How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[TruthSeeker60]

Merely so I can better clarify your position, do you even accept that Jesus was a real, specific person or do you subscribe to the Jesus Myth theory? Note I plan on not further participating in this discussion, even the amount I have already done is minimum.

I want to make something clear before I answer that. One may be justified in thinking that an awesome stories about awesome figures, such as Jesus, can refer to people who really did exist, but without believing the things written about them. For example, one of my professors indicated that many of the ancient mythological figures (Heracles and others) may refer to individuals who really did exist, but the stories about them became more and more spectacular.

I’m somewhat “agnostic”, I guess one could say, as to whether or not Jesus existed. I’ve heard that more than half of historians think he probably did exist, but this is far from believing the gospel accounts of what Jesus did. Historians also do agree, however, by using historical methods, that the likelihood that Jesus rose from the dead was less than 1%. My hunch is that the character Jesus did exist (although not as a man who worked miracles) was a wise man who was ahead of his time regarding morality.

Perhaps now I can get back to studying…

 

[ddarko]

I label things “bad” if they hinder one’s well-being (see my other posts).

So there you GO!!! You make an assumption that hindering ones well being is IMMORAL or BAD.

I TOLD YOU TO show without using prior assumption of other things as GOOD or BAD.

SO YOU LOOSE this DEBATE.

GET IT NOW or are you too slow too full of it to even see that?

May God help you!!

 

[ddarko]

You obviously didn’t get the point of what I said. I was refuting your notion that if morality is created one has NO obligation to follow it. If god created morality, than your notion that a created theology carried NO obligation is destroyed by the fact that you (and theologians) say one is obligated to obey god. If god didn’t create morality, than morality transcends god (which is what some of my philosophy professors thought), thus it would make sense to judge god’s character (I know you’d probably say that being perfectly moral is one of god’s characteristics, however I don’t see reason for this).

Actually I got what you said more than you I think.

If God is not real, you discard the theology. Similarly, IF MORALITY WAS INVENTED, you are basically saying it does not really EXIST. It is not real. It is just perception. So it’s simply an invention just as GOD was.

So we should discard it.

AND GOD DID NOT CREATE MORALITY. GOD 's nature IS GOOD and that is MORALITY. BOY! You suck at theology too I think.

God help you!!

 

[bschneid]

You obviously didn’t get the point of what I said. I was refuting your notion that if morality is created one has NO obligation to follow it. If god created morality, than your notion that a created theology carried NO obligation is destroyed by the fact that you (and theologians) say one is obligated to obey god. If god didn’t create morality, than morality transcends god (which is what some of my philosophy professors thought), thus it would make sense to judge god’s character (I know you’d probably say that being perfectly moral is one of god’s characteristics, however I don’t see reason for this).

So either admit that morality that is created entails NO obligation to follow it, or that morality transcends god (meaning it makes sense to criticize Yahweh on moral grounds). Don’t have it both ways

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

This has to be one of the worst articles I have seen in a while. Did you read this article or just the headline before posting it?

“The Times” a British ran newspaper tries to prove that since the majority of Americans are religious, than their poor social and economic standing must be a reflection of this. It is kind of like suggesting that since 75% of murderers have brown hair, that brown hair is the root of all murder. England does not allow homosexual marriages. Homosexuals are fifty times more likely to have AIDS, do you think this might be a correlation to the aids problem in America?

Although your name is “Truthseeker60”, I see no evidence of this in the garbage you put on these forums.

I’m sorry if you think I am coming off a little strong, but when I am trying to find answers all your post did was waste my time.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You are NOT GOD. Get it in to your HEAD if you indeed do have one.

Obviously I didn’t say I was actually god. I am speaking hypothetically.

Whats wrong for you is NOT wrong for God because he is the creator.

But if (hypothetical) I were god incarnate…

It is RIGHT for God to take away life because he gave it to you in the first place.

You didn’t answer my question of whether or not it’s moral for god to have someone tortured before they die, and forever after they die.

So there you GO!!! You make an assumption that hindering ones well being is IMMORAL or BAD.

What do you mean when you use those words? Define them. By bad, I mean evil. I most often define evil as “Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful” answers.com/topic/evil . How do you define evil?

I most often define immoral as “Contrary to established moral principles.” answers.com/topic/immoral

It is with using these definitions, or definitions similar to these, that I say things are immoral or bad. Now please tell me how you define morality. You’ve avoided clearly doing this all throughout this thread.

I TOLD YOU TO show without using prior assumption of other things as GOOD or BAD.

How is “I label things “bad” if they hinder one’s well-being (see my other posts)” not fit in with the definitions I offered?

If one is going to have a discussion like this about morality, one needs to rise to the challenge of defining “morality” before expecting others to prove that something is moral or immoral.

How about I turn this around. Show without using prior assumptions that whatever Yahweh does is moral.

Actually I got what you said more than you I think.

If God is not real, you discard the theology. Similarly, IF MORALITY WAS INVENTED, you are basically saying it does not really EXIST. It is not real. It is just perception. So it’s simply an invention just as GOD was.

So we should discard it.

AND GOD DID NOT CREATE MORALITY. GOD 's nature IS GOOD and that is MORALITY. BOY! You suck at theology too I think.

God help you!!

Similarly, IF MORALITY WAS INVENTED, you are basically saying it does not really EXIST. It is not real. It is just perception.

Just like if civil law was invented it does not really exist? It is not real. It is just a perception.

It also depends on what one means by “exists”. It’s funny to speak of “existence” for abstractions. Do numbers exist? One may argue numbers don’t exist without minds.

 

[bschneid]

I label things “bad” if they hinder one’s well-being (see my other posts).

Poor utilitarian argument for morals. Stealing can be quite beneficial is some circumstances yet most condone this as being bad. Judging by your other posts that relate religion and crime rate, I am sure you cannot argue that you believe stealing to be good.

So much for going back to studying…

I think you should reconsider, you would benefit from studying.

 

[Rocinante]

Poor utilitarian argument for morals.

you are dismissing views as being “utilitarian” but what could “good” or “bad” even mean if we aren’t referring to actual or potential consequences for people’s lives? if you aren’t talking about consequences on at least some level, then you just aren’t talking about morals in a way that is relevant to living. it is such a view that is to be dismissed as completely inconsequential.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

This has to be one of the worst articles I have seen in a while. Did you read this article or just the headline before posting it?

I quoted the scientific study contained in the article. I don’t think I could have provided a link to the full journal article, so I thought that providing a link to a news article that quoted the article would be a better way of showing that negative effects of religiosity have been verified by solid research than not providing a link at all. Any agenda the Times may have doesn’t change the findings of the study.

Would you like me to cite other studies that verify that one?

EDIT: Here are better links:
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures

TruthSeeker60;7223152:

I label things “bad” if they hinder one’s well-being (see my other posts).

Poor utilitarian argument for morals. Stealing can be quite beneficial is some circumstances yet most condone this as being bad. Judging by your other posts that relate religion and crime rate, I am sure you cannot argue that you believe stealing to be good.

Would you consider it immoral for a person dying of starvation to steal from a rich person? Most moral theologians would consider such a person in that situation to be justified to steal if that’s what’s needed because they consider having enough to eat to be a right.

I didn’t address, or indent to address, situations of double-effect or other morally complicated situations. However, since you’re prompting me to, I will (a little).

Stealing is doing something that (if successful) would aid one person at the expense of another (who looses something), and in a certain respect everyone. It hurts, in a certain way, more than just the person or persons who lost a possession, but in a way lack of respect for private property ends up making things worse for almost everyone in a population. Consider communism…

I do think that if someone has some intense need for something (such as food when dying of starvation), it may not be immoral to steal, if that’s what’s needed.

BTW, I’m interested in reading about how you define morality, good, and evil. What’s your morality based on?

Now hopefully I can get back to studying mental health…

 

[bschneid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bschneid
Poor utilitarian argument for morals.
you are dismissing views as being “utilitarian” but what could “good” or “bad” even mean if we aren’t referring to actual or potential consequences for people’s lives? if you aren’t talking about consequences on at least some level, then you just aren’t talking about morals in a way that is relevant to living. it is such a view that is to be dismissed as completely inconsequential.

Please read his original statement.

I label things “bad” if they hinder one’s well-being (see my other posts)

Labeling things as “good” or “bad” based on what is beneficial to oneself is a utilitarian approach. This excuse for morality does not work. (See my example on stealing)

I have not stated my view and I do not see how you can assume that my view does not deal with “actual or potential consequences for people’s lives”. Maybe you are confused with what a utilitarian moral philosophy is? or perhaps why I am dismissing it?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Labeling things as “good” or “bad” based on what is beneficial to oneself is a utilitarian approach. This excuse for morality does not work. (See my example on stealing)

How do you label, or define, morality, good, or bad?

I do not see how you can assume that my view does not deal with “actual or potential consequences for people’s lives”.

If one can’t assume that your view doesn’t deal “actual or potential consequences for people’s lives”, then I’d be interested in how you think your view differs from various views that are utilitarian in one way or another.

Maybe you are confused with what a utilitarian moral philosophy is? or perhaps why I am dismissing it?

Utilitarianism is “The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.” answers.com/topic/utilitarianism

 

[bschneid]

Yes I would like to see the original study.

Stealing is doing something that (if successful) would aid one person at the expense of another (who looses something), and in a certain respect everyone. It hurts, in a certain way, more than just the person or persons who lost a possession, but in a way lack of respect for private property ends up making things worse for almost everyone in a population. Consider communism…

I do think that if someone has some intense need for something (such as food when dying of starvation), it may not be immoral to steal, if that’s what’s needed.

It hurts who? Not you personally. You say stealing something would cause a lack or respect for private property. The community does not lose respect for property, the stealer does. If anything losing property would make the community value their property more (I am in no way implying that stealing would benefit the community). Communism is a prime example of a lack of respect towards an individual, however it does not tie into this scenario. If you are considered that in some way the community will be negatively effected, you are going to have to change your original moral view point. No longer are you recognizing “personal benefit” as the root for morals but instead “what is best for the community”. In doing so you are now learning the important lesson of prioritizing the whole above the individual.

I believe in objective or universal morals. We have knowledge of this through natural law which God originally gave to us.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Yes I would like to see the original study.

I actually found it for free!!!

moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures

EDIT: I also find it funny that research has shown that atheists are the most hated minority in America:

soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I believe in objective or universal morals. We have knowledge of this through natural law which God originally gave to us.

Define morality and tell me how you know what’s moral (what you wrote above indicates that you think that morality comes from god). I’m asking you to do this because it isn’t fair to demand that those who don’t believe in god fully explain their stance regarding morality without god-believers who are asking these things of them first rise to the challenge themselves by defining morality, good, and evil, then showing their methodology of knowing what things fit under those terms.

 

[bschneid]

I went over the article and it was exactly what I expected. They compared America, a mostly religious nation, to that of England, an extremely secular nation. Note my earlier point about STD’s and homosexuality. They also surveyed people on whether they believed in evolution. The numbers were extremely low. There was a lot of resistance for teaching evolution in school in the 90’s compared to most nations who have probably been doing it for a while. Also atheists were just as likely not be believe in evolution as religious people were. This survey was a very poor representation of religion and better represented the social and political problems in the U.S.

On the issue of morality I believe in natural law. This is an innate recognition of “good” and “bad” that is universal to all humans. I use the Bible for guidance since our society perverts the norms for good and evil.

Ask and you shall receive

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I went over the article and it was exactly what I expected. They compared America, a mostly religious nation, to that of England, an extremely secular nation.

It presented more than just that. There are many other studies I’ve seen in the past with results consistent with the ones of this study. Have you seen any studies which indicate the opposite?

On the issue of morality I believe in natural law. This is an innate recognition of “good” and “bad” that is universal to all humans. I use the Bible for guidance since our society perverts the norms for good and evil.

This isn’t defining morality, good, and bad (if that’s what you were attempting to do).

Also, you would need to define natural law.

This may seem ridiculous, but for one to claim that atheists have no objective morality, one has to first define the terms that he/she uses.

 

[PRmerger]

Prmerger, I want to pose this question to you to get you to reflect. If the Catholic religion doesn’t hinge on some way on the Bible, what is it based on?

Firstly, I did not say that the Catholic religion doesn’t “hinge on some way” on the Bible.

Silly!

I denied your claim that it is the source of our theology.

[SIGN]We understand the faith in light of the teachings of the Apostles.[/SIGN]

The Catholic faith was whole, entire and fully revealed by Jesus Christ and passed on orally through Sacred Tradition before a single word of the NT was ever written.

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. source

 

[PRmerger]

we weren’t talking about devoting ourselves to a person. we were talking about believing an intellectual proposition (was pat tillman an atheist? was jesus born with no earthly father? does bread and wine turn into flesh and blood when a priest prays over it?). committing to a person is not about believing dubious claims on insufficient evidence. it is about deciding to love them or more likely simply recognizing that an other’s happiness is essential to your own. assenting to the truth of certain sentences is completely irrelevant, so your point here is way off the mark.

Actually, we ARE talking about devoting ourselves to a person, Rocinante.

Surely you know the Catholic position that religion is our YES to God’s marriage proposal.

there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for someone else, but no dogmatic beliefs are of issue with such love.

I assume you’re not a parent, then. You’ve never told a child, “DO NOT, under any circumstances, go into a car with a stranger.” I am quite dogmatic about that with my children. I defy you to tell me that this is said without such love.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not the point. The point is that in posting something really lengthy that’s not yours, you’re unfairly putting someone in a position where he/she has to time-consumingly refute the entire article in order to refute your point. Basically, it’s unfair tactics for debating someone on a forum. What would be fair is to present your summary of what is contained in the article, which the other side can then refute using an amount of time more proportionate to what you invested. In other words, imagine if I, instead of doing my own work, copied and pasted a chapter of a book that claimed to refute Christian theology.

Fair enough.

If it’s supplementary to one’s post in such a way in which one doesn’t have to refute the entire video itself to refute your point, I don’t think that’s unfair.

I will cite youtube videos, then, as it applies to the above.

What’s military pay compared to a multi-million dollar NFL contract? In comparison, Pat Tillman seems to have given up quite a lot from just that aspect alone (not to mention his life).

LOL! This is the most absurd statement I’ve read on this thread.

I don’t begrudge him a hero’s standing. Pat Tillman was a hero. He gave up a lot of money. :tiphat:

Money.

Now, let’s really stop the absurdities and talk of multi-million dollar football contracts.

I thought we were talking about sacrificial love.

Please provide an example of an atheist who gave his life for a stranger motivated out of love, ala Maximilian Kolbe.

I’ve not heard of a single atheist–not a one– whose love of a neighbor, a stranger, compares to this supreme act of sacrifice.

 

[PRmerger]

If a principle regarding behavior benefits those people it does effect, I consider it to be a moral principle. The fact that a principle, or an action deriving from a principle, does not effect everyone does not mean that it’s good or bad. It may be a different issue if it’s a situation of double effect (which I don’t want to go into now).

Ok.

I’m just sayin.

Who do you you want beside you, given a situation like that of the young Jewish prisoner Maximilian Kolbe saved–a Franciscan priest, or an atheist?

Truthseeker, you don’t even need to answer.

'nuff said. Point made.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7222954:

Prmerger, I want to pose this question to you to get you to reflect. If the Catholic religion doesn’t hinge on some way on the Bible, what is it based on?

Firstly, I did not say that the Catholic religion doesn’t “hinge on some way” on the Bible.

I wasn’t saying you said that. Perhaps a better way to word the question would have been “since you don’t consider your Catholic religion to hinge on the Bible in some way, what is it based on?”

[SIGN]We understand the faith in light of the teachings of the Apostles.[/SIGN]

The Catholic faith was whole, entire and fully revealed by Jesus Christ and passed on orally through Sacred Tradition before a single word of the NT was ever written.

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. source

So you’re saying your religion is based off of sacred tradition. Is that correct?

Sacred tradition is only one of two ways the CC teaches that the deposit of faith is passed down. Oral and written (Bible) are the two ways for passing down the deposit of faith.

BWT, basing one’s religion solely off of oral Sacred Traditional is extremely shaky grounds. This could be verified by witnessing children playing a game of “telephone”.

From Dei Verbum:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

Remember, Providentissimus Deus 20 says that all of Scripture is inspired, which, when in considered in connection to what is stated above, would mean that all of the Bible is the “Word of God” which must “accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” as sacred tradition (according to the CC at least).