Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:05:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
776 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| |
I would go further and say that there is no transcendent “good” or “evil.”
That’s not to say that these concepts are wholly arbitrary, but I argue
that they are artifacts of our evolution as social organisms.
|
|
|
I think that that is exactly the case-- that they are wholly arbitrary.
|
Pardon? “Wholly arbitrary” would be a determination of “good” and “evil” based
on nothing more than whim or random chance. As artifacts of our evolution,
“good” and “evil” are cultural characterizations of certain behaviors and
situations, based on countless generations of reinforcement at the species
level. That’s pretty much the opposite of arbitrary.
| |
You can’t define God by the actions of His followers. God’s followers are
imperfect creatures.
|
But you have also repeatedly rejected biblical citations of God’s behavior. How
can you attribute any validity to some of the bible’s text while simultaneously
rejecting other sections as you choose? That, I submit, is far more arbitrary a
system of morality than the evolutionary model I’ve proposed.
| |
God is obviously a concept that defies understanding. If you
wish to refer to God as an entity of Ultimate Goodness, fine. I think the
key is to acknowledge a separate, Holy entity that is distant and apart
from ourselves.
|
Why must it be separate from ourselves? Your conception of God isn’t separate
from yourself, yet you seem to accept it as valid.
| |
| |
Bad example: Soviet Communism was run as a state religion.
|
I disagree. What is a “state religion”? Rather, it was a state that took
the place of the function of religion-- not by design, but in effect.
|
“Hamlet was not written by Shakespeare; it was merely written by a man named
Shakespeare...”
| |
But I firmly believe that we all have a “God-shaped void” in our hearts that
only God can fill.
|
With respect, that’s no different from an atheist claiming “we all have a
deep-seated psychological impulse to envision a patriarchal alpha male, but some
of us are able to recognize this as a failure of reason, and those who recognize
it as such no longer cling to it.” That’s not my view, exactly, but do you see
how your statement is not functionally different from an atheist’s hypothetical
dismissal of religion? You can’t simply make useful spiritual assumptions about
another person’s heart or soul and declare them to be automatically valid.
| |
| |
ETERNAL Damnation if you guess wrong.
|
Your words, not mine:-) I don’t believe that at all. I do believe that if
you choose not to be with God, you will experience eternal hell.
|
A moral God would allow his beloved, but fallen, children to cease to exist
rather than suffer eternal hell.
| |
I do good as a response to the love shown me by God. Atheists do good
because....? I’m not sure of the answer to that question, but I’d bet that
if unpacked enough, the answer would be selfish gain somehow.
|
But let’s unpack your response, then. You claim that you “do good as a response
to the love shown (you) by God,” but what if you’re wrong? Let’s suppose, for a
moment, that God could be proven not to exist. What, then, is your reason for
doing good in the first place? A belief in a falsehood? And, knowing that your
belief was incorrect, would you continue to do good or not? If so, then why?
And if not, then why not?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
