Happy Atheist Forum

I am a Christian and I go to a  Christian university and I am conducting some research for my Apologetics class examining various worldviews. I was hoping to hear the answers to these questions from as many non-theists as possible. I posted this about a month and a half ago but I would like more responses if possible. If you would be willing to answer them, I would greatly appreciate it. Your name or anything like that will never be used for anything. Thanks.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

What's an apologetics class?

1) No. There's nothing present to give such truths absolution/substance.

2)Yes. I personally "feel" that racism is wrong because I feel compassion for all living beings and do not want them to suffer needlessly. However, there is no "universal truth" defining racism as "right" or "wrong".

3)No. I don't believe in right and wrong.

4)N/A. Morality is a social delusion.

5) Life has no "purpose" since there is nothing present to give life purpose/define lifes purpose.

6)They rot duh . Since the chemical activity in their body ceases, their consciousness ceases to exist. There is no self/soul present to live on after the body dies.

7) I'm an agnostic. I believe that we lack enough knowledge to say whether or not there is a god. I believe that the existence of such supernatural entities is unlikely. Furthermore I believe that if a god or gods exists, it is highly unlikely that our supposed understanding of them(Through "revealed" religions like christianity and Judaism.) is the least bit accurate. We seem to be just guessing at their potential designs and what they might expect of us. If such a deity were real and did plan on punishing/rewarding me for my actions in this life, that deity couldn't justifiably judge me for not picking a specific religion out of the hundreds that exist.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

Yes, i do believe there is a level to which someone may attain ultimate knowledge. Ie, there is a finite amount of stuff to learn in the universe. Once learnt, I guess you'd know what the universal truth would be. Opinion has nothing to do with it. There either is something (reality), or there isn't.


2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

I'm sorry but that's a pretty stupid question (no offence).


3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

Nope. Everyone should be free to have an opinion. It is how they act on it which should be concentrated on.


4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

I don't know because i don't live in the US. It's a pretty weird question though. I think you'd have to define morality first (no mean feat).


5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

There is none (in the grand scheme of things) but you can make yourself a comfortable and fun existence in the short 80-or-so years you have on this planet.


6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

You die and that's it. The human brain cannot really comprehend oblivion in the same way it can't really comprehend the fourth dimension. What i'm sure of, though, is this is our only chance to experience reality. There is no afterlife. There is no supernatural realm of the non-living. Stories of an afterlife have been dreamed up by people scared of the unknown. If that makes you feel comfortable, so be it.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

There is no god. It is a human construct designed by people who wanted answers to the great questions. That's it. Simple really. My view of the god construct is that it is an outdated concept which has no place in an advanced society.

Quote1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

There's no such thing as universal truth.  Nobody can ever know anything for sure, we're all just guessing, I don't even know if you exist.  Come to think of it, I don't know if I exist.  Trippy.

Quote2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Nothing wrong with racism.  Since humans evolved out of swamp soup, who's to say we have all evolved to the same level?  

Quote3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

Well given my answer to number 1, but given that I don't think there's a such thing as "wrong", I find myself in a contradiction.  Anyway, the guy who rocks back and forth on the bench on Laurier Ave thinks he's a grilled cheese sandwich, and he's probably right.

Quote4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

I liked it better when women couldn't vote.

Quote5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

To murder and rape and pillage and vote Republican.

Quote6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Worm food.  Cause the worms gotta eat.

Quote7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

He makes for one awesome super-villain.

Let's be honest, these are the kinds of answers your "apologetics class" wants to hear.

Quote from: "AlP"What's an apologetics class?

It's a class that teaches them how to apologize for the problems in their faith so that their views will sound less unbelievable

Quote from: "mbell31"1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

Mathematics are universal and are true, regardless of opinion.

Quote from: "mbell31"2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

I believe that hating anything is a bad decision made after an emotional response. Emotions often are not quantifiable or rational, and can motivate illogical thoughts or behaviors. It makes no sense to hate at all, let alone for something as insignificant as color of skin or country or origin.

Quote from: "mbell31"3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

If their beliefs or actions have a demonstrable destructive or intrinsically harmful affect, they may require judgment. There are certain basic rights that are generally shared as a part of the social contract, and chief among them is the right to protect one's self. If one has a belief or behavior which puts me in danger, I reserve the right to judge said action or belief, just as if I were to have such a belief or action, they should be allowed to judge me.

Quote from: "mbell31"4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

That's a bit relativistic and vague. In some ways we are improving, and in other ways we are not.

Quote from: "mbell31"5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

There is no objective purpose for life, as purpose would suggest creation by something capable of imagining purpose. I have purpose only because I supply myself subjective purpose, such as being a good son, a good friend, a capable worker, and one that seeks to contribute to the fabric of humanity in a constructive way.

Quote from: "mbell31"6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

One decomposes because the systems in place to maintain life are no longer functioning.

Quote from: "mbell31"7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

There is no compelling evidence for the existence of the supernatural. If such evidence were presented to me I would be able to develop a view but until then I have no view of god or gods beyond a rational doubt that he, she, or they exist.

Quote1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion?

There seems to be an absolute truth in the Peter Principle.

Quote2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity?

Yep. I also believe that homophobia is wrong as well as sexism.

Quote3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions?

Sure, why not. If someone behaves badly or stupid then that person need to be corrected.

Quote4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse?

It was pretty bad under the Bush dictatorship, but things seem to improve a bit. If only you can get rid of this silly politically correctness and absurd prudishness then there is still hope for you.

Quote5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

To enjoy it to the fullest and don't annoy others.

Quote6. What do you think happens when a person dies?

People will start to cry (or cheer), depending on who died. I assume that in some cases a funeral is held, where some people might get drunk.

Quote7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

He, she or it is the invisible bogeyman.

Apologetics - from the Greek "apologia," a legal term meaning "defense" - is the branch of Christian theology concerned with the intelligent presentation and defense of the historical Christian faith.

Although I disagree with almost all of your responses, most of them remain consistent to each other. One, however, I must respond to right now.

Prometheus, how can you simultaneously say that no absolute truth exists, there is no right and wrong, morality is a social delusion, and yet you "feel" racism is wrong? Where do you get this "feeling" from? Where does your compassion come from? Why don't you want them to suffer needlessly?

Quote1) No. There's nothing present to give such truths absolution/substance.

2)Yes. I personally "feel" that racism is wrong because I feel compassion for all living beings and do not want them to suffer needlessly. However, there is no "universal truth" defining racism as "right" or "wrong".

3)No. I don't believe in right and wrong.

4)N/A. Morality is a social delusion.

If you won't acknowledge the existence of good and evil or right and wrong, you can't have any say in whether you feel something is right or wrong. I would suggest abandoning this "feeling" or admitting it is based on your knowledge that certain things are indeed wrong.

Quote from: "mbell31"Although I disagree with almost all of your responses, most of them remain consistent to each other.

We don't require agreement with any particular view or philosophy to be a member, so long as you remain respectful of others.

How would you respond to the questions you've posed, and would you be interested in defending those positions, as you're taking a class on "defensive religion"?

I don't remember if I answered your previous survey but figured I'd answer again.  For all I know my answers will be different from any previous answers since I change my views as I learn new information.

Quote from: "mbell31"1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

As movies like the Matrix pointed out, this could all be an illusion.  However, I don't find it reasonable to make that assumption since it would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.  I think we can reasonably be certain that objective truths do exist.  2+2=4 for example.

Quote2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

We know enough now to realize that skin color and facial features do not determine what a person will act like.  Racism is wrong because it creates stereotypes which can harm innocent people and stupid because we have enough knowledge to know better.

Quote3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, why would it be wrong to use my brain to decide if I approve of what someone believes or does?  But, if they aren't hurting anyone I don't really care what they believe or do.

Quote4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

Better.  We no longer have slavery.  Women are no longer second class citizens.  Minorities can vote.  Homosexuals are no longer outcast (by most people) simply for loving whom they love.  For the most part, people are free to practice, or not practice, whatever religion they follow.

Quote5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

I think it is whatever we want to make the purpose as an individual.  I find no reason to think there is a universal purpose.

Quote6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Whatever happens to a dog, cat, or mouse...that happens to a person.   I find no reason to think that anything else will happen.

Quote7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

I don't believe in one.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?
The only things I hold to be universal truths are the laws of math and physics, really. I believe that experience, emotion, social constructs, reason, and instinct influence what we deem "right" and "wrong." I think that different people/groups or communities of people base their personal moral codes on different levels of each type of influence. Even within groups there is difference in these levels. For example, some Christians feel that homosexuality is acceptable because they believe that their god made people that way. Other Christians feel that if the bible says it is wrong, then it is, period. Still, others feel that having homosexual thoughts is alright, but only if you repress your feelings and never act on them. Each belief variance within the religion is based on individual experience, emotionality, etc.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?  
My personal moral code says that racism is wrong, along with other forms of social discrimination. Again, it's related to my personal experiences, reason, emotion, etc.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?
As humans, we will always judge others' beliefs and actions in relation to what effects they have on what matters most to each of us. For example, if we care most about the environment, human rights, and knowledge we will judge people based on how their beliefs/actions effect those areas. Likewise, if we care most about money, material goods, and power, we will judge people by how they will effect our ability to attain those goals.
As far as beliefs, if they are kept to themselves I have no problem with them. It's the actions I take issue with. I don't like the infringement onto my rights of other people's beliefs. There is no harm in believing that when you die you'll meet your family on a cloud and float around happy all day and that heretics like me will burn in eternal damnation. When its propaganda is placed on our money, infused into our government, and woven into our school curricula, that's when I have a problem.  

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?
Again, that would depend on your definition of the term "morality". That would basically be based on each person's moral code. It's also going to be based on the time-frame you're talking about. Since when? Since the dawn of time? Since the 20th century? Since the 60's? Since 2000? Fluctuations in different areas of public morality ideals have ebbed and flowed over time, so I would say that question is a bit too ambiguous.

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?
I don't think that life has any ultimate purpose. I think that each person's purpose lies within her/himself, much like one's moral code. We can choose to let outside stimuli (religion, family/friends, etc.) infulence what we deem to be our purpose, but it is still our choice whether or not to let that happen.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?
To the person who died? I think their bodies cease to function. If not cremated or well-preserved, they will eventually break down and again become dirt/earth. That's what science has shown happens.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?  
I don't believe in any of the gods throughout history. I don't believe in the current god(s) of the current religions. As one who trusts science, I would say that I cannot disprove it, but my reasoning tells me that they are just as false as we believe Zeus and Aphrodite to be. If you're asking about the Christian god, if I thought he was real I would think he was just as big of an asshole as "Satan" and they could both piss off.

Quote1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

I think stubbing your toe makes everyone scream out in pain and that there is nothing funny about striking your funny bone are universally true.  I'm sure there are others but then again I guess everything can be disproven so I'll change my answer to no.  (Oh and guess a person with SEPA would disprove my examples, so double no.)

Quote2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Sure it is.  People will give you man more tangible and important reasons to hate them that have nothing to do with what they look like or what language they speak.

Quote3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, what else are you supposed to judge them on?

Quote4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

I don't think America has one morality.  I think people are pretty much people and do what people do, maybe since there are more of us and more things are out in the open and visible it appears it's getting better or worse but I think it just is what it is.

Quote5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

I don't think there is a purpose.  

Quote6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Well, either they are buried and slowly decay, are used for living human benefit, as an experiment or learning tool, or they are cremated and disposed of more efficiently.  I think you die and you are what you were before you were born, except you left an organic mass behind that your family will be responsible for filing taxes for and paying for the disposal of.

Quote7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

I don't think there is one.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "mbell31"Although I disagree with almost all of your responses, most of them remain consistent to each other.

We don't require agreement with any particular view or philosophy to be a member, so long as you remain respectful of others.

How would you respond to the questions you've posed, and would you be interested in defending those positions, as you're taking a class on "defensive religion"?

I'm having trouble telling exactly what you meant here but when I said the responses remained consistent I meant the answers each individual person gave did not contradict each other, not that they necessarily corresponded to other peoples' responses. I'm sorry I should have been more clear there. I intend to be respectful and courteous to everyone.

I would be happy to respond to my own questions and to defend my positions.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

Yes, I think there is universal truth. I think that our entire world rests on universal truth. The statements I am making now assume absolute truth. 2 + 2 = 4. Have you ever been lied to? That proves truth exists. The very concept of "error" proves truth exists.

For all those who have said "there is no universal truth", you are exercising a self-refuting statement. That statement is an assertion of absolute truth that you seem to expect us all to believe and apply universally. If you don't believe in absolutes you can't say anything about anything. I don't think anyone is truly a relativist when you get down to it. Just find out what is important to them and you'll see they hold absolute ideas.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Yes, I believe racism is wrong because a person should be judged based on their character and actions, not their ethnicity.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, not when you are correct and doing so from a non-hypocritical position.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

I think morality has generally stayed poor since the origin of humanity and thus isn't changing drastically in America today. However, if I had to compare America 50 years ago to America today, I would say morality has declined, at least in popular culture. For example, sex is promoted as a fun and pleasurable activity to be done at leisure. In fact, it is intended for a marriage relationship and has intense consequences on the participants.

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

I think the purpose of life is for us to grow to be more like God in holiness and righteousness and to do His work, leading others to salvation through Jesus Christ.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

I think when a person dies they either join God in eternal peace and joy in heaven or conversely enter eternal torment and suffering in hell. A person enters heaven if they have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or hell if they have not.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

God is an eternal being who exists outside time and space. He created time, space and the universe and all that exists. God is personal, just, holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and loving among other attributes.

I'm not perfect and I am still learning and growing myself. I have said these things in humility but also with the knowledge that they are true. I would be glad to answer any questions or objections to the best of my ability.

Forgive me if these do not make much sense, I just woke up. I shall edit them later if they need changed. Also, I giggled at your answers, Enoch Root. Thanks for making my day a little bit better

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?
Maths is like that, right? But yeah, I’d like to think that there is some sort of ultimate knowledge out there but I highly doubt it. Besides, even if there was, I don’t think a bunch of humans would be able to comprehend much of it.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?
I think it’s unfair, so I suppose so. It’s a bit silly to go around judging and hating people just because of their ethnicity. We’re all human, we’re all the same. It’s a bit stupid, really.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?
Unfair to judges on the beliefs, but the actions can be judged on. What a person does and how they do it can tell a lot about a person, just as much as finding out about their personality.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?
I don’t live in America nor do I pay much attention to it, so I can’t really answer this properly.

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?
I think that life has no real purpose. You’re born, you live, you die. The End. You can go about giving yourself lifelong ambitions and goals though, to make life more interesting while you’re here.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?
You rot in the ground. I found my feelings about what happens after death in a signature on another forum. I don’t have the exact words here but it went like; “When I die, I will rot in my coffin. There will be no heaven, no hell, no 40 virgins waiting for me and the same will happen to you no matter what you say.” Shame I don’t know who actually said it.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?
I like my little mental image of God being this big bearded guy who’s sitting at a table with other Deities from other Religions, all of them complaining that the humans are doing silly things again.

Quote from: "mbell31"I'm having trouble telling exactly what you meant here but when I said the responses remained consistent I meant the answers each individual person gave did not contradict each other, not that they necessarily corresponded to other peoples' responses. I'm sorry I should have been more clear there. I intend to be respectful and courteous to everyone.

I was saying that even though you're a Christian, you're welcome here. The only thing we like to judge people on is their treatment of others. Oddly enough, that speaks to your third question.

Quote from: "mbell31"I think the purpose of life is for us to grow to be more like God in holiness and righteousness and to do His work, leading others to salvation through Jesus Christ.

You want to be holy? Like (presumably) the Judeo-Christian God? You want to be exalted and worshiped? I don't think I'm reading this correctly.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "mbell31"I'm having trouble telling exactly what you meant here but when I said the responses remained consistent I meant the answers each individual person gave did not contradict each other, not that they necessarily corresponded to other peoples' responses. I'm sorry I should have been more clear there. I intend to be respectful and courteous to everyone.

QuoteI was saying that even though you're a Christian, you're welcome here. The only thing we like to judge people on is their treatment of others. Oddly enough, that speaks to your third question.

I appreciate that and agree, thank you.

Quote from: "mbell31"I think the purpose of life is for us to grow to be more like God in holiness and righteousness and to do His work, leading others to salvation through Jesus Christ.

You want to be holy? Like (presumably) the Judeo-Christian God? You want to be exalted and worshiped? I don't think I'm reading this correctly.

When I say holy I simply mean to be less sinful and more like the perfect God who is righteous in character. The goal of the Christian life is to depart from the ways of the sinful world and the practices we naturally want to engage in. I want to be holy like God because he wants me to be transformed into a more holy person. I also want to reflect His image and effectively spread His message. I do not want to be exalted and worshiped. The further I progress as a Christian the more I realize how unholy I am and I will never reach any level of holiness worthy of exultation or worship. I am just a fallen human. Any holiness I ever have is just a gift from God and His image being displayed in me.

Hi.  I hope you get some good answers here.  Before I type out there answers, I would like it to be known that there is a sandwich in close proximity to me.  I'm putting off eating it until I'm done typing this up.  But nonetheless, it is messing with my head, so the typos aren't entirely my fault.  OK, they are, but I'd rather type hungry than full.  Anyway...

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

Yes, without a doubt.  Mathematics, logic, and any statement about the state of the universe entails absolute truth.  Even the stuff we don't quite understand yet.  A person being happy, for example, entails a particular brain state.  They may lie to us, but their brain still has definite states.  Just as someone may lie to us about the size of something, or its mass, there are nonetheless absolute truths to each.  So all physical properties as well as the logic and math that describe them are truth statements.  What isn't an absolute truth?  Morality.  It cannot be said that the universe, or even other people, possess the same morality as yourself.  There may be a general consensus, and there may be truth statements made about the morality of the individual, but not the morality of the universe as objective to ours, as it does not possess any discernible morality.  Likewise, language itself, not the concepts it represents, but the actual sounds and sentence structure, does not represent absolute truth.  We didn't learn language from the universe, as it were, we've just developed it to describe reality.  Again, truth statements may be made such as "This person uses these words..." or "The following words possess these associated meaning by agreement of the majority...".  Units of measurement are also not defined by existence, but our need to describe it.  The length of an inch was decided arbitrarily.  We can make a truth statement about the consensus of what an inch is, but we cannot say it is the perfect descriptor of length.  Emotions, while representing a definite state in us, are not shared by the universe, so the statement "the universe loves us" would not be truthful.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

I feel that it is wrong, it violates my sense of empathy.  It is not wrong in any objective sense, beyond arguably being detrimental to us as a species.  But that falls into the realm of ethics, which directs us to "What is best for us?" rather than "What is objectively right?"

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, as I am going to do it anyway.  I'm just careful to also judge my reaction to those beliefs and actions.  Plain revulsion is not enough of a reason for me to retain that judgement, so I do some introspection and decide whether it is reasonable for me to react that way.  This decision of whether or not it is reasonable is arbitrary, but I will be satisfied with it.  I should note, it is arbitrary because the starting point is arbitrary (eg why do I consider it bad for humanity to go extinct?  Because I don't want the species to die out, and that's just how I am).  The reasoning itself, however is not.  In other words, I do not reason through contradictions, much the same way you do not.  I don't want to judge people, and people are there to be judged, so I shouldn't judge people sometimes does not logically follow.  I don't want to judge people because it could be disadvantageous for me to discard the opportunities they offer without further thought, however, does follow.  The starting point is arbitrary, but based on me not wanting to lose those opportunities, my decision not to judge people without reason is reasonable.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

Compared to mine?  I think it is getting better.  There's less people trying to take away the moral freedom of others.  After all, it's pretty hard to defend that sex, for example, should be outlawed when it takes place between two consenting adults.  That they might regret their actions later is not an opportunity for others to claim the moral high ground.  In fact, asking in what way it is immoral, without invoking the whims of a deity, will show you that it has no basis for being claimed to be immoral.  So, as more people realize that it is "immoral" to force one's morality on others, morality has improved.  This is in my judgement, as I do not like seeing people tell others what they can and cannot do with their bodies.  Drugs, sex, alcohol, masturbation, and so on only harm the person partaking, if/when they even do harm.  If the person engaged with these things of their own will, then I do not believe it is reasonable to tell them they are immoral.  If, however, a person tries to force either their morality or their sexuality or forces a person to drink something under violence or threat of violence, or through coercion, that I personally consider immoral.

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

This shamelessly suggests life has an objective purpose.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty happy just to be around.  The purpose bit, I can make my own.  It definitely wasn't written in the manual.  I didn't come with a manual.  If there is a purpose to this life beyond just living it, no one has made us aware of it yet.  If you want to claim they have, you'll have to objectively verify that purpose.  Until that's done, I'm having a blast just being alive.  

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Lights out.  Machinery off.  Consciousness terminated.  I think this because it is thoroughly evidenced.  If you are punched in the face and black out, you do not maintain any kind of spiritual or astral consciousness.  There isn't a part of you that is detached from you brain.  And if that brain is damaged, there is no aspect of you that is safe.  Personality, memory, cognitive ability, motor skill, ability to experience various emotions, and so on can all be traced back to regions of the brain, right down to awareness.  There is no method by which the chemical and energy composition of our brain might be copied, immediately on our death, to another state (and even if there was, it would only be a copy, not your current consciousness).  There is no method by which it is conveyed to new life, so that your mind may be reborn.  No signal is seen to be communicating with the brain at a distance.  So if I'm to believe in an afterlife of any kind, there had better be evidence.  The loss of consciousness, though, is pretty much guaranteed by the lack of brain function.   Without an unobserved intervening force, everything we know from experience and research indicates that if the brain isn't conscious, neither are "you".  

I'd like to add on to this my personal view of death.  I regard it as life's last, perhaps only great mercy.  Eternity would be the worst torture possible to any sentient being.  The first million year might be fun, but what about the million (the entire lifetime again) after that?  And the 50 million after that?  And the 10 times that?  And the double of that?  And the billion after that?  And the thousand billion after that?  And that's only just over your first trillion years.  This is never going to end, not after a trillion times, and then that again.  No thanks, even if I was chronologically immortal, I know that at some point I would kill myself.  At some point, the mind needs to stop.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

I do not think the God of the Bible exists.  He would be doing a poor job of being a deity, but then I guess you've got to explain the earthquakes and asteroids and sunburn and AIDS, so he can't exactly be the type of god I would be given the power.  See, because inside one day, I would have made the world aware of my existence, told them that they owed me nothing, because indeed they have nothing I would need (be it worship, sacrifices, eternal allegiance, whatever), fused the tectonic plates to end all earthquakes, shown man technologies they hadn't dreamed of, give them a more proper understanding of the universe, stopped by all the extremists to tell them I didn't want them to fight and that I would be providing everyone defensive technology that wouldn't permit them to kill or be killed ever again (except themselves and anyone that consented), provide that defensive technology, and then hang out in the local supergroup of galaxies keeping the Great Attractor at bay and nudging any back holes and gamma ray bursts away from Earth and preventing vacuum collapse to a lower energy state (which would end us rather quickly, if we're not in the lowest state of vacuum already).  And that would be my first day.  I'm up for suggestions as to what I'd set right on my second day.

So, while your God is compatible with reality as we see it, it does precious little to justify why it is this way.  All the justifications reek of myth in the same way the justifications for all other religions reek.  I find your God's character contemptible, but then, if he really wants to burn me, I can't refuse, either.  I don't like your deity any more than I like anyone else's.  Which is to say, not a whole lot.  The only upswing is the hopefulness that people will get something better, because they know man isn't going to bring about a utopia in their life time.  They know their lives will be cruel and short.  And that is the only benefit of the gods.  They still give people hope, unjustified though it likely is.  How we want things to be are not indicators of how they are, but I forgive people for wishing it was so.

Sandwich.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

No.  There are so many belief systems and thought processes out there, there can be no universal truth.  Whose would you choose?  There can be community truths, but not a universal truth.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Of course racism is wrong... it doesn't take religion or god to know that treating someone else as a substandard human who has fewer rights is wrong, regardless the reason.  We are all equal and in a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws to enforce and understand that.  But this isn't a perfect world and there are plenty of people in this world who use many ideas, including religion, to reduce another race to animal status.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

I'd have to say yes AND no to that one.  It's not as easy as just yes OR no.  If the person with a belief different than mine is just living their life, getting along with everyone, not ostracizing or criticizing everyone they meet based on their beliefs, then yes, it's wrong.  In that scenario, there's nothing to judge.  HOWEVER, if the person with a different belief is lobbying the government to pass laws based on their religious text (gay marriage is a prime example), then yes, it's perfect right to judge their beliefs and actions because it affects the society as a whole and forces everyone to abide by their beliefs rather than what is rational and just for the population at large.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

"Morality" to me is conforming to a standard of right behavior.  In that sense, yes, it's getting worse.  It has nothing to do with a religious morality.  I believe the religious version of morality is part of why American morality is deteriorating.  The repressive notions of biblical morality have no relevance in contemporary society... they're just not realistic.  They rely on fear which really doesn't make people do the right thing... it makes them try to cover up the bad things they do.  

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

To live, reproduce responsibly (if possible), do right by others, and leave the earth in a better form than when we got here.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Their heart stops beating, their brain ceases function, and then nothing.  The concept of a soul that lives forever is the stuff of mythology.  What makes us "us" is in our brain... our thoughts, our concepts, ourselves.  Once that is gone, there is nothing left.  And that's okay.  Why?  Because that's just the way it is.  There doesn't NEED to be more.  If one is so focused on what comes after this life, they cease to enjoy fully the gifts we have NOW... our family, our friends, the world, a good movie with tasty popcorn, and an ice-cold beer on a hot day.  When I die, I won't miss those things because the part of me that enjoys those things will cease to exist.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

First of all, I'm an atheist.  No, I can't prove 100% that god doesn't exist.  But I've done enough reading and searching on my own that I no longer wish to waste my time any longer trying to find something that I believe isn't there.

That said, my view of the Christian god (the only one I've had experience with) is that of a spoiled child who has to have his way, regardless of who he has to hurt to get it.  Like that old Twilight Zone episode with the kid who makes everyone do what he wants them to do and if they don't, he punishes them by making them vanish (Billy Mumy was the kid... LOVE that episode!).  He kills when he wants, he tells others to kill to prove their worth, he has such disregard for his own "creations" while also demanding their complete and total devotion or he'll make them suffer for eternity.  What type of benevolent and loving parent doesn that?  So even if I found out, for sure, that he IS real, I'd not worship such a monster.

Quote from: "mbell31"For example, sex is promoted as a fun and pleasurable activity to be done at leisure. In fact, it is intended for a marriage relationship and has intense consequences on the participants.

I would expect that type of answer from a believer, but c'mon... where is it written, other than a religious text, that sex is intended for only a marriage relationship?  And I'm guessing the "intense consequences" are pregnancy?

Quote from: "mbell31"I think the purpose of life is for us to grow to be more like God in holiness and righteousness and to do His work, leading others to salvation through Jesus Christ.

SO you are of the belief that everyone in the entire world should be Christian.  Do you accept that there are other belief systems in the world?

Quote from: "mbell31"I think when a person dies they either join God in eternal peace and joy in heaven or conversely enter eternal torment and suffering in hell. A person enters heaven if they have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or hell if they have not.

Why do you want to live with the god depicted in the old testament, a being who would gladly toss a good portion of your fellow man into a burning hell?  I know, it's my choice.  But I have compassion for people who make choices different than mine, esp. when they have bad consequences.  Too bad some Christians don't have that same compassion.

Quote from: "mbell31"God is an eternal being who exists outside time and space. He created time, space and the universe and all that exists. God is personal, just, holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and loving among other attributes.

Which god are YOU talking about?  Just?  Nope.  Holy?  Maybe... all the "o" words... not really.  I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is.  But loving?  NO, not the god I read about in the bible.

So an apologetics class just teaches you how to justify your beliefs?  And this is taught in college why?

Quote from: "mbell31"1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

Since many seem to be using objective, universal, and absolute truth as synonymous, I think I should clarify which I do and do not except. Universal, to mean "is true everywhere, and for everyone" then yes, I do think that somethings are universally true, for instance it would be universally true to say that a square-triangle does not exist. It exists for no one, and at no point in the universe.

For objective truth, as in true regardless of what anything thinks or feels, then also yes. I think that it is true that our species can't breath underwater, no matter who thinks otherwise.

Absolute truth, as in truth that cannot possibly be wrong, and is truth in all instances and circumstances regardless, then I will have to go with indeterminable. Though it could be the case that such truths exist in actuality, it can never be knowledge. The nature of human knowledge is that it is not absolute, so whether absolute truths exist or not, they are not something we have access to if they do.  

Quote2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Yes, I think that it is wrong because it is based on superstition, fear and ignorance, and can be extremely harmful.

Quote3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, it is required to judge others' actions in order for a civilization to be built and sustained, and any population to live together in a cooperative way.

Quote4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

Better, because it is moving closer and closer to my views, though my views seem to be moving closer and closer to the left as I age, so they will likely never catch up.  

Quote5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

I don't think that the question is coherent, and "purpose" cannot be used in that context, I think asking the question commits a category error.

Quote6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Metabolic and cognitive function ceases, and the body decomposes, and is recycled back into the biosphere, or meets several other possible, and mostly artificial ends, such as cremation, mummification and things of that nature. I don't think that I need to highlight why I think this, I do not believe it to be controversial.    

Quote7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

I have none.

I should point out that things like math, and logic are human creations, and rely on well defined terms, rules, and parameters. They are tautologies, which are true because of the way that the terms are defined, and the rules of the system they are being used in. Mathematical formulae being true very much do rely on what people think.  

One could argue that with using math, certain things can be demonstrated that are true objectively, but this is merely using math as a medium to arrive at these discoveries about the world that relies on far more than just math in order to accomplish, it is formalizing information, and uses extremely rigidly defined, and employed rules. It uses place holders for real things, and smooths over the surface of a rather rough playing field. Regardless of this, "2+2=4" because of what all of those symbols mean and represent, and it can neither be said that it is necessary that they represent what they do in base ten math, or that they must comply to the rules of that system, and cannot be used differently in another.

It seems everyone's taking this little questionnaire. It's interesting to read other's answers so I will bore you all with mine...

Quote from: "mbell31"1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

The word truth is overloaded in the English language. This is perhaps because on one hand it means "fidelity" or "faithfulness" and on the other "agreement with reality". Because English speakers use the same word for both concepts, I think they sometimes muddle the concepts. There are other meanings too. To a post-modernist truth can mean virtually anything as far as I can tell (I live with one).

You qualified "truth" with "ultimate". I don't know what that means. I searched wikipedia and came up dry. Given that I don't know what you mean by universal truth I have to say that I don't think there is any universal truth. Though if I understood what you meant I could probably give a better answer.

Quote2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

I am a nihilist. I don't find the "wrong" concept useful. I often find racism (as I see it) distasteful and might take action to prevent it.

Quote3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No. Because there's nothing to prevent me. But I don't "judge" people in terms of morality. Morality is not important to me. I observe them. Sometimes those observations lead to action or a change in my beliefs, etc.

Quote4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

Morality does not exist. It is conceptual.

Quote5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

This question is meaningless. What is the purpose of purple?

Quote6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

From the perspective of the person who has died, nothing.

Quote7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

Don't believe.

QuotePrometheus, how can you simultaneously say that no absolute truth exists, there is no right and wrong, morality is a social delusion, and yet you "feel" racism is wrong? Where do you get this "feeling" from? Where does your compassion come from? Why don't you want them to suffer needlessly?

A good question. My feelings are real but that alone doesn't make them absolute truths(Or mean that such truths exist). We all "feel" that some things are right and some things are wrong but typically these feelings are warped to better serve our own positions in the world(For example, I really doubt a convicted serial killer would beleive that the death sentence is "right" but the family of his victims would seem to be all for it.).

The feeling/compassion comes from me(I believe that "I" am the sum of my past experiences(With a heavy focus on the norms present in my culture) and a fair amount of instinctual tendencies. My personality and beliefs(I) are stored chemically in the wiring of my brain.). My not wanting them to suffer likely stems from a psychological phenomanon known as "death anxiety" which forces us all(Except sociopaths) to emphasise with other living creatures(Especially humans). The phenomonon itself is likely an adaptation our species has undergone to increase the overall survivability of our species.

mbell 31: For example, sex is promoted as a fun and pleasurable activity to be done at leisure. In fact, it is intended for a marriage relationship and has intense consequences on the participants.

Quote"I would expect that type of answer from a believer, but c'mon... where is it written, other than a religious text, that sex is intended for only a marriage relationship? And I'm guessing the "intense consequences" are pregnancy?"

Where is it written, other than a religious text, that sex is intended for only a marriage relationship? Where is it written that it isn't besides books written by men? I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.

    mbell31 wrote:I think the purpose of life is for us to grow to be more like God in holiness and righteousness and to do His work, leading others to salvation through Jesus Christ.

Quote"SO you are of the belief that everyone in the entire world should be Christian. Do you accept that there are other belief systems in the world?"

Yes I think everyone in the world who wants to accept the truth, live the best life possible, and spend eternity in heaven with God should be a Christ. I acknowledge and tolerate that other belief systems exist in the world they are simply incorrect.

    mbell31 wrote:I think when a person dies they either join God in eternal peace and joy in heaven or conversely enter eternal torment and suffering in hell. A person enters heaven if they have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or hell if they have not.

Quote"Why do you want to live with the god depicted in the old testament, a being who would gladly toss a good portion of your fellow man into a burning hell? I know, it's my choice. But I have compassion for people who make choices different than mine, esp. when they have bad consequences. Too bad some Christians don't have that same compassion."

The God depicted in the Old Testament is just, righteous, and loving. He is the same God who offered Himself to save us from hell. I have compassion for people, and I make mistakes all the time. The point is humanity underwent a fall (as recorded in Genesis and obvious today) and because of our blatant immorality we deserve eternal punishment. God is perfect, just, and righteous. It would not be fair for Him to say, "Oh well, it's okay that all of these people kill each other, rape each other, kill babies, etc.". Would you like it if someone killed your mother, father, sister, daughter and they were just allowed to go free and live in peace with a smile on their face? Would that be okay with you? We all deserve hell, myself included. God was so gracious he offered us a way out by sending His only unique son so that anyone who believes in Him will be given eternal life. He could have just left us out to dry. Gladly toss people into hell? God wants no one to go to hell. However, out of His love, He lets us decide. He is not going to force us to believe in Him. That wouldn't make any sense. Maybe some "Christians" don't have the compassion you do but I think all true Christians have compassion for others who make mistakes. Christians want nothing more than for people to accept God and go to heaven and they still struggle with sin themselves and hope you have compassion for them too.

    mbell31 wrote:God is an eternal being who exists outside time and space. He created time, space and the universe and all that exists. God is personal, just, holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and loving among other attributes.

Quote"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

So, are you admitting God exists?

Quote"So an apologetics class just teaches you how to justify your beliefs? And this is taught in college why?"

An Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason, and classical argumentation in a modern (or should I say post-modern setting). We are doing this in the hope of convincing others to adopt Christianity. This is taught in college because I go to a Christian University that is interested in preparing people to spread Christianity (to save people's souls) through the accurate representation of a true faith that can be effectively defended through reason.

Quote from: "mbell31"I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.

I never said anything about multiple partners, but since you brought it up, I have no problem with it.  It is between the consenting adults involved.  You have no right to say what consenting adults do behind their closed doors, period.

And there is nothing wrong with purely physical unions... they can sometimes be the best unions of all, either married or unmarried.  

And it doesn't matter at all what the bible says about 2 becomming 1 flesh.  The bible is not the law of this, or any other, land.  Yes, there are scars leftover when two people break up, whether there was sex involved or not.  I broke up with many boyfriends LONG before I had sex at all... and each one was extremely painful.  If sex is not fun and pleasureable for you, may you're doing it wrong.  

Quote from: "mbell31"

Quote from: "rlrose328"SO you are of the belief that everyone in the entire world should be Christian.  Do you accept that there are other belief systems in the world?

Yes I think everyone in the world who wants to accept the truth, live the best life possible, and spend eternity in heaven with God should be a Christ. I acknowledge and tolerate that other belief systems exist in the world they are simply incorrect.

Then there is nothing more to discuss.  You have closed your mind to anything that doesn't pertain to Christianity and that's all there is to it, in your mind.  There is nothing I can say that will sway you even a TINY bit, no matter how rational and simple it may be.  I'm an atheist and I accept that you are Christian, that my neighbors are Mormon, that my Mom is Catholic, that a good friend of my son's is Jewish, and that my friends in Iowa are Muslim.  See, it's a big beautiful world full of a big mix of people of all colors and creeds.  If we were all the same, it would be a very VERY sad world.  

And if you think other belief systems are incorrect and you'd obviously lobby to change them, then you are not tolerant, my friend.

Quote from: "mbell31"The God depicted in the Old Testament is just, righteous, and loving. He is the same God who offered Himself to save us from hell. I have compassion for people, and I make mistakes all the time. The point is humanity underwent a fall (as recorded in Genesis) and because of our blatant immorality we deserve eternal punishment. God is perfect, just, and righteous. It would not be fair for Him to say, "Oh well, it's okay that all of these people kill each other, rape each other, kill babies, etc.". Would you like it if someone killed your mother, father, sister, daughter and they were just allowed to go free and live in peace with a smile on their face? Would that be okay with you? We all deserve hell, myself included. God was so gracious he offered us a way out by sending His only unique son so that anyone who believes in Him will be given eternal life. He could have just left us out to dry. Gladly toss people into hell? God wants no one to go to hell. However, out of His love, He lets us decide. He is not going to force us to believe in Him. That wouldn't make any sense. Maybe some "Christians" don't have the compassion you do but I think all true Christians have compassion for others who make mistakes. Christians want nothing more than for people to accept God and go to heaven and they still struggle with sin themselves and hope you have compassion for them too.

Read your bible again.  The God depicted in the Old Testament is a horrible and manipulative beast.  He asked a man to kill his own son in order to prove his worth.  He destroyed an entire city (more than one) because he wasn't happy with the people.  Heck, he destroyed all of humanity and animal life with a supposed flood!!  All because we were "immoral"?  Wow, whatta guy.  He so willingly destroys his creations whenever he feels like it.

Along those same lines, tell me this... we are WAY more immoral now that we EVER were back then, when he was killing everyone right and left.  Why doesn't he step in now and do it again?  Wait... he promised it wouldn't, right?  Convenient.

Quote from: "mbell31"So, are you admitting God exists?  

QuoteNo, not at all... where did you get that?   I'm trying very hard to not be snide... it's hard when you ask questions like this, though.

Quote from: "mbell31"An Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason, and classical argumentation in a modern (or should I say post-modern setting). We are doing this in the hope of convincing others to adopt Christianity. This is taught in college because I go to a Christian University that is interested in preparing people to spread Christianity (to save people's souls) through the accurate representation of a true faith that can be effectively defended through reason.

AAAAHhhhhhh... there it is.  You're here to preach to us via this survey in order to save our souls.  There is no way you can use logic and reason to prove that the bible and god are real.  It cannot be done.  You can defend your personal belief in god... but religion as a whole cannot.  Religion, and the process of saving people's souls, is a business... and you've been conned into becoming an unpaid salesperson for them.  Good luck with that.

Fail whale, ahoooooooy!

Quote from: "mbell31", other than a religious text, that sex is intended for only a marriage relationship? Where is it written that it isn't besides books written by men? I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.
.

I know, for a fact that sex can be enjoyed outside of marriage. Having had sex with several partners, both inside and outside of serious relationships, I can attest to the fact I have as much soul as I ever had.The sex was fun, and when it was over it was over, without me being reduced to a gibbering mess.  This is authortative truth, I have experience in the field (bed), and this is a first hand account.

You seem to know a lot about sex, what with the deep imaterial level, not a purley physical union and all, how many people have you had sex with? I am guessing dozens? Or have you measured these things in a quantifiable and repeatable way? It's kind of interesting, because some of the sex I have had was not even emotional, just fun had between two strangers with mutual interest. Are you going to say that my personal experience is some way wrong? Have I been tricked by the devil into beleiving i am fine, when really, deep down I have lost my soul ?

As for the breakup part, people are upset when they breakup for a number of reasons, and people can still be just as upset during a breakup even if they never had sex. The sex is not what causes the hurt of a breakup, it is losing the other person, the emtotional connections and everything else, the sex is not the only thing causing an emotional bond with each other.

Also, lol curio, and secondary lols

QuoteAn Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason,

You sir, have a keen wit, I appreciate this in you, if not your close minded and biggoted views.

Quote from: "mbell31"When I say holy I simply mean to be less sinful and more like the perfect God who is righteous in character.

God killed an awful lot of people in the Bible. He usually did so because he deemed the people sinful. You'd not kill a sinner. What I'm assuming you see as righteousness in the character of god would be a breach of the sixth commandment if you decided to take on that roll. As such, you shouldn't seek to emulate the character of god unless you want to face legal and moral consequences. Sorry to use god killing as an example, but it was the first that came to mind. You can be like Jesus, but not god the father.

Quote from: "mbell31"The goal of the Christian life is to depart from the ways of the sinful world and the practices we naturally want to engage in. I want to be holy like God because he wants me to be transformed into a more holy person. I also want to reflect His image and effectively spread His message. I do not want to be exalted and worshiped. The further I progress as a Christian the more I realize how unholy I am and I will never reach any level of holiness worthy of exultation or worship. I am just a fallen human. Any holiness I ever have is just a gift from God and His image being displayed in me.

You seek to be pious by following as closely as possible the teachings in the Bible.


As for sex being immoral outside of marriage, it is for some people and not for others. Sure, a Christian might believe that morality is objective and written in stone (literally), but it's not. I have morality without religion, and my morality differs from that of religious people, but it is morality just the same. When I have sexâ€"and I really, really doâ€"so long as it's done in a honest relationship with a woman I have genuine feelings for and we both take steps in protecting ourselves, there's nothing inherently damaging about what we do. It adds to the flavor of life, and this is a flavor I really don't want to miss. I'd never suggest that Christians violate their personal morality and have sex outside of marriage, though they do and at higher rates than nonreligious people. You're welcome to your morality and as long as it doesn't hurt other people, I'm glad you're happy.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

Of course, all "truth" are absolute. How the universe came about is an absolute truth. You can believe that God created earth, Adam, Eve, and I can believe that it's the big bang. The truth does not alter because of what we believe. We simply don't know which one of us are wrong, or maybe both of us are wrong.

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

Of course racism is wrong. Why is that a question? How can you discriminate against someone basing simply on their ethnicity? I do, however, see the evolutionary explanation to racism... but that's beyond the scope of this question.

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

Beliefs, no. Beliefs are private, people are entitled to their own beliefs. Actions, yes. Actions have consequences.

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

Not quite sure what you mean by "morality" here, and how long of a time line you are talking about. If you are referring to things like gay marriage, I do not think that's a degradation of morality. Over all, I think a societies morality as it become more educated and civilized.

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

There isn't one. It's what you make it out to be. If I have to say, live a meaningful and happy life without causing pain and suffering to others.

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

Not certain. I'm an agnostic atheist. I hope there's more to it than our "earthly existence," but as suggested in my answer to Q1, what I hope will not change the truth to whether there is afterlife and what it is like. But IF there is afterlife, I hope it would follow neither the Western (Bible-oriented) religions, i.e. Heaven and hell, or the Eastern (Buddhism) religion (reincarnation). I don't like the sound of either of them. Again, what I like or don't like will not change the truth. We'll just have to wait and find out.

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?[/quote]

Cannot begin to phantom. Possibly incomprehensible.

Quote from: "mbell31"I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.

QuoteI never said anything about multiple partners, but since you brought it up, I have no problem with it.  It is between the consenting adults involved.  You have no right to say what consenting adults do behind their closed doors, period.

If I'm asked the question of whether I think it is right or wrong, I am going to say that it's wrong. I do have the right to do that and that's what I'm doing. According to your reasoning, YOU have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors, period. So unless you are the only one who is exempt from your rule I guess you just excluded yourself from having the right to say anything on this topic.

QuoteAnd there is nothing wrong with purely physical unions... they can sometimes be the best unions of all, either married or unmarried.

I've already stated that I don't believe such purely physical unions exist. I guess we could do an experiment on that later.

QuoteAnd it doesn't matter at all what the bible says about 2 becomming 1 flesh.  The bible is not the law of this, or any other, land.  Yes, there are scars leftover when two people break up, whether there was sex involved or not.  I broke up with many boyfriends LONG before I had sex at all... and each one was extremely painful.  If sex is not fun and pleasureable for you, may you're doing it wrong.  

It does matter what the Bible says because the Bible is the truth. I agree, emotional scars are left even without sex. I didn't say that other scars didn't exist. I wouldn't know, I haven't had sex. When and if I do it will be extremely pleasurable I hope because I will be with the love of my life.

Quote from: "mbell31"

Quote from: "rlrose328"SO you are of the belief that everyone in the entire world should be Christian.  Do you accept that there are other belief systems in the world?

Yes I think everyone in the world who wants to accept the truth, live the best life possible, and spend eternity in heaven with God should be a Christ. I acknowledge and tolerate that other belief systems exist in the world they are simply incorrect.

QuoteThen there is nothing more to discuss.  You have closed your mind to anything that doesn't pertain to Christianity and that's all there is to it, in your mind.  There is nothing I can say that will sway you even a TINY bit, no matter how rational and simple it may be.  I'm an atheist and I accept that you are Christian, that my neighbors are Mormon, that my Mom is Catholic, that a good friend of my son's is Jewish, and that my friends in Iowa are Muslim.  See, it's a big beautiful world full of a big mix of people of all colors and creeds.  If we were all the same, it would be a very VERY sad world.  

And if you think other belief systems are incorrect and you'd obviously lobby to change them, then you are not tolerant, my friend.

I'm not close minded. I've researched all the other religions and liked the promises of some Eastern religions in regards to life peace through meditation, etc. I simply found that none of them are a faith based religion that offers me salvation through grace. I would gladly switch religions if someone proved Christianity to be false.

What you are describing is the "new tolerance".

Dictionary.com definition of true, traditional tolerance:  "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Like I said before, I tolerate other belief systems. That means I put up with and "permit" (see definition) them to exist and be free even though I disagree with them. Tolerance doesn't mean you believe everything to be equally correct. That's the "new tolerance" crap being thrown around these days.

Quote from: "mbell31"The God depicted in the Old Testament is just, righteous, and loving. He is the same God who offered Himself to save us from hell. I have compassion for people, and I make mistakes all the time. The point is humanity underwent a fall (as recorded in Genesis) and because of our blatant immorality we deserve eternal punishment. God is perfect, just, and righteous. It would not be fair for Him to say, "Oh well, it's okay that all of these people kill each other, rape each other, kill babies, etc.". Would you like it if someone killed your mother, father, sister, daughter and they were just allowed to go free and live in peace with a smile on their face? Would that be okay with you? We all deserve hell, myself included. God was so gracious he offered us a way out by sending His only unique son so that anyone who believes in Him will be given eternal life. He could have just left us out to dry. Gladly toss people into hell? God wants no one to go to hell. However, out of His love, He lets us decide. He is not going to force us to believe in Him. That wouldn't make any sense. Maybe some "Christians" don't have the compassion you do but I think all true Christians have compassion for others who make mistakes. Christians want nothing more than for people to accept God and go to heaven and they still struggle with sin themselves and hope you have compassion for them too.

QuoteRead your bible again.  The God depicted in the Old Testament is a horrible and manipulative beast.  He asked a man to kill his own son in order to prove his worth.  He destroyed an entire city (more than one) because he wasn't happy with the people.  Heck, he destroyed all of humanity and animal life with a supposed flood!!  All because we were "immoral"?  Wow, whatta guy.  He so willingly destroys his creations whenever he feels like it.

Along those same lines, tell me this... we are WAY more immoral now that we EVER were back then, when he was killing everyone right and left.  Why doesn't he step in now and do it again?  Wait... he promised it wouldn't, right?  Convenient.

God is not a "guy". We can't categorize God as one of us and think of how we would act in that situation and make a judgment based on that. It would be wrong for us to do those things. However, God, being perfect, had every right to carry out those actions. He warned the people what would happen if they continued to sin and disobey Him. God does not want to have to punish anyone but if they refuse to do what is right, it is only fair and just that He does. Would it be right for a father to let his children run around and cause havok in their neighborhood, beating up other kids? I don't think you would like it if the father just sat back and did nothing. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of your second question to answer it fully but I believe we are in a time when God is allowing us to live until His final judgment. I promise Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and all those who practice evil will suffer.

Quote from: "mbell31"So, are you admitting God exists?  

QuoteNo, not at all... where did you get that?   I'm trying very hard to not be snide... it's hard when you ask questions like this, though.

I got that because you said this:

"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

It seems like your trying to classify who God is. Asking me which God I'm talking about, giving me "immortal"? But no, he's not a loving God? It seems like you've already assumed God exists and your debating his attributes.

Quote from: "mbell31"An Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason, and classical argumentation in a modern (or should I say post-modern setting). We are doing this in the hope of convincing others to adopt Christianity. This is taught in college because I go to a Christian University that is interested in preparing people to spread Christianity (to save people's souls) through the accurate representation of a true faith that can be effectively defended through reason.

QuoteAAAAHhhhhhh... there it is.  You're here to preach to us via this survey in order to save our souls.  There is no way you can use logic and reason to prove that the bible and god are real.  It cannot be done.  You can defend your personal belief in god... but religion as a whole cannot.  Religion, and the process of saving people's souls, is a business... and you've been conned into becoming an unpaid salesperson for them.  Good luck with that.

No, I offered this surveyed for the reason I posted in the first post. I needed the answers for class. Of course I don't mind it going into a discussion about God's existence. I can use logic and reason to defend and prove the existence of a creator to a reasonable person who has not already committed in their heart that God does not exist. True Christianity is not a business except the business of spreading Christ's message.

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "mbell31", other than a religious text, that sex is intended for only a marriage relationship? Where is it written that it isn't besides books written by men? I take the Bible to be the very Word of God. I believe everything in it is true and for good reason and that it makes logical sense (a different debate but this is where I am getting some of my reasoning). Where is your authoritative truth that says it is okay to have premarital sex and sex with multiple partners? I'm not necessarily totally committed to the institution of marriage being a necessity, but it is a necessity that two partners (male and female) make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together in a monogamous relationship and make this known to other people before engaging in sex. The "intense consequences" (intense is not a very good adjective in this case) I am talking about are the giving of one's soul to another in sex and yes I suppose the possibility of pregnancy. When a man and a woman have sex they are united on a deep, immaterial level. It isn't a purely physical union. The Bible describes as the two becoming "one flesh". It is verified in studies of sex and relationship that a unique bond and deep emotional impact is left on partners. Ever heard of the scars left over when people have sex and breakup? It's not the fun, pleasurable activity with no consequences it often gets portrayed as.
.

I know, for a fact that sex can be enjoyed outside of marriage. Having had sex with several partners, both inside and outside of serious relationships, I can attest to the fact I have as much soul as I ever had.The sex was fun, and when it was over it was over, without me being reduced to a gibbering mess.  This is authortative truth, I have experience in the field (bed), and this is a first hand account.

You seem to know a lot about sex, what with the deep imaterial level, not a purley physical union and all, how many people have you had sex with? I am guessing dozens? Or have you measured these things in a quantifiable and repeatable way? It's kind of interesting, because some of the sex I have had was not even emotional, just fun had between two strangers with mutual interest. Are you going to say that my personal experience is some way wrong? Have I been tricked by the devil into beleiving i am fine, when really, deep down I have lost my soul ?

As for the breakup part, people are upset when they breakup for a number of reasons, and people can still be just as upset during a breakup even if they never had sex. The sex is not what causes the hurt of a breakup, it is losing the other person, the emtotional connections and everything else, the sex is not the only thing causing an emotional bond with each other.

Also, lol curio, and secondary lols

QuoteAn Apologetics class furthers a Christian's ability to defend the Christian faith through the use of logic, reason,

You sir, have a keen wit, I appreciate this in you, if not your close minded and biggoted views.

I can't argue with your personal experience but your personal experience is not authoritative truth.

Like I said above I am a virgin and will remain so until married. I heard an eastern pantheistic monk describe sex as the coming together of two "karmas". I havn't done the research myself but I would bet studies and data have shown that sex has more than simply a physical impact. I will look to find one and post it here.

Yes, I am going to say that what you did was wrong. I am not sure if the devil has tricked you but I wouldn't doubt it. You don't know the truth.

I agree, emotional bonds cause pain as well, but I also said they aren't the only bonds that form.

I am not close minded or a bigot, thank you.

I am open to all possibilities. I will disown Christianity if you prove it to be false.

Like I said in a previous post, I am not being intolerant (bigot:a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.). I am tolerant of everyone: that means I "tolerate". This word (look it up) means to put up with someone despite the fact that you disagree with it.

Tolerance does not mean you have to agree with everyone. That is the modern world's fantasy edition. Please don't buy into it.

Besides all of this external talk on marriage, we need to get to the root here. In my next post I will post a link to another thread where I challenge you to address the topic of God's existence a little closer.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "mbell31"When I say holy I simply mean to be less sinful and more like the perfect God who is righteous in character.

God killed an awful lot of people in the Bible. He usually did so because he deemed the people sinful. You'd not kill a sinner. What I'm assuming you see as righteousness in the character of god would be a breach of the sixth commandment if you decided to take on that roll. As such, you shouldn't seek to emulate the character of god unless you want to face legal and moral consequences. Sorry to use god killing as an example, but it was the first that came to mind. You can be like Jesus, but not god the father.

Quote from: "mbell31"The goal of the Christian life is to depart from the ways of the sinful world and the practices we naturally want to engage in. I want to be holy like God because he wants me to be transformed into a more holy person. I also want to reflect His image and effectively spread His message. I do not want to be exalted and worshiped. The further I progress as a Christian the more I realize how unholy I am and I will never reach any level of holiness worthy of exultation or worship. I am just a fallen human. Any holiness I ever have is just a gift from God and His image being displayed in me.

You seek to be pious by following as closely as possible the teachings in the Bible.


As for sex being immoral outside of marriage, it is for some people and not for others. Sure, a Christian might believe that morality is objective and written in stone (literally), but it's not. I have morality without religion, and my morality differs from that of religious people, but it is morality just the same. When I have sexâ€"and I really, really doâ€"so long as it's done in a honest relationship with a woman I have genuine feelings for and we both take steps in protecting ourselves, there's nothing inherently damaging about what we do. It adds to the flavor of life, and this is a flavor I really don't want to miss. I'd never suggest that Christians violate their personal morality and have sex outside of marriage, though they do and at higher rates than nonreligious people. You're welcome to your morality and as long as it doesn't hurt other people, I'm glad you're happy.

God's actions in the Old Testament are just, based on his righteous character. I can be righteous like Him, but it wouldn't be just for me to kill people because I am not their perfect creator who warned them not to turn away from Him or there would be consequences.

QuoteYou can be like Jesus, but not god the father.

I'm glad we both agree in the existence of Jesus and God the Father.

It sounds like your describing moral relativity in your last paragraph. As I have clearly outlined before, there is a right and a wrong that is the same for everyone, no moral relativity truly exists. We discovered (or were given) morality, we don't create it.

Quote from: "mbell31"I'm glad we both agree in the existence of Jesus and God the Father.

Don't get ahead of yourself. If he'd said "You can be like Luke Skywalker but not like Darth Vader" would you assume he actually believed they existed?

Remember: by-and-large we reference Jesus, God, et. al. as characters in mythology. On some occasions we will refer to the "historical" Jesus. If, however, an atheist says "God" or "Jesus" without qualification, they are referring to a character in a book, nothing more.

Quote from: "mbell31"It sounds like your describing moral relativity in your last paragraph. As I have clearly outlined before, there is a right and a wrong that is the same for everyone, no moral relativity truly exists. We discovered (or were given) morality, we don't create it.

Can you give an example of a single moral absolute? You need to either be able to prove deductively that it is a moral absolute, or everyone on earth must agree to it in every situation and circumstance.

Just because everyone agrees with it does not make it a moral absolute either. What if there was only one person on earth?

Also, new smiley   , it looks like someone rubbing a lamp to me.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "mbell31"It sounds like your describing moral relativity in your last paragraph. As I have clearly outlined before, there is a right and a wrong that is the same for everyone, no moral relativity truly exists. We discovered (or were given) morality, we don't create it.

Can you give an example of a single moral absolute? You need to either be able to prove deductively that it is a moral absolute, or everyone on earth must agree to it in every situation and circumstance.

Sure, torturing babies for fun is wrong.

Personally, I don't know how to prove that is a moral absolute deductively but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

"Absolutists hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self-evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables"- Francis Beckwith, Relativism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 29.

Like the person above said, everyone's thoughts on morality don't determine the truth. They exist irrespective of us.

The problem with moral relativity is:

1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can't improve their morality.
6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions. If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on? How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

check out this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3189 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3189)

Quote from: "SSY"I know, for a fact that sex can be enjoyed outside of marriage. Having had sex with several partners, both inside and outside of serious relationships, I can attest to the fact I have as much soul as I ever had.The sex was fun, and when it was over it was over, without me being reduced to a gibbering mess.  This is authortative truth, I have experience in the field (bed), and this is a first hand account.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westonsigns.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FWSCHS154.jpg&hash=9ec6f85e3f3649b915d4577ccdb0ea950416873d)

Quote1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.

They can. It is possible. There's nothing to stop them.

Quote2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.

They can for the same reason. Although there is no problem of evil.

Quote3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.

Can.

Quote4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.

Ditto.

Quote5. Relativists can't improve their morality.

There is no morality but relativists can improve according to whatever criteria they choose.

Quote6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.

I might agree with you on this one. I have to think about it. I couldn't hold a meaningful moral discussion. I'm a nihilist.

Quote7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

They can promote anything they want.

Quote from: "mbell31"It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions. If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on? How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

There is no basis in objective truth or objective morality.  Morals are simply social contracts that are derived through living in society.  A recluse living in a cave would have no reason to ponder nor posess morals, objective or subjective, so it's obvious that morals are created through social interaction with one another in order to maintain some semblence of civility and realtive harmony.

Quote from: "AlP"

Quote1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.

They can. It is possible. There's nothing to stop them.

Quote2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.

They can for the same reason. Although there is no problem of evil.

Quote3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.

Can.

Quote4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.

Ditto.

Quote5. Relativists can't improve their morality.

There is no morality but relativists can improve according to whatever criteria they choose.

Quote6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.

I might agree with you on this one. I have to think about it. I couldn't hold a meaningful moral discussion. I'm a nihilist.

Quote7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

They can promote anything they want.

My question to all of your answers is "how"? "How" can someone who doesn't believe a distinct right and wrong exist say someone is wrong? How can someone who doesn't even define evil complain about it? etc, etc, etc.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "mbell31"It's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions. If you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on? How can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

There is no basis in objective truth or objective morality.  Morals are simply social contracts that are derived through living in society.  A recluse living in a cave would have no reason to ponder nor posess morals, objective or subjective, so it's obvious that morals are created through social interaction with one another in order to maintain some semblence of civility and realtive harmony.

I agree morals are related to our involvement with other people. I don't think people have ever lived in isolation. Can you give me an example? I disagree completely that moral have no basis in objective truth or objective morality. How do you explain the "conscience"? Are you telling me you never felt bed for doing anything in your life?

Quote from: "SSY"Just because everyone agrees with it does not make it a moral absolute either. What if there was only one person on earth?

Also, new smiley   , it looks like someone rubbing a lamp to me.

I would take it as at least strong evidence.

QuoteMy question to all of your answers is "how"? "How" can someone who doesn't believe a distinct right and wrong exist say someone is wrong? How can someone who doesn't even define evil complain about it? etc, etc, etc.

How is easy. There is nothing to prevent such a person from expressing that opinion. It is possible. Though I think morality, right and wrong do not exist and are bullshit and personally I wouldn't argue in those terms.

Quote from: "mbell31"Sure, torturing babies for fun is wrong.

This qualifies a situation, so is not an absolute. Absolutes are true in all situations and circumstances.

QuotePersonally, I don't know how to prove that is a moral absolute deductively but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

No, it doesn't mean that it isn't, it just means that you can give no reason to suppose that it is.

Quote"Absolutists hold that moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self-evident. We don't invent morality; we discover it like we discover multiplication tables"- Francis Beckwith, Relativism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 29.

Mathematical truths are hardly intuitive, and they can be proved. Argument by analogy are always quite weak, they scream that you can't make the point without changing the subject.

QuoteLike the person above said, everyone's thoughts on morality don't determine the truth. They exist irrespective of us.

I don't think he said that.

QuoteThe problem with moral relativity is:

1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can't make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can't improve their morality.
6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

The only other position is not moral relativity, there is also moral subjectivism, and moral objectivism. Moral relativists can't do any of those things with any kind of authority, or backing, but they can still do them. They also can argue their points from an emotional position, and appeal to people on an emotional level, as opposed to a rational one. If you cannot offer a rational justification for your views, then you're doing no different.

QuoteIt's funny so many self-proclaimed relativists try to participate in moral discussions.

I'm not a moral relativist, I'm a moral subjectivists. I think that morality is subjective, and the product of agents, but I think that it is reliant on objective factors, such as social traits, environmental factors, empathy, compassion, and often utility.

QuoteIf you don't admit a moral absolute exists, what objective truth are you basing your statements on?

If moral subjectivism is correct, as I suggest, then through behavioural, and evolutionary sciences it can be discovered (and is being discovered) what it evolved for, the function that it served in our species survival, and from this we can say what would be going along with this, or going against it. This still suffers from some problems, for instance the lack of a categorical imperative, and the problems with inferring oughts from how things are.

Though I dare say that it is vastly more objective and superior to just saying that you can divine absolute moral truths with your intuition, yet being unable to demonstrate them rationally, or evidentially.

QuoteHow can you say evil is bad, or that it even exists, or what it even is?

Evil is bad by definition. Depends on what you mean by "exists", if you mean that it is a real substantive entity that occupies reality independent of thought or action, then I don't think that it does. If you mean that it is a perception, or evaluation of things as sufficiently negative in a moral context, then I think it exists.

Let me ask you: what is the benefit of being a moral absolutist in a moral discussion if you cannot identify, or demonstrate a single moral absolute? What greater authority does your statements have than a moral relativists, beyond being astronomically less tentative?

Quote from: "mbell31"RE: MULTIPLE PARTNERS:  If I'm asked the question of whether I think it is right or wrong, I am going to say that it's wrong. I do have the right to do that and that's what I'm doing. According to your reasoning, YOU have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors, period. So unless you are the only one who is exempt from your rule I guess you just excluded yourself from having the right to say anything on this topic.

I know I have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors... that's my point.  They can do what they wish, period... as long as they are CONSENTING and ADULTS (just so my words don't get twisted).  We're getting bogged down here with semantics.

Quote from: "mbell31"It does matter what the Bible says because the Bible is the truth. I agree, emotional scars are left even without sex. I didn't say that other scars didn't exist. I wouldn't know, I haven't had sex. When and if I do it will be extremely pleasurable I hope because I will be with the love of my life.

If you haven't yet had sex, then you have no experience with which to make judgements.  You can quote your pastor/minister or the bible, but this is real life, not mythology out here in the big bad world.  Everyone makes choices they have to live with, and your bible and apologics class won't stop that.  I hope it will be pleasurable for you.  It's not just for procreation... why on earth would it feel that good if that's all it's for?

Quote from: "mbell31"What you are describing is the "new tolerance".   Dictionary.com definition of true, traditional tolerance:  "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Like I said before, I tolerate other belief systems. That means I put up with and "permit" (see definition) them to exist and be free even though I disagree with them. Tolerance doesn't mean you believe everything to be equally correct. That's the "new tolerance" crap being thrown around these days.

New tolerance or old tolerance, whatever.  Semantics again.  You want everyone to be Christian so their souls are saved.  Therefore, all the other religions are wrong in your opinion and should be abolished for the good of mankind.  SO... you may tolerate them, but you do wish they were not practiced.  If you don't mind that they are practiced, then why disrupt the beliefs of others (or non-belief, as they case may be) in order to convert them?

Quote from: "mbell31"God is not a "guy". We can't categorize God as one of us and think of how we would act in that situation and make a judgment based on that. It would be wrong for us to do those things. However, God, being perfect, had every right to carry out those actions. He warned the people what would happen if they continued to sin and disobey Him. God does not want to have to punish anyone but if they refuse to do what is right, it is only fair and just that He does. Would it be right for a father to let his children run around and cause havok in their neighborhood, beating up other kids? I don't think you would like it if the father just sat back and did nothing. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of your second question to answer it fully but I believe we are in a time when God is allowing us to live until His final judgment. I promise Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and all those who practice evil will suffer.

Semantics AGAIN... I know got is not a "guy."  I was just using colloquialisms.  Of course I don't think it's right for a father to let his child run rampant all over the neighborhood, beating up other kids.  But I don't think the child would deserve death for doing so.  This is ruling with fear, not discipline.  FEAR is what drives Christianity.  FEAR is what makes people indoctrinate their children.  Then FEAR is what they use to keep children in line.  Fear that god will punish them if they don't behave.  FEAR is then what makes parents beat their children... fear that if they don't obey the rules of god, they'll go to hell and they won't see their children in the afterlife.  (That may be a little overwrought, but my point is valid.)  God killed people for disobeying and a just and loving "father" wouldn't do that.  Period.  

And yes, I can judge god based on how we react here on earth.  We were created "in his image," correct?  God is given man-like attributes throughout the bible and by the clergy all the time!  But when an atheist does it, we're out of line?

Quote from: "mbell31"

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "mbell31"So, are you admitting God exists?

No, not at all... where did you get that?

I got that because you said this:

"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

It seems like your trying to classify who God is. Asking me which God I'm talking about, giving me "immortal"? But no, he's not a loving God? It seems like you've already assumed God exists and your debating his attributes.

I'm using your mythology to make a point.  If I said the Easter Bunny is fluffy, does that mean I must believe in the Easter Bunny?  Of that Santa Claus is generous and kind, I must believe in him?  No.  I'm being sarcastic and referring to your deity as if he were real for YOUR sake.

Quote from: "mbell31"No, I offered this surveyed for the reason I posted in the first post. I needed the answers for class. Of course I don't mind it going into a discussion about God's existence. I can use logic and reason to defend and prove the existence of a creator to a reasonable person who has not already committed in their heart that God does not exist. True Christianity is not a business except the business of spreading Christ's message.

"True Christianity"?  Who exactly decided what is and isn't "True Christianity"?  Many televangelists have claimed to be "True Christians" and thousands have followed them, given them money, made them very wealthy (there's the business part) then we later find out they were skimming off the top and sleeping with their secretaries.  All of a sudden, they aren't "True Chrisians."   So it seems to me that any given Christian may or may not be true Christians.

Religion is a business.  The preaching of religion is a business.  Churches are businesses.  My mother has worked at Air Force churches, Lutheran churches, Catholic Churches, and mortuaries for 40 years.  I know a business when I see one.  True Christians are petty, mean, and spiteful people, just like the rest of us sinners.  One of them was so upset recently because she prayed and prayed and prayed that I get a 100% on a test but I got a 96%.  She even started to question (not very seriously) her faith because he hadn't answered her prayer.  Does this mean she's not a True Christian?  Of course not.  

And finally... I'm always open to the possiblility that god exists.  In all truthfulness, I am.  I discuss it all the time with my mom, my Christian friends, and over the years, various pastors and ministers and priests.  They present their facts and arguments (though we don't argue), I listen, I think rationally about what they've presented, and I come to a conclusion... which has always been that it can't possibly be real and factual.  If it works for them, great.  We all have to make our own way in this life.  But I prefer to remain grounded in reality, regardless how horrible it is at times.  I don't care how ANYONE worships whatever deity they've chosen... as long as they don't, in any way, shape, or form, coerce or force me to do the same (usu. in the form of laws based on some aspect of their faith).

Multiple partners... where's Kylyssa when you need her?  

Quote from: "mbell31"I agree morals are related to our involvement with other people. I don't think people have ever lived in isolation. Can you give me an example? I disagree completely that moral have no basis in objective truth or objective morality. How do you explain the "conscience"? Are you telling me you never felt bed for doing anything in your life?

People have chosen to live apart from the rest of society, of course they would be one person off by themself so it's not like you nor I would know any of them.  Hence the term recluse and hermit, they are choices, not that they were raised by wolves or anything:)

I think a conscience is just the personal attachment in the social contract as well.  You are raised to be a part of society and what "rights and wrongs" to follow (or feel or believe) and when you go against that your conscience bothers you.  Or, if you are a sociopath it doesn't bother you at all because you don't have one since you don't participate in the social contract.  A conscience is merely a personal attachment to your activities but it's not necessarily loaded with everything that is supposed to be morally right or wrong but rather the ones that you feel are reasonable and accurate.  If they were absolute and or objective they would not change over time within the same person.  When I was younger I was somewhat mean (happens from being the baby girl of 14 brothers) so I picked on people, bullied, and often physically fought with other kids for no real reason and it did not bother me one bit.  Now at 35 I can't imagine doing that to someone and really can't figure out how I ever did that with a second thought.  I'm also very defensive of people, so my conscience has done a literal 180 degrees.  Nothing objective about them, just something I learned along the way from experience and interaction with other people.

14 brothers, wow. Were you the only girl? Did you all live together? Were your parent mormons   ?

Quote from: "SSY"14 brothers, wow. Were you the only girl? Did you all live together? Were your parent mormons   ?

No, Irish catholic:) One older sister, two sets of twins so my folks definitely believed in the "being fruitful" thing.  Seriously though we were farm people so that's pretty typical.  We were all in the same home for two years before people started trickling away.

Each of us only has one kid though, isn't that interesting?

Jon and Kate plus 8 are wimps!

Quote from: "mbell31"RE: MULTIPLE PARTNERS:  If I'm asked the question of whether I think it is right or wrong, I am going to say that it's wrong. I do have the right to do that and that's what I'm doing. According to your reasoning, YOU have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors, period. So unless you are the only one who is exempt from your rule I guess you just excluded yourself from having the right to say anything on this topic.

I know I have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors... that's my point.  They can do what they wish, period... as long as they are CONSENTING and ADULTS (just so my words don't get twisted).  We're getting bogged down here with semantics.

You must not understand what I'm saying. You say you don't have that right and yet you also give the opinion that they should be able to do whatever they want. Isn't that a glaring contradiction? You shouldn't have any opinion at all on that matter if you don't have a right to, but you give one anyway! I do have the right to weigh in with my thoughts so I do.

Quote from: "mbell31"It does matter what the Bible says because the Bible is the truth. I agree, emotional scars are left even without sex. I didn't say that other scars didn't exist. I wouldn't know, I haven't had sex. When and if I do it will be extremely pleasurable I hope because I will be with the love of my life.

If you haven't yet had sex, then you have no experience with which to make judgements.  You can quote your pastor/minister or the bible, but this is real life, not mythology out here in the big bad world.  Everyone makes choices they have to live with, and your bible and apologics class won't stop that.  I hope it will be pleasurable for you.  It's not just for procreation... why on earth would it feel that good if that's all it's for?

I never said it was just for procreation. I agree it is made for pleasure and connection between man and wife.

Quote from: "mbell31"What you are describing is the "new tolerance".   Dictionary.com definition of true, traditional tolerance:  "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Like I said before, I tolerate other belief systems. That means I put up with and "permit" (see definition) them to exist and be free even though I disagree with them. Tolerance doesn't mean you believe everything to be equally correct. That's the "new tolerance" crap being thrown around these days.

New tolerance or old tolerance, whatever.  Semantics again.  You want everyone to be Christian so their souls are saved.  Therefore, all the other religions are wrong in your opinion and should be abolished for the good of mankind.  SO... you may tolerate them, but you do wish they were not practiced.  If you don't mind that they are practiced, then why disrupt the beliefs of others (or non-belief, as they case may be) in order to convert them?

Semantics? Defining a word is not semantics. If you are misusing a term and I show that it is not the correct definition that is not semantics that is a very important fact to distinguish. If we can't determine what words really mean what use is there in talking? I never said anything about disrupting the beliefs of others. I just know everyone deserves a chance to hear what Christianity says and decide for themselves what they think about it.

Quote from: "mbell31"God is not a "guy". We can't categorize God as one of us and think of how we would act in that situation and make a judgment based on that. It would be wrong for us to do those things. However, God, being perfect, had every right to carry out those actions. He warned the people what would happen if they continued to sin and disobey Him. God does not want to have to punish anyone but if they refuse to do what is right, it is only fair and just that He does. Would it be right for a father to let his children run around and cause havok in their neighborhood, beating up other kids? I don't think you would like it if the father just sat back and did nothing. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of your second question to answer it fully but I believe we are in a time when God is allowing us to live until His final judgment. I promise Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and all those who practice evil will suffer.

Semantics AGAIN... I know got is not a "guy."  I was just using colloquialisms.  Of course I don't think it's right for a father to let his child run rampant all over the neighborhood, beating up other kids.  But I don't think the child would deserve death for doing so.  This is ruling with fear, not discipline.  FEAR is what drives Christianity.  FEAR is what makes people indoctrinate their children.  Then FEAR is what they use to keep children in line.  Fear that god will punish them if they don't behave.  FEAR is then what makes parents beat their children... fear that if they don't obey the rules of god, they'll go to hell and they won't see their children in the afterlife.  (That may be a little overwrought, but my point is valid.)  God killed people for disobeying and a just and loving "father" wouldn't do that.  Period.  

Semantics again huh? Well I was just using that as a point of saying God is not human. Fear does have something to do with it. If you knew you were going to be disciplined when you screw up, you would be afraid. Newsflash, that's what fear is. There's nothing wrong with that. God is just and in his justice it wouldn't be right to allow evil to take place without punishment. I wish everyone could go to heaven but that's not the way it appears to work. Some people will simply deny the truth up until their death.

And yes, I can judge god based on how we react here on earth.  We were created "in his image," correct?  God is given man-like attributes throughout the bible and by the clergy all the time!  But when an atheist does it, we're out of line?

God isn't given attributes we simply discover what He is like through the Bible and His creation. I Never said anything about you not being able to do that.

Quote from: "mbell31"

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "mbell31"So, are you admitting God exists?

No, not at all... where did you get that?

I got that because you said this:

"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

It seems like your trying to classify who God is. Asking me which God I'm talking about, giving me "immortal"? But no, he's not a loving God? It seems like you've already assumed God exists and your debating his attributes.

I'm using your mythology to make a point.  If I said the Easter Bunny is fluffy, does that mean I must believe in the Easter Bunny?  Of that Santa Claus is generous and kind, I must believe in him?  No.  I'm being sarcastic and referring to your deity as if he were real for YOUR sake.

Ok, well you might want to do so in a way that doesn't make it look like you've already admitted He exists by what you're saying

Quote from: "mbell31"No, I offered this surveyed for the reason I posted in the first post. I needed the answers for class. Of course I don't mind it going into a discussion about God's existence. I can use logic and reason to defend and prove the existence of a creator to a reasonable person who has not already committed in their heart that God does not exist. True Christianity is not a business except the business of spreading Christ's message.

"True Christianity"?  Who exactly decided what is and isn't "True Christianity"?  Many televangelists have claimed to be "True Christians" and thousands have followed them, given them money, made them very wealthy (there's the business part) then we later find out they were skimming off the top and sleeping with their secretaries.  All of a sudden, they aren't "True Chrisians."   So it seems to me that any given Christian may or may not be true Christians.

True Christianity is believing in and living your life for Jesus Christ. So, people lie that doesn't make Christianity a lie. Yes, some people who claim to be Christian are not truly Christian, this is a well-known fact.

Religion is a business.  The preaching of religion is a business.  Churches are businesses.  My mother has worked at Air Force churches, Lutheran churches, Catholic Churches, and mortuaries for 40 years.  I know a business when I see one.  True Christians are petty, mean, and spiteful people, just like the rest of us sinners.  One of them was so upset recently because she prayed and prayed and prayed that I get a 100% on a test but I got a 96%.  She even started to question (not very seriously) her faith because he hadn't answered her prayer.  Does this mean she's not a True Christian?  Of course not.  

Christians are sinners, yes but hopefully in the process of becoming less and less sinful to the point of being free from sin. The Christians I know are not petty, mean, and spiteful. Those are obviously immature Christians.

And finally... I'm always open to the possiblility that god exists.  In all truthfulness, I am.  I discuss it all the time with my mom, my Christian friends, and over the years, various pastors and ministers and priests.  They present their facts and arguments (though we don't argue), I listen, I think rationally about what they've presented, and I come to a conclusion... which has always been that it can't possibly be real and factual.  If it works for them, great.  We all have to make our own way in this life.  But I prefer to remain grounded in reality, regardless how horrible it is at times.  I don't care how ANYONE worships whatever deity they've chosen... as long as they don't, in any way, shape, or form, coerce or force me to do the same (usu. in the form of laws based on some aspect of their faith).[/quote]

That's good, I'm glad your open. Why can't it be real and factual?

Quote from: "mbell31"That's good, I'm glad your open. Why can't it be real and factual?

On what are you basing the fact that god is real and factual?  It can't be the bible because you cannot use a document that has never been 100% verified scientifically to be true and factual.  Besides, it's supposedly the word of god himself, so that's like saying "he exists because he says so."  Of course he does... but in order for something to be factual, it must be independently verified and that is impossible.

Then there's the bible, the inerrant word of god, which is filled with so many inconsistencies.  If god inspired the men to write what they did, how did they get so many versions of the same story?  Did man get it wrong or did god?  Either way, you'd think god would get a better editor if it's his inerrant word.

Then there's the horrible stories of death and destruction at the command of god himself.  Make whatever excuses your apologetics class has given you to pass on to heretics like me, but he wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah because they were naughty?  My son is naughty and never once have I wanted to kill him.  A creator doesn't treat his creations like that... ever.  Those actions are not done by someone who loves his creations.

There could not have been a flood that covered the entire earth and there could not have been a boat that carried two of every species (and 7 of some of them) of creature on earth AND the food AND Noah's family, etc.  It is just impossible.  The Christian line on this, as I've heard it repeatedly, is that god can do miracles and with Noah's boat, this is what he did.  Well, if he can do miracles, why did he need Noah to begin with?  Also, how did penguins and other creatures from far away get onto the boat?  The Christian line on this one is that god told Noah not to worry about it, that he would take care of getting the animals there in time.  Again, if he could do that, why did he need Noah?

No one can turn a few fish and loaves of bread into a mass of food for an entire group of 500 people.

People don't come back from the dead, son of god or whatever.  That is called a zombie (and my 7yo son got it the minute we read that story to him from the bible without any help from us).  The other place I've heard of people coming back from the dead is classical mythology, yet if you call Christianity "mythology," they get all upset.

People didn't live to be 700 or 900 years old.  It was a different calendar back then, not the Gregorian calendar we have today.

Most of this is commonly referred to as "magic," yet Christians eschew magic.  Why is that?

So many religions in the world who all seem to dislike the others and want to do whatever they can to convert everyone else to their religion or belief system.  Well not all of them can be right.  And if they can't all be right, then none are right.

I won't even get into the behavior of Christians because that has nothing to do with god himself, but honestly... their behavior is so unChristian as to be nauseating.  Repressive, uncompromising, prejudice, holier-than-thou, judgemental... and many other adjectives I just don't want to list right now.

Based in part on this information, I decided that man created religion to answer the questions he was unable to answer as sheep-tending nomads.  Now, in the 21st century, we have an abundance of science and research to tell us that the earth is not flat, that the sun doesnt' revolve around the earth, that eating pork won't kill us, that wearing two different clothes won't result in death, and many more answers.  We have grown past the era of supernatural beings in the heavens that create us and guide us.  We know many more facts now.

Bottom line:  You can have your own TRUTH... but you cannot have your own FACTS.  If you choose religion, you may have truth, but you sacrifice facts.

Since you basically summarized many common objections to Christianity and seem to have a response for them, I won't take the time to respond to each point.

My question for you is, if the universe isn't the result of a creator, where did it come from?

Is it logical and factual to think that everything came from nothing? Prove that to me scientifically.

Quote from: "mbell31"Since you basically summarized many common objections to Christianity and seem to have a response for them, I won't take the time to respond to each point.

My question for you is, if the universe isn't the result of a creator, where did it come from?

Is it logical and factual to think that everything came from nothing? Prove that to me scientifically.

1.  Your arguing with the "god of the gaps" argument... that because we don't know for sure (a gap in our knowledge), it must be god.

2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

QuoteConverting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory.

(http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747 (http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747))

As for what I believe, this website presents it in a logical and factual way, almost word for word what I would say:  Creation of a Cosmology:  Big Bang Theory (http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html).  Quarks and atoms swirling, heating up, expanding... not a BANG, but a whoosh of expansion.  A billion years in the making, planets are formed, quarks and atoms form molecules which form bacteria in the goop that is the newborn planet.  From there, evolution.  

All of this has plenty of science to back it up.  The "science" that creationists rely on is faulty at best.  They have the end result "god made the world" and then look for the evidence to shove into that result.  That's not science... science looks at what it finds and determine what it means.  When they find more, they amend what they previously knew to incorporate the new information.  Religion is finite, unchangable, no matter what the earth and its peoples are doing.

If I'm arguing for the "god of the gaps" then you arguing for the "it must be methodological naturalism that explains everything" argument.

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

What is the mechanism for evolution? Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

Quote from: "mbell31"If I'm arguing for the "god of the gaps" then you arguing for the "it must be methodological naturalism that explains everything" argument.

No, I'm coming from a position that has scientific facts which have been peer-reviewed and agreed upon by physicists, biologists, and other science professionals.  There is nothing assumed or mythological or supernatural about any of it.

Quote from: "mbell31"what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Just because it CAN explain everything doesn't mean it DOES explain everything.  Harry Potter explains magic just fine... doesn't make it true.  Many books can explain LOTS of things... palm reading, mind reading, disappearance of objects, zen and such... doesn't make ANY of them true.

Besides, I'm pretty sure I never said thinking a creator designed the universe is silly, but now that you mention it...

Quote from: "mbell31"Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

Did you even READ the article I included?  Based on this question, I'm thinking you didn't.

The bottom line is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE what actually happened and no one ever will because NO ONE was there.  I don't know.  You don't know.  Your pastor and your apologetics professor don't know either.  Like I said, though, there is evidence supporting the big bang event.  There is NO evidence supporting "god did it."

Quote from: "mbell31"What is the mechanism for evolution? Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

The mechanism is survival.  Period.  Those biological structures that can survive their environment continue to evolve to adapt to it and those that don't, die off.  In some instances, like the Galapogos Islands, we can find very similar species on each island that have evolved to adapt to the special needs of their immediate environment.  Science suggests they were all on one island initially but as the land masses moved, the species became spread out and they either adapted through evolution or they died.  Most adapted and thus, a species that has differing characteristics.  The human species is the same.  Look at the shape of the eye and face.  I can expand later, after I finish working and such.  And the Darwin thing, too.

Quote from: "rlrose328"2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

This is false, energy is not a thing, it is a description of the ability to cause change, or do work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)

Quote from: "mbell31"If I'm arguing for the "god of the gaps" then you arguing for the "it must be methodological naturalism that explains everything" argument.

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

I don't mean to get in the middle of this, especially since it's gotten a little strange for a worldview survey (perhaps a mod can separate it into a new thread if everyone else agrees it ought to be), but let me ask you, mbell, just how many times in the whole history of man a supernatural explanation has replaced a working natural one.  I've no reason to believe the primary cause was supernatural, either, but even if it was, all I can say is that we have yet to discover it.  Consider it that you're no longer arguing for the Christian God, but just some arbitrary deist god, just so you can stick on the outside possibility that it's your god.  Under this logic, Brahma is as likely as anyone else to have made the universe.  Heck, I don't know my future, maybe I did it after going back in time, some time after I had achieved godhood by utilizing the awesome power of sand paper and a clavichord.  I think that last one is incredibly unlikely, but if we're only rooting for a creator, and the whole of the supernatural is up for grabs, why not?  After all, it could be anything supernatural, right, even things that only give the appearance of being godlike.  But the main argument is that, so far, every time there's been a gap that a god filled, like moving the sun or making lightning, we've filled the gap with knowledge and killed that god.  It just so happens that some of the religious have now found the ultimate gap for them to put their faith in.

Quote from: "mbell31"What is the mechanism for evolution? Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

*moan*
After I get some sleep...

Quote from: "mbell31"what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Actually it explains nothing. You cannot derive an explanation from an inexplicable. How did god design the universe? What were the mechanisms it employed? Where did it acquire the matter, and energy, and how did it go about forming the universe in the way that it currently appears, and from this, what kind of predictions can you draw about the future physical states of matter and energy in the universe? Where did god come from, and where and how did it acquire its universe designing abilities? What did it do before the universe exists? What is it doing now? What will it do after? What is it composed of? What types of energy does it employ to operate? Etc.  

Saying that god designed the universe explains exactly nothing, and offers exactly zero information about the universe. Especially since no information is known about god, what it is, where it came from, how it does things, what is consists of, and all of the things we would need to know about it in order for it to serve as an answer to any questions about the physical state of affairs of the universe.

QuoteWhat is the mechanism for evolution?

Natural and sexual selective processes, spontaneous genetic mutation, genetic drift, and other known mechanisms, as well as likely some unknown ones.

QuoteWhy did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

Go visit a natural history museum.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "rlrose328"2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

This is false, energy is not a thing, it is a description of the ability to cause change, or do work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)

Thank you... I know my understanding isn't complete.  I appreciate your pointing me to further info.  

(I did say that energy is not something physical... that's basically what I meant.  I could have worded it better though.)

Quote from: "rlrose328"Most adapted and thus, a species that has differing characteristics.  The human species is the same.  Look at the shape of the eye and face.  I can expand later, after I finish working and such.  And the Darwin thing, too.

Continued from above...

People in different climates developed far differing facial features based on where their clan happened to live.  For example, when natives cross the Bering Strait into Asia, there was much more sand than they were used to... in time, their genes evolved to create narrower eyes to protect them from the sand.  The natives in the northern regions have flatter noses in order to keep the air they breathe warmer in their nostrils before entering the lungs.  This is evolution.

The interesting thing is... this doesn't preclude a creator at all.  Once the people were ON the earth, they moved around on the land and their genes had to adapt to protect them from the differing climates and conditions.  That's evolution.  And it has nothing to do with creation or HOW we got here, just what happened as time passed and people moved.  My mother, who graduated Magna Cum Laude from a major California university but is a very ardent Christian, believes this to be true.  God created it but she acknowledges there is far too much evidence for evolution to discount it as scientific hokum.

As for your supposed quote from Darwin ("Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...), I'm looking for that and can't find it.  Do you have a link to it so I can research it?  Thanks.

EDITED TO ADD:
If you're talking about transitional fossils... there are plenty to be found.  Please do unbiased research here:
Live Science - Fossils Reveal Truth about Darwin's Theory (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090211-transitional-fossils.html)

There is plenty of information on this site to satisfy your curiosity.

Quote from: "mbell31"what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

Where did the creator come from? It would explain everything except where he came from, why he created anything, his attributes, his identity, his motivations etc etc etc

Let's assume god exists, what created him? Nothing?

That "god always existed " rubbish does not fly with me as its not an explanation, its a guess, and a lousy one at that.

Edit; Sigh, should have read Hitsumei's post first, redundant.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "rlrose328"2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

This is false, energy is not a thing, it is a description of the ability to cause change, or do work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)

Thank you... I know my understanding isn't complete.  I appreciate your pointing me to further info.  

(I did say that energy is not something physical... that's basically what I meant.  I could have worded it better though.)

Energy is not a thing at all, physical or otherwise. It is a description of the ability of physical things to do work, or cause change. It is true that something coming from nothing in physics is not outlandish, and definitely not considered impossible, but the reason for this is because there can be negative matter and energy, and it just so happens that if you add up the total amount of positive and negative matter and energy in the universe, you get zero.

It could be said that the universe is a whole lot of organized and chaotic nothing.

What you suggest about the universe having been created from nothing by converting energy into matter is faulty however, as the conservation of matter and energy means that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is static, and does not change over time. What is described in your quote is photonic energy being used by to destruction of particles to form new particles. This is however an example of material changing form, and not being fabricated from scratch, the material that is used were in existence at the time, and are merely being converted from one form to another, and not actually being created from nothing.

Disagree, energy is physical quantity. Things can have energy, a certain, measurable amount of it in fact. It is just as real as mass, or charge or angular momentum.

Definatley no negative energy, you can't make energy from nothing ( mass energy excluded of course ), you can get a kind of negative mass, but when converted into mass energy, it is really just the same thing, it behaves in the same way as normal mass except for anhilation reactions ( ie, same gravitational field, inertia etc ).

When you refer to things coming of nothing, you really are talking of virtual things, which are are a whole other kettle of fish.

That bit about adding up all the energy and matter and getting zero is completley foreign to me, source?

Quote from: "SSY"Disagree, energy is physical quantity. Things can have energy, a certain, measurable amount of it in fact. It is just as real as mass, or charge or angular momentum.

Clearly you misread me, I never said that energy does not exist, or isn't quantifiable.

QuoteWhen you refer to things coming of nothing, you really are talking of virtual things, which are are a whole other kettle of fish.

No, I'm not.

QuoteThat bit about adding up all the energy and matter and getting zero is completley foreign to me, source?

Don't read Krauss? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ysics-math (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our-universe.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=physics-math)

Who do you like?

That articles is not exactly correct in my estimations.

Calling energy negative and positive is the context of the universes expansions is just that, context. Kinetic and potential energy are the same thing, expressed different ways. They merely act on the universe in different ways. A more correct statement of the situation would be "The total amount of kinetic energy of the expanding componants of the universe is equal to the gravitational potential energy derived from these masses at infinte distance"

The article also assume a flat universe, where as the latest evidence seems instead to suggest an open one. It also disregards a cosmological constant, which is looking more and more likley.

I like who ever I am told to like by the person setting my exams.

Also, the only reactions I know of that produce something from nothing are virtual, which ones were you referring to?

Quote from: "SSY"That articles is not exactly correct in my estimations.

Calling energy negative and positive is the context of the universes expansions is just that, context. Kinetic and potential energy are the same thing, expressed different ways. They merely act on the universe in different ways. A more correct statement of the situation would be "The total amount of kinetic energy of the expanding componants of the universe is equal to the gravitational potential energy derived from these masses at infinte distance"

The article also assume a flat universe, where as the latest evidence seems instead to suggest an open one. It also disregards a cosmological constant, which is looking more and more likley.

I like who ever I am told to like by the person setting my exams.

Also, the only reactions I know of that produce something from nothing are virtual, which ones were you referring to?

You miss the point. I did not say that this was the case, and if you see me address the question "where did the universe come from" directly on the thread "question for atheists" or whatever its name is you'll see that I did not give this as an answer, but said "no clue".

I said that it was not physically impossible for something to come from nothing as is often stated, and not disputed. Whether the theoretical construct turns out to be correct or not is not really important to the point.

This is neither the time nor the place to discuss physics really, and I'm not a physicist, and it sounds like you are one in training, so I am not exactly apt to discuss it with you anyway. I will just be regurgitating things I've read, and if you disagree with their sources, it would require that I have some training in the field to really judge whether you know what you're talking about or not. Physics is not an easy subject.

Hitsumei... thanks for all of the extra information.  My explanation is a very simplified version of what you're talking about, I think.  In layman's terms, if you will.  I'm not smart enough to get into that depth of science, quite frankly, and I should know better than to try to speak scientifically here because I'll almost always be wrong somehow.   :hmm:

Can someone break off this discussion into a new post, please... we've strayed very far from the original survey post.  Thanks!  

Quote from: "mbell31"I am a Christian and I go to a  Christian university and I am conducting some research for my Apologetics class examining various worldviews. I was hoping to hear the answers to these questions from as many non-theists as possible. I posted this about a month and a half ago but I would like more responses if possible. If you would be willing to answer them, I would greatly appreciate it. Your name or anything like that will never be used for anything. Thanks.

1. Do you think there is any universal truth, things that are true regardless of a person's opinion? Why or why not?

2. Do you think that racism is wrong, in other words, hating people simply based on their ethnicity? Why or why not?

3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

4. Do you think morality in America is getting better or getting worse? Why?

5. What do you think is the purpose of life?

6. What do you think happens when a person dies? Why?

7. What is your view of God? What is He like (if you think he exists)?

1: Yes. A triangle has three sides. Rape is immoral. 9 > 2. I think, therefore I am.
2: Wrong? What do you mean "wrong"? Incorrect? Yes. Immoral? No, only actions, not beliefs, can be immoral.
3: No, because they can affect others.
4: You can't really say overall. Some parts get better, some get worse, some stay the same.
5: Who's life? Everyone makes their own purpose.
6: Typically, they go somewhere underground in a box. Or so I hear.

Quote from: "mbell31"3. Do you think it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs or actions? Why or why not?

No, not when you are correct and doing so from a non-hypocritical position.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ficanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F10%2F128347587844687500fail.jpg&hash=da1ae213378a4dbf83dc95fa0d6c06f864e07fce)
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12)