Help With A Question?

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

jimmy:

Its not any idea that says, “just in case”. It only says that it is logical to follow God because you can only lose from being atheist, and you can only win from being a theist. Its speaking directly to the atheist.

This is not why one should become a Christian. This is why we have so many nominal Christians that shed a poor light on what following Jesus is all about.

If the way you live your life is not shouting out “I have a power within me that has conquered this world” then you may not have fully experienced Christ’s love in your life.

After all, isn’t following Jesus, even if it could bring persecution against you, truly a matter of the heart?

We believe in and “proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” 1 Cor 1:22-25

 

[jimmy]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

This is not why one should become a Christian. This is why we have so many nominal Christians that shed a poor light on what following Jesus is all about.

If the way you live your life is not shouting out “I have a power within me that has conquered this world” then you may not have fully experienced Christ’s love in your life.

After all, isn’t following Jesus, even if it could bring persecution against you, truly a matter of the heart?

We believe in and “proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” 1 Cor 1:22-25

I agree.

 

[wolpertinger]

jimmy:

That is a completely illogical response. Denying God is the whole point of hell. It is not about whether you believed. Hell is for those who deny God. That is exactly what Barnett is saying to do.

Finite transgression, infinite punishment, unjust god - that’s the whole point. If such an unjust god exists, you are entering the proverbial pact with the devil.

I know that it’s a waste of my time to explain to you why Pascal’s Wager is flawed and should be rejected by an unbeliever. To repeat myself, if you believe in the first place, the wager is a means to reinforce that belief. As far as I know, even Pascal himself did not consider the wager as compelling to atheists…

 

[AnAtheist]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Are you saying that Jesus is being deceptive, lacks imagination, or that Jesus is nothing?

Neither.

I am just saying, what Jesus said (assuming he said all the things, the bible tells us he said), is of no more importance than what some other guys said. He said good things, bad things, wise things, foolish things, more or less the usual religious talk.

“I am the truth” is semantic nonsense, no matter who says it. It makes sense, if we interpret it as “What I teach is true.” Well, fine, prove it.

 

[AnAtheist]

jimmy:

You mean natural selection?

Not exactly. I mean the circumstances that force natural selection.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

Finite transgression, infinite punishment, unjust god - that’s the whole point. If such an unjust god exists, you are entering the proverbial pact with the devil.

but it’s not a finite transgression; a transgression against an infinite god is itself infinitely bad.

wolpertinger:

I know that it’s a waste of my time to explain to you why Pascal’s Wager is flawed and should be rejected by an unbeliever. To repeat myself, if you believe in the first place, the wager is a means to reinforce that belief. As far as I know, even Pascal himself did not consider the wager as compelling to atheists…

i agree with you on this, though - as an evengelical tool, pascal’s wager is pretty poor. i mean, it’s not like belief in god (or most any other belief) is something that you can choose either to have or not to have. you can certainly choose to entertain arguments or to consider or avoid evidence for or against the likelihood of this belief or that belief, but that’s not the same thing.

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

Not exactly. I mean the circumstances that force natural selection.

I don’t see the destinction. Natural selection is simply driven by the fact that some phenotypes are more advantageous than other phenotypes. Tose that are more advantageous are more likely to be passed on because those species are more likely to survive.

 

[Chris_W]

Since this thread seems to have turned into an atheism vs theism thread, perhaps I could ask a question of the atheists herein:

To what do you attribute the value of human life?

What I mean is, if the value of human life is not derived from the fact that human life was created and elevated by God above all the rest of creation (which I must presume would be the atheistic position), then from what does the value of human life come? For example: In the atheistic worldview, why would Adolf Hitler’s killing of a million people be any worse of an act than me killing a million blades of grass in my lawn?

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

but it’s not a finite transgression; a transgression against an infinite god is itself infinitely bad.

I’ve heard this ludicrous theological claim before. It tells me whoever makes such a claim is either mistaken or the god they worship is a moral reprobate for exposing his own fallible creation at such risk. An unjust god, as it were, and therefore not worthy of worship.

 

[wolpertinger]

Chris W:

Since this thread seems to have turned into an atheism vs theism thread, perhaps I could ask a question of the atheists herein:

To what do you attribute the value of human life?

What I mean is, if the value of human life is not derived from the fact that human life was created and elevated by God above all the rest of creation (which I must presume would be the atheistic position), then from what does the value of human life come? For example: In the atheistic worldview, why would Adolf Hitler’s killing of a million people be any worse of an act than me killing a million blades of grass in my lawn?

When have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

When have you stopped beating your wife?

What kind of response is that?

Is athiesm unable to answer the question? Or have I perhaps based the question on a premise you reject? I assume athiests at the very least acknowlege a natural human reaction against cruelty and injustice, murder of course (in my opinion) being a very illustrative example. Do you reject the premise that human life has a value higher than a blade of grass?

My question is an honest question:

To what do you attribute the value of human life?

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

When have you stopped beating your wife?

Perhaps I see the reason for this response, so please let me clarify:

I do not mean to infer that atheists approve of Hitler’s actions. Quite the opposite, I presume that most atheists are appalled at murder just as any one else would be. That’s the purpose of the question. Presuming you would agree that murder is wrong, and in fact substantially different than killing a blade of grass, then I would like to understand why you feel that way.

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

I’ve heard this ludicrous theological claim before. It tells me whoever makes such a claim is either mistaken or the god they worship is a moral reprobate for exposing his own fallible creation at such risk. An unjust god, as it were, and therefore not worthy of worship.

FYI. If an athiest were to acknowlege the existence even of an unjust god, that person will cease to be an atheist. The question then becomes what can be known about God.

Therefore the only response for an atheist must be to conclude he is mistaken, in which case there needs to be an explanation of the error…in my opinion.

 

[wolpertinger]

Chris W:

Perhaps I see the reason for this response, so please let me clarify:

I do not mean to infer that atheists approve of Hitler’s actions. Quite the opposite, I presume that most atheists are appalled at murder just as any one else would be. That’s the purpose of the question. Presuming you would agree that murder is wrong, and in fact substantially different than killing a blade of grass, then I would like to understand why you feel that way.

The short answer is that from our point of view, morality is not grounded in some deity, but an innate sense that is ultimately advantageous to the reproductive success and therefore selected for.

There are much longer answers and I would be surprised if there are no previous threads on this topic in this section of the forum.

 

[wolpertinger]

Chris W:

FYI. If an athiest were to acknowlege the existence even of an unjust god, that person will cease to be an atheist. The question then becomes what can be known about God.

Fair enough.

Therefore the only response for an atheist must be to conclude he is mistaken, in which case there needs to be an explanation of the error…in my opinion.

That does not follow. Atheists can provisionally grant theistic positions, even though they tend to reach conclusions other than theists.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

AnAtheist:

I am just saying, what Jesus said (assuming he said all the things, the bible tells us he said), is of no more importance than what some other guys said. He said good things, bad things, wise things, foolish things, more or less the usual religious talk.

“I am the truth” is semantic nonsense, no matter who says it. It makes sense, if we interpret it as “What I teach is true.” Well, fine, prove it.

Do you believe the stories about how Julius Caesar and Nero died and the quotes attributed to them?

Do you believe what was written of what Socrates and Plato said?

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

wolpertinger:

The short answer is that from our point of view, morality is not grounded in some deity, but an innate sense that is ultimately advantageous to the reproductive success and therefore selected for.

There are much longer answers and I would be surprised if there are no previous threads on this topic in this section of the forum.

Interesting, the only truly atheistic nations in modern history were the most brutal to their own citizens. The Soviet Union and Communist China being the most noteworthy of the larger atheistic nations. I didn’t mention Nazi Germany because Hitler was trying to make himself into a diety and he held some Luciferan beliefs.

Without God, man will make laws to establish order. One’s life is only of value to the degree that it contributes to that order.

A quick study of human history will confirm this. For all the criticisms of Judeo Christian society, history has born out that these societies have been the least brutal to their own citizens.

 

[wolpertinger]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Interesting, the only truly atheistic nations in modern history were the most brutal to their own citizens. The Soviet Union and Communist China being the most noteworthy of the larger atheistic nations. I didn’t mention Nazi Germany because Hitler was trying to make himself into a diety and he held some Luciferan beliefs.

Oh, please.

Now that you mentioned Hitler anyway as well as the reason why you didn’t, there are diametrically opposed views on Hitler’s spiritual beliefs, including that he understood himself to be a devout Catholic. However, you cannot exclude Nazi Germany on the grounds of the ringleaders trying to elevate Nazi ideology to an Ersatz religion, because then you have to exclude the Communist regimes on the same grounds.

Without God, man will make laws to establish order. One’s life is only of value to the degree that it contributes to that order.

And with god? Are there laws to establish order? Who makes the laws? What value is human life if it doesn’t contribute to these laws, if any?

A quick study of human history will confirm this. For all the criticisms of Judeo Christian society, history has born out that these societies have been the least brutal to their own citizens.

Your relativistic claim that Christian societies are historically the least brutal falls short of a ringing recommendation of an allegedly loving and peaceful religion - even if it were true.

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

The short answer is that from our point of view, morality is not grounded in some deity, but an innate sense that is ultimately advantageous to the reproductive success and therefore selected for.

I am asking why human life has higher value than other life forms. It sounds like you saying the value of human life is determined by what’s best for societal success. If that is what you mean to say, then I ask, In whose opinion of what is best for society?

Surely there are some who would argue it is better for the whole of mankind to eradicate AIDS or other contageous and problematic situations. Would the death of those who suffer from AIDS be therefore justified?..after all, it may be of benefit to the overall societal success, wouldn’t it?

And if the value of human life is determined by the individual or even the societies of individuals, then we are right back to Hitler again, who successfully convinced his followers it would be best to get rid of the Jews and others. If they believed the Jews should be exterminated, thus bettering their societal success (in their twisted minds), were their actions justified? Or does it remain a heinous crime, regardless of what that society may have thought?

I guess it comes down to whether or not the value of human life is objective or subjective. Theists believe it is objective, deriving from the fact that God created us. That is why we can say murder is objectively wrong. But what do athiests think? If it is objective, what determines that objectivity? If it is subjective, then how can you argue that what Hitler did is wrong, (for he too would be entitled to his opinion)?

Please elaborate.

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

Oh, please.

Now that you mentioned Hitler anyway as well as the reason why you didn’t, there are diametrically opposed views on Hitler’s spiritual beliefs, including that he understood himself to be a devout Catholic. .

I did not intend my question to lead to an arguement about who has done more evil in the world. I really intended only to find out two things:

1. Do athiests acknowledge that human life holds a value objectively higher than other life forms (like a blade of grass)?
2. If the asnwer is yes (as I suspect) then where does that value come from?

Whether or not Hitler was atheist, theist, self procliamed Catholic, or other, is not the point of the question. His actions are merely a powerful example of an obvious objective wrong. People’s negative reaction against the atrocities merely demonstrates that everyone recognizes the objective wrong that happened then. My point is, that without God, I do not see where any human life necessarily has an inherent value that would cause our feelings of disgust about Hitler.

And so I ask the ateists for an explanation of why they too are horrified at Hitler’s atrocities. Why should we place value on human life if we are merely particles that come together for a time by natural means, and then cease to exists by the same means, just as happens with a blade of grass?