[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What is an Agnostic? By Khayyam and Bertrand Russell
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Philosophy and Religion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The concept of “misusing” a book or idea is very simple. It means to change the original idea or message that the original author intended. If one changes that original idea, it becomes something else, and the original author then cannot be blamed (or take credit) for what develops


In other words if the Nazis changed or misquoted Nietzsche's words that would by misusing them. Also if they had taken them out of essential context where the meaning would have been the opposite of what he meant,, that would be misuse. So far, I don't see any evidence they did that. Some people have claimed his sister changed or hid some of his works, but Hitler and his colleagues don't seem to have been involved in anything of that nature. So far as I can tell, they used his works in context and exactly as they received them. So far I have not seen that you have offered any evidence to indicate differently.

I think you are probably trying to move back a step farther here. What I understand you to say is that because Nietzsche didn't anitcipate exactly where the trajectory of his ideas could lead, he is not responsible for their effects. Since he didn't realize the breakdown of the moral order which he tried to accomplish would lead to mass murder, he was not responsible. Of course no one can accurately predict what the effect of their words will be over time, so by that standard we could absolve almost everyone from responsible for what they say. Unfortunately if we blind ourselves to the historical consequences of ideas, we are destined to repeat the same mistakes endlessly.

Quote:
I have attempted to repeatedly show the sharp contrast between his beliefs based upon the things he said and how he thought as reflected by his works and that of the Nazis. Given the available facts, I believe that the weight of evidence falls heavily in favor of vindicating Nietzsche of any commonality with the Nazis.


Actually there were many points of commonality not only in ideas but even in the usage of words. Here are some of the places of commonality:
1. Both rejected the Christian God and hated the constraints on their behavior Christian by morality.
2. Both believed in a fixed order to society ruled by an elite and looked on the common people with contempt. For example, Nietzsche praised the caste system in India profusely and indicated that was far superior to the equality in Western Civilization.
3. Both rejected the Christian concept of the equality of people, not because of identical biology but because of spiritual equality.
4. Both rejected the democratic form of government because it was based on the ideas of equality.
5. Both emphasized the rights of the "strong" and the "healthy" over the weak and the sick.
6. Both favored social Darwinism.

There are more, but that should be a good start. Here is a paper written about the connections between Hitler and Nietzsche which I believe is quite balanced and provides facts on both sides of the discussion. However as the author demonstrates, the parallels between Hitler and Nietzsche are many and striking. From my understanding of the author, he would probably agree that some things were misused by the anti-Semite, but in many important ways Hitler was accurately mirroring Nietzsche's philosophy.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

Quote:
The way they tried to brainwash everyone in order to achieve all their goals is exactly what Nietzsche despised and warned us against.


I really haven't found that in Nietzsche's writings. I don't find in Nietzsche a call for human freedom but the exact opposite, a denial that freedom is possible or desirable at all except perhaps for the elites. They are good because they act according to "instincts." I haven't found a call in his writing for a well reasoned morality, just elevate the strong to power and call whatever they do "good." This is why he praised the "blonde" animal so highly. My understanding of Nietzsche could be stated thus "if your instincts make you feel like raping a woman and you have the power to get away with it, that makes it right."

Quote:
If something is flawed, we should speak out against it. The person who speaks out is not however, responsible for providing a better solution. A better solution may come along from another entirely different person. Each person could serve a different purpose. One may bring down a flawed system, while someone else may build a better one.


I'm having trouble following your logic here. Unless you have something better in mind than what is now in existence, you have no way to know that what is now in place is flawed to begin with. You can complain about the system, but logically you can't say that your complaint is logically valid. For example, the Iranians don't like the actions of the Mullah's because they see the freedoms found in Western Civilization and wish to live more like them. The reason the Mullah's demonize the West is because they want to prevent the Iranians from considering alternatives.

Quote:
And Communism, Nazism, and Socialism are not the only alternatives to the traditional Judeo-Christian morality as a form of government. What about a democratic secularism? Or even a secular monarchy? I’m sure that as an American, you are aware that America falls under a democratic secular form of government, and it works very well. And no, I do not consider America to be a part of the “Judeo-Christian morality.” Although I realize that America is a part of western civilization, and that Judeo-Christianity is also a part of the same civilization, the American form of government and Judeo-Christianity are not the same. The rules and law of the land have been intentionally and blatantly created in a way that separates Church and State. That is the biggest genius that made America so great: separation of Church and State. Everything else could fall into place because of this simple concept.


I really agree with you to a large extent here. However, I'm discussing the European version of secularism which is aggressively hostile to religious faith. I admit I did forget to mention a couple of experiments the European secularists have tried in addition to Nazism and Communism; Fascism and an emperor under Napoleon. What they seem to lack is the moral fortitude to support democratic government If the US hadn't interfered all Europeans would probably all be Nazis or Communists right now.

American secularism until recently has been different since it recognizes the importance of religion specifically Judaism and Christianity as guarantees of the moral order which makes the democracy possible. What Americans have discovered is that religions and states are both more healthy when they are separated. Christianity is alive and healthy in America and is dead in Europe. Since Europe has no civilization into which to integrate the emigrants, they are understandably keeping their own culture which will eventually replace the moral vacuum which is Europe. Hence Eurabia will probably be Muslim in the near future and the secularists will find themselves fleeing for their lives. The alternative is that Europe will turn strongly racist and there will be a violent race war in Europe. I suspect we will find both occurring. The Europeans could return to their Judeo-Christian heritage and show he emigrants a better way to live, but that doesn't seem in the cards.

Quote:
Of that I’m sure. But I’d like to know, what Christian government has ever said this? The Nazis at least have an excuse: they were not followers of Christ and Moses. But what about the ones who are supposed to be followers of Christ and Moses? What’s their excuse? And do we need a reminder of the Crusades, the Conquest of England, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch-hunts, etc?


Excellent point. One of the strengths of Jesus' teachings is that they can mold culture as it evolves rather than trapping it in a fixed configuration. What we see over time is a gradual growth into goodness within Western Civilization. Human society can change only gradually as people experiment within the parameters of their belief system and learn more in order to move forward towards justice.

As someone who loves to live in a Western country under Judeo-Christian morality, I believe the positive changes which Western civilization has wrought far outweigh the negatives. To expect perfection to spring out of humanity full born at once is not realistic. Probably we will never reach perfection, but at least we have a model we can strive for. As a people, face new situations, react according to what we think is best at the time and then reflect on them later to see where we could have done better.

Quote:
and yet, it seems that this is what you have done. You have implied that because Nietzsche rejected the “Judeo-Christian morality,” that this fact (among a few other arguments) became the bridge which links Nietzsche and the Nazis. I am simply showing that as you yourself said, such a broad generalization cannot apply.


I have not said anything against other religious or cultural moral systems here. What I have done is to show the lack of any logical basis for a modern moral system among the European secularists. The French thought they had the perfect system until the emigrants showed them just how bankrupt their system is.

Quote:
understand your message entirely, and partly agree with it. As I have previously stated, Nietzsche was an idealist, not a pragmatist. I think he knew it as well. The concepts he spoke of cannot be expected to truly materialize. That’s because they vary too much from the establishment, and people are as a rule very resistant to such a huge change.


I agree with you that Nietzsche probably never realized how influential his writings would be. It was when people actually took what he said literally and began to apply it to real life that the trouble began.

Quote:
I also did not become a “better person,” in the sense of changing my practices. However, the analytical process that his ideas brought about in me improved me in a different way. Like a few other philosophers I have read, he gave me a new perspective with which to view the world. It is this ability which such philosophers instilled in me that I think makes me a “better person.” They enriched my thinking process.


I thing we are in agreement here. I find Nietzsche a very insightful writer who has followed the basic assumptions of the European skeptics to their natural conclusions. Unfortunately the conclusions don't portend well for the future of Europe. For instance, Nietzsche's fascination with Islam is a very good predictor of what is happening in Europe at this very moment.
Quote:

That’s not the theme that I have encountered. The bulk of the literature has pointed to the fact that on a genetic level, race is an illusion. I could refer you to some of this information, if you so desire.


As you know there are differences of opinion on this and I don't completely disagree with you. Darwin himself classified the different races into subspecies category not as separate species. When I was in Africa, I had no trouble telling the Africans apart from those who had come from Europe or India, so clearly race is not an illusion from that standpoint. On the other hand to try to shoehorn everyone into a race is impossible. There is enough mixing of races particularly in the USA that any attempt to rigidly classify people into one race or another is impossible. The same problems occur whenever you try to classify almost anything, at the margins the classification breaks down and become arbitrary.

On the other hand, ignoring race can be harmful. Here are a couple of references which illustrate that point.
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd073002a.html
http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509racemedicine.html

Quote:
Yes, but on an “evolutionary” time scale, humans have not lived in different environments long enough for significant genetic differences to develop. And because of civilization and the ease of migration of humans, this will probably never happen.


From personal experience I can tell you, equatorial Africa in particularly is a very harsh environment in which to live and even today exerts a powerful selective force on individuals. The infant mortality rate in Africa is staggering and can quickly select out genes which don't support survival in that harsh environment. Africa also has many micro habitats which drives genetic diversity in people living in the different regions. Also tribal warfare pits groups of individuals against each other who vary only slightly genetically but enough for the various tribes to recognize them as distinct.

Quote:
The answer would be about 99%. That is also information which came out of the Human Genome Project.

The Human Genome Project is a very interesting piece of work. Ever wonder, when they set out to map “the human genome,” which human’s genome were they mapping? This would be a very valid question, since everyone’s DNA profile is a little different. But, as the project itself revealed, it did not matter which particular human’s DNA was used as the map, because there was such a relatively insignificant difference (0.08%), that any human’s DNA would yield essentially the same result. Again, pointing to the colossal genetic similarity we all share, compared to the minuscule amount that we do not.


As I understand it, you are discussing base pairs which as you pointed out vary at about 1/1000 among individuals. Since each allele is often made up of thousands of base pairs each allele probably has variants unless the function is so critical that it would kill the organism if there were any variation at all. I'm not acquainted with most genes, but of those I'm knowledgeable about, most genes do vary among individuals, indeed that is why sexual recombinations are beneficial to the organism. I believe we are talking about different things here.

Quote:
hate to burst any Christian’s bubble, but first of all, Christians are not the ones who coined this concept. From a historical perspective, as far as I know, the first time such a concept was documented was on the Cyrus Cylinder, in Acheamenid Persia, in the sixth century BC. Allow me to repeat this timing: Sixth Century BC. Second of all, from the way that Christianity and the Christian Church have conducted themselves over the last 2 millennia, I would say that a more correct representation of Christianity’s doctrine would be that “all men are created equal, but some, namely the Christians, are more equal than others.” This concept resonates in all three of the big monotheist religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This was a big recruiting tool of Islam (second only to the sword), that “all men are equal; all Moslem men, that is, of course.” Hence the concept of “brotherhood” of Islam. What a nice, equal, happy family. One large Brady Bunch.


I don't believe I said only Christians believe in equality of mankind. I was quoting Nietzsche who was blasting Christians for that concept. The Muslims clearly share that concept in common with Christians. As Nietzsche pointed out, from a secularist viewpoint, the equality of all men is by no means a foregone conclusion. Indeed Nietzsche specifically rejected that idea.

All groups think their ideas are superior to those of others, if they didn't why would they hold them. The secularist clearly think they have it right and the theists are terribly wrong and bigoted. The nice thing is we don't have to just rely on our own opinions, we can actually see how these ideas work when applied to society. We have societies based on different models for people to examine and choose from. So far as Zoroastrianism and Christianity and Judaism, it certainly appears there are many ideas which are similar in the various religions.

Quote:
I am sad to say that at the time of its production, though, it was a hypocritical document. In the context of 1776, the basic premise of this document was just hot air. Though it served its intended political purpose of independence from the British, its words didn’t take meaning until the addition of the 13th Amendment to the US constitution in 1865. For 89 years, the DI was a piece of mockery. It took a civil war, the death of some half a million people, and a new constitutional amendment to finally turn the DI into the solid statement that it should have always been.


I don't see it as hypocritical at all. It was clearly the will of the founders to end slavery eventually although politically it was impossible to do at the time. This document served as a guiding light which gradually opened the way for changes in society which made this equality possible. It takes time for ideas which call for such wrenching changes to be embraced by society. The challenge for those who dismiss the founding fathers because they didn't live up to their ideals perfectly is for them to show that they themselves are better men than the founders and are doing better today than the founders did then.

Quote:
Consciousness is entirely explained by DNA. It is simple logic, that if A lies entirely within the realm of B, and B lies entirely within the realm of C, that A lies entirely within the realm of C.

A (consciousness) lies entirely within the realm of B (the brain), which lies entirely within the realm of C (DNA). Therefore, consciousness lies entirely within the realm of DNA.

The beginning (DNA), and the end result (consciousness) are plainly visible. Where the mystery lies is the middle part, the process by which DNA ultimately leads to consciousness.


So far, I've yet to see a good explanation for consciousness. It is still a mystery. What you are doing is assuming that each factor lies entirely in the realm of the other. Clearly if we accept your assumptions, then we arrive at your conclusion. That is were the rub comes in.

To understand consciousness we have mapped the brain into regions with various functions. As time goes on we have become better at defining each region although we now understand that this organization is actually quite plastic particularly in young children. What we don't know is how these regions combine to create the individual. You can get to certain point dividing the brain into parts and then you hit a wall.

Quote:
Do Jews, Christians, and Moslems not view the Old Testament, Bible, and Quran as “the words of God, conveyed to us by the messengers of God?” Are these texts to be viewed as metaphors, or the actual intended word of God? Because if memory serves me right, I recall these words appearing in all of these sacred texts. In fact, the literal “heaven and hell” are the major motivators of all three of these religions. Major rewards, or major punishments; the premise of all three.

Why would God give us a sacred text, a book of “his rules and recommendations,” yet fill it with metaphors instead of telling us exactly what he wants of us? Is he playing games with us? I have yet to encounter an instruction manual or a human legal document which has any metaphors in it. In fact, all good instruction manuals and legal documents take painstaking efforts to word themselves in an unambiguous way as possible.

If the sacred texts do have metaphors in them, that could create a lot of confusion. How are we to know which parts are literal, and which parts a metaphor? Are the ten commandments then also a metaphor? Are we to take them literally, or view them as “metaphorical rules of conduct.” Perhaps that is the case. When God says “Thou Shall Not Kill,” what he metaphorically means is “don’t kill most of the time; at least not nilly willy; wait till I tell you to kill; those who don’t believe in me obviously need to be killed; but, I can’t do it myself; I need you to do it for me; …so be a nice little believer and run along…and what were we talking about?..oh, yeah, remember, thou shall not kill.”


I really can't talk for Islam since I don't understand it that well. I do know the Jews use the Oral Torah to modify their understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, so even the most conservative don't really take things so literally as one would suppose. There is some difference between Catholics and Protestants so I can only answer from my own experience. Most of the Christians I know recognize that much of the Bible is metaphor even the most conservative. So from the viewpoint of a Christian, the question is whether the particular concept in question is literal or metaphor. Although I haven't asked them, the conservative Christians I know would probably say they are a mixture of both. How we act on this earth does have influence on our moral status in the next life, but the descriptions in the Bible are teaching aids not a literal description of heaven or hell.

The Bible was written for people at various stages of spiritual development, so clearly it must contain concrete instructions for those who are at lower levels of development. As we progress spiritually, we learn the principles of righteousness and concrete examples become less important. This same phenomena can be found in many branches of human learning. You start out with concrete simple instructions and then as one masters those ideas they move on to more advanced concepts.

Quote:
Another reasonable deduction would be that because they showed empathy to their fellow members, they had at least a very basic sense of morality. So I ask again, did they posses a “spirit,” and what happened to their spirits?


If they had spirits, then one would naturally expect that they went back to God who gave them the spirits.

Quote:
So, even though he is the same creature, the same exact species as us, does he not have a soul, a spirit? And if he did have a spirit, what happened to it?


I'm beginning to think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

Quote:
If Christians define the presence of a spirit and its potential afterlife by the ability to “construct a moral system of thought,” then they are not far removed from the Nazis. If according to Christians, our spirits define us, and those who are unable to form a moral system of thought are devoid of spirit, it follows that certain stroke victims and certain mentally disabled individuals who are unable to have a moral sense are therefore devoid of spirits. And if our spirits define us, what does that say about someone who has no spirit, according to this Christian way of thinking?


I'm quite sure we have misunderstood each other. The question as I understood it was whether there was a heaven or hell for Neanderthal. What I said is that heaven and hell are concepts which are useful in developing a well reasoned moral system. The idea that what we do now will affect us spiritually not only in this life but also in the next life is an important concept in moving into a higher state of spiritual development. What that has to with the Nazis is beyond me.

Quote:
Contradictions indeed. Bingo, my friend, Bingo!


Not everyone will interpret the Bible in the same way and I don't judge those who take hell as a literal place of actual literal burning. To my thinking, ever burning hell is a contradiction with the clearly stated Biblical idea that God is love and I can't understand the viewpoint of those who take the opposite position. However, I know there are those who may not view those as contradictory as I do. Since most of the images of hell come from popular culture, not from the Bible, that is really not a significant difficulty from my perspective. A few years ago I did quite a thorough study of the Biblical position about hell and arrived at my present position based on my exegesis of the Bible itself. My position is in no way a negation of the Bible but reflects my own understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So far as I can tell, they used his works in context and exactly as they received them. So far I have not seen that you have offered any evidence to indicate differently.


I believe I have made this point adequately, that Nietzsche’s philosophy was quite different than the Nazis.

I will repeat:

Quote:
Nietzsche himself would have been disgusted if he was alive to see that his brilliant work was twisted to promote Nazism, something that Nietzsche would have surely hated. Here’s why:

- Nietzsche mistrusted Nationalism. He viewed nationalism as the cloak that many evil people and deeds hide behind. He would have completely opposed any idea of German Nationalism, the cornerstone of Nazi ideology. In fact, he did so during his lifetime. He said: “Nationalism is desolating the German spirit by making it vain and that is, moreover, petty politics.”

- Nietzsche despised Socialism. He said “How ludicrous I find the socialists, with their nonsensical optimism concerning the "good man," who is waiting to appear from behind the scenes if only one would abolish the old "order" and set all the "natural drives" free.” He would have ridiculed the Nazi Socialistic Ideology.

- Nietzsche loathed “The Masses,” or “The Mobs.” Nietzsche generally opposed anything on which a great number of people agreed. He was very suspicious of the social hysteria that was gaining momentum in Europe. And if the Nazis' rise to power, and their rallies, parades, and speeches were not the result of “mob mentality,” then I don’t know what “mob mentality” is. He said: “One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. "Good" is no longer good when one's neighbor mouths it. And how should there be a "common good"! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and in brief, all that is rare for the rare.”

- Nietzsche was NOT an anti-Semite. He said: “"Admit no more Jews! And especially close the doors to the east (and also to Austria)!" thus commands the instinct of a people whose type is still weak and indefinite, so it could easily be blurred or extinguished by a stronger race. The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions.” - In fact, the mass hysteria and prejudicial suspicion with which certain "groups" were viewing others in Europe at the turn of the century was exactly what Nietzsche warned us about.


Here is an article that gives a short yet good synopsis of Nietzsche’s life and works.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books?020408crbo_books

From it I quote certain highlights:

Quote:
Friedrich Nietzsche…collapsed in a Turin street just a few weeks later, after throwing his arms around a carriage horse to prevent the poor beast from being whipped. He was carried back to his hotel, where he began to shout and sing senselessly; he did not recover his reason again.

Hitler wouldn't have needed to read anything that Nietzsche wrote in order to assert a version of the "Nietzschean" ideas that were claimed by virtually every extreme of German political culture in the decades after the First World War.

By the early twenties, crusaders for left-wing causes ranging from socialism to feminism had found in Nietzsche a thrilling incitement to "push whatever is falling,"

Then, as postwar crises propelled Germany ever farther to the right and into policies of racist hatred, readers increasingly drew a different sort of inspiration from the same books—sometimes from the same phrases. Notions of the "will to power" and the Übermensch, burdened with meanings never intended by an author who reserved his greatest contempt for anti-Semites, made Nietzsche the philosopher king of the Nazi state.
Perhaps it was simply "the clumsiest of all misunderstandings," as Thomas Mann wrote in 1947, that the works of this politically naïve and wholly spiritual figure somehow justified the Nazi assault on civilization.

Thanks to his scornful rejection of systematic thinking and a style that makes substantial use of irony, ellipsis, and the riddling wisdom of a Shakespearean clown, his books have notoriously meant what his readers have wanted them to mean. In recent decades, there have been as many Nietzsches as there have been intellectual movements: existentialist, deconstructionist, postmodernist.

Nietzsche was furious when some of his ideas caused the rising anti-Semitic press to take him for a supporter. After his break with Wagner, he was consistently outspoken in his praise of contemporary Jewry ("the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe") and in his belief in the benefits of mixing races and of Jewish assimilation in Germany—the benefits to Germans. In "Beyond Good and Evil" (1886), he wrote that, rather than expel the Jews, "it might be useful and fair to expel the anti-Semitic screamers from the country." He was anything but a nationalist; by the turn of the century, his ideal of a citizenry of "good Europeans," transcending all origins, was attracting adherents—among them many Jews—eager to escape the shackles of history and forge their own fates. Nietzsche himself, upon leaving his professorship in Basel, could not bear to go back to Germany; after nearly a decade of travels he returned home only as a blasted, empty shell, when his mother took him out of the clinic, in 1890

Perhaps the most important question about the influence of the life on the work is how much Nietzsche's ideas may be understood—rather like Freud's—as a response not only to the universal condition but to the specific, extraordinarily repressed conditions of his era. Many critics have complained that Nietzsche offered no new values to put in place of those that he aimed to destroy. Yet it could be argued that his master plan to spring the cultural trap and release the darker instincts—aggression, sex, power—would have not only lent these instincts honest shapes but restored the virtues that had been so long debased by the pretenses of bourgeois life. It is from the most powerful, and those most capable of evil, that Zarathustra demands, "I want the good from you." It is their strength that makes their goodness valuable, because it is freely chosen.
Can goodness, in fact, arise from strength? Would it exist without coercion? This is the experiment from which generations of humanists have backed away; for Nietzsche, however, there was no goodness otherwise. Perhaps he offered no other values because he wanted no others; his task was to scald, scrape, and purify until the good ran true. "The genius of the heart," Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," "divines the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness and sweet spirituality under thick and opaque ice." Nietzsche was, in a sense, killing morality in order to save it.

In fact, Nietzsche confessed to feeling terror at the idea of compassion—a terror of being swamped by the suffering the world contained. At the end, in the Dostoyevskian scene in which he collapsed while trying to protect a horse, this is precisely what seems to have occurred.




Quote:
I'm having trouble following your logic here. Unless you have something better in mind than what is now in existence, you have no way to know that what is now in place is flawed to begin with. You can complain about the system, but logically you can't say that your complaint is logically valid.



Not at all. As I said, something may be flawed, and we may recognize it for its flaws. A necessary requirement is not that we have the answer to the fix. I’ll give you an example. Assume that a construction crew is building a bridge. I walk by and notice a crack on one of its pillars, and I also notice that the crack is getting bigger each day, and the bridge is leaning asymmetrically. I would confidently say that this bridge is flawed. I would not walk on it, nor would I recommend anyone else to do so either. It would be very ridiculous of the engineer in charge to say that because I cannot offer any advice on how to repair or rebuild it, that the bridge is fine. Just because I cannot build a bridge does not mean that my criticism of its structure is invalid.

So you see, just because a fix is not offered, a criticism is not rendered invalid.

Quote:
American secularism until recently has been different since it recognizes the importance of religion specifically Judaism and Christianity as guarantees of the moral order which makes the democracy possible.


I don’t think so. American secularism has nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity. It is based on freedom and justice. Religion is not a requirement to meet those needs of the moral order or democracy. I think that you are making an assumption here. That because the majority of Americans are Judeo-Christians, then their society is also based on that order. I don’t agree with that. Although their religion is very much present on an individual and private basis, it has nothing to do with the American judicial, legislative, and executive system.

Let me quote you Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and later ratified by the US Senate:

“ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”
Quote:
Excellent point. One of the strengths of Jesus' teachings is that they can mold culture as it evolves rather than trapping it in a fixed configuration. What we see over time is a gradual growth into goodness within Western Civilization. Human society can change only gradually as people experiment within the parameters of their belief system and learn more in order to move forward towards justice.

As someone who loves to live in a Western country under Judeo-Christian morality, I believe the positive changes which Western civilization has wrought far outweigh the negatives. To expect perfection to spring out of humanity full born at once is not realistic. Probably we will never reach perfection, but at least we have a model we can strive for.


I’m glad you like where you live, as do I. But make no mistake about it, it’s great because of its secular democracy and justice. Not because of its “Judeo-Christian morality.” I’m sure you live your life based on that morality, and good for you, but it is not the law of the land.

My criticism is not of Western Civilization itself. My criticism is of religion itself. Specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You keep equating my criticism of the latter for the former. Western Civilization and Judeo-Christianity are not the same thing. I know there are commonalities, and this religion exists within mostly Western Civilization. But the civilization itself consists of many more additional parts. Similarly, Islam is not the same as Eastern Civilization.

No, I don’t think anyone expects perfection. And certainly not at any beginning. But I don’t think I am expecting perfection if I criticize Christianity and religion for the crimes it committed against humanity during the Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts, etc. To avoid such insane cruelty, violence, and persecution is not to expect perfection. It is simply to expect a shred of humanity.

I wonder, if the Nazis had won the war, and centuries from now their descendants were criticized for the atrocities of the 20th century, would they use a similar excuse? Would they say that the society they formed initially was not “perfect?” Would they say that their positive contributions were greater than their negative ones? Would they say that they worked towards a gradual growth into goodness? Would they say, “look at us now, we’re not killing anyone anymore because of their religion or beliefs!” Would they say that they needed to experiment within the parameters of their belief system, before they could gradually move forward towards justice?

Quote:
On the other hand, ignoring race can be harmful. Here are a couple of references which illustrate that point.
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd073002a.html
http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509racemedicine.html


I completely agree with these references. But they are referring to the medical aspects of race. And of course race is relevant, when seen in the context of a few specific diseases. Of course I am aware of race specific diseases such as Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay Sachs, Thallasemia, and Cystic Fibrosis. Medically, they are very important. But if you put them in the context of the total genes in the human genome, they are quite miniscule, as I pointed out before. These are a handful of genes, compared to the thousands and thousands that are similar. So again, you are showing me the 1% of the glass that is empty.

Let me give you a few references regarding genes and race:

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-teachers-03.htm
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html

Quote:
When I was in Africa, I had no trouble telling the Africans apart from those who had come from Europe or India, so clearly race is not an illusion from that standpoint.


Yes, and when I go to work, I can tell the difference between my friend Bob and my friend John. They are both “white.” That’s because the human brain is capable of distinguishing small differences in physical characteristics to recognize individuals as different, or to subcategorize them into classes or “races.” Of course, those small differences in a few physical characteristics do exist. But again, when you compare the entire human being to another, the similarities completely overwhelm the differences.

“"If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of .01 percent." Dr. Harold Freeman Hospital executive and surgeon who has studied the issue of biology and race.” From the last reference I gave you.

Quote:
As I understand it, you are discussing base pairs which as you pointed out vary at about 1/1000 among individuals. Since each allele is often made up of thousands of base pairs each allele probably has variants unless the function is so critical that it would kill the organism if there were any variation at all. I'm not acquainted with most genes, but of those I'm knowledgeable about, most genes do vary among individuals, indeed that is why sexual recombinations are beneficial to the organism. I believe we are talking about different things here.


Actually, no, we are not talking about different things. I was referring to base pairs when I said they vary on the order of less than 1%. But in fact, the point is also valid in regards to the genes themselves as well. Our genes vary very little between each other, on the order of about 1%. The total number of genes that vary between two people are in the neighborhood of hundreds, whereas the total number of genes that we possess in common are in the neighborhood of tens of thousands.


Quote:

Quote:
I am sad to say that at the time of its production, though, it was a hypocritical document. In the context of 1776, the basic premise of this document was just hot air. Though it served its intended political purpose of independence from the British, its words didn’t take meaning until the addition of the 13th Amendment to the US constitution in 1865. For 89 years, the DI was a piece of mockery. It took a civil war, the death of some half a million people, and a new constitutional amendment to finally turn the DI into the solid statement that it should have always been.


I don't see it as hypocritical at all. It was clearly the will of the founders to end slavery eventually although politically it was impossible to do at the time. This document served as a guiding light which gradually opened the way for changes in society which made this equality possible. It takes time for ideas which call for such wrenching changes to be embraced by society.


How was it the will of the founders to end slavery eventually? Did they say: “Hey, let’s end slavery, because all men are equal?” No, sure not. Did they even hint that they were against slavery, by at least freeing their own personal slaves as an example? They didn’t even have to go so far as to declare war on slavery, as long as at least they made a statement that slavery is wrong, by refusing to personally have slaves. That would not have been hard to do. That was certainly not “impossible.”

I’m afraid that they used the concept of “equality” to serve their own means. In order to justify their independence.

It was “politically possible” for them to defy the major super power of the time, the British Empire, and get away with it. It was possible for them to fight a war with this giant, and win. You’re telling me it wasn’t possible to defy slavery, an obviously greater travesty and injustice than any imposed by the English Crown?

I say again, that the concept of “equality” was invoked because it was convenient to achieve their goals of independence, whereas the goal of abolishing slavery had no real benefit to them; in fact it would have been harmful.

These are not just my views. I invite you to ask any African-American what they think of the circumstances of the historical events surrounding the Declaration of Independence. I can tell you that every one of them I have talked to about it thinks of the DI as a mockery as well.

It’s a very simple question. One that even any adolescent would wonder, as I did. How can a slave owner justify his actions for the desire of independence by invoking the concept of “all men are created equal?” Is that not the most obvious and blatant form of hypocrisy? I’ve heard many responses, one of them being “because it was politically impossible.” None of these answers have been solid or acceptable. And that’s because no one is able to make an obvious injustice and hypocrisy look just, no matter how hard they try. Garbage smells bad, no matter how much perfume one puts on top of it.

Quote:
The challenge for those who dismiss the founding fathers because they didn't live up to their ideals perfectly is for them to show that they themselves are better men than the founders and are doing better today than the founders did then.


I never dismissed the founding fathers. I actually have very high regards for them. Many of them, Jefferson included, were geniuses. And their contribution to this country is immeasurable. Much credit must be given to them, as they deserve.

But I think that criticism in this one aspect is very much also deserved. The aspect of slave owners invoking the concept of “all men are created equal” as the premise of a Declaration of Independence. I think this is the biggest (if not the only) incongruency of their legacy. This concept has always bothered me, as it has a countless number of historians.

As far as meeting your “challenge,” well I think everyone meets it easily. I know I don’t own any slaves. Do you? I think in that sense, we are all better than the founding fathers.

Quote:
So far, I've yet to see a good explanation for consciousness. It is still a mystery. What you are doing is assuming that each factor lies entirely in the realm of the other.


I never attempted to explain consciousness itself. I know it is a mystery. I have only shown that consciousness depends entirely on the brain. And that the brain depends entirely on DNA. These are very simple concepts, based on fact, not assumptions. Any biologist will agree with these statements.

DNA is the blueprint, or “instruction manual” for everything in our bodies. Why is the brain any different?

Quote:
To understand consciousness we have mapped the brain into regions with various functions. As time goes on we have become better at defining each region although we now understand that this organization is actually quite plastic particularly in young children. What we don't know is how these regions combine to create the individual. You can get to certain point dividing the brain into parts and then you hit a wall.


Yes, you are pointing out that we still don’t know “how” consciousness forms; the mechanisms. I’ve said the same thing. Which part of the brain is responsible for it, and how the different parts interact are unknown. But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. I’m just saying that somehow, it is the brain that’s responsible for consciousness. Do you agree that the brain is responsible for consciousness, granted we don’t know the mechanism by which it does so?

And do you agree that the brain forms as it does because of the genetic blueprint, the DNA?

Quote:
Most of the Christians I know recognize that much of the Bible is metaphor even the most conservative. So from the viewpoint of a Christian, the question is whether the particular concept in question is literal or metaphor.


I doubt that. Most of the Christians I know don’t see the Bible as a “metaphor.” As well they shouldn’t. If you want to believe in something, believe it as it was meant to be believed.

What Americans Believe: (From a US News Poll 1/31/00)

Is there a Hell?

Yes 64%
No 25%
Don't know 9%
Refused 2%
And that included ALL Americans, including Atheists. Etc. So the “yes” response if we ask just the Christians is obviously much higher.

How are we to know what God wants? How does God expect us to know what he wants, and holds us to that standard, if he won’t tell us. Are we to guess?

And how did God tell us his desires and expectations of us? According to the theists, via his prophets and messengers, of course. Are we to take the words of his prophets as metaphors? Metaphors can be misunderstood and confused. Who is to say which parts are metaphors, and which literal?

The guidance that is therefore given to us by God would thus be greatly confused and not followed correctly. And can we be faulted by God if we didn’t understand his metaphors correctly? He clearly has rules and guidelines he wants us to follow. Why be abstract about it? This is contrary to logic.

I think that the concept that the Bible and all other holy scriptures are “metaphors” was created by theists who saw the obvious inconsistencies of these texts. These inconsistencies have continued to grow more and more, as humanity has continued to progress and its knowledge of the world has grown exponentially. So, instead of logically abandoning these scriptures and admitting that the whole concept that they are based upon is a sham, the theists conveniently chose to label many such concepts which were described and promoted by their own “Prophets” as metaphors.

But as I explained, this escape through the explanation of “metaphors” also has inherent flaws in logic.

Quote:
I'm quite sure we have misunderstood each other. The question as I understood it was whether there was a heaven or hell for Neanderthal. What I said is that heaven and hell are concepts which are useful in developing a well reasoned moral system.



Perhaps there actually was a misunderstanding. From what you are saying now, I assume you mean that heaven and hell are concepts that lead to the development of a moral system. If so, I had misunderstood you.

Quote:

I asked:
Quote:
I wonder, how much different is modern man from Homo Habilus, or Homo Erectus, or the Neanderthal? Did they not possess consciousness? From what evidence exists, I think one could make the case that they probably did. We know that Neanderthals, for example, practiced funeral rituals, and they cared for their sick and disabled. Does one practice such acts without consciousness?

If they did have consciousness, or “spirits,” what happened to their spirits? Is there a Neanderthal heaven and hell?


You replied:
It depends upon whether they were moral agents who could construct a moral system of thought.



Do you see that based on the answer you gave previously, to me it meant that whether a heaven and hell exists for a creature depended upon that creature having the ability to be a moral agent, capable of a moral system of thought.

But if you are telling me that you meant the converse, that the concept of heaven and hell are requirements for the development of a moral system of thought, then there was a misunderstanding, and we’ll move on.


You say you don’t believe in the concept of the literal heaven and hell. Very well.
Then what do you think happens to people when they die? Clearly you must believe in some sort of an afterlife if you are Christian. So if not heaven and hell, then where?
If heaven and hell are metaphors, what are they metaphors for?
Is there a reward and punishment system? This is a big concept in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. If you personally don’t believe it, that’s fine. But you have to admit that rewards and punishments are big pillars of all these religions.
So what type of “reward and punishment” system do you believe in?

Quote:
To my thinking, ever burning hell is a contradiction with the clearly stated Biblical idea that God is love and I can't understand the viewpoint of those who take the opposite position. However, I know there are those who may not view those as contradictory as I do. Since most of the images of hell come from popular culture, not from the Bible, that is really not a significant difficulty from my perspective. A few years ago I did quite a thorough study of the Biblical position about hell and arrived at my present position based on my exegesis of the Bible itself. My position is in no way a negation of the Bible but reflects my own understanding of what the Bible actually teaches.


I commend you for trying to analyze and interpret the Bible for yourself. It shows your inquisitive nature. However, I still point to the fact that I see a breakdown in logic when you try to give “metaphorical” meaning to the way God tried to instruct us, as I eluded to in the above paragraphs.

I can’t help but refer to a few statements that I found in a Christian website. A site that obviously disagrees with you and maintains the literal meaning of hell. And I quote:

Quote:
The Bible describes it as weeping (Matt 8:12), wailing (Matt 13:42), gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:50), darkness (Matt 25:30), flames (Luke 16:24), burning (Isa 33:14), torments (Luke 16:23), everlasting punishment! Jesus Christ says in Matthew 25:41, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING FIRE, prepared for the devil and his angels."

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

What could possibly be worth eternity in hell? No wonder Jesus Christ warned so much about hell! No wonder Jesus said in Mark 8:36, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and LOSE HIS OWN SOUL?"

If hell is not real — Jesus Christ was the most deceived man that ever lived!

I’ll challenge anyone to read the words of Jesus Christ and tell me they are the words of a deceived man!

Jesus Christ knew exactly what He was talking about!

Jesus Christ spoke more on hell than any other subject.
Just look at how Jesus described hell:

WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAYS ABOUT HELL!
"fire" Matt 7:19, 13:40, 25:41
"everlasting fire" Matt 18:8, 25:41
"eternal damnation" Mark 3:29
"hell fire" Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47
"damnation" Matt 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
"damnation of hell" Matt 23:33
"resurrection of damnation" John 5:29
"furnace of fire" Matt 13:42, 50
"the fire that never shall be quenched" Mark 9:43, 45
"the fire is not quenched" Mark 9:44, 46, 48
"Where their worm dieth not" Mark 9:44, 46, 48
"wailing and gnashing of teeth" Matt 13:42, 50
"weeping and gnashing of teeth" Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30
"torments" Luke 16:23
"tormented in this flame" Luke 16:24
"place of torment" Luke 16:28
"outer darkness" Matt 8:12, 22:13
"everlasting punishment" Matt 25:46


You scream — "Oh God, why didn’t you warn me?"— but you remember the preacher pleading with you to receive Jesus Christ. You remember reading that gospel tract. You cry — "God don’t you care?" — but you remember John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,. . ." "God is a God of love — He won't allow this", you cry — but you remember John 3:36, ". . . he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

But God is a God of LOVE. . . Why would a GOD OF LOVE send me to hell? Yes, God is a GOD OF LOVE — but God is also a HOLY GOD. A HOLY GOD demands payment for sin. Otherwise God would NOT and could NOT be HOLY.

Because God is holy — sin MUST be condemned. Joshua 24:19 says, ". . he is an HOLY GOD;. . . he will NOT forgive your transgressions nor your sins."


http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Examining what is written by the creators of Christianity, it is difficult indeed to persuade one that such clear descriptions are metaphors.


Jumping completely away from our delightful debate, I wish to convey a different matter. American Visitor, though we disagree on most subjects, and I feel we are arguing for the pleasure of the argument itself, I have grown to regard you as a “pen pall” friend.

And so, I wish you a Merry Christmas. May you have a happy and fulfilling holiday season. You may be puzzled that an atheist would say such a thing. But let me tell you that although I don’t believe in God or Jesus, and I get no religious satisfaction from Christmas, I do get cultural and humanistic satisfaction. We don’t have to be Christians to like Christmas. It gives me yet another chance to celebrate togetherness with my family.

It is very disappointing to see non-Christians waging a war on Christmas. I think we should have better things to do than try to eradicate a fun and joyful practice, even though it is based on a religion we don’t believe in.

And to my compatriots, I wish a happy Yalda.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Here is an article that gives a short yet good synopsis of Nietzsche’s life and works.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books?020408crbo_books


I like the article and agree that it is very insightful. What I see is the authors of the article making a difference between Nietzsche the public personna and the private man. Since I have no way of reading the man's personal life, I can not disagree. Clearly there is much in this article with which we can both agree. They clearly make points you wish to make and they also make exactly the points I have wish to emphasize also.

Quote:
Without the rewards of Heaven or the threats of Hell, without divine example and guidance, what would man not be free to do? Of course, many earlier philosophers and poets and novelists, from Kant to Dostoyevsky to George Eliot, had understood full well this chilling logic, and had sought to forestall the moral consequences of the age's great collapse of faith.


Quote:
Despite the unceasing onslaught that the would-be warrior made on his moral constitution, it would not yield. Perhaps Nietzsche's fatal error, historically speaking, was his assumption that the morality of the civilization that he assaulted was equally indestructible. "Unfortunately," Nietzsche complained of his epoch while looking into his own heart, "man is no longer evil enough."

He did not live to learn otherwise.


Quote:
Heidegger, who was neither to repent nor recant his early Nazi fervor, eventually altered his theological position in one regard. In an interview that he gave long after the war but ordered withheld from publication until his death, he announced that philosophy, after Nietzsche, could offer neither hope nor help for mankind's future. All we can do, he told a startled journalist, is to wait for a god to reappear. "Only a god," he said, "can save us now."


The moral consequences of the collapse of faith in Europe have been truly disasterous and totally unnecessary. It was this collapse which enabled the Nazis to take control of Germany and act without feeling any moral remorse. Nietzsche makes this point about the completely destruction of conscience well in TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS The "improvers" of mankind p.1.
Quote:
"My demand upon the philosopher is known, that he take his stand beyond good and evil and leave the illusion of moral judgment beneath himself. This demand follows from an insight which I was the first to formulate: there are altogether no moral facts. Moral juidgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities...."


When his fellow Germans took him up on this challenge and committed genocide which was completely against the teachings of Judeo-Christian morality, the man who was the originator of this formulation can not escape responsibility. Of course one man alone can not completely destroy an entire culture, it took many others just like him all working together.

One point I think needs to be made is that when Nietzsche used the word "socialism" he was talking about the political movement which was present in his day. The Nazi form of "socialism" was not yet developed.

Quote:
Not at all. As I said, something may be flawed, and we may recognize it for its flaws. A necessary requirement is not that we have the answer to the fix. I’ll give you an example. Assume that a construction crew is building a bridge. I walk by and notice a crack on one of its pillars, and I also notice that the crack is getting bigger each day, and the bridge is leaning asymmetrically. I would confidently say that this bridge is flawed. I would not walk on it, nor would I recommend anyone else to do so either. It would be very ridiculous of the engineer in charge to say that because I cannot offer any advice on how to repair or rebuild it, that the bridge is fine. Just because I cannot build a bridge does not mean that my criticism of its structure is invalid


Before anyone can offer helpful crticism, they have to have some idea of how things should be. In your example, they have to know the crack is not supporsed to be there and will weaken the bridge. If the bridge is well reinforced the crack may be of no concern. One of the problem with the European secularists is they don't appear to have a rational basis for their morality so make changes blindly without regard to how they will affect the function of the society as a whole. The current orthodoxy is that since athiesm doesn't offer any moral guidance, all moral systems are equally valid except of course Judeo-Christian morality.
Quote:
I’m glad you like where you live, as do I. But make no mistake about it, it’s great because of its secular democracy and justice. Not because of its “Judeo-Christian morality.” I’m sure you live your life based on that morality, and good for you, but it is not the law of the land.

My criticism is not of Western Civilization itself. My criticism is of religion itself. Specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You keep equating my criticism of the latter for the former. Western Civilization and Judeo-Christianity are not the same thing. I know there are commonalities, and this religion exists within mostly Western Civilization. But the civilization itself consists of many more additional parts. Similarly, Islam is not the same as Eastern Civilization.


You are correct that Western Civilization is not Christianity or Judiasm and was never intended to be. The founders studied many ideas including the Greek's experiment with democracy before writing our constitution. My point isn't that they are identical, but that Western Civilization would never have happened and can not continue to exist without JudeoChristian morality. The fundamental moral assumptions which define the culture and make our civilization possible were developed within the Christian community. It was the commitment by the Christians to separate church and state which made our government possible.

The specific laws do not and should not be lifted from the Bible, but they are moulded by the beliefs of the citizens who are mostly Christians. For instance I had the following in a previous post.
Quote:
"That everyone as an "immortal soul" has equal rank with everyone else, that in the totality of living beings the "salvation" of every single individual may claim eternal significance, that little prigs and three-quarter-madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes-....The "salvation of the soul"-in plain language: "the world revolves around me."
The poison of the doctrine of " equal rights for all"- it was Christianity that spread it most fundamentally...."THE ANTICHRIST p. 43.

"With this I am at the end and I pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity. I raise against the Christian Church the most terrible of all accusations...The worm of sin, for example: with this distress the church first enriched mankind. The "equality of souls before God," this falsehood, this pretext for the rancor of all the base-minded, this explosive of a concept which eventually became revolution, modern idea, and the principle of decline of the whole order of society-is Christian dynamite...." THE ANTICHRIST p. 62


Although this was used in the context of race preiously, it is a general principle which applies to everyone including people of the same race. What we are discussing here is the profound principle of "equality before the law." This is one of the innovations which make our country what it is. As Nietzsche has pointed out, although it is a secular concept, it is anchored on by the Christian belief in an immortal soul. The secularists can choose to accept the same ideas, but the logical foundation is much weaker. Because of moral ideas such as these, the Christians not only founded our democracy but have also managed to preserve and improve our democracy because of the Christian principles which underlie our society.

Quote:
No, I don’t think anyone expects perfection. And certainly not at any beginning. But I don’t think I am expecting perfection if I criticize Christianity and religion for the crimes it committed against humanity during the Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts, etc. To avoid such insane cruelty, violence, and persecution is not to expect perfection. It is simply to expect a shred of humanity.


Your point is well taken. The difference between a great moral system and one which is destructive is that the great one can practice self criticism and learn from it's mistakes. This self criticism is found throughout the Hebrew Bible and is also found in Christian cultures. Unfortunately, outsiders often exploit the self criticism to nullify the entire moral system itself rather than recognize it for what it is, a necessary part of self evaluation and spiritual growth.

What you have presented is a mixed bag. The Crusades were clearly a war of self defense after many years of agression by Islam and was necessary to preserve Western Civilization. What most Christians who have actually read about the history of the Crusades object to is the times the Crusades went to excess and killed innocent civilions or unnecessarily slaughtered enemies. That the enemies did the same or worse is not the point, since self evalutation tries to see how our side could have done better.

The Crusades were also often used against Christian's who who were considered heritics or threatened the power of the pope at the time when the Catholic church had become very corrupt. Many a reformer went to the stake and were tortured and were burned alive because of their quest for freedom of thought and the right to worship as they believed. To lump all Christians into a homogenious lump and condemn them all is quite a common misunderstanding.

Quote:
I wonder, if the Nazis had won the war, and centuries from now their descendants were criticized for the atrocities of the 20th century, would they use a similar excuse? Would they say that the society they formed initially was not “perfect?” Would they say that their positive contributions were greater than their negative ones? Would they say that they worked towards a gradual growth into goodness? Would they say, “look at us now, we’re not killing anyone anymore because of their religion or beliefs!” Would they say that they needed to experiment within the parameters of their belief system, before they could gradually move forward towards justice?


You are correct, the victors get to write history. I will accept your hypothesis if you can even one statement statement in Hitler's writings similar to this one in the Bible. This is the standard by which all Christians are to judge their own actions.
Quote:
1 Cor 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
NIV


On to the next topic:
Quote:
I completely agree with these references. But they are referring to the medical aspects of race. And of course race is relevant, when seen in the context of a few specific diseases. Of course I am aware of race specific diseases such as Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay Sachs, Thallasemia, and Cystic Fibrosis. Medically, they are very important. But if you put them in the context of the total genes in the human genome, they are quite miniscule, as I pointed out before. These are a handful of genes, compared to the thousands and thousands that are similar. So again, you are showing me the 1% of the glass that is empty.


I love it when secularists try to refute Darwin. In his book Descent of Man Darwin clearly divided man into subspecies by race. He also described the development of many human traits through the struggle for survival between groups. As you know, if there are two identical individuals who are being chased by a lion, even one snp can make the difference between survival and being lion lunch if it affects the speed of muscle twitch. The percentage of differences in the genome don't abolish natural selection since every gene which affects phenotype is subject to selection. However, I can understand why folks would tell everyone that races are an illusion since it saves us from the racism which is inherent in Darwin's theories.

It is actually surprising that different medicines react in a measureably different way in different races. Since many of the medicines are tested on animals first and often have the same effect across species. From now on most medicines will be tested on various racial groups and not just on white males. Once we find differences such as these, the question is not whether racial differences exist, but how extensive are the differences. Some differences are not immediatey obvious such as osteoporosis which is more common in whites and asians than in Africans.

Many diseases other than the ones usually associated with race have a different distribution in groups though for some the environmental risk factors are difficult to separate from the geneti factors.

As I understand it, racism is a natural human reaction to those who are different, exactly as Darwin documented. Because the major races are adapted to different environments, throughout history they have not generally been competitors. Black people couldn't survive well in the far north and white people weren't adapted to live in the heart of Africa. Only recently has science made it possible for races to interact to the extent they now do. Traditionally the conflict has been between neighboring tribes or family groups, also a manifestation of racism. For instance the conflict between the Germans and the Jews could be thought of as tribalism. So was the war between the Tutsies and Hutus in Rwanda. The competition between the Japanese, the Koreans and the Chinese can be considered a manifestation of tribalism. The genetic differences between tribes are clearly less than those between races, but they are still enough to foster genocide among groups such as the groups in Sudan and the tribes in Rwanda.

The way I see things is that Darwinism tells how people act as animals based on natural selection. Since we have brains and can actually plan our own cultures and our own evolution, we aren't trapped in a perpetual cycle of violence like animals are. This is the role of religions and cultures. This is where European intellectuals missed the boat, by tearing down morality and traditions which had evolved over thousands of years to support the advanced cultures which one can find in the more "civilized" parts of the world. Religion has always played a major part in this evolution.

Quote:
Actually, no, we are not talking about different things. I was referring to base pairs when I said they vary on the order of less than 1%. But in fact, the point is also valid in regards to the genes themselves as well. Our genes vary very little between each other, on the order of about 1%. The total number of genes that vary between two people are in the neighborhood of hundreds, whereas the total number of genes that we possess in common are in the neighborhood of tens of thousands.


I have a lot of trouble with this point. I talked too two PHD friends in Biology just to see if I have missed something but they hadn't heard this either. I believe there are about 25000 genes in the human genome each composed of hundreds or thousands of base pairs. It would be amazing indeed if almost all of those genes were identical without any SNP's. Are you positive on this point?

I have quite a few more comments about how this part of the discussion is shaping up but they will have to wait till next time since this post is already getting too long. For instance, the idea that a species can be "young' is difficult for me to understand based on my understanding of Darwin's ideas. Of course this goes back to the argument about how species come about in the first place.

Quote:
How was it the will of the founders to end slavery eventually? Did they say: “Hey, let’s end slavery, because all men are equal?” No, sure not. Did they even hint that they were against slavery, by at least freeing their own personal slaves as an example? They didn’t even have to go so far as to declare war on slavery, as long as at least they made a statement that slavery is wrong, by refusing to personally have slaves. That would not have been hard to do. That was certainly not “impossible.”


I believe the argument is that the founders were hypocrits and therefore are to be discounted. My understanding of what passes for "morality" among antireligious secularists is that there are no absolute standards of morality. Each person picks his own version of right and wrong. If someone picks very high standards than they are judged differently than someone who picks low standards or no standards. Things are right if the individual thinks they are right, whether I agree or not. The exceptions of course are those who set the bar very high for themselves and others. They are attacked as hypocrits.

Of course the founders recognized that slavery was a problem, they weren't stupid. However, they couldn't solve all the problems at one whack. That is just not how human society evolves. The French ignored the American example of gradual change as people developed morally and gave the world the spectacle of the Reign of Terror. The Russian revolution ignored that principle as did the Chinese revolution and the revolution in Cambodia. All those utopian movements ended up killing millions of people and produced almost nothing of value in return. Utopians who are more concerned about theory than with the moral development of people are some of the most dangerous people on earth

The African American community is the victim of the secularists who have encouraged the breakdown of the black family and the destruction of a black culture which helped the blacks survive racism and poverty. The result is there are now more black men in prison than in college. There are reasons for the moral rules which underlie civilization, one of the most important is to enable young males to become productive members of society.

Quote:
I never attempted to explain consciousness itself. I know it is a mystery. I have only shown that consciousness depends entirely on the brain. And that the brain depends entirely on DNA. These are very simple concepts, based on fact, not assumptions. Any biologist will agree with these statements.

DNA is the blueprint, or “instruction manual” for everything in our bodies. Why is the brain any different?


The question is whether materialism can explain consciousness adequately. For instance, is Deep Blue conscious? Here is a computer which defeated Kasparov who may be the best chess player ever to live. It is clearly highly organized, is it conscious?

Are the componants of the brain conscious? When I eat my breakfast in the morning is my food conscious? (No I don't eat live insects like some Africans do.) If the atoms in the brain aren't conscious, where does this mysterious phenomena come from? Some people have postulated that consciousness is an inherent property of matter so that all matter is conscious to some degree. The old mechanistic model of consciousness doesn't seem to get us very far.

Quote:
And do you agree that the brain forms as it does because of the genetic blueprint, the DNA?


Yes and no. The DNA certainly has a lot to do with it but so does environment. The brain is extremely plastic during development. Let me give you an example, people who are born without a corpus callosum are often surprisingly normal. Some wags have postulated that the real function of the corpus callosum is to hold the two sides of the brain together. However if you cut the corpus callosum in an adult you get subtle but measureable changes in brain function.

Quote:
I doubt that. Most of the Christians I know don’t see the Bible as a “metaphor.” As well they shouldn’t. If you want to believe in something, believe it as it was meant to be believed.

What Americans Believe: (From a US News Poll 1/31/00)

Is there a Hell?

Yes 64%
No 25%
Don't know 9%
Refused 2%
And that included ALL Americans, including Atheists. Etc. So the “yes” response if we ask just the Christians is obviously much higher.

How are we to know what God wants? How does God expect us to know what he wants, and holds us to that standard, if he won’t tell us. Are we to guess?


That is not what I meant to say. I don't know any Christians who believe the entire Bible is a metaphor. However, that the Bible contains metaphors is almost universally recognized among Christians. Jesus often spoke in parables which are metaphors. When you are discussing things which no human has experienced such as "heaven" and "hell" those things have to be phrased in metaphorical language.

If someone asked me if I believe in heaven and hell, I would say yes. The issue is exactly what is heaven and what is hell. I understand them to refer to a state of spiritual existence and not necessarily physical places. As I read it, the New Testament teaches that at the second comming this earth will be our home in a restored cleansed state. However, those are just postulations since none of us have ever experienced the future yet.

Quote:
And how did God tell us his desires and expectations of us? According to the theists, via his prophets and messengers, of course. Are we to take the words of his prophets as metaphors? Metaphors can be misunderstood and confused. Who is to say which parts are metaphors, and which literal?


No one can say exactly how to interpret the Bible. The pope speaks for the Catholic people but most Catholics I know are quite an independent people who think for themselves. For Protestants there are also many variations of beliefs. This is exactly how things should be since each person has had different life experiences and will understand things somewhat differently.

I think most people take the Bible literally unless the context clearly indicatess it is not literal. When one reads books like Daniel and Revelation those books are clearly not to be understood literally. Also descriptions of heaven are by their very nature metaphorical. We don't have language to adequately describe the transcendant.

I
Quote:
think that the concept that the Bible and all other holy scriptures are “metaphors” was created by theists who saw the obvious inconsistencies of these texts. These inconsistencies have continued to grow more and more, as humanity has continued to progress and its knowledge of the world has grown exponentially. So, instead of logically abandoning these scriptures and admitting that the whole concept that they are based upon is a sham, the theists conveniently chose to label many such concepts which were described and promoted by their own “Prophets” as metaphors.


If one believes God dictated the holy books then ofcourse you would be right. If on the other hand one believes as I do that God communicated with the prophets and they expressed the communication in their own language and with their own understanding then there is no reason to be concerned with "contradictions." I personally view the Bible as a record of mans evolving understanding of God, so I don't expect the same understanding in the older parts of the Bible as in the newer ones. I do understand that understanding of holy books is fundamentally different from what most Muslims hold, but it is very common among Christians.

Quote:
Perhaps there actually was a misunderstanding. From what you are saying now, I assume you mean that heaven and hell are concepts that lead to the development of a moral system. If so, I had misunderstood you.


Absolutely. These are basic concepts found in many moral systems. The Hindus call it carma I believe.

Quote:
You say you don’t believe in the concept of the literal heaven and hell. Very well.
Then what do you think happens to people when they die? Clearly you must believe in some sort of an afterlife if you are Christian. So if not heaven and hell, then where?
If heaven and hell are metaphors, what are they metaphors for?
Is there a reward and punishment system? This is a big concept in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. If you personally don’t believe it, that’s fine. But you have to admit that rewards and punishments are big pillars of all these religions.
So what type of “reward and punishment” system do you believe in?


I believe heaven and hell are real but the descriptions are metaphorical.

I don't believe God tortures people. The suffering which comes on people in the aftter life is self inflicted. If you understand God's character is unconditional love as I do, then the wost thing which could happen to a person is to be "cast into outer darkness" which describes the spiritual state of separation from God. The glory of Heaven is to have perfect spiritual union with God's love regardless of what physical state we will exist in.

Quote:
I can’t help but refer to a few statements that I found in a Christian website. A site that obviously disagrees with you and maintains the literal meaning of hell. And I quote:


Not everyone is at the same stage of spiritual development. Everyone should grow in their understanding over time. It is necessary to have concrete ideas for those who need them but that is not what I see as the more mature understanding of the Bible. Religion is just like any other field of study where people are going to have different understandings of the same topic depending upon their own life experiences and natural inclinations and abilities.

The Bible is written with very simple and concrete concepts for those who need them. As we think and grow, we can move on to a deeper understanding which is not available for those at an earlier stage of life. I don't criticize those who take those things in a realistic manner since that is where they are supposed to be right now. They are usually good kind people who are also working for God as best as they can. Of course I don't presume to have full knowledge of the deeper things of the Bible since it is as deep as God himself. I want to be clear, I consider myself a conservative Christian and take the Bible so seriously I took courses in college in Biblicall Greek so I could understand the New Testament in the original language. However, I am not a "fundamentalist" in the sense that I think the Bible was dictated by God.

Quote:
Jumping completely away from our delightful debate, I wish to convey a different matter. American Visitor, though we disagree on most subjects, and I feel we are arguing for the pleasure of the argument itself, I have grown to regard you as a “pen pall” friend.


I share the same sentiments. I find debating people who disagree with me is often more instructive than talks with those who see things my way.
That is what freedom of speech is all about, sharing ideas.

I wish a happy holidays to you also.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Before anyone can offer helpful crticism, they have to have some idea of how things should be. In your example, they have to know the crack is not supporsed to be there and will weaken the bridge. If the bridge is well reinforced the crack may be of no concern.


To offer criticism, you do have to have an idea of what is acceptable and what is not. My point was just that simple. You contended that to offer criticism, it is a prerequisite to also offer a solution. My example shows that one can offer criticism without having to necessarily offer a solution as well. The criticism is no less valid.

Quote:
The current orthodoxy is that since athiesm doesn't offer any moral guidance, all moral systems are equally valid except of course Judeo-Christian morality.


It is true that atheism offers no moral guidance. And why should it? Atheism is not a substitute moral code. It is only the quest for the truth regarding God’s non-existence. It stops there, and needs not go any further.

The moral system does not need to be intertwined with the existence or non-existence of a supreme entity. I view it as a separate issue. My moral system is based on my sense of humanity and empathy for other humans. I know it is wrong to kill, because I know how I would feel if someone killed my brother or friend. I can thus empathize with my potential victim and his family, and abstain from committing such a crime. I don’t need God to tell me it’s wrong to kill.

And what’s wrong with Judeo-Christian morality? For the most part, not much (though there are some points of contention which I won’t go into right now). I don’t have a problem with its morality. The problem I have is with the religion itself, since to me it is evident that it is based upon a lie – God. It is the hindrance to the truth that I oppose.

Furthermore, I don’t see it as a benign lie. If someone wishes to believe that a giant snowman lives at the north pole, I may just giggle and move on, since it doesn’t bother me. I may get slightly annoyed at this lie, but it ends there. But when this person becomes very adamant about his snowman, and wants to persistently persuade me, the annoyance increases. And when he goes further and tries to persecute others, wages wars, tortures and kills others in the name of that snowman, the annoyance becomes a real threat.

And we know Christianity has done that in the past. And Islam has done it in the past, and continues to do it now.

Quote:
My point isn't that they are identical, but that Western Civilization would never have happened and can not continue to exist without JudeoChristian morality. The fundamental moral assumptions which define the culture and make our civilization possible were developed within the Christian community.


I strongly disagree. Christianity would not have existed without Western civilization, but the converse is not true. Christianity was just a political tool of the Romans, to help better unite their empire. But from there, it took a life on its own, and grew very powerful. Though it was a strong political unifier, it was not an absolute necessity.

Western civilization is a result of the Greco-Roman civilization, which in turn also took many of its roots from the middle eastern civilizations of Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. So the roots of Western civilization and its codes and laws existed long before Christianity appeared.

Quote:
It was the commitment by the Christians to separate church and state which made our government possible.


Rather, it was the commitment by the PEOPLE to separate church and state; despite the Christians. Those people may have incidentally also been Christians, but fortunately their first priority was the institution of a fair and just government, not the church. And fortunately, they had enough sense and experience from the past to realize that the only way to accomplish that goal was through separation of the church from state.

Quote:
principle of "equality before the law." This is one of the innovations which make our country what it is. As Nietzsche has pointed out, although it is a secular concept, it is anchored on by the Christian belief in an immortal soul. The secularists can choose to accept the same ideas, but the logical foundation is much weaker.


I don’t think that the concept of equality is uniquely Christian. Like I said, the concept and laws of equality existed long before Christianity. The logical foundation is also no less weaker in the hands of a secularist. Why would it be weaker? The belief in this life, and our humanity are the best anchors for equality. We don’t need a belief in the soul to realize the concept of equality.

Quote:
Because of moral ideas such as these, the Christians not only founded our democracy but have also managed to preserve and improve our democracy because of the Christian principles which underlie our society.


Christians did not found this democracy. It was founded by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and of the PEOPLE. Not by Christians, for Christians, and of Christians (thank goodness). You are assuming that because those people were also Christians, that somehow Christianity played a big role. It did not.

And like I said, equality, democracy, etc existed long before Christianity.

Quote:
Your point is well taken. The difference between a great moral system and one which is destructive is that the great one can practice self criticism and learn from it's mistakes. This self criticism is found throughout the Hebrew Bible and is also found in Christian cultures. Unfortunately, outsiders often exploit the self criticism to nullify the entire moral system itself rather than recognize it for what it is, a necessary part of self evaluation and spiritual growth.


Well good for the Christians, who have undertaken “self criticism.” But there is a cause for this self criticism. They undertake self criticism, because there are many points of criticism. Just because they have chosen to criticize themselves doesn’t absolve them of their crimes. Nor does it preclude others for also criticizing them.

Quote:
What you have presented is a mixed bag. The Crusades were clearly a war of self defense after many years of agression by Islam and was necessary to preserve Western Civilization.


Please! Self defense?!?

I know full well Islam’s policy of expansion and conquest, and its barbarity. But that was quite irrelevant by the time of the crusades. By then, Islam was on the defensive and quite contained (though not by choice). My friend, the crusades were motivated by corrupt Popes, religious zealotry, and economical greed.

Quote:
What most Christians who have actually read about the history of the Crusades object to is the times the Crusades went to excess and killed innocent civilions or unnecessarily slaughtered enemies.


That they did, my friend. Which proves my point, that Christianity is not just a benign lie. It (and religion in general) is a powerful catalyst that has the potential to unleash devastating fury upon mankind. It has done so, and will continue to do so.

Quote:
The Crusades were also often used against Christian's who who were considered heritics or threatened the power of the pope at the time when the Catholic church had become very corrupt. Many a reformer went to the stake and were tortured and were burned alive because of their quest for freedom of thought and the right to worship as they believed.


Thanks for making my point for me.

Quote:
To lump all Christians into a homogenious lump and condemn them all is quite a common misunderstanding.


I never lumped all Christians together, nor did I condemn them all. Similarly, I don’t lump all Moslems together nor condemn them all. My condemnation is of a concept, religion. Not the individual constituents of that religion. I condemn the concept of religion, because I have seen some (though not all) use it as a motivator to commit terrible deeds. And it is very convenient for them to fall back on “God” as their defense. “God wanted me to do this, destroy that, kill this, torture that…”

Quote:
You are correct, the victors get to write history. I will accept your hypothesis if you can even one statement statement in Hitler's writings similar to this one in the Bible. This is the standard by which all Christians are to judge their own actions.
Quote:
1 Cor 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
NIV


I have never praised Hitler nor defended him. I would never present anything of his in a positive light. And I never meant to compare Jesus with Hitler. And though I agree with you that the victors write history, that was not my point at all.

My point was simply this. That when the followers of a group, be it a religion, nation, or cult, say their predecessors were not “perfect” when they committed crimes against humanity, this does not leave them off the hook. That they cannot defend their cult by saying that “their positive contributions were greater than their negative ones.”

Similarly, as hypothetical future Nazis cannot excuse their crimes because of any positive contributions (which they may have someday made had they won the war), so Christians cannot excuse the crusades, inquisition, etc because of some positive contributions.

Quote:
I love it when secularists try to refute Darwin. In his book Descent of Man Darwin clearly divided man into subspecies by race.


I never refuted Darwin. But just because the foundations of his theories have remained solid and mostly correct doesn’t mean that everything he said was right. It is not an all or none concept. That’s the beauty of science. Theories and hypotheses are presented, and then tested. Some of those may stand the test of time, and be regarded as correct. Others may not, and they get dismissed. But dismissing part of the theory does not make the basic premise incorrect.

I (and the scientific community) obviously don’t agree with his division of man’s subspecies by race. It made good sense at the time, but he did not have the benefit of the knowledge that DNA has shown us. He did not even know what DNA was at that time. DNA has actually shown the basic premise of his theory of evolution to be correct. But it has also shown that he was wrong about the concept of race. That’s science for you.

That’s the difference between science and God. Scientific theories are man made theories, and may be tested with time. They may be proven correct, and held, or incorrect and abandoned. Or, only partially correct, and modified. Since they are the concepts and ideas of ordinary men, there is nothing magical about them. There is no divinity, no ultimate truth or infallibility.

Contrast this to religion. It is based on dogma; an absolute truth as dictated and revealed by God, through his messengers. They cannot be altered and amended with the progress of time without breaking the concept of the infallibility and all-knowing nature of God.

But theists try to reconcile this breakdown by either using the concept of “metaphors” or blaming the messengers of God for errors.

Quote:
It is actually surprising that different medicines react in a measureably different way in different races. Since many of the medicines are tested on animals first and often have the same effect across species. From now on most medicines will be tested on various racial groups and not just on white males. Once we find differences such as these, the question is not whether racial differences exist, but how extensive are the differences.


Again, you are pointing out the exceptions, not the rules. I am aware that there are a few medicines that act differently upon different ethnicities. But for every one such medicine, I could point you to fifty that act the same regardless of ethnicity. So again, is the glass 2% empty, or 98% full?

Quote:
The way I see things is that Darwinism tells how people act as animals based on natural selection. Since we have brains and can actually plan our own cultures and our own evolution, we aren't trapped in a perpetual cycle of violence like animals are. This is the role of religions and cultures.


Hmmm…We aren’t trapped in a perpetual cycle of violence? Humans are less violent than animals? Are you sure?

Animals do commit violence. It is quite common for them. But with only a few exceptions, they resort to violence only to fulfill a basic natural desire to satisfy their hunger and survival. They almost always kill to eat. They don’t wage wars. They don’t kill others because they disagree with them and believe in a different god. They don’t commit genocide. They don’t kill usually just for the pleasure; for the sport.

Man is the only animal that kills for the above reasons. But you are right. That’s where religion and culture fulfill their roles. Culture and civilization are double edged swords. They have bestowed such advancement and improvement upon man. However, they have also built such ideological and material structures that man now has a reason to fight for them. And that results in wars, murder, genocide, etc. that’s the unfortunate side effect of acquiring such intelligence. Man’s intelligence has lead to advancement, culture, religion, civilization. That in turn has provided a motivation for much evil, such as war and murder.

To paraphrase Leonardo da Vinci, who was a great engineer of war machines and weapons, “Man is truly worse than all animals. At least when animals kill, they only do it to eat and survive.”

Quote:
I have a lot of trouble with this point. I talked too two PHD friends in Biology just to see if I have missed something but they hadn't heard this either. I believe there are about 25000 genes in the human genome each composed of hundreds or thousands of base pairs. It would be amazing indeed if almost all of those genes were identical without any SNP's. Are you positive on this point?


Well, I am not a PhD. But I did train and received a BS in the field of biochemistry at UCLA. From what I recall from the teaching I received from the professors of biochemistry and genetics there, this is true.

You are correct that there are approximately 25,000 genes in the human genome, by the latest estimates. I say estimate, because obviously not all the genes are actually known. The process is still ongoing. Previously, it was estimated that there were on the order of 100,000 genes; but more recent research has downgraded this number to between 25,000 and 35,000. And these genes, which actually code for something (a protein) comprise a very small portion of the genome- about 1 to 1.5%. The rest, roughly 99% of our DNA does not appear to code for anything; it appears as nonsense. But although it doesn’t currently serve a function, it could potentially serve an important purpose, or so scientists hypothesize. This is a large reserve of raw DNA in which mutations may occur (and do occur) which may ultimately lead to a functional gene and evolution. This is not to say that existing genes do not mutate, change and evolve. Just that they probably don’t do so to the extent that “nonsense” DNA does.

Now, of the 25,000 to 35,000 genes present, a big portion are known as “housekeeping” genes. These are genes that serve the basic purpose of keeping us alive. And they are quite numerous, because it takes a very large effort to keep an organism alive. For example, these are the genes that encode the enzymes necessary for metabolism, cell structure and repair, homeostasis, and the myriad of functions served by the various organ systems. And once nature solves a problem and finds something that works, it sticks to it. Unless of course there is a large environmental change and stress that forces evolutionary changes. But for the most part, many of these housekeeping functions have not changed much. And thus, a large portion of our genome is similar to other species, depending on how close to us they are to us on an evolutionary scale. And certainly, among different humans, the number of genes that are different and distinguish us from each other are much smaller than the ones that we share in common.

But I think the discussion here is diverging more from the topic at hand, and is turning into a scientifically technical debate. I believe the instigator of this discussion topic was the following issue posed by you. That we are all very different from each other, and that we need God to justify our equality. And I believe you were trying to use DNA as the evidence to prove your point that we are so very different. I don’t think your DNA argument has served your purpose.

But regardless of DNA, why do we need God to realize our humanity, equality, and justice? As I mentioned previously, these concepts existed long before Christianity, and obviously long before anyone even knew of DNA. Why can’t we think for ourselves, realize the virtues of justice and equality through a moral system we form independently from a God? Did morality not exist before Moses and Jesus? Why do we need a God to dictate to us right from wrong? I think we don’t.

You keep referring to science, evolution, and Darwin. I want to know, do you believe Darwin’s theory of evolution to be correct or not? I’m not sure whether you are trying to disprove Darwin or if you are trying to use his theories to back up your points. If you tell me this I can at least try to understand where you are coming from.

Quote:
I believe the argument is that the founders were hypocrits and therefore are to be discounted.


No, I don’t think you paid close attention to my post. I specifically said “I never dismissed the founding fathers. I actually have very high regards for them. Many of them, Jefferson included, were geniuses. And their contribution to this country is immeasurable. Much credit must be given to them, as they deserve.”

How is that discounting them? Not at all.

However, you got the hypocrite part correct. I’m sorry, I wish I didn’t have to give them that label, for it bothers me as much as it bothers you. But I cannot ignore the truth and history. And don’t blame me, it isn’t my fault they acted in a hypocritical manner in regards to equality and slavery. I’m just stating the obvious truth. Again, I have very high regards for them for all their accomplishments. But we have to be honest to ourselves as well as future generations. We have to accept the bad with the good. We have to accept this tarnish along with all the beauty they created.

Quote:
My understanding of what passes for "morality" among antireligious secularists is that there are no absolute standards of morality. Each person picks his own version of right and wrong.


Let me explain something. Atheism is not a dictum of morality or set of codes. It is simply the denial of the existence of God. That’s it. It ends there. It doesn’t instruct us how to live our lives or how to behave. There is no need for it to do that.

Where atheism ends, the journey of the atheist begins. I think each atheist will depart on his or her own individual quest, and the ultimate morality that each arrives at may be somewhat different. So, although some may believe that as you put it “there are no absolute standards of morality and each person picks his own version of right and wrong,” not every atheist will agree.

Personally, I don’t think that way. I think many standards of morality are absolute, and should be minimum requirements of a moral system. I would seek to implement these minimum moral standards whether or not others would agree with them. The difference between me and a theist is that the theist would seek to implement them because “God has decreed it.” I would seek to implement them by appealing to the humanity and reason of my fellow men. I think I would be more successful, by showing them the true virtues because of their virtues themselves, rather than by instilling the fear of God into them, without having truly won them over.

Quote:
The African American community is the victim of the secularists who have encouraged the breakdown of the black family and the destruction of a black culture which helped the blacks survive racism and poverty.


What? How are the secularists destroying black culture?

Quote:
The question is whether materialism can explain consciousness adequately.


I never claimed to be able to explain consciousness. As I said in my prior post, “I never attempted to explain consciousness itself. I know it is a mystery. I have only shown that consciousness depends entirely on the brain. And that the brain depends entirely on DNA.”

But here too, I think we are digressing far from the original point of the argument. The argument over consciousness arose out of the question of heaven and hell. So let’s get back to that.

Quote:
I believe heaven and hell are real but the descriptions are metaphorical.

I don't believe God tortures people. The suffering which comes on people in the aftter life is self inflicted. If you understand God's character is unconditional love as I do, then the wost thing which could happen to a person is to be "cast into outer darkness" which describes the spiritual state of separation from God.


Thank you for your explanation, so that I now better understand you.

So obviously, you do believe in heaven and hell, just not the “torturous hellfire” that others believe. You obviously believe in a reward and punishment system, whereby the actions of a person in this life dictate the destination of that person in the afterlife. Either heaven, if he was “good,” which is union with God, or hell if he was “bad,” which is being “cast into outer darkness,” or separation from God.

Well, although your version of heaven and hell is much milder than that which is held by many others, it still illustrates that there is a reward and punishment based on our actions. From your description and the context you illustrate, I would deduce that your idea of hell, or “being cast into darkness” is an undesirable one, and therefore still a punishment.

So then, if God is complete love, why must he punish us?

Also, let’s go back to the original question and discussion of Neanderthal and pre-historic man, from which this tangential discussion on consciousness arose. The question I was posing was, what happened to their souls? Did they also either join God (your idea of heaven) or go into darkness (your idea of hell)?

This raises an interesting point. By what standard would they be judged? How could they have met God’s expectations or disappointed him, if during their lifetime God had not yet sent his “saviors,” “messengers,” “Messiahs,” etc to show them right from wrong? And if he hadn’t revealed his expectations to these people yet, how could they be faulted for anything they did in their lifetime? It would seem utterly unfair to cast any of them into hell, or darkness. And if none went to hell, but all went to heaven to join God, it seems very unfair to modern man. Because it would seem that pre-historic man got to do whatever he wanted and was guaranteed a ticket to heaven regardless of his actions, while modern man cannot stray, or he will face the hell of utter darkness. Do you see this paradox?

It is the numerous such illogical consequences of God that upon objective consideration point to the inexistence of God.

Quote:
If one believes God dictated the holy books then ofcourse you would be right. If on the other hand one believes as I do that God communicated with the prophets and they expressed the communication in their own language and with their own understanding then there is no reason to be concerned with "contradictions."


It is illogical to think that God wanted his desires and message to be heard by only his messengers. A God which is concerned with humanity would obviously be more interested with what humanity as a whole understands of him and his codes of conduct. “Messengers” are, as the word implies, only mediums to convey the intended message to its intended audience: humanity.

So, how could this omnipotent God not been able to convey his message to his messengers in a way that they could fully understand it, and furthermore endowed them and their audience with the capacity to fully communicate and understand it? It seems that God is very concerned with us realizing the correct path and his code of conduct. Why, when he created man, did he make him in such a way that he would not have the language and capability to understand God fully? Did God err when he created man? Or did God purposely make man incapable of understanding him? Because if he purposely made man as such, in a way God was acting in a self-defeating manner. That makes no sense. Again, another breakdown in logic. Things are not adding up as they should.

Quote:
However, I am not a "fundamentalist" in the sense that I think the Bible was dictated by God.


Well if you don’t think that the Bible was dictated by God, how do you know God and God’s desires? Somehow God must have communicated his code of conduct to you. How did you get that dictum? If it wasn’t done directly by God, through his book, it must have been done by other men. I have trouble with this assumption for reasons I have already explained, namely the illogical manner by which God chose to convey his message to us.

But following your explanation, a different problem arises. If ordinary men are the ones that are communicating with you regarding God and God’s wishes, and God did not dictate the books, what’s so special about these books? They are yet another set of texts, written by yet another set of men, and subject to yet another of man’s errors. How do you know the Bible isn’t completely wrong, completely made up?

I have another question. I question the manner by which God has chosen to communicate with mankind. Why, instead of using a few messengers and prophets, did he not directly communicate with everyone? Especially since there is potential for the message to be degraded or corrupted along its route, as you are implying. If he can communicate with some men (messengers) why not communicate with all men? Why have a middleman? Why show a “burning bush” only to Moses? If he did so, there would never be any doubt to his existence. And it seems God is very concerned that we acknowledge his existence. He has committed a lot of effort and energy to try to convince us. And yet, he cannot undertake this action even once and lay all doubt to rest?
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:32 am    Post subject: What is Agnostic? Reply with quote

Dear American Visitor, Amir and Readers of This Thread,
Thank you for taking your time, sharing your view with readers of ActivistChat and providing valuable important points in this thread to increase our awareness.
Regards,
Cyrus




Last edited by cyrus on Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:09 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
To offer criticism, you do have to have an idea of what is acceptable and what is not. My point was just that simple. You contended that to offer criticism, it is a prerequisite to also offer a solution. My example shows that one can offer criticism without having to necessarily offer a solution as well. The criticism is no less valid.


I agree that anyone can criticize and sometimes it may even help things. On the otherhand indiscriminate criticism can also be very damaging.

Quote:
It is true that atheism offers no moral guidance. And why should it? Atheism is not a substitute moral code. It is only the quest for the truth regarding God’s non-existence. It stops there, and needs not go any further.

The moral system does not need to be intertwined with the existence or non-existence of a supreme entity. I view it as a separate issue. My moral system is based on my sense of humanity and empathy for other humans. I know it is wrong to kill, because I know how I would feel if someone killed my brother or friend. I can thus empathize with my potential victim and his family, and abstain from committing such a crime. I don’t need God to tell me it’s wrong to kill.


As you say, there is no moral guidance in atheism at all, we both agree.

That is precisely the problem in trying to build a culture around athiesm. "You choose your issues and I'll choose mine" and "who is to say you are right and I'm wrong?" It is hard to build a culture or a civilization around that approach. That is the weakness of European secularism and multiculturalism.

Quote:
And what’s wrong with Judeo-Christian morality? For the most part, not much (though there are some points of contention which I won’t go into right now). I don’t have a problem with its morality. The problem I have is with the religion itself, since to me it is evident that it is based upon a lie – God. It is the hindrance to the truth that I oppose.

Furthermore, I don’t see it as a benign lie. If someone wishes to believe that a giant snowman lives at the north pole, I may just giggle and move on, since it doesn’t bother me. I may get slightly annoyed at this lie, but it ends there. But when this person becomes very adamant about his snowman, and wants to persistently persuade me, the annoyance increases. And when he goes further and tries to persecute others, wages wars, tortures and kills others in the name of that snowman, the annoyance becomes a real threat.


My understanding that a "lie" means someone is intentionally deceiving people. In my view, folks who believe in God are no more lying than athiests are lying when they maintain there is no God. They are simply expressing their own belief.

I understand you are saying this discussing is irritating you. In that case, we should stop now. To me, learning other people's viewpoints is very valuable and I appreciate talking to you. But all good things have to end. Thank-you for the stimulating discussion.

Quote:
I strongly disagree. Christianity would not have existed without Western civilization, but the converse is not true. Christianity was just a political tool of the Romans, to help better unite their empire. But from there, it took a life on its own, and grew very powerful. Though it was a strong political unifier, it was not an absolute necessity.

Western civilization is a result of the Greco-Roman civilization, which in turn also took many of its roots from the middle eastern civilizations of Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. So the roots of Western civilization and its codes and laws existed long before Christianity appeared.


I understand you are saying that Christianity had nothing to do with Western Civilization at all. If it weren't for Christianity things would be exactly the same as they are now.

Strange how things work out.

Quote:
Rather, it was the commitment by the PEOPLE to separate church and state; despite the Christians. Those people may have incidentally also been Christians, but fortunately their first priority was the institution of a fair and just government, not the church. And fortunately, they had enough sense and experience from the past to realize that the only way to accomplish that goal was through separation of the church from state.


It appears you are saying it purely an accident of history that this happened in a Christian country. There is nothing in Christian theology to support those ideas of separation of Chruch and State. It was purely an accident of history that those ideas took root in such infertile intellectual soil.

Quote:
I don’t think that the concept of equality is uniquely Christian. Like I said, the concept and laws of equality existed long before Christianity. The logical foundation is also no less weaker in the hands of a secularist. Why would it be weaker? The belief in this life, and our humanity are the best anchors for equality. We don’t need a belief in the soul to realize the concept of equality.


Nietzsche said that, I was quoting him.

Quote:
Christians did not found this democracy. It was founded by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and of the PEOPLE. Not by Christians, for Christians, and of Christians (thank goodness). You are assuming that because those people were also Christians, that somehow Christianity played a big role. It did not.

And like I said, equality, democracy, etc existed long before Christianity.


Could we even go so far as to say that Democracy has been a frequent form of government all over the world forever?

Quote:
Well good for the Christians, who have undertaken “self criticism.” But there is a cause for this self criticism. They undertake self criticism, because there are many points of criticism. Just because they have chosen to criticize themselves doesn’t absolve them of their crimes. Nor does it preclude others for also criticizing them.


OK

Quote:
Please! Self defense?!?

I know full well Islam’s policy of expansion and conquest, and its barbarity. But that was quite irrelevant by the time of the crusades. By then, Islam was on the defensive and quite contained (though not by choice). My friend, the crusades were motivated by corrupt Popes, religious zealotry, and economical greed.


Do I understand correctly? By the time of the Crisades Islam was shrinking back just as it is shrinking back today. The Christians just took it upon themselves to attack the Muslims just because Christians were evil. Islamic territorial conquest was already a thing of the past then and now. Constinanople already a Muslim territory by then living happily under the blessings of Islamic rule.

Quote:
I (and the scientific community) obviously don’t agree with his division of man’s subspecies by race. It made good sense at the time, but he did not have the benefit of the knowledge that DNA has shown us. He did not even know what DNA was at that time. DNA has actually shown the basic premise of his theory of evolution to be correct. But it has also shown that he was wrong about the concept of race. That’s science for you.

That’s the difference between science and God. Scientific theories are man made theories, and may be tested with time. They may be proven correct, and held, or incorrect and abandoned. Or, only partially correct, and modified. Since they are the concepts and ideas of ordinary men, there is nothing magical about them. There is no divinity, no ultimate truth or infallibility.


My only complaint about the teaching of Darwin in public schools is that he is not taught in it's entirety. Every student should be required to read "The Descent of Man" so they can get the full impact of his teachings.

Quote:
Again, you are pointing out the exceptions, not the rules. I am aware that there are a few medicines that act differently upon different ethnicities. But for every one such medicine, I could point you to fifty that act the same regardless of ethnicity. So again, is the glass 2% empty, or 98% full?


Not to continue the discussion, but to clarify, according to my understanding of Darwinism, the only thing that counts is the 2%. Since we are all in a struggle for survival with each other, what we have in common is inconsequential. What makes us different determines whether you or I survive. I believe Malthus' paper about human population and resources explains things quite well. Dawkins calls it the "selfish gene."

Quote:
Man is the only animal that kills for the above reasons. But you are right. That’s where religion and culture fulfill their roles. Culture and civilization are double edged swords. They have bestowed such advancement and improvement upon man. However, they have also built such ideological and material structures that man now has a reason to fight for them. And that results in wars, murder, genocide, etc. that’s the unfortunate side effect of acquiring such intelligence. Man’s intelligence has lead to advancement, culture, religion, civilization. That in turn has provided a motivation for much evil, such as war and murder.

To paraphrase Leonardo da Vinci, who was a great engineer of war machines and weapons, “Man is truly worse than all animals. At least when animals kill, they only do it to eat and survive.”


Man is truly different.

Quote:
You keep referring to science, evolution, and Darwin. I want to know, do you believe Darwin’s theory of evolution to be correct or not? I’m not sure whether you are trying to disprove Darwin or if you are trying to use his theories to back up your points. If you tell me this I can at least try to understand where you are coming from.


I was not trying to best you, but was curious where you got your information. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just I'm not acquainted with it. I realize some genes are quite stable, but with the number of people in existence and the rate of mutations, it is possible that every possible snp which is not lethal is extant in today's population. Although some base pairs are more likely to mutate than others, it would be surprising to me if 99% of our genes are identical. That could happen only if all mutations of those genes are lethal. I was asking a serious question, whether you know that that is indeed the case?

Quote:
However, you got the hypocrite part correct. I’m sorry, I wish I didn’t have to give them that label, for it bothers me as much as it bothers you. But I cannot ignore the truth and history. And don’t blame me, it isn’t my fault they acted in a hypocritical manner in regards to equality and slavery. I’m just stating the obvious truth. Again, I have very high regards for them for all their accomplishments. But we have to be honest to ourselves as well as future generations. We have to accept the bad with the good. We have to accept this tarnish along with all the beauty they created.


Actually my original post was about the declaration of independence.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

We digressed in discussing the character of the founders. What is of interest to me is the thinking of the founders of our nation and how they came to their intellectual positions. It appears they began by "lying" about the "snowman" and indeed much of their thinking was based on the "false teachings" about the "snowman."

Quote:
So then, if God is complete love, why must he punish us?


Good question.

Quote:
Also, let’s go back to the original question and discussion of Neanderthal and pre-historic man, from which this tangential discussion on consciousness arose. The question I was posing was, what happened to their souls? Did they also either join God (your idea of heaven) or go into darkness (your idea of hell)?


Good question.

Quote:
This raises an interesting point. By what standard would they be judged? How could they have met God’s expectations or disappointed him, if during their lifetime God had not yet sent his “saviors,” “messengers,” “Messiahs,” etc to show them right from wrong? And if he hadn’t revealed his expectations to these people yet, how could they be faulted for anything they did in their lifetime? It would seem utterly unfair to cast any of them into hell, or darkness. And if none went to hell, but all went to heaven to join God, it seems very unfair to modern man. Because it would seem that pre-historic man got to do whatever he wanted and was guaranteed a ticket to heaven regardless of his actions, while modern man cannot stray, or he will face the hell of utter darkness. Do you see this paradox?


There is much truth in what you said. The ancients didn't have the ability to destroy the earth as we do today. As more knowledge becomes available, we are responsible to act according to that new knowledge.

Quote:
It is the numerous such illogical consequences of God that upon objective consideration point to the inexistence of God.


OK.

I believe science is a tool which can be used to destroy or to heal. It can be used destructively or constructively. The knowledge how to make those choices, by their very nature, lie beyond science in the moral realm, in the realm of the "snowman." Proper thinking in the moral realm is not just a idle tale, but is important for the survival of humanity. If we get this wrong, there is no turning back.

You have raised many interesting points which I have found very stimulating. Thank-you for the discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As you say, there is no moral guidance in atheism at all, we both agree.

That is precisely the problem in trying to build a culture around athiesm. "You choose your issues and I'll choose mine" and "who is to say you are right and I'm wrong?" It is hard to build a culture or a civilization around that approach. That is the weakness of European secularism and multiculturalism.


You are correct. Atheism offers no moral guidance. Zero, zilch, nada. As I said, it is not to atheism that I look to guide me. It is to logic, my sense of fairness, my sense of justice, and humanity itself. All the moral fibers are present in humanity itself. If one believes as I do that God does not exist, everything that was created, including the moral codes that Judaism and Christianity presented us were man made. So, I think it is inherent in man himself to seek out and realize his sense of morality.

Quote:
My understanding that a "lie" means someone is intentionally deceiving people. In my view, folks who believe in God are no more lying than athiests are lying when they maintain there is no God. They are simply expressing their own belief.


Please accept my apologies if what I was presenting was not done in a clear enough way. I never meant to imply that theists are liars. I agree with you, that they are no more liars than atheists when presenting their beliefs. I realize that theists very genuinely believe in their faith, and are not at all liars. But I can see how you would interpret my comment as me calling theists liars. For my ambiguity in my original post, and the understandable insult you took from it, I offer my apology.

Let me clarify what I meant by “lies.” As an atheist, I obviously am convinced that God does not exist. As such, his original creation by man is to me, a lie. There was a time when God was not in man’s world; followed by a time that he obviously was. I view this transitionary period and the people that caused that transition to be the source of this lie. The original creators of religion.

For me, it is a given that the first people that presented the notion of God were either liars who meant to deceive others, or simply delusional. The ones who claimed to be prophets, and had first hand knowledge of God. The ones who claimed they had spoken to God. Someone like Mohammad, who clearly used the concept of Allah as a passport to wealth, power, and rampage, which was paved also by his delusional schizophrenic mind.

It is the creators of religion I view as liars. Not the followers of religion, such as yourself. I view the followers of religion as the deceived; the victims of a lie. Now I realize that even this comment may not be viewed by you favorably, but please remember that I am just stating my opinion the way I see the truth, and it is not meant to insult anyone. As I accept that many theists view me as a hedonic pagan, who will forever burn in hell. I realize this to be their real opinion, the real way they see things, and don’t say it just to be insulting. As such, though I don’t agree with their opinion, I also take no offense.

Quote:
I understand you are saying this discussing is irritating you. In that case, we should stop now. To me, learning other people's viewpoints is very valuable and I appreciate talking to you. But all good things have to end. Thank-you for the stimulating discussion.


Not at all. Again, I think there was a misunderstanding. The “annoyance” I was trying to convey was the annoyance that I think anyone would feel if faced with what they consider to be falsehood. It was only used in my example of the “imaginary snowman.” I was speaking in general terms, and not at all implying that I was specifically annoyed by our discussion.

Believe me, if someone begins to seriously annoy me, I will simply stop the discussion instead of following up with more posts.

No, my friend, you have not annoyed or irritated me in the least bit. On the contrary, as I was hinting in my prior post, I have grown quite fond of you personally, and have nothing but respect and admiration for you.

It is not often that I find a devout theist who is willing to resort to an open-minded intellectual discussion regarding religion. That you have done so here speaks volumes about your open-mindedness, sense of fairness, and intellect. You are a rare find, and as such I certainly appreciate you.

I have also sincerely appreciated the fact that you have always kept the discussion on an objective level, and avoided resorting to personal attacks. In return, I have tried to repay this courtesy. You are a true gentleman, sir ( I only deduced you are a man by your avatar, so please correct me if I’m wrong).

Quote:
I understand you are saying that Christianity had nothing to do with Western Civilization at all. If it weren't for Christianity things would be exactly the same as they are now.


That might be a bit of an overgeneralization, though mostly correct. Of course to say that Christianity had NOTHING to do with western civilization is an overstatement. Obviously, it had many influences. All I’m saying is that much of western civilization existed independently form Christianity, and much of the concepts of government and morality were in place prior to Christianity. Some of those concepts may have been reinforced by Christianity, however.

Quote:
It appears you are saying it purely an accident of history that this happened in a Christian country. There is nothing in Christian theology to support those ideas of separation of Chruch and State.


No, it was not a complete accident, in the sense that it was just as likely to happen anywhere in the world. For example, I highly doubt it could have happened in any Islamic country, by virtue of islam. But that isn’t to say that it happened in a Christian country BECAUSE it was Christian. So, it could have happened anywhere which had the proper political backdrop and opportunity, as long as a super-menacing tower of islam was absent.

Quote:

Quote:
I don’t think that the concept of equality is uniquely Christian. Like I said, the concept and laws of equality existed long before Christianity. The logical foundation is also no less weaker in the hands of a secularist. Why would it be weaker? The belief in this life, and our humanity are the best anchors for equality. We don’t need a belief in the soul to realize the concept of equality.


Nietzsche said that, I was quoting him.


Though I have defended Nietzsche previously in many respects, as with almost everyone else that I generally admire, I cannot agree with all of his notions. I think he gave Christianity more credit than it deserved. In giving it more credit (or rather negative credit) than it deserved, it also served to demonize it more than it deserved.

However, since you were quoting Nietzsche to make your point, it makes me think that perhaps you agreed with him in this respect…no?

Quote:
Do I understand correctly? By the time of the Crisades Islam was shrinking back just as it is shrinking back today. The Christians just took it upon themselves to attack the Muslims just because Christians were evil. Islamic territorial conquest was already a thing of the past then and now. Constinanople already a Muslim territory by then living happily under the blessings of Islamic rule.


By the 11th and 12th centuries, though islam was not shrinking, it was also not expanding. Yes, the Byzantines felt threatened by the Seljuk turks, and this was the guise by which the crusades were launched. Under the banner of “protection” of Constantinople, the first crusade was launched. But as history clearly showed, the crusades had more to do with conquering the rich lands of Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch than “protecting” Constantinople. In fact, the Byzantines themselves viewed the crusaders as a menace, and feared them as much as the Moslems.

Obviously, Constantinople did not fall until 1453. And it fell not to the Arabs and Seljuks (the recipients of the wrath of the crusades), but to the Ottomans. The Ottomans were a new Turkish tribe that arrived on the scene centuries later, and was as much a menace to Arabs and Seljuks as it was to the Christians of Byzantine.

So how were the Crusades defensive wars? They were completely offensive. But as usual with any war, they were packaged under the propaganda of defense, to justify themselves.

Quote:
My only complaint about the teaching of Darwin in public schools is that he is not taught in it's entirety. Every student should be required to read "The Descent of Man" so they can get the full impact of his teachings


I think the realistic constraints of an educational system preclude the educators from teaching everything in their entirety. There has to be some judgment on how much time and effort to dedicate a subject matter, so that a good educational balance is given to the students. If too much time and energy is diverted to a single topic, other subject matters may suffer.

However, “The Descent of Man” is available for all to read on their own time, who are particularly interested in the matter. As obviously you have done.

Quote:
Actually my original post was about the declaration of independence.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.


Yes, I recall well that the discussion originated with your quote from the DI. But at the risk of repeating myself, I contend that it is somewhat unfair to use the DI as an example of justice and equality, even though the literal document itself points to equality and justice. Because the writers of that document did not truly practice it, and because the nation that this document founded did not truly practice it for many years, we unfortunately cannot refer to the DI as an example of “equality and justice.”

Quote:
We digressed in discussing the character of the founders. What is of interest to me is the thinking of the founders of our nation and how they came to their intellectual positions. It appears they began by "lying" about the "snowman" and indeed much of their thinking was based on the "false teachings" about the "snowman."


I’m sorry, but you lost me there. I don’t understand the link here. The “lies” I was referring to were in relation to the concept of God. And my “snowman” analogy was also related to what I consider an imaginary entity, or God. What’s the link here between the founders and the “false snowman?”

Quote:
I believe science is a tool which can be used to destroy or to heal. It can be used destructively or constructively. The knowledge how to make those choices, by their very nature, lie beyond science in the moral realm, in the realm of the "snowman." Proper thinking in the moral realm is not just a idle tale, but is important for the survival of humanity. If we get this wrong, there is no turning back.


Yes, I completely agree with this assessment. Science has given us the ability to split or fuse the atom. That can be a source of boundless useful energy, used to serve mankind, or boundless explosions, used to devastate mankind. How we use our new found knowledge and powers will have tremendously polar consequences.

As you correctly point out, such choices belong in the moral realm. But after here is where we vary, you and I. You believe that a God needs to guide us to make the correct choices (if I understand you correctly). I, however, think that this guidance from the moral realm must and will come from within (in some ways, similar to what Nietzsche pointed out). That humanity itself, and only humanity itself, is responsible and capable of providing this moral guidance. Because… “God is Dead.”

Quote:
You have raised many interesting points which I have found very stimulating. Thank-you for the discussion.


My dear American Visitor, the feeling is mutual, I assure you. Admittedly, I have found many of your points equally interesting and stimulating. I thank you for approaching this discussion with fairness, intellect, respect, and logic. You have my respect and best wishes.

And to Cyrus, thank you for providing us with this impartial forum, which allows us all to express freely our thoughts and opinions.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I said previously:

Quote:
Man is the only animal that kills for the above reasons. But you are right. That’s where religion and culture fulfill their roles. Culture and civilization are double edged swords. They have bestowed such advancement and improvement upon man. However, they have also built such ideological and material structures that man now has a reason to fight for them. And that results in wars, murder, genocide, etc. that’s the unfortunate side effect of acquiring such intelligence. Man’s intelligence has lead to advancement, culture, religion, civilization. That in turn has provided a motivation for much evil, such as war and murder.


I reminisce the words of John Lennon, from his song Imagine:


Imagine there's no HEAVEN
It's easy if you try
No HELL below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's NO COUNTRIES
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And NO RELIGION too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for GREED or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 3:33 pm    Post subject: Khayyam's View Regarding Good and evil in morality Reply with quote

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Khayyam's View Regarding Good and evil in morality

Source: http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page3.htm



Literal:

Good and evil, our moral prison,
Joy and sorrow passing like season,
Fate in the way of logic and reason
Is the victim of far worse treason.


Meaning:

Joy and sorrow in duality
Good and evil in morality
Are frailties of humanity;
Yet more pronounced is reality.



Fitzgerald:

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to IT for help--for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.



German:

Glaubt nicht, daß alles vom Himmel bestimmt,
Was Gutes und Böses im Menschen glimmt,
Was das Herz betrübt und das Herz erhellt,
Je nachdem es dem launischen Schicksal gefällt
Das Himmelsrad kreist ohne Ruh
Und ist weit schlimmer daran als Du
Im Wirrsal und Getriebe
Auf der Bahn der ewigen Liebe.


Last edited by cyrus on Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:10 pm    Post subject: I would create the world anew Reply with quote

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
How Khayyam Create New World?


Source:

http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page3.htm

Literal:

Like God, if this world I could control
Eliminating the world would be my role
I would create the world anew, whole
Such that the free soul would attain desired goal.

Meaning:
The tyranny of fate is such
Whether we try little or much
Our desires we’ll only touch
With the help of faith’s crutch.

Fitzgerald:
Ah, Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire!
Would not we shatter it to bits-and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

German:
Könnt ich walten wie Gott im Himmelzelt
Ich hätt'es schön längst auf den Kopf gestellt,
Um ein anderes zu bauen, wie ich es verstehe,
Welches ganz nach den Wünschen der Menschen sich drehe.
______________________________________________________



Literal:

Drinking wine is my travail
Till my body is dead and stale
At my grave site all shall hail
Odor of wine shall prevail.



Meaning:

I live life just like a game
Joy by any other name
And joy till death all the same
Even my grave shall proclaim
Joy has been my only fame.



Fitzgerald:

And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted--"Open then the Door!
You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more."



German:

Geliebte, sieh! der Morgen kommt herbei:
Bring Wein und sing ein Lied zu der Schalmei!
Den dieser Monde flug von Tir zu Dei
Ließ sterben hundert tausend Dscham und Kei.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: Khayyam: The secrets eternal neither you know nor I Reply with quote

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Khayyam's View On The The Secrets Of The World




Source:
http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page2.htm
Literal:
The secrets eternal neither you know nor I
And answers to the riddle neither you know nor I
Behind the veil there is much talk about us, why
When the veil falls, neither you remain nor I.

Meaning:
In vain we scream, in vain shout
And try our best to find out
And when it’s end of our route
What’s left is simply naught.

Fitzgerald:
There was a Door to which I found no Key:
There was a Veil past which I could not see:
Some little Talk awhile of ME and THEE
There seemed--and then no more of THEE and ME.


German:
Das Rätsel dieser Welt löst weder Du noch ich,
Jene geheime Schrift liest weder Du noch ich.
Wir wüssten beide gern, was jener Schleier birgt,
Doch wenn der Schleier fällt, bist weder Du noch ich.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Khayyam Possible Big Discovery Reply with quote

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
This poem is an indication of possible Khayyam big astronomy discovery.



Source: http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page4.htm

Literal:
This Universal wheel, this merry-go-round
In our imagination we have found
The sun a flame, in the Cosmic lantern bound
We are mere ghosts, revolving, the flame surround.


Meaning: (Incorrect Understanding Of This Poem)
In our imagination, the Cosmic Wheel
Will cause us pain and cause us heal
We find our source give life and steal
We are phantoms that think and feel.


Fitzgerald: (Incorrect Understanding Of This Poem)
For in and out, above, about, below,
'Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show,
Play'd in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,
Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.

(Better understanding of this Khayyam Poem)
Methinks this Wheel at which we gape and stare,
Is Chinese lantern - like we buy at fair;
The lamp is Sun and paper shade the world,
And we the pictures whirling unaware.


This poem indicates that Khayyam was ahead of his time by at least 10 centuries. What do you think?



German:
Dieses Weltall mit dem wir uns schwindelnd drehen,
Ist wie eine Laterne anzusehen,
Drin die Sonne als Licht brennt, in bunten Reigen,
Uns Trugbilder-unseresgleichen- zu zeigen.


Let’s turn our attention now for a moment to physics and the structure of the universe. Time and space and the world they make have engaged the attention of scientists through all ages.

Khayyam calls the Wheel of Time an Imaginary Lantern.

Methinks this Wheel at which we gape and stare,
Is Chinese lantern - like we buy at fair;
The lamp is Sun and paper shade the world,
And we the pictures whirling unaware.


Science fails to solve the mystery of the cosmos.
The Skies rotate, I cannot guess the cause;
And all I feel is grief, which in me gnaws;
Surveying all my life, I find myself
The same unknowing dunce that once I was!


This whirl of time, it simply causes pains,
As for my heart, my evil ways are banes;
Ah! worldly lore that winds in labyrinths,
Ah! wisdom forging newer iron chains.

Time is only a tyrant causing universal change and trouble.

My grief prolongs, I find it nev’r allays,
Your lot is swinging now in higher sways;
Rely ye not on Time, for under veil
A thousand tricks he juggles as he plays.

Ye mount on steeds and brandish steels in fight,
With all your boasts, in trenches soon alight;
The tyrant Time will never spare a life,
He breaks the Dukes by day and Knights by night.

As Spheres are rolling woes alone increase,
They land us just to sink in deeper seas;
If souls unborn would only know our plight,
And how we pine, their coming-in will cease.


Last edited by cyrus on Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: We simply exist, silent, unaware Reply with quote

We simply exist, silent, unaware

Source: http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page6.htm



Literal:
Once upon a time, in a potter’s shop
I saw two thousand clay pot and cup
Suddenly a lone pot cried out, "stop!
Where the vendor, buyer, where my prop?"
OR
To a pottery I went by chance
Two thousand pots I saw in a glance
Cried out a pot awakened from trance
"whither potter, vendor and buyer prance?"

Meaning:
We simply exist, silent, unaware
Busy with minute mundane worldly care
Occasionally find someone who’ll dare
To ask why we came, and from here go where?

Fitzgerald:
And strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot
Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried--
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"

German:
Bei einem T?r sah ich gestern zweitausend Kr?r> Die einen stumm, die anderen redend, als ob jeder fr?r> Wer hat uns geformt und wo stammen wir her?
Wer ist hier der K䵦er, und der Verk䵦er, wer?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:19 am    Post subject: One of my favorite Khayyam passages Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus

I see that you also like Shahriar Shahriari’s website dedicated to Khayyam. I have visited the site many times previously, and enjoy it as much as you do. I like your selected passages of Khayyam. They are some of my favorites.

Using only Khayyam’s passages as a guide, I would say that he obviously posed challenges to the existence of God, but that he had not conclusively decided that God is non-existent. I say this because he doubts God in some passages, yet refers to God’s role in many other instances. I guess that’s why many consider him an agnostic; someone who doubts God but does not fully commit to denying him.

I give more credit to him for being an agnostic almost a millennium ago than I give myself for being an atheist today. So much less information was available back then, and so much more of the universe was deemed mysterious and classified in the realm of the supernatural and superstition. If I had lived back then, I probably would have followed religion blindly, like another zombie. The fact that Khayyam didn’t do so shows how much he was ahead of his time.

I especially like his metaphors with the use of pots, or “kouzeh-nameh.” I think his kouzeh-nameh as a means of expressing his ideas points to his real genius.

I said in my initial post of “atheist:”

Quote:
What shook my beliefs was the irreconcilability of the existence of God with the facts of this world. If logic and common sense are used objectively, God’s existence becomes highly questionable. A few interesting questions, which past philosophers have also struggled with include:

1) Why does evil and calamity exist in our world?
2) Where is God to help us against these evils and calamities?
3) If God wants to help but cannot, is he truly omnipotent?
4) If everything that happens is God’s will, we are bound by fatalism, so can anyone be faulted for their actions, and subsequently punished by God?

Etc, etc, etc…


One of my favorite Khayyam passages is the following, which I think hits the same point:



Literal:

When the Maker formed nature
Why imperfect was the venture
If it is good, why departure
And if bad, why form capture?

Meaning:
When the Creator forged the shape
Why was mankind a mere ape?
If it were good, why cloak and cape?
If unsightly, why this rape?

Fitzgerald:
None answer'd this; but after Silence spake
A Vessel of a more ungainly Make:
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry;
What? did the Hand then of the Potter shake?"

http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page3.htm
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nietzsche is very useful in discussions of God because he began his philosophical discussion with the premise that God is dead. From the standpoint of the absolute atheist he investigated particularly things like morality and concluded it was impossible to have a moral system as an atheist. On this point Nietzsche was very clear. He reprimanded the English for attempting to maintain their moral system after they had banished God from their belief system.

Quote:
“...When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident; this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole v view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole; nothing necessary remains in one’s hands....it has truth only if God is truth-ut stands and falls with faith in God.
When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we are merely witnessing the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment...such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt...”
TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS, skirmishes of an untimely man, P. 5

The reason Nietzsche is so valuable in this discussion is because he can in no way be labeled a Christian apologist. As an avowed atheist he leaves no room for doubt meaning from his perspective about the question of morality for the atheist:
Quote:
“My demand upon the philosopher is known, that he take his stand beyond good and evil and leave the illusion of moral judgment beneath himself. This demand follows from an insight which I was the first to formulate; that there are altogether no moral facts. Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities....Moral judgments, like religious ones, belong to a stage of ignorance at which the very concept of the real and the distinction between what is real and imaginary, are still lacking...”
TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS, the “improvers” of mankind, p. 1


The reason I quote Nietzsche here is because I agree with his understanding of atheism. Atheism is a belief in nothing, that life is meaningless and ultimately the individual human is worthless. On this I agree with the deep insights of Nietzsche; any attempts by atheists to pretend to have a basis for moral judgments of any kind are self deceptions.. Any honest atheist who wishes to exercise moral judgments must first demonstrate that Nietzsche was wrong and must demonstrate a foundation for moral judgments.

From the standpoint of a theist who believes in one eternal God, Christian morality can be derived rationally and systematically. There is logic which flows naturally from monotheism which can be traced from cause to effect and influenced the writings of the holy men. Once the logical chain is grasped, morality becomes almost self evident.

If we believe that God is self contained and existed for an eternity before our existence, we will by necessity arrive at the conclusion that God is not a needy soul who needs to be praised and obeyed to be happy. God has no fragile ego which I will damage if I reject Him or even refuse to believe in Him. There is no selfish reason whatsoever for God to interact with His creation. It was a voluntary act, not driven by his need or weakness but by His love; to postulate otherwise would be to redefine God’s nature itself. The only reason a complete and self sufficient God would contact His creatures would be the same reason he created the universe in the first place, as an act of His free will to see His creation flourish. As a manifestation of love, a complete perfect being can extend Himself for the good of the lesser being, not as a sign of weakness, but as an act of the strength based on His own free will, on His love. The imperative is, “because God loves us, we are supposed to love one another.”

God created man in His own image also with a will which is free, at least some of the time. He has also given us intelligence and logic so we can understand the basic principles of morality, to follow them systematically from the most basic principles to the more complex understanding and to act accordingly. Holy books are not supposed to be used like a cookbook which gives exact rigid rules for behavior, but are to be understood logically working from the few basic principles of God’s love for us and His command to love one another outwardly to the specific understanding needed as circumstances change.

Based on the authority of no lesser a personage than Jesus Himself, as Christians we know the foundational principle of Christian morality is love.
Mark 12:28-31
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
NIV

Freedom and love are the foundational principles of Christian morality. This gives us the confidence to explore the universe knowing we are safe in God’s love and leads us to expect consistent rules which guide God’s dealings with His creatures and bring order to His universe. This is the basis for science and philosophy in the world created by the loving God.

The opposite theistic morality from what I have described would be a perfect God making arbitrary rules, not for our own good, and not based on His love for us, but arbitrarily for no reason whatsoever. One could even imagine a sadistic God who gloried in the suffering of His creatures, like a spectator at the arena, glorying in the suffering and death of the gladiators before him. If this is indeed the case, then theism is indeed the most terrible belief system imaginable.

How such a God could be in any way understood as perfect or even complete is difficult to understand. If God is really self sufficient, why would He need to watch his creatures suffer to gain satisfaction. If God really is a sadist, why would anyone believe for a minute such a God would fulfill His promises to His creatures concerning heaven and hell? What greater sadistic pleasure could come to such a being than to promise people that if they were cruel and miserable on this earth He would be kind to them and give them complete happiness in the next, only to treat them with the same cruelty in the next life as they exercised in this life? If God is not by nature good and loving, why should we expect Him to be truthful towards His creature and why should we believe in His holy books? This approach to God is completely irrational by it’s very nature and makes progress in science difficult since God’s dealings with us are arbitrary and beyond reason.

The cruel God would not defend man’s freedom but would try to stifle it by punishing us when we showed initiative or questioned anything He said. Based on this character, God’s “love” is also arbitrary, used as a tool to manipulate His creatures and is not love at all. The only genuine love is unconditional love, any other love is counterfeit. If one believes God will love you if you follow the rules and will not love you if you disobey the rules you know He really doesn’t love you at all but is manipulating you and robbing you of your freedom. In reality you really don’t know the rules since such a God is naturally not going to be honest with his creatures. One of the things a dependent needs the most is consistency so he can know how to act to earn the love of the master. The best way to destroy the happiness of the creature and to bring stress and suffering is to change the rules periodically and punish the creature for not fulfilling the new rules which he didn’t yet know existed. Why God would make up the specific rules is unknown and unknowable since they were invented only for our suffering anyway. Our only requirement is to follow the rules without question and without understanding and hope for the best. This type of morality is irrational and rigid causing dysfunctional families and societies, destroying the possibility of genuine intellectual advancement and social goodness. Only a God who wished to hurt His creatures and to destroy His own creation would make up this type of morality.

However, this type of arbitrary morality is perfect for prophets and religious teachers who wish to exploit people and use them for their own glory. Be portraying morality as blind obedience, the prophet gains control of the individual and destroys their free will which God has given them as their right. This type of morality is found in all mind control cults and false religions which fail to provide for the welfare of mankind and do not sustain a just and flourishing society. If the purpose of religious morality is to lead to the welfare of a flourishing and just society, any belief system which leads away from that goal is false to the true meaning of religion.

Quote:
You are correct. Atheism offers no moral guidance. Zero, zilch, nada. As I said, it is not to atheism that I look to guide me. It is to logic, my sense of fairness, my sense of justice, and humanity itself. All the moral fibers are present in humanity itself. If one believes as I do that God does not exist, everything that was created, including the moral codes that Judaism and Christianity presented us were man made. So, I think it is inherent in man himself to seek out and realize his sense of morality.


I wish I had time to respond to all points at this time, but considerations of work prevent it. If you are interested in continuing the discussion, I will try to reply to your post in the next few days. I have a friend who believes like you do who is completely sincere. Indeed, there are atheist Christians just as there are atheist Jews, but the intellectual foundations for the belief system is absent. Many atheists are caring persons who do have human sympathy for others, but so far no one has been able to build a solid moral foundation which will withstand the challenge of the real world. No matter how much they try, secularists are drifting farther and farther from the moral foundation upon which Western civilization and our democracy are founded. Here is an example of how secularists view the value of individual humans and even our existence as a species.http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45968
Quote:
"We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate the importance of man's place in the planet's ecosystem," a statement from London Zoo said.

Although there are many atheists like you who have no wish to devalue humans that is the trajectory secularism is following.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Philosophy and Religion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group