Discussion Board

Of course we don't have that power but if one enters a debate it is because he disagrees with the premise of the other. If he disagrees with it, he is saying that his position is true. If he disagrees with it but has no reason to disagree with it then again, no one should lend an ear to him.

You see, from my perspective of Christianity, I can account for absolutes. In a naturalistic world view absolutes don't exist and if they do, their world view can't account for them. Especially moral absolutes.

IDK if you agree with me or disagree with me with what you posted.
About your nephew, and the bull, that just shows moral relativism. If he put himself in the shoes of everyone present each would hold a different view, matador, the bull, or even the crowd. Obviously on a moral standard the crowd is for it as they wouldnt be sitting there enjoying it. The matador is for it as he wouldnt be in such a position. The bull doesnt get to share his opinion, hence why there are animal activist speaking for the bull.

The activist holds a different moral standard than that of the crowd and that of the matador. But, which is right? The activist fighting for this poor animal being in the twisted hands of cruelty or the matador doing this for the entertainment of the crowd? Is niether right? Then again, its subjective inwhich case according to such a world view niether is wrong.

But if you do agree that there are absolutes, say even in logic, the law of non-contradiction which states, for example, it can't be raining and not raining in the same place, at the same time and in the same sense. Right? You can't be in the parking lot and not in the parking at the same place and in the same sense at the same time. You are either in the parking lot or you arent, you cant be both. It is either raining right now or it isnt, it cant be both. Agree?

So then, if you agree absolutes exist, how is it that the activist can be against bullfighting all the while someone else can be for bullfighting? Is that not a contradiction? You might say, "Well, exactly, its subjective." Inwhich case I will say, then according to the activist's world view it is wrong but in the general sense its okay. He may be against it, but his opinion is of no more authority than that of the matador or the crowd. In a subjective world, morality is relative. The activist has no measuring stick for what is right.

Hence, why I believe in God, the Christian God. I can account for these things, laws of logic, absolute moral standards, and can be against animal cruelty. However, in a world view without God or without the Word of God, a person can't make sense of anything. His morality is subjective. He can tell someone that what they are doing is wrong but he has no basis for it just as the person doing it has no basis for doing it. In a world of no absolute morals, especially ones that cant be accounted for, one without God, morals are up to man inwhich case it can only come down to illusory.

You may argue that morals are absolute because it is for the betterment of society. But from where do you get these absolutes? Better yet, the society might find it fit to get rid of a certain race. It is subjective.

Without God, a human being can't make sense of anything.


EDIT: Let me continue, I said they have no measuring stick for what is right. However, do they? If one feels their morals are better than someone elses, are they not saying there is an absolute standard? (*cough* Word of God *cough*)

An example, If I asked two people what is 2+2? Ofcourse the answer is 4. (that is the absolute) However these two indivuals have something else to say. One says, "Its 5." While the other says, "It's "5000." Which is more right or which is closer to the answer? You'd say the guy who said five because its so much closer to four.

Well, if someone considers their morals to be better than someone else by what standard are they measuring? I say, that any person outside of the Christian world view must borrow from the Christian world view in order to make sense of things and even to argue against it.

Quote- "The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

Just read the following editorial over on the Huffington Post by
Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

"Any suggestion that science and religion are incompatible flies in the face of history, logic, and common sense. Modern science developed in the context of western religious thought, was nurtured in universities first established for religious reasons, and owes some of its greatest discoveries and advances to scientists who themselves were deeply religious. From Roger Bacon, the 13th century Franciscan who pioneered the scientific method, to George Lemaître, the 20th century Belgian priest who first developed a mathematical foundation for the "Big Bang," people of faith have played a key role in advancing scientific understanding.

Given such history, why does the stereotype of incompatibility arise so often in our culture? One reason is that like all stereotypes, it has a basis in fact. All too often, the word "religion" has become identified with those promoting a frankly anti-scientific view of nature and of our place in the natural world. In misguided efforts to find support for doctrines of creation, divine action, and human purpose they have repeatedly opposed and suppressed scientific inquiry. In place of science, they have constructed pseudosciences such as "creationism," "intelligent design," and, in the past, geocentrism, to justify narrow interpretations of scripture or to support specific religious claims.

For years, like my friend Michael Shermer, I've fought against these religiously-motivated efforts to twist, distort, and muzzle science. Being a biologist, I've written books and essays defending evolution, debated the critics of Darwinian theory, and even testified in court on behalf of scientific integrity. So, if religious faith seems to go hand-in-hand with science denial, why not admit that science and God just don't mix? Because it simply isn't true.

Look carefully at modern anti-science movements and you'll see that many of the most important cases of science denial have nothing to do with religion. Industries and even democratically-elected governments have tried to control climate scientists and rewrite their findings when they found them inconvenient. For decades, tobacco companies mounted campaigns of disinformation and junk science to counteract the clear evidence linking cancer and heart disease to smoking. And big pharmaceutical companies have actively covered up scientific studies harmful to their products. Should we take such things to mean that free market capitalism is "incompatible" with science? And if we do, what are we to make of three decades of suppression of the science of genetics within the Soviet Union, all in the name of a leftist ideology? Is socialism incompatible with science too?

Science is a revolutionary activity. It alters our view of nature, and often puts forward profoundly unsettling truths that threaten the status quo. As a result, time and time again, those who feel threatened by the scientific enterprise have tried to restrict, reject, or block the work of science. Sometimes, they have good reason to fear the fruits of science, unrestrained. To be sure, it was religious fervor that led Giordano Bruno to be burned at the stake for his scientific "heresies" in 1600. But we should also remember more recently that it was science, not religion, that gave us eugenics, the atomic bomb, and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

The deeper issue, the only one that really matters in this debate, is whether there is a genuine incompatibility between science and the concept of God. What science surely tells us is that the origins of our universe and the creatures within it are found in natural processes that can be observed and studied. In other words, that our own existence is woven into the very fabric of the natural world. Seen in this light, the human presence is not a mistake of nature or a random accident, but a direct consequence of the characteristics of our universe. To a theist, God is nothing less than the source of the profound rationality of nature. Naturally, a non-believer seeks another reason for that rationality. Yet despite these differences, both can embrace the systematic study of nature in the project we call science. That is the ultimate source of compatibility between science and religion. To be sure, there are and always will be conflicts between science and particular religious sects. But on a personal level -- and I will state this plainly -- it seems to me that any faith that might require the rejection of scientific reason is not a faith worth having.

What do working scientists actually think of the relationship between science and religion? A 2009 study by Elaine Howard Ecklund and Jerry Z. Park concluded that "in contrast to public opinion and scholarly publications most scientists do not perceive there to be a conflict between religion and science." Unlike my friend Michael Shermer, I think that the majority of the scientific community has got this question right. Science and religion are different ways of thinking, to be sure. But to insist that conflict is unavoidable is to ignore the common history of science and religion as well as the reality of scientists who see their vocation as perfectly consistent with their faith."

Kate

Also regarding scientists and faith, consider Sir Isaac Newton:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb12/Sc ... ewton.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

I think this paragraph makes me crazy, especially the first sentence. I keep getting images of Young Frankenstein meets Planet of the Apes. Obviously I've seen too many movies. Have you ever heard of Hanuman?
http://history-of-hinduism.blogspot.com ... y-god.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_o ... _the_world

Have you seen Mel Gibson's Apocalypto? Now, there's a movie.

Yes, I can be weird and annoying, but that doesn't mean I was created by a monkey or God or even a monkey god.

Does it?

What does "the whole evolution concept" mean, anyway?

"But if you do agree that there are absolutes, say even in logic, the law of non-contradiction which states, for example, it can't be raining and not raining in the same place, at the same time and in the same sense. Right? You can't be in the parking lot and not in the parking at the same place and in the same sense at the same time. You are either in the parking lot or you arent, you cant be both. It is either raining right now or it isnt, it cant be both. Agree?"


I don't know. They say laws are meant to be broken, and one of my favorite quotes comes from that blowhard Whitman's Song of Myself:

“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then
I contradict myself
I am large, I contain multitudes.”

Are you a man, or are you a swirling mass of atoms with the appearance of a man? This is interesting:

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-acti ... spx?n=1275

Be true to yourself. Whatever that is.

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” - Isaac Newton

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Yes, be true to yourself that is good advice. Aside from that, about contradiction, that was just plain silly of you.

The link about the mind body connection, in the medical community people would call that the "placebo effect."

Also about that, even in the bible it talks of such things. Though in another way and also in some areas the same, when you pray to God, what does the bible say to do?

Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you. Faith, is belief in the unseen. Someone believes that they are being given the real pill and they arent and yet they get the results as if they had taken the real pill.

I've read abit on the whole sub-conscious mind thing, both for health and also for success. (mainly success)

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

Silly is one of my favorite words. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=silly Funny how its meaning evolved over time from happy and blessed to feeble and foolish. How does something evolve over time, when time doesn't exist?

Shh. Hear that? The universe is listening.

From the link I posted above:
Einstein told us that there is no such thing as time or space - they are your definitions and don´t really exist. Only energy exists. The Chinese have believed for thousands of years that there is no yesterday, and no tomorrow. There is only now, and you with your actions and thoughts.

One man´s problem is another´s opportunity. One man´s slow is another´s fast.

It´s time to open your mind.


We are all contradictions, aren't we? Here's a question: What color is your aura?

Obviously... IT IS possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution... or to not believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I would submit that such absolute dogmatism is what subjects certain Christians (or Mormons, Jains, Muslims etc) to easy refutation of many of their doctrines.

BTW... In all likelihood morality preceeded religion... not the other way around...

"The Church demonstrated the falsity and folly of Darwin's theories by showing that they contradicted the Mosaic account of creation, and now that the theories of Darwin having been fairly established, the Church says that the Mosaic account is true because it is in harmony with Darwin. Now, if it should turn out that Darwin was mistaken, what then?" Robert Green Ingersoll

"The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with torture, with flaying alive, and with burnings. The men who burned their fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies forever." Robert Green Ingersoll

Peace

There are a lot of errors in what you just stated and quoted. I'll point them out for you.

The story of evolution leaves no room for a supernatural Creator. Evolutionary processes are supposed to be purely naturalistic. This means that even the need for a supernatural Creator disappears because it is argued that the natural world can create new and better or more complex creatures by itself. The implication of this is very revealing: evolution means “no God” and if there is no God, then there are no rules—no commandments, no God-given rules which we must obey. We can therefore live our lives as we please, for according to evolutionary philosophy, there is no God to whom we have to give an account. No wonder molecules-to-man evolution is attractive to so many, for it allows them to live as they please. This is called relative morality.

There is a further problem with believing that the Genesis account of creation should be interpreted as an evolutionary account. One of the things that drives evolution is death. Yet the Bible teaches quite clearly that death was introduced into the perfect world as a result of Adam’s sin. Neither human nor animal death existed until this event—both humans and animals were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30 shows that plants are not living creatures, as land and sea creatures, birds, and people are). The original world that God created was death-free, and so evolution could not have occurred before humans were created.

Evolution doesn't fit in a Christian world view and anyone holding to such a view is compromising their faith. As Robert Green Ingersoll
said, the person you quoted, are christians just going to keep changing their view with what science says? When you take science as the authority over scripture you are putting God on trial. If you can't take the Bible as the Word of God then your faith has no foundation.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You said, "in all likelihood morality preceeded religion." However, according to a Christian world view, this is not so. Actually, morality came before humanity. God is love, the bible states. Though a simple argument and there are far better, if God is eternal and created the universe, love came before humanity or even creation. Love is part of morality, is it not? God being Love, morality came before humanity.

Even taking that into consideration, morals have to do with what is right, no? That is to say that morality must have a standard. From where does this standard come? God.

Before religion, for the sake of argument, if someone were to say they're morally better than someone else, is that not to have a standard? A standard to measure themselves with? What is that standard, or what is that absolute standard?

Morality in itself holds that their is a standard. You may say that it is relative or subjective but to hold to such a world view (atheistic) is evil. Then again, evil, in a world view that there is no God doesnt exist. What is evil, to those that dont believe in God? Evil is that which hurts someone, you may say. But what is a person derives pleasure from hurting others? Is good that which gives pleasure?

Survival of the fittest it may come down to, but do you really hold such a world view? Are you truly such a monsterous person? An atheist has no basis for morality. Whether he kicks babies or embraces them, in his world view neither is right or wrong, its subjective. You may say that by consensus morality is made but what if by consensus rape is perfectly fine?

Morality preceeding religion still doesnt negate that morality exists. There are laws of morality given by God in the hearts of men. Yes, men break these laws hence why some, before religion, may say they are more moral than another. But from where does this standard derive? From God. Romans says that God has written the basics of right and wrong on every man’s heart (Romans 1:19,20).

Anyways...

"The story of evolution leaves no room for a supernatural Creator."

Of course it does. Even Christianity has evolved... (originally from its pagan orgins) and continues to do so every day... Think of how Christians acted just 1000 years ago compared to how most act now.

"Though a simple argument and there are far better, if God is eternal and created the universe, love came before humanity or even creation. Love is part of morality, is it not?"

The mental gymnastics required to make sense of the nonsensical are fascinating to observe...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?” Epicurous

"Survival of the fittest it may come down to, but do you really hold such a world view?"

You tell me... since you frame the argument... then answer it yourself.

"You may say that by consensus morality is made but what if by consensus rape is perfectly fine?"

Bit of a reach isn't it? Probably more along the order of a reductio ad absurdum of the Divine Command Theory, for it is absurd to think that such wanton killing, raping, stealing, and torturing could be morally permissible. But then... whatever God says goes. So if God had decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible... and so on...

"An atheist has no basis for morality." ???

Millions of atheists throughout the world would be fascinated by such a statement...

The Divine Command Theory of Ethics has always intrigued me... even when, if not more so when I was a Christian...

Philosophers as diverse as Plato, John Rawls, Moore, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, et al have demonstrated time and time again that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what some would have us believe, then... what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality.

There are many stages in the continuum of moral development. Towards the end as in all things, nature creates very little that is absolutely new... which holds true in the eolution of morality as it does for the evolution of species. It works up again what already exists. This is evolution. Feelings of right and wrong are gradually expanded from two to three to the group to the tribe, from the tribe to the nation, and from the nation to the whole of human society. Even so... each specific zeitgeist has their own moral codes... that which is moral to them but not necessarily elsewhere. "My neighbour" ceases to express itself in relation to those immediately surrounding me, begins to extend to all with whom I have any relations whatsoever. It is that stage we are now entering... and much of the struggle going on in the world is due to the attempts to adapt the feeling already there to its wider environment.

The world is young. It will be interesting to see if civilization will survive those pangs of growth... regardless... the nature of evolution... of the process is unmistakable to those who understand the past... and are able to apply its lessons to the present and the future.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact of morality. No more need for supernaturalism in morality as there is in the arts and sciences. Morality is a natural fact... it is not created by the formulation of "laws" codified by men... Moral feeling creates the moral law... not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God or the supernatural... it has nothing to do with a future life. It derives from the common sense of mankind and is born of the necessities of communal life. What human beings decide to do with this knowledge remains to be seen. Hopefully it will be used to make the world a better place...

While I am absolute in the knowledge that the God of the Bible does not exist... or that there is any entity that cares about the happenings of beings on earth... there could be some entity which sparked the whole shebang... though I doubt it...

But if believing in God brings you and others comfort... and does me no harm nor affects the rights of others... good for you and all the best...

COEXIST...

Morality has no meaning without people. Morality only has meaning when more than one person is around and only when more than one person connects in some way. It's easy to see how people developed morality as a means of surviving with each other. You do not need a supreme being to explain morality or kindness for that matter. These are survival skills sharply honed by interaction with others. I don't take a position on supreme beings and I am open to whatever the reality of life is but it's easy to see how morality can be looked at as something given out or something developed within. Whether there is a god or not, if there is he went through a lot of trouble to make it seem that the universe is quite old and that we were here a very long time. If he did and has his reasons for that I guess in time I will learn why. Till then I am happy watching things unfold.
I am quite happy living in a time where I am not going to be stoned or strung up because I believe that planets revolve around the sun. There were times in mans history where you were not considered worth the dust you walked on if you believed otherwise. Heresy covered a lot of ground and it varied tremendously by the times you were living in. While opinions always varied, what people believed Christianity taught about creation, the universe, slavery, sin, and most everything else has been batted about with one side or another taking the lead during our history. Winners write history and losers are left to the scrap bin of history. This will be true 100 years from now just as it was 100 years ago. How we interact with each other, who and how many we marry can change quickly in a historical sense. I find that it helps to look at most things from a historical viewpoint.
Perhaps this helps us decide what to eat for dinner tonight, perhaps not. This is a set of forums designed to better help people adopt this way of eating. Fighting over religion or lack therof does not. This particular forum is designed to help those that want to link this way of eating to there beliefs. Please do. If you want to fight about whether there is a god or not please don't do it here. There are hundreds of forums that welcome such debate. All we want here is how to get better at McDougaling through any particular religious beliefs you may have. If you don't have any it's probably best to not fight with those that do. It doesn't help anyone get anywhere. This program works whether you believe in a higher power or not. If that belief strengthens your resolve, wonderful. If not believing makes it all better, superb. Fighting makes no one any happier. What's for dinner?
f1jim

True enough Jim. Though while I found the original question perplexing on a food blog... I did not discern any "fighting" over the discussion of same.

"What's for dinner?"

Todays a fasting day... darn it.

True enough. Now we all just have to keep it that way. Just making sure things don't devolve.
f1jim