N
notself
Guest
I am perhaps misunderstanding you. Are you saying that no one can be good without fear of punishment or greed for reward?
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
With God it isn’t as though we simply live life and then go to the next life. From my perspective atleast(I can’t speak from yours) the whole purpose of this life is pursuit of communion with God. The next life is the purpose of this life and it is present in this life. To say that this life could gain more meaning if God does not exist is to say that with God this life is meaningless anyway.
Someone might put meaning into his own life but that meaning is only a meaning he has given himself, it is not one he is called to. Whereas if God exists, there is a meaning that each of us is called to. We are called to love our neighbor, we are called to love God.
Without that, not only does each person create his own meaning, but those meanings can clash. Hitler saw his meaning as cleansing the world of the Jews. His meaning can not simply be dismissed if God is not there.
Natural selection is the meaning of life without God. The selfish gene, that is all there is.
N
notself
Guest
But that selfish gene may be altruistic as well. This is a very interesting article.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/#4
By the way, Hitler died without children and committed suicide the absolute reverse of the selfish gene hypothesis which postulates genetic survival.
A
Arnobius
Guest
A rather unethical presentation full of misleading photos. Far from your “40 pictures” claimed earlier, you have only one picture of the future Pope (which your site identifies as being from 1935), their coldness rather apparent. And that was the picture I had already posted. The rest are of mostly unidentified clergy or situations that seem to be mis attributed. There is certainly no credibility to establish the context of them.
Edit: The picture commonly identifying Pacelli and Hitler together is actually another individual
Your site cannot distinguish between a Lutheran and a Catholic Church, nor Protestant from Catholic clergy. The best you could do with your pictoral “evidence” is to claim some Catholics supported the Nazis (which we would not deny).
But notice how all the cited pictures showing Catholic officials are dated from before the publication of Mit Brennender Sorge.
Please consider citing something scholarly next time that has some credibility.
A
Arnobius
Guest
“Bishop” Fredrich Coch was a Lutheran incidentally
The Reich Church was Protestant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church
Many of the most “damning” photos are uncredited.
The site clearly has no understanding of the incidents and clearly looked for photos showing Nazi and Religion together without concern for context.
The Reich Church was Protestant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church
Many of the most “damning” photos are uncredited.
The site clearly has no understanding of the incidents and clearly looked for photos showing Nazi and Religion together without concern for context.
A
Arnobius
Guest
And incidentally, from the Concordat with Germany in 1933:
Article 29
Catholic members of a non-German ethnic minority living within the German Reich, as regards their mother tongue in Church services [sermons], religious education and Church societies, will be accorded no less favourable treatment than that accorded by law and in practice to members of German origin and speech living within the boundaries of the corresponding foreign states.
Article 29
Catholic members of a non-German ethnic minority living within the German Reich, as regards their mother tongue in Church services [sermons], religious education and Church societies, will be accorded no less favourable treatment than that accorded by law and in practice to members of German origin and speech living within the boundaries of the corresponding foreign states.
J
jimmy
Guest
That altruism is only for the sake of the propogation of itself.
Yes, Hitler committed suicide and had no children but I don’t think that really affects what I have said. I am not denying free will to the atheist and consequently I am not denying that a mans surroundings may affect him. But even the fact of Hitler killing himself is a self-absorbed. Although Hitler killing himself might not have been for the propogation of his own genes it is still an action that was about himself.
I am not necessarily using the selfish gene in a direct sense where that is exactly what I am speaking of. I am using it in a sense where it may overlap somewhat with my perspective. I don’t want to explain this in purely biological terms.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
No one can know what “doing good” MEANS unless he receives the knowledge of what “good” is from God.
Once he knows what “good” is, he can purposefully BE good because he knows what “being good” is for.
“Being good” is for “loving others more than self”, which is an implicit acknowledgement of God, as God is love.
We don’t do good for fear of punishment. We do good because if we don’t we show our disdain for God, which has an immediate “payback” (conscience), and for one “more versed in God than the so-called atheist”, an eternal “payback” which requires contrition and penance.
We don’t do good out of greed for reward. We do good because doing good IS a reward, as it is pleasing to God, because love IS God.
To be good, to DO good, is to not be an atheist, because to do good is an acknowledgement of God. That is why there are so few real atheists. Only “posers” who, if observed long enough, prove themselves simply uneducated as to the subject of God.
The eternal “reward” or “punishment” is entirely “self-inflicted”, as we send ourselves to hell. It’s not fear or greed that motivates us, but only our desire, or lack thereof, to be with God.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
On the other hand, it could be argued that ‘God’ is a cultural artifact divorced from questions as to the existence or not of a creator-being. In other words, that ‘God’ didn’t give us ‘absolute truth’ but that a particular cultures invented a ‘God’ that legitimized/reified ‘cultural truths’ into ‘absolute truths’ - along with an eternal punishment/reward system that gave solace in the face of bad things happening to good people and good things happening to bad people.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I think that I keep missing the answer. Can an athiest say that Human life is any more valuable than other forms of life and why? Can an athiest give a good reason that euginics is a bad thing?
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
it is evident that they cannot.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
That certainly COULD be argued!
The funny thing is that you get to God both ways, by either “generating” God from observable natural principles of the universe, or by assuming God is the All Loving omnipotent creator of the observable universe from whom the observable natural principles come.
The question is why do some people STOP in this natural human process and INSIST that God is nonexistent simply because “it’s silly”?
The basic assumption of “atheists” is that God is just “silly”. He’s silly mostly because those who DO see Him are “silly people”. The scandal of those who SAY they are God’s people while behaving otherwise is THE GREATEST reason that atheists can justify to themselves that God is nonsense.
When the true God is found, from either “direction”, the universality of His laws are also found. The laws of the true God are not merely “cultural truths”. The universality of these laws is the TEST of where they come from. If a “universal law” is not applicable to some culture, it’s not a universal law. If a universal law “destroys” a culture, that culture, or more accurately that aspect OF that culture which destroys the coherence of said culture is “removed”, is in-human and NEEDS to be “destroyed”.
“How JUDGEMENTAL of you! Aren’t you commanded by your God to NOT be judgemental!?”, I hear some say.
Giving the good news frees those who need freeing, and upsets those gain from their slaves servitude.
Please show us how any law of the Catholic God (THE God) is not a universal law?
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
i think it was george washington carver that tried and tried to find different ways to use peanuts. he only came up with a few ways on his own, yet when he asked God for the guidance to do the same thing, he found over 400 ways to use peanuts.
it is quite evident what can occur when one truly relies upon the one who created him.
similar to the machine relying on the creator of that machine to properly maintain it for maximum usefulness.
it is quite evident what can occur when one truly relies upon the one who created him.
similar to the machine relying on the creator of that machine to properly maintain it for maximum usefulness.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Do you? I drew a distinction between ‘God-creator-being’ and ‘God-cultural-artifact’ and they’re not necessarily the same thing.
You’re talking to a reasonably observant Jew (by the way) but I don’t think you can make an assumption that atheists argue sillyness.
Don’t think so.
Personally, I think that this is theistic wishful-thinking.
The trouble is that you define ‘universal law’ to be what just what you want it to be and explain away variances rather than seeing them as potential refutations.
We come from different paradigms.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It could just be that we’re hard-wired to view members of our own species as more important than other species - in other words, it’s a successful evolutionary trait.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Since atheists are ever vigilant to NOT talk too much when asked direct questions, let me put on my “atheist” hat and give it a shot (knowing full well that I’ll be accused of “putting words in their mouths”).
Human life is more valuable than other forms of life because:
Other humans are required to gain for me what makes me more comfortable, therefore other humans are more valuable to me than other life forms because of the greater efficiency with which humans can benefit me. Those who cooperate with me are to be helped to help me, while those who oppose me are to be “eliminated” in some manner if possible.
“The two basic principles of (atheistic) moral conduct are: honesty and tolerance.”
One (most importantly “other than me”) is honest to establish who is for me and who is against me. One is tolerant of those who are with me, and tolerant of the “removal” of those who are against me.
It is better for man to be a slave to me with the ability to agree with me and be loved and the ability to disagree with me and find a place “elsewhere”, than to be a slave of a god who gives them only the ability to lie to me, and themselves, and say they deserve to disagree with me in my territory and suffer in doing so.
Their fee for remaining in my territory and simultaneously disagreeing with me is whatever I wish to extract because of their enormous debt for breaking the “human animal” contract of honesty to themselves (belief in a false God is a lie) and tolerance of enforced homogeneity (which is my right as the most important authority).
(( See “Positive Atheism” for atheistic ethics. ))
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
They are the same thing ONLY when you find the true God!
That is a singular case, which is the very distinction of the polytheistic “gods” and God qua God.
Any misconception of God as anything but the all loving omnipotent (Catholic) God will result in a “god” (small “g”) which is a deified cultural aspect.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Atheists, militant ones, actually argue that God is actively dangerous because He is our “opiate”.
By “silliness” I mean that atheists see God as an unnecessary triviality, at best.
Why DO you think most atheists see God as nonsense?
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
OK. You’re not up to the challenge. That’s cool.
Claim “different paradigms” as your exit strategy. That’s a beautiful “out”. Oft used to great effectiveness by atheists. More interested in not wasting your time with discussion. I understand perfectly.
Thanks for the time you could spare.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m glad you’re so pleased with yourself.OK. You’re not up to the challenge. That’s cool.
Claim “different paradigms” as your exit strategy. That’s a beautiful “out”. Oft used to great effectiveness by atheists. More interested in not wasting your time with discussion. I understand perfectly.
Thanks for the time you could spare.
- Status