrassed for you that you don't see such a simple point as the one I'm making here.  I'm not accusing you of wronging me. I have not accused you of doubting my service.  What I have done is show you what is required to evidence a claim. I'm saying that you don't understand something so simple as standards of evidence.

Thank you for understanding that I was not accusing you of anything. Lord knows, there are plenty of people in this forum accusing me of enough as it is.

But there is no need to feel embarrassed for me. I am fully aware of your need for 'extraordinary evidence", believe me. But what I have done is to show the entire forum that the reason people got bent out of shape yesterday when I asked how far you would be willing to go to defend your written statements, is because the natural human response to someone saying something is belief. Not disbelief.

When you approach the historical accounts of Jesus with a hermeneutic of suspicion, you are off to a bad start.

[IATIA]

At the time of the fall, yes. After they were expelled from the Garden, dunno.

BTW- you did see me say that I'm not into a literalist interpretation of Gen 1-3, right?

I'm explaining it because you're asking, but this isn't my position.

I have no problem with "dunno". Yes I did see that you reject some of the bible, however, if you reject it, then what is there to explain? Basically, that is our position, except that we reject the whole thing, so we do not have to explain any of it.

Off topic again, what is your stance on revelations?

[Exian]

But what I'm driving at is this: we DO believe people all the time based upon our inclination to accept what people say at face value unless we have some reason to doubt them

Bolding mine

...like extraordinary claims? Claims so extraordinary that the likes of it has never been witnessed before or since? So extraordinary that we would have no explanation for it if they were true, other than out-right lies or magic tricks? So extraordinary that we have no way of repeating it?

[IATIA]

But what I'm driving at is this: we DO believe people all the time based upon our inclination to accept what people say at face value unless we have some reason to doubt them.

(my bold)

To a certain extent, yes.  However, tell me you saw a spaceship land yesterday and I would be reluctant to believe there was a spaceship, though I might believe that you think you saw one.  Tell me you saw a dead man get up and walk.  Again, I would, at face value, believe that you think you did.  For me to believe in what you saw, not what you think you saw, I would have to see the spaceship and the dead man myself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But what I'm driving at is this: we DO believe people all the time based upon our inclination to accept what people say at face value unless we have some reason to doubt them. I quoted Professor Richard Swineburne previously precisely because he makes this point: we accept what knowledgeable and reliable people say ALL THE TIME without fact-checking them.

"We"? Not everyone thinks like that. Just because you reach for superstition when the shit hits the fan doesn't mean everyone does.

"We"! You got a mouse in your pocket, kid?

Fair enough. But it was pretty obvious that not only you three but Stimbo and others were getting pissed that I asked if you would be willing to testify in court, etc.

I wasn't pissed, myself, just irritated at a puerile approach coupled with a vapid comparison.

Parkers, I think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would say they HAD documented their accounts pretty well. Luke is pretty emphatic about having researched the whole thing carefully, for example.

You think that. But that carries little weight, because you're reporting hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. I don't care if that satisfies you; you've already demonstrated that you have a low evidentiary threshold, at least insofar as your pet beliefs are concerned.

But what I have done is to show the entire forum that the reason people got bent out of shape yesterday when I asked how far you would be willing to go to defend your written statements, is because the natural human response to someone saying something is belief. Not disbelief.

That depends on what is being asserted, obviously. If I told you that I won $82 million in the Powerball last month, you may or may not be skeptical. If I told you I'm the Son of God and that you need to pray to me for forgiveness, I'm pretty sure you'd be asking for evidence ... if you didn't simply wave away my claim.

This idea of yours that we automatically lend credence to any belief no matter the claim being made is silly. It has been pointed out to you plenty of times already. Quit tiptoeing through the horseshit, 'cause it's still sticking to your boots. You're not fooling anyone. You don't lend credence to every claim you hear. No one does.

When you approach the historical accounts of Jesus with a hermeneutic of suspicion, you are off to a bad start.

When you assert your faith prior to beginning your investigation, you have filters in place that are obvious to everyone ... except, apparently, yourself.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

But in your words, "Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet at the time."

At the time of the fall, yes. After they were expelled from the Garden, dunno.

BTW- you did see me say that I'm not into a literalist interpretation of Gen 1-3, right?

I'm explaining it because you're asking, but this isn't my position.

How could Adam & Eve been the only people on the planet when the fairy tale plainly states that the Garden Of Eden was down the road from Persia, Assyria, Arabia, and Ethiopia?