[Fourth Iteration]

Hmmm, so this is where this thread wound up.... I was looking for it.

So, it has come to the point where we bear the steel of hearsay and opinions. I claim science will unearth answers we seek whilst you plead science falls short of what lies ethereal and spiritual... This is where we lie. Right here before our defences. You cannot push back my front line, and I doubt what I say will change what you believe either.... You're right, some things you just have to feel and believe. I'll believe in what proof we have until the day comes when our "compasses and rulers" can bring us that much more knowledge (which is more and more each day), whereas the Bible has said nothing new in almost two thousand years... four hundred and some change if you count King James.

That's the easiest way, but as we evolve why not embrace discovery rather than relapsing to archaic ideals and theories?

Because what is ancient is often poignant and transcendent.  Most truth about human behavior is as old as humanity itself.

Perhaps you misunderstood me and misconstrued what I said because you felt it would make a good argument. Those archaic ideals, those ancient theories fall into the spiritual category, not the sociological. Hmmm, convienient, no? What I was alluding to was in fact in the same thought pattern as the rest of the paragraph, not a AWOL thought. The theories in question are that of God, of religion. No religion has withstood the trials of time. Whether quietly into submission or through bloodshed and strife, each one has left the world in all but memory and allusions in literary pieces. That, iplaw, is also transcendent human nature, no?

[iplaw]

I'll believe in what proof we have until the day comes when our "compasses and rulers" can bring us that much more knowledge

I have read the wisdom of men and women throughout the ages, most being far greater than you or I, and have seen the recurring theme that some questions simply have no answers.  Also, that some of the oldest tomes of wisdom are the truest.  Our current technological age has created a humanity that is uniquely arrogant and overly convinced of its own unsurpassed brilliance.  One thing modern man has utterly forgotten is humility.

Bible has said nothing new in almost two thousand years...

Well, since the context of the discussion is objective transcendent moral ethics, it would seem to fit that the invariability of the message would be a convenient and positive characteristic.

Perhaps you misunderstood me and misconstrued what I said because you felt it would make a good argument. Those archaic ideals, those ancient theories fall into the spiritual category, not the sociological.

No.  I wasn't laboring under any misunderstanding.  I would simply argue that as much as we think we have discovered about sociology and human behavior, Aristotle and Plato, whom I would consider as ancient texts are still very much valuable material.

No religion has withstood the trials of time...

Is that why Judaism has been around for about 5,000 years, almost the entire length of meaningful, recorded human history?  Religions are growing, whether they be christianity, islam, or hinduism.  It simply does no good to assert that since you don't find the evidence for any one in particular compelling, that these religions have somehow dissapeared.

[Big Mac]

Judaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage. Besides, Jews are the most diverse group of all the Semites. Religions are growing merely because of renewed mysticism brought on by Hollywood, not some mystical force outside. Now it's chic to be a Christian because of the various movies that came out just like it's chic to be all Nietzche thanks to the Matrix.

[joeactor]

There is a problem with the idea of the need for an absolute moral code dictated by god.  The problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it. If the code exists, theists, please let us all see it. Is it the moral code dictated by god to the Christians, or to the Muslims, or to the Hindus, or to the Sikhs, or to the Aztecs, or to some lost tribe in the deepest Amazonian rainforest?  I think you get the point.

    The theists here wouldn't be alluding to anything written in the Christian Bible would they? That very human book of contradictions, prejudice and awful cruelty can't be where we'll find this absolute moral code, can it? Surely you don't mean the 10 Commandments do you? I think that would not only insult the intelligence of atheists but would reflect badly on your intelligence too.

    Theists are sure that we need some god-given moral code because they can't accept that humans are capable of taking care of themselves; there must be such a code, and that too proves there must be a god. However, if we are left looking for a secure basis for morality in the Bible, or the Koran, of Bhagavad Gita, then we are in trouble.  No sign of any god there...just the hand of very mortal men dictating their very human concept of morality tied in with their myths and ignorance, as arbitrary and meaningful as any modern godless morality - they share the same source; the human mind and heart.  There is no absolute moral code, there never has been and never will be.  

Theists have a very poor opinion of humanity.  The truth is, we sometimes get it awfully wrong and sometimes we get it very nearly as near perfect as is possible.  The swing will continue to move between the terrible and the wonderful, humans will suffer horribly at the hands of others of their own kind and we shall experience the wonders of our shared humanity in societies which come as close to ideal as we are ever going to get.  I am an optimist - I think that the modern western culture is one of our best attempts yet at an equitable and just society.  It isn't perfect, and it is never likely to be so, but it is still far superior to anything I'm aware of which ever came out of any theocracy.  There is no absolute moral code - it is just another fairy tale, believed by people who seem to need such fairy tales.  Theists: deal with it.

Well spoken, sir.  I like the cut of your jib (not to mention your penny whistle!)

I do have one minor "linguistic" issue in that I wish there was another word for "Theists attached to organized religion".  I believe in a god, but do not think of it as a definable concept (agnostic).

So, I am a theist by strict definition, yet I agree with your statements above.

Anywho, thanks for the post - most enjoyable...
  JoeActor

[iplaw]

Judaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage.

Go down to your local temple and tell the rabbi this...I bet you'll get a different opinion about what Judaism is.

[iplaw]

Judaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage.

So says the atheist about a religion he doesn't belong to.  Go down to your local temple and tell the rabbi this...I bet you'll get a different opinion about what Judaism is.

[Woody]

Iplaw, what a surprise! By the way, your posts give a whole new meaning to the term, "dictionary attack".

        I find it most interesting, but not in the least surprising, that in your very predictable response you failed to show us evidence for an objective absolute moral code. Well, that is understandable because, as you rightly pointed out, the one you choose to believe in might not actually be THE absolute moral code.  Hmm. If theists no more than 'believe' that they have the right moral code, then it is clear that their morals are as subjective as any code can be - they are choosing their morals just like any arrogant atheist, unless of course they have had a personal visitation by an angel to point out the way, or if they meet god on a mountain top and have their moral code hand-delivered to them. Happens all the time doesn't it.  Look, no amount of intellectualizing is ever going to make your opinions on this matter reflect reality, iplaw. You said that thousands of brilliant minds have seen things differently - well, I'm sure I might argue for a few brilliant minds on my side of the fence too.  If your proofs and evidence for a god are so outstanding, why are the brilliant minds who stand with me acting so dumb?  Hmm, again.  I guess the evidence isn't quite what it's cracked up to be.

        You talk of arrogance, but you are very guilty of having a whacking great intellectual arrogance.  Incidentally, no one has ever accused me of being arrogant before, but perhaps after over 50 years I have earned my right of passage and maybe it's time I started to get arrogant, damn it! Anyone who actually knows me would acknowledge me to be one of the most reasonable people they have ever met. But, anyway, whatever... You appear to think you are smarter than anyone else using this forum and you obviously have a lot of fun trying to intimidate other people here, and no doubt you often succeed in your efforts.  Well done. Your god must be proud of you.

        I do find it curious how some intelligent people hang on to the god myth.  See, I do give you credit for your intelligence, iplaw, but why are you so desperate to hang on to the myth? I have often felt curious as to why some intelligent and sometimes outstandingly clever people, in this more enlightened age, continue to believe in religious mythology, even going through extreme intellectual contortions to try and create an apparently sensible foundation for their personal opinion.  I believe it might have something to do with how compartmentalized our brains are. The cause of this, I don't know, but a person's achievements in one area of life are not necessarily a good indicator of overall performance.  People often assume that someone who shines brilliantly in one discipline must be able to apply their brilliance to all other areas of life and they gain a credibility which isn't necessarily deserved or earned. It goes back to what I was saying above, about why some brilliant minds believe in god and others don't - brilliant minds don't always get things right,  and so, actually, neither you nor I should resort to the support of other brilliant minds. We might even both admit that we too have got it all wrong, but we are both too arrogant to do that.  It's all pretty meaningless, and I don't want to use the word brilliant anymore in this post. Anyway, I can only think that something like this has happened in your case, iplaw. Your intellect isn't really helping you to solve the problem but appears to be only confounding the error. You are smart, and you are trying to be a lawyer for god.  Let's face it, you couldn't have a more prestigious client. But your client is imaginary so I guess he is a bad payer, but his credit is good with you, no doubt. Too bad you aren't an atheist, because with your mind I think you would make a very good one.


        Why are you so dismissive of the inconsistencies in books such as the Bible?  People are basing their lives on the contents of that book yet it is clearly full of holes and everyone just picks and chooses the parts which they like best. That's nice and very accommodating, but it seems to me that it would be impossible to construct a sound philosophy based on such a work.  You might not think inconsistencies in philosophy count for much, but inconsistencies in science usually indicate that something isn't quite right - they aren't accepted and scientists move on to find better, consistent answers. Anyway, you did, to be fair, rightly point out that you might argue against the validity of a particular philosophy because of inconsistencies. However, not use inconsistencies to extrapolate the existence or non-existence of god?  I understand your point. However, if the philosophy is seriously claimed to be based on the unerring word of god, then the inconsistencies CAN be used to extrapolate the non-existence of that god, unless you are prepared to accept that the said god is seriously flawed.  And if god is seriously flawed, what then are we to make of any moral code transmitted by such a being?

        But I maintain that the whole concept of an almighty god is a ridiculous anachronism, fit only for children and primitive cultures.  I really have no interest in pursuing the theists' arguments for the existence of god any more than I am interested in pursuing the arguments which might be put forth supporting the existence of fairies.  I have better things to do with my time, thank you. I'm sure that some brilliant (sorry, there's that word again) mind could devise a complex proposition attempting to prove the existence of fairies. If he or she were smart enough he or she would probably convince quite a few people of his or her irrefutable proofs. I rather wish someone would do just that, just for fun.


        This world has its fair share of crackpots and gullible folk. Some appear to be smart and others don't.  The saddest thing is, the two leaders of our two countries fall into those former two categories, spilling over with the Christian god's love and morality, threatening that positive culture which I referred to in my previous post, but I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide on the personal qualities of Mr Tony Blair and Mr George W Bush, and which one is the crackpot and which is the gullible one.  God speaks to Mr Bush and Mr Blair and tells them to carry on with their god-given moral crusade, on an international scale, killing thousands and lying to the public every step of the way.  God help us all!

[McQ]

Judaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage.

So says the atheist about a religion he doesn't belong to.  Go down to your local temple and tell the rabbi this...I bet you'll get a different opinion about what Judaism is.

Surprisingly poor comeback, iplaw. One need not be a member of a specific religion in order to say something about that religion, or even know a lot about it. People have doctorates in comparitive religion and aren't members of all of them, yet they are experts, just the same.

[Woody]

Well spoken, sir.  I like the cut of your jib (not to mention your penny whistle!)

I do have one minor "linguistic" issue in that I wish there was another word for "Theists attached to organized religion".  I believe in a god, but do not think of it as a definable concept (agnostic).

So, I am a theist by strict definition, yet I agree with your statements above.

Anywho, thanks for the post - most enjoyable...
  JoeActor

Thank you, joe.  I appreciate your position and your comment.  I agree with you that a distinction needs to be made between a theist attached to organized religion and one who is not affiliated and believes in an indefinable and unknowable god.  I do think that your position is much more tenable and my comments were not direct at you, neither those of my long response to iplaw.  Besides, I already like you.

[iplaw]

First, let me say that for such a long post it has very little substance.  You touch on so many different topics it is hard for me to respond to each paragraph.  They almost deserve separate responses in and of themselves.

I find it most interesting, but not in the least surprising, that in your very predictable response you failed to show us evidence for an objective absolute moral code. Well, that is understandable because, as you rightly pointed out, the one you choose to believe in might not actually be THE absolute moral code. Hmm. If theists no more than 'believe' that they have the right moral code, then it is clear that their morals are as subjective as any code can be - they are choosing their morals just like any arrogant atheist, unless of course they have had a personal visitation by an angel to point out the way, or if they meet god on a mountain top and have their moral code hand-delivered to them. Happens all the time doesn't it. Look, no amount of intellectualizing is ever going to make your opinions on this matter reflect reality, iplaw. You said that thousands of brilliant minds have seen things differently - well, I'm sure I might argue for a few brilliant minds on my side of the fence too. If your proofs and evidence for a god are so outstanding, why are the brilliant minds who stand with me acting so dumb? Hmm, again. I guess the evidence isn't quite what it's cracked up to be.

I chose my faith based upon much study and personal discovery.  Christianity was intriguing mainly due to christ's summation of the human condition.  No other philosophy, I feel is as exhaustive or valid in it's description of the heart of humanity.

As for objectivity, I think we have no better example of a transcendent moral ethic than a close inspection of world-wide jurisprudence and laws.  Although they may vary to superficial degrees there is mostly uniformity concerning acceptable standards of behavior.  You can either chalk that up to random evolutionary processes or transcendency.  

The choice of a random evolutionary process as your answer doesn't jive with logic.  There is no reason from that chosen basis to subject me to your ideals other than "might makes right."

What cracks me up about atheists like you is that you are so limited by your own inhumility that you fail to see that the existence of god has been debated for 5,000 years and no one has defeated religion.  If YOUR proof is so conclusive, religions would have dissapeared long ago.  

You talk of arrogance, but you are very guilty of having a whacking great intellectual arrogance. Incidentally, no one has ever accused me of being arrogant before, but perhaps after over 50 years I have earned my right of passage and maybe it's time I started to get arrogant, damn it! Anyone who actually knows me would acknowledge me to be one of the most reasonable people they have ever met. But, anyway, whatever... You appear to think you are smarter than anyone else using this forum and you obviously have a lot of fun trying to intimidate other people here, and no doubt you often succeed in your efforts. Well done. Your god must be proud of you.

No.  What I see here is that you have finally ran into someone who sees through your half-baked understandings of philosophy and has called you on the carpet for rediculous ad hoc thought processes.  I only intimidate those who can be intimidated and that usually encompasses individuals who don;t like being challenged about what they believe.

Your intellect isn't really helping you to solve the problem but appears to be only confounding the error. You are smart, and you are trying to be a lawyer for god.

You have to be one the most presumptuous individuals I have met on this board thus far.  You build up a false idea of what I am in your mind and feel some sophomoric comfort in debunking what you THINK I am.  This is to be expected from someone who argues from abstractions and draws ad hoc conclusions about two mutally exclusive topics.

Why are you so dismissive of the inconsistencies in books such as the Bible? People are basing their lives on the contents of that book yet it is clearly full of holes and everyone just picks and chooses the parts which they like best. That's nice and very accommodating, but it seems to me that it would be impossible to construct a sound philosophy based on such a work. You might not think inconsistencies in philosophy count for much, but inconsistencies in science usually indicate that something isn't quite right - they aren't accepted and scientists move on to find better, consistent answers. Anyway, you did, to be fair, rightly point out that you might argue against the validity of a particular philosophy because of inconsistencies. However, not use inconsistencies to extrapolate the existence or non-existence of god? I understand your point. However, if the philosophy is seriously claimed to be based on the unerring word of god, then the inconsistencies CAN be used to extrapolate the non-existence of that god, unless you are prepared to accept that the said god is seriously flawed. And if god is seriously flawed, what then are we to make of any moral code transmitted by such a being?

The infallibility of scripture is not a belief I hold so this entire paragraph was a waste of space.  If I believed in the inerrancy of the Bible you would have a point, but I don't.

But I maintain that the whole concept of an almighty god is a ridiculous anachronism, fit only for children and primitive cultures.

That's because you're arrogant and you live in a self imposed myopic worldview that only accepts ideas which fit within that paradigm that you have so carefully crafted over time.  Seems as restricitve as any religion to me.  Only such a person could not see the limitless debate that is ongoing even today concerning such topics and unilaterally conclude that such debate is frivolous; that sir, is the epitome of arrogance.

I really have no interest in pursuing the theists' arguments for the existence of god any more than I am interested in pursuing the arguments which might be put forth supporting the existence of fairies. I have better things to do with my time, thank you.

Interesting protracted response to my post from someone who has better things to do with their time than worry about such things.  You're responses belie your true thoughts.

To intimate that religious people are simpletons who just can't seem to get it; just aren't smart enough to figure the "truth" out is comical.  It's nothing more than a convenient copout to help you avoid honestly questioning what you think and it's the height of intellectual laziness.  Easier just to label the other guy as insane so you don't have to explain your logical and philosophical inconsistencies.

[joeactor]

Thank you, joe.  I appreciate your position and your comment.  I agree with you that a distinction needs to be made between a theist attached to organized religion and one who is not affiliated and believes in an indefinable and unknowable god.  I do think that your position is much more tenable and my comments were not direct at you, neither those of my long response to iplaw.  Besides, I already like you.

No offense taken.  I had assumed that's what you meant - just double checking.

[schild=4 fontcolor=0000FF shadowcolor=00008B shieldshadow=1]Tip of my hat to you![/schild]

[iplaw]

Surprisingly poor comeback, iplaw. One need not be a member of a specific religion in order to say something about that religion, or even know a lot about it. People have doctorates in comparitive religion and aren't members of all of them, yet they are experts, just the same.

My point is that those who practice Judaism would probably take offense to saying they have somehow deviated, especially Hasidic  Jews.  I agree that people who have doctorates in comparative religions could make such claims, but we both know that Big Mac aint one.  His comment was just a shot in the dark.  I would love to see some scholarly work that backs up that assertion.  That was all.

[Woody]

Oh, I am not intimidated by your, iplaw, any more than you are by me.  I've met self-important smart-asses in my time, don't care for them much, but they don't intimidate me.

I didn't say religious people are simpletons or stupid.  What I said was that belief in an almighty god is an idea only FIT for children and primitive cultures.  I specifically said that you are smart and that many intelligent or even brilliant minds believe in god, so how did I intimate that you need to be stupid to believe in god?  You immediately misrepresent me, and as for drawing conclusions, you know nothing about my level of understanding or how lazy or otherwise I am intellectually.

You said that people have been debating the existence of god for 5,000 years and that no one has defeated religion.  I think people have been wondering about such things for much longer than 5,000 years!  No one has defeated religion?  What on earth do you mean by that?  Think this is some kind of war?  The human mind's primary function is imagination - without it we couldn't interact with our environment or do a single thing.  It's easy to turn that imagination to non-existent things and invest them with substance - it's something we excel at.  Look at the world of fiction in books, television and cinema.  What people have believed for thousands of years says nothing about the truth of the beliefs themselves, but it does say a lot about human nature.  The fact that religion is still around after so long proves it must be true? How intelligent a remark is that? What happened to your powers of logic?

Along with great powers of imagination we also have a knowledge of death and it is only natural that having such knowledge we wonder what happens when we die.  It's not difficult to see how our imagination has come up with many different possibilities for our post demise state.  People generally hate the idea of death - they don't want to believe they won't exist anymore.  They find it difficult to deal with emotionally, especially when they see the people they love die.  I believe that these things are probably the main driving power behind religious belief.  The ego wants immortality, and the ego fights back against nature.  Societies comes together in religious groups where everyone can reassure one another that their belief is based on reality, and every new birth is soon subjected to the process of indoctrination, and thus the circle is completed and the continuance of the beliefs is assured.

Thank you for reminding me that I really do have better things to do than to continue in pointless exchanges with you iplaw.  I shall ignore the fact that you have still not given me information about the source or the nature of the absolute moral code we should all be abiding by. I know you really don't have a clue but feel sure it is out there somewhere.  You and I have both reached our conclusions.  Despite what you think, I am still travelling a road of discovery and I can assure you that the atheist position is anything but restrictive - free of all that religious garbage, the whole universe opens up, and it is a fantastic and endlessly interesting place.  Letting go is great, and I'm sure every atheist here could confirm that, except they are probably a bit too intimidated by you to do so.  I do understand if no one here chooses to jump in with me and cross mr iplaw, so please everyone, it's okay!

But now, I've said all I am ready to say to you, iplaw.  You are simply not worth it.  Come back to me with your usual diatribe if you wish, and I'm sure you will, but there will be no further comment from me.

[Fourth Iteration]

[McQ]

Surprisingly poor comeback, iplaw. One need not be a member of a specific religion in order to say something about that religion, or even know a lot about it. People have doctorates in comparitive religion and aren't members of all of them, yet they are experts, just the same.

My point is that those who practice Judaism would probably take offense to saying they have somehow deviated, especially Hasidic  Jews.  I agree that people who have doctorates in comparative religions could make such claims, but we both know that Big Mac aint one.  His comment was just a shot in the dark.  I would love to see some scholarly work that backs up that assertion.  That was all.

Ok. Appreciate the clarification.